Miranda Butler

Public and Administrative

Miranda works in a broad range of public law areas, including unlawful detention, community care, healthcare provision, trafficking, and prison law. Much of her work involves strategic claims and policy challenges. She is regularly instructed in urgent judicial review claims and applications for interim relief. She is a member of the EHRC’s panel of counsel and is ranked in Chambers and Partners 2022 as an ‘up and coming’ public law junior.

Miranda deals with public law issues at all levels. She is instructed in the Supreme Court challenge to the £1,012 fee charged to children wishing to apply for British citizenship.

Miranda has particular expertise in policy challenges related to support and protection for victims of trafficking. She is currently led by Amanda Weston KC in the Court of Appeal in EOG v SSHD, in which the High Court found that the Home Office’s policy prohibiting potential victims of trafficking from working or enjoying leave to remain was unlawful. Miranda is currently led by Samantha Knights KC in a challenge to the lack of support given to victims of trafficking in initial accommodation provided by the Home Office.

Miranda is currently working on the Infected Blood Inquiry, instructed by Leigh Day with Fiona Scolding KC and Hannah Gibbs. They represent a large number of infected and affected individuals. Miranda has a particular interest in medical law issues as she teaches medical law at LSE University. She has written extensively on healthcare claims in the immigration context.

Some noteworthy cases include:

• PRCBC and ors v SSHD: a Supreme Court challenge to the significant profit made by the Home Secretary on fees charged to children seeking to register or naturalise as British Citizens. Miranda is led by Richard Drabble KC.
• EOG v SSHD: a challenge to the Home Office policy prohibiting victims of trafficking from working or holding leave to remain whilst within the National Referral Mechanism, currently before the Court of Appeal. Miranda is led by Amanda Weston KC.
• MS v SSHD: a challenge to the failure to provide sufficient free appointments for refugees to enrol their biometrics, resulting in applicants being compelled to pay to do so. Miranda is led by Chris Buttler KC.
• YPG v SSHD: a successful challenge to the Home Office’s failure to provide sufficient financial support to victims of trafficking who are pregnant or new mothers. The Home Office conceded the claim and amended her policy.
• ZS v Secretary of State for the Home Department: challenge to the implementation of the ‘Dubs’ Amendment, led by Sonali Naik KC and Bryony Poynor.

Civil Law

Miranda has an extensive background in a range of private law areas, including employment, commercial and negligence claims. She has worked across the spectrum of civil law proceedings both as a judicial assistant in the Supreme Court and in private practice.

This means that Miranda is particularly well-placed to advise on civil proceedings arising out of public law challenges, including false imprisonment and/or damages claims. She is regularly instructed on civil damages claims arising out of tortious acts in the prison and detention estate.

Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Miranda works on a broad range of human rights claims, including issues of unlawful detention, prisoners’ rights and freedom of expression litigation.

Miranda is a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Panel of Counsel.

Miranda has experience in litigation before the European Court of Human Rights, having acted for individuals and institutions in the Court. 

She is currently instructed by a victim of trafficking challenging the UK’s failure to protect her in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights

Miranda acted for JCWI in its 2021 intervention in Otite v UK, challenging the application of s. 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and its impact on the private and family life rights of those facing deportation.

Miranda represented several freedom of expression NGOs intervening in the case of Khadija Ismayilova v Azerbaijan, led by Can Yeginsu. In its 2019 decision, the Strasbourg Court agreed with the interveners’ submissions that the state of Azerbaijan had failed in its obligations not only under Article 8 ECHR, but also under Article 10, in that it had failed to protect the privacy of Ms Ismayilova, a journalist, which had a potential ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression.

In 2020, Miranda, led by Ben Douglas-Jones KC, represented an appellant to the ECtHR challenging his conviction on the grounds that he had been deprived of a fair trial.

She also worked for the interveners on Big Brother Watch v UK, a successful challenge to the bulk interception and processing of metadata by the UK and its data sharing with foreign states.

She was awarded the 2017 Pegasus Scholarship and spent three months working as a stagiaire in the UK division of the Court.

Miranda has a particular interest in prisoners’ rights, having previously worked with Reprieve and the Howard League for Penal Reform. She regularly handles both public and private law challenges on behalf of prisoners.

Some noteworthy cases include:

• Otite v UK: counsel for the intervener (JCWI), challenging the operation of the UK’s statutory framework for considering Article 8 in the context of deportation.
• Roy Phillips v UK: counsel for the applicant, challenging his conviction under Article 6 ECHR.
• Khadija Ismayilova v Azerbaijan: counsel for various freedom of expression NGOs supporting a successful claim by a jailed journalist challenging mistreatment and covert surveillance by the state. The European Court of Human Rights found violations of Article 8 and 10 ECHR.
• Big Brother Watch v UK: a successful challenge to the bulk interception and processing of metadata by the UK and its data sharing with foreign states in the European Court of Human Rights. Miranda acted for several interveners specialising on freedom of expression in the US.

Immigration

Asylum and Human Rights

Miranda practices in all areas of immigration, with a particular focus on asylum and human rights. She is regularly instructed in matters before the High Court, Upper Tribunal and First Tier Tribunal, including judicial reviews and urgent applications for interim relief. She is ranked in Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 as a leading immigration junior.

Her practice encompasses asylum and human rights appeals with substantial experience of deportation, trafficking cases, the Points Based System and claims related to children. Miranda is regularly instructed in challenges to removal, including urgent injunctions. She has been involved in strategic and individual challenges to numerous charter flights.

In Miranda is a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Panel of Counsel. She is also a contributor to Macdonald’s Immigration Law & Practice.

Miranda is regularly instructed on strategic litigation, often including challenges to Home Office policy.

Miranda is currently instructed on a strategic challenge to the level of fees for children seeking to register or naturalise as British Citizens, in PRCBC and ors v SSHD in the Supreme Court, led by Richard Drabble KC.

Miranda also undertakes advisory work on a broad range of immigration-related issues, including naturalisation and citizenship issues.

Some noteworthy cases include:

• DS v SSHD: a challenge to the deportation of a long-term settled migrant. Miranda was led in the Court of Appeal by Irena Sabic KC.
• DJ v SSHD: a challenge to the enforced deportation of a Jamaican citizen who had lived in the UK since the age of 11. Miranda was led by Sonali Naik KC in a strategic claim against the Home Office’s decision to remove Jamaican citizens who came to the UK at a young age despite an agreement with the Jamaican authorities not to do so.
• PRCBC and ors v SSHD: a challenge to the over 60% profit made by the Home Secretary on fees charged to children seeking to register or naturalise as British Citizens. Miranda is led by Richard Drabble KC and the case is currently before the Court of Appeal.
• EOG v SSHD: a challenge to the Home Office policy prohibiting victims of trafficking from working or holding leave to remain whilst within the National Referral Mechanism, currently before the Court of Appeal. Miranda is led by Amanda Weston KC.
• YPG v SSHD: a successful challenge to the Home Office’s failure to provide sufficient financial support to victims of trafficking who are pregnant or new mothers. The Home Office conceded the claim and amended her policy.

Economic Migration

Miranda acts for individuals and institutions in relation to matters arising under the Points-Based System and other Immigration Rules routes. She also regularly advises economic migrants on administrative reviews and judicial reviews of Home Office decisions.

Miranda also has particular experience in representing Tier 4 visa holders. Miranda is a contributor to Macdonald’s Immigration Law & Practice (10th edition) and wrote the chapter on students. She is regularly instructed in matters affecting students, including challenges arising out of the English Testing Service scandal.

NHS, Health and Community Care

Miranda practices in community care law and accepts instructions in judicial review claims concerning community care provision, including support under the Children Act, Care Act, age assessment challenges and provision of accommodation and support to asylum seekers and victims of trafficking. She is highly experienced in handling urgent applications for interim relief.

Miranda has particular expertise in claims related to support and protection for victims of trafficking.

In 2021, Miranda appeared, led by Simon Cox, in a number of linked challenges to the Home Office’s failure to provide accommodation for failed asylum seekers during the pandemic, QBB et al v SSHD.

In 2020, Miranda appeared with Amanda Weston KC in EOG v SSHD [2020] EWHC 3310 (Admin), a successful challenge to the prohibition on working and lack of support for certain victims of trafficking. The High Court declared that the Home Office’s policy, which failed to provide any route to leave to remain or right to work for potential victims of trafficking, was unlawful.

Miranda has acted in a number of challenges that have led to beneficial changes in Home Office policy regarding the support given to victims of trafficking. She was instructed in NN & LP v SSHD, a successful challenge to the 45-day limit to support for recognised victims of trafficking. As a result of this litigation, the Home Secretary agreed to withdraw this challenge and remove the time limit which had previously been imposed on victims of trafficking seeking to access support. Miranda is currently led by Samantha Knights KC in a challenge to the level of financial support provided to victims of trafficking.

Miranda acted with Alex Goodman in YPG v SSHD, a challenge to the reduced levels of support available for victims of trafficking who are pregnant or have young children. The Home Office amended their policy as a result of this litigation, leading to higher rates of support for victims of trafficking.

Cross-practice

Landmark's barristers often work at the intersection of our core practice areas; bringing a wide range of skills, knowledge and experience to bear on a particular dispute or issue facing a client.

Our focus is always on achieving the best possible outcome for our client. By viewing the client's objectives in a holistic way - and not purely through the lens of one rigidly-defined legal area - we deliver the best possible advice and representation in complex matters that engage multiple specialist areas of law. 

Whether it's providing support as an individual cross-practice barrister or a cross-disciplinary team of Landmark counsel, we are able to draw on an outstanding array of complementary skillsets and knowledge bases. This often achieves a better result than instructing multiple barristers from different specialist sets. This also improves the quality of client care through increased levels of communication, quicker response times, and a coordinated approach to clerking and fees, made possible by our team-based cross-practice approach.

Please contact our practice management team for more information.

Public Interest Litigation

EU Law post-Brexit

Local Government