Samantha Broadfoot

year of call: 1997

SBroadfoot@landmarkchambers.co.uk

areas of law

Practice Summary

Samantha’s practice encompasses the whole spectrum of public law challenges. She has particular expertise in matters arising out of immigration and human rights issues, standards in public life (Local Councillor Code of Conduct issues), Safeguarding (under the Care Standards Act and now also under the Independent Safeguarding Authority legislation), war pensions appeals, mental health cases and cases involving challenges to decisions of regulatory bodies such as the Legal Services Ombudsman or the Security Industry Authority. She regularly appears in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, as well as the specialist tribunals and is instructed by individuals as well Government departments and other public bodies. She has also been instructed to appear at Coroner’s inquests, including those with a jury.

Samantha is recommended in the 2007 edition of Chambers and Partners Directory as a specialist in Administrative and Public Law who stated: “Samantha was acclaimed for her “excellent cross-examination skills, good judgment, and approachable manner with clients”.

Recent cases of interest include:

Immigration

ZN (Afghanistan) & Ors v Entry Clearance Officer (Karachi) [2010] UKSC 21 – case in the Supreme Court regarding the construction of paragraph 352A of the Immigration Rules and whether a person who was a refugee but has since been granted British Citizenship is still entitled to benefit from the rules on family reunion which apply to refugees.

AN (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 757 – Court of Appeal – case concerning the meaning of the immigration rules relating to domestic violence.

HB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 806; [2009] 2 W.L.R. 992; [2008] 3 C.M.L.R. 24; [2009] Imm. A.R; Times, July 25, 2008 – The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the meaning of “sufficiently serious” for the purposes of Council Directive 2004/38/EC and the associated domestic regulations, as it applied to threatened future criminal conduct.

Social Security

Brookes v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 420 (29 April 2010) – Court of Appeal case concerning the duties of the CSA in taking enforcement decisions, in particular the effect of s2 of the Child Support Act and Article 8.

Standards in public life

Samantha has been instructed by various Councils over the years as well as the Standards Board for England.  She has appeared at Standards Committee Hearings, as well as before the Tribunals and the High Court. She regularly advises Councils on procedural matters arising out Part III of The Local Government Act 2000 (as amended) and the Standards Committee (England) Regulations 2008 (as amended).

R (Councillor Mullaney) v The Adjudication Panel for England & others [2009] EWHC 72 (Admin) – the High Court considered the meaning of “official capacity” and “respect” in the Code of Conduct and gave guidance on the effect of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and its relation to the need to uphold standards in public life.

Education – Schools Admissions

R. (on the application of Drayton Manor High School Governers) v Schools Adjudicator [2008] EWHC 3119 (Admin); [2009] E.L.R. 127 – this was the first High Court challenge to a Schools Adjudicator decision since the change to the Schools Admissions Code. The High Court had to consider the Code’s requirement to promote equity and not disadvantage children from a particular social or racial group in the context of considering a set of over-subscription criteria which had the result of excluding children in particularly deprived area although they lived considerably closer than some children in a less deprived area who did fall within the catchment.

Regulatory – care proceedings

London Borough of Lewisham v D & Ors [2010] EWHC 1239 (Fam) (29 March 2010) – Samantha was instructed by the Home Office who was intervening in care proceedings in respect of an application made by the local authority for the results of a DNA matching exercise conducted by the police under PACE.  The case raised important issues regarding access to the DNA database and difficult questions of interpretation under s63 and 64(1A) and (1B) of PACE. [available free on Bailii: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2010/1239.html]

Regulatory – Cancellation of Care Home registration

Marshall v Commission for Social Care Inspection [2009] EWHC 1286 (Admin) – The High Court considered an appeal from the Care Standards Tribunal in respect of their decision uphold the Commission’s decision to cancel her registration as a provider of a care home, without which she was legally unable to run the home. The judge agreed with the Commission’s submission that in the context of the honesty and integrity requirement the burden of proof remained on the individual even in an appeal against cancellation.

Regulatory – Suspension of Childminder registration

Ofsted v GM & WM [2009] UKUT 89 (AAC) (28 April 2009) – The Upper Tribunal, Lord Justice Carnwath presiding, considered the scope of the powers granted to Ofsted for the purposes of suspending the registration of childminders under regulation 9 of the Childcare (Early Years and General Childcare Registers) (Common Provisions) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/976), as amended and gives guidance on the test to be applied when considering the exercise of those powers. For more detail on news feed – click here

Regulatory – Licensing & the smoking ban

R. (on the application of Blackpool Council) v Howitt [2008] EWHC 3300 (Admin); (2009) 173 J.P. 101 – the Court was required to consider whether a breach of the smoking ban imposed as a result of s.8 of the Health Act 2006 amounted to a matter that would be relevant when considering the licensing objectives set out under the Licensing Act 2003 s.4(2)(a) and in particular the meaning of the words of "crime and disorder". The judge below held that the words "crime" and "disorder" were to be read conjunctively, so that the word "disorder" qualified the word "crime". Accordingly she held that it was irrelevant. The High Court however upheld the Secretary of State’s submission that the word “and” in this context should be read to mean “or”. It was accordingly relevant and the appeal allowed.

Other – Vexatious litigant:

Ewing v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor (Rev 2) [2010] EWCA Civ 70 – Samantha was again appointed as an amicus in the Court of Appeal in order to assist the Court on the question as to whether judicial review proceedings are properly regarded as ‘civil proceedings’ within the meaning of s42 of the Supreme Court Act which restricts the actions of those declared to be a vexatious litigant.  Samantha had been appointed as amicus before the divisional court below as well: R. (on the application of Ewing) v DPP [2008] EWHC 2655 (Admin).

QUALIFICATIONS

Samatha studied for an LLB in English and French Law at the University of Kent. She followed this with an LLM in European and Human Rights Law from Exeter University. In 2001 she was appointed to the AG's C Panel of counsel and in 2005 to the B Panel. In 2008 she was appointed to the Bar Standards Board Complaints Committee

CASES

INQUIRIES

There are no inquiries available.