Public Law

Public Law

Charter Chambers StairsPublic law cases are those at the forefront of deciding where the balance between the interests of the State and the individual should lie. Litigation arising out of those actions can be multi-faceted and challenging, requiring considered advice and careful representation. Charter Chambers provides advice and representation to a wide spectrum of clients before a number of different tribunals.

We have a longstanding commitment to enforcing individual rights and a strong track record in doing so, with members appearing in a number of jurisdictions up to and including the European Court of Human Rights. We are equally well positioned to act for local authorities, charities, NGOs or other bodies.

Charter Chambers has particular expertise in dealing with judicial review claims and statutory appeals arising from:

  • Sports law matters
  • Prison law
  • Case stated appeals
  • Inquests
  • Habeas corpus
  • Regulatory compliance, powers and duties of public bodies
  • Statutory appeals
  • Certificates of inadequacy
  • Human rights

Members include a former chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee and the present Treasurer of Asylum Aid as well as an Attorney General’s Special Advocate.

OUR EXPERIENCE

Recent Cases


European Court of Human Rights
  • R (on the Application of Condor) v. DPP & Cullen (2017)
  • R (on the Application of the English Bridge Union) v. Sport England & Ors [2015] EWHC 2875 (Admin) – sports – interpretation of Royal Charter and Statute; [2015] EWHC 1347 (Admin)
  • Samar Rukh v. Royal College of Psychiatrists (2015) – acted for regulator resisting judicial review – appeal from pre-action disclosure refusal
  • R (on the Application of Keith Bentley & Ors) v. Governor of HMP Whatton & SSJ [2014] EWHC 3586 (Admin); [2014] EWHC 4338 (Admin); [2015] EWHC 3451 (Admin) – Prison Law – breach of public law duty – Article 5 – failure to provide risk reduction course
  • R (on the Application of Mark Bower) v. Governor of HMP Northumberland & SSJ (2014) – Prison Law – permission decision – non-disclosure of basis for recategorisation from open to closed conditions
  • R (on the Application of Craig Hickinbotton) v. Director of High Security Prisons (2013) – Prison Law – Challenge to High Escape Risk Classification – failure of disclosure
  • Quereshi v. CPS [2010] EWHC 3341 (Admin)
  • Regina (on the application of Hal Hilton) v. Canterbury Crown Court [2009] EWHC 2867 (Admin) – Divisional Court – case stated/judicial review – Court had failed to consider the defendant’s statutory defence
  • R (On the application of Wembley Fields Ltd) v. Brent London Borough Council [2005] EWHC 2978 (Admin) – Led in this Judicial Review – Planning Permission and Procedures – Adequacy of consultation – Environmental Impact Report health assessment
  • Metropolitan of Bessarabia v. Moldova (2001), Application Number no. 45701/99, Judgment of 13 December 2001 – European Court of Human Rights – rights of an organisation to incorporate, to have access to a Court and the right to hold property. The Court found violations of Articles 9 and 13 of the Convention and did not consider the complaints under Articles 6, 11 and 14.
  • Larrisis & Others v. Greece (1998) Violation of Article 9 of the Convention
    Collins, Thoburn, Hunt, Harman and Dove (the ‘Metric Martyrs’) v United Kingdom (2003) (admissibility decision) – prosecution for contravention of weights and measures regulations. Instructed by Liberty. Argument was under Article 6, Article 10 and Article 1 of Protocol 1
  • Sawoniuk v. United Kingdom – A defendant convicted of war crimes. Argument was under Articles 3, 5 and 6. Application also made for expedition under rule 41 of the Rules of Court
  • Sellick and Sellick v. United Kingdom – Murder convictions – key evidence read out at trial – alleged intimidation of witnesses – right to examine witnesses – Article 6 ECHR
  • Aleksandras Tiscenko v. Lithuania – a former police officer who had unlawfully had his pension revoked by the Lithuanian Government after receiving a criminal conviction. Argument was under Article 6, Article 1 of Protocol 1, and Article 14 taken in conjunction with these. Application also made for expedition under rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
  • Salvation Army v. Russia – Government refusal to register the Applicant, so depriving the right to either own property or access the Courts. Argument under Articles 6, 9, 11 and 14 taken in conjunction with these Articles.
  • Galina Pitkevich v. Russia – A Russian Judge unfairly dismissed from office without an adequate opportunity to challenge the correctness or fairness of the dismissal. Argument under Articles 6, 9, 10 and 14.
  • Neil Bradley v. France – A British national convicted in France of drug smuggling in his absence. Argument under Article 6.
Privy Council
  • Premchandra Bissonauth v. The Sugar Insurance Fund Board [2007] – On an appeal from the Supreme Court of Mauritius – employment – natural justice – statutory construction – constitutional rights.