Azeem undertakes judicial review and human rights cases across a number of different areas. He regularly acts in regulatory/commercial judicial reviews. He has acted in numerous important children related and social welfare cases and undertakes the full range of community care work. Legal 500 2022 says: “Azeem is a first-class barrister. He has a first-class mind, is a great tactician, is good with clients, and understands the bigger picture.”

Cases

• R (British Gas and others) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2023] EWHC 737 (Admin). A challenge against the government’s decision providing state subsidy for the sale of Bulb to Octopus. Azeem acted for British Gas, instructed by Shearman and Sterling and Towerhouse.
  
• R (ScottishPower Energy Retail Ltd) v Gas and Electricity Markets – ongoing. A challenge against part of the Price Cap mechanism. Azeem acts for ScottishPower instructed by Shepperd and Wedderburn.
  
• Revenue and Customs Commissioners v BZ [2022] UKUT 264 (AAC). Whether there had been effective notification by HMRC for the purposes of the commencement of the time limit under the Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance (Administration) Regulations 2003. Azeem acted for HMRC.
  
• R (Kellogg) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWHC 1710 (Admin). A challenge concerning whether Regulations requiring foods high in fat, sugar and salt to be relocated in supermarkets were ultra vires, in breach of A1P1 ECHR and/or irrational. Azeem acted for the Secretary of State, instructed by the Government Legal Department.
  
• R (ScottishPower Energy Retail Ltd) v Gas and Electricity Markets Authority [2022] EWHC 37 (Admin). A challenge against Ofgem’s decision to limit a payment from the industry levy to an energy company. Azeem acted for ScottishPower, instructed by Womble Bond Dickinson.
  
• R (OA) v Bexley LBC [2020] EWHC 1107 (Admin). Whether s. 17(3) of the Children Act 1989 permitted a local authority to provide accommodation and financial support to another adult family member, who was not the parent of a child in need. Azeem acted for the claimant, instructed by Gold Jennings Solicitors.
  
• R (Lasham Gliding Society) Ltd. v Civil Aviation Authority [2019] EWCH 2118 (Admin). Challenge by the UK’s largest Gliding Society against the decision of the CAA to recategorise airspace around Farnborough Airport. The first case to consider the correct interpretation of s. 70(2) Transport Act 2000.
• R (Gullu) v Hillingdon LBC [2019] EWCA Civ 692; [2019] PTSR 1738. Court of Appeal authority that a 10-year residence requirement in a Housing Authority’s allocation scheme indirectly discriminated against Irish Travellers and Refugees.
• R (Avaaz) v OFCOM [2018] EWHC 1972 (Admin). Challenge against the decision of OFCOM to sanction a merger between Sky and Fox. Consideration by the High Court of the “fit and proper” test set down in broadcast legislation.
• Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson [2018] 2 QB 912. Challenge against the compatibility of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 with EU law.
• R (KA) v Croydon LBC [2017] EWHC 1723 (Admin). The High Court considered whether the termination, without notice, of accommodation and support to an unaccompanied asylum seeking minor was a breach of the constitutional right of access to the courts and/or a breach of Article 8 ECHR.
• R (OK) v Barking and Dagenham LBC [2017] EWHC 2092 (Admin). The High Court gave guidance as to how local authorities should determine whether over-stayer families should receive support under s. 17 Children Act 1989.
• R (S) v Croydon LBC [2017] EWHC 265 (Admin); [2017] PTSR 744.  A test case as to whether a local authority is obligated to treat, as a child, a young person claiming to be under the age of 18, but where a final decision on his age has not yet been taken.
• R (S) v Haringey LBC [2016] EWHC 2692 (Admin); (2016) CCL Rep 527. A successful challenge against a refusal by the local authority to provide accommodation and support to a family of over-stayers under s. 17 of the Children Act 1989.
• R (M) v Islington LBC [2016] EWHC 332 (Admin); [2016] HLR 19. The leading authority on the construction of s. 27 of the Children Act 1989, and whether that obligates one limb of a local authority to act under the direction of another limb, in the context of providing social housing.
• R (G) (Afghanistan) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 3185 (Admin) and AS v SSHD [2015] EWHC 1331 (QB). Claims for unlawful detention on behalf of detained asylum seeking children.
• R (Robson) v Salford City Council [2015] EWCA 6; [2015] PTSR 1349. A leading authority on the obligation of local authorities to adequately consult before taking wide-ranging social care decisions.
• R (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and Secretary of State or the Home Department [2014] 3 WLR 96. The Supreme Court held that the disclosure provisions of the Police Act 1997 – requiring all cautions and convictions to be disclosed on criminal record certificates – were incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention.
• R (MK) v LB Barking and Dagenham [2013] EWHC 3486 (Admin). The first case to consider the scope of s. 1 of the Localism Act 2011, in the context of the provision of community care services, as well as the scope of s. 17(3) of the Children Act 1989.
• R (ES) v LB Barking and Dagenham [2013] EWHC 691 (Admin). The local authority’s refusal to provide the claimant with Children Act 1989 support, because she was a failed asylum seeker, was unlawful.
• R (R) v Croydon LBC [2013] EWHC 4243 (Admin). The local authority was bound to treat the claimant as a former relevant child because it had wrongly assessed his age when he was a child, and therefore must be taken to have “looked after” him until he turned 18.
• R (RMC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 1681. The Police’s policy of retaining photographs of persons not convicted of a crime was in breach of Article 8.
• R (AE) v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 547. The first successful appeal in the Court of Appeal against a finding of fact made in the High Court of an age disputed minor’s age.
• R (HA) v Hillingdon LBC [2012] EWHC 291 (Admin). Guidance given by the High Court on when a continuing duty under the Children Act 1989 subsists against a local authority, notwithstanding that the child in question has moved out of its area.
• R (GC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] 1 WLR 1230. A decision of the Supreme Court that the ACPO policy allowing the continued retention of DNA and fingerprint data, in the light of the decision in S v UK, was unlawful.
• R (J) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWHC 3970 (Admin). Guidance was given as to when it was appropriate for the High Court to transfer age dispute cases to the Upper Tribunal.
• R (B) v Nottingham City Council [2011] EWHC 2933 (Admin). The High Court considered in what circumstances a “retrospective” duty arose under s. 20 of the Children Act 1989.
• R (JF) v Hackney LBC [2010] EWHC 3130 (Admin). The local authority had acted unlawfully in failing to put in place a specific and particularised care plan to meet the needs of a severely autistic child.
• R (G) v The London Borough of Southwark [2009] 1 WLR 1299. Successful Supreme Court appeal as to the meaning and scope of s. 20 of the Children Act 1989 and the interrelationship between that Act and the Housing Act 1996.
• R (A) v The London Borough of Croydon [2009] EWHC 939 Admin; [2009] Fam. Law 659. The High Court ruled on the correct role of pediatric evidence when assessing the age of age disputed minors.
• R (Jones) v Nottingham City Council [2009] EWHC 271 (Admin); [2009] ACD 42. This case concerned the scope of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in revisiting orders made on costs.
• R (M) v The London Borough of Sutton [2007] EWCA Civ 1205; [2008] ELR 123. An appeal in the Court of Appeal concerning whether local education authorities were under an obligation to provide parents of children with special education needs with a specific choice of schools before absolving themselves of a duty to provide school transport.

Azeem has acted in some of the most significant Procurement disputes in recent years, including cases in The Lawyer’s top 20 case of the year. He is experienced in all areas of Public Procurement litigation and related advisory work. He has also been described as “a very good advocate who is very commercial” (Chambers UK, 2022), “a bright procurement lawyer and a good team player” (Chambers UK, 2023) and “hugely knowledgeable and personable” (Legal 500, 2023).

Cases

• Siemens Mobility Ltd. V High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2190 (TCC). A dispute concerning the competition for the provision of rolling stock for HS2. Azeem is instructed for the Interested Parties by Allen & Overy.
• Atos IT Services UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWHC 787 (TCC). A dispute concerning the procurement of the Met Office’s supercomputer. Azeem acted for Atos, instructed by Burges Salmon.
• Medequip Assistive Technology v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2022] EWHC 3293 (TCC). A dispute concerning the provision of community equipment services. Azeem acted for Medequip, instructed by George Green LLP.
• James Waste Management LLP v Essex CC [2022] 7 WLUK 392. A case concerning the lawfulness of a modification made for the provision of waste transfer facilities. Azeem acts for Essex, instructed by Essex Legal Services.
• Bop-Me Ltd v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 1817 (TCC). Whether expert evidence should be permitted in a case concerning the procurement of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Azeem acted for Bop-Me instructed by Clarkes Legal.
• IPcom GmbH & Co KG v Vodafone Group Plc [2021] EWCA Civ 205. Consideration of the defence of “Crown use” in the Patents Act 1977. Azeem acted for the Ministry of Defence as an Interested Party.
• Aquila Heywood Ltd. V Local Pensions Partnership Administraiton Ltd [2021] EWHC 114 (TCC). This case determined that the automatic suspension does not apply where the authority had withdrawn its original decision and awarded the contract pursuant to a subsequent, unchallenged, decision. Azeem was instructed by DLA Piper.
• Neology UK Ltd v Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council [2020] EWHC 2958 (TCC). Azeem represented Neology in its challenge against a contract award decision to provide and maintain an automatic number plate recognition system. Azeem was instructed by Harrison Clark Rickerbys.
• Stagecoach East Midlands Trains Ltd. V Secretary of State for Transport. Azeem acted for the Secretary of State in this litigation concerning the award of rail franchises, in a three-week trial before Stuart-Smith J.
• Marine Specialised Technology Ltd v Secretary of State for Defence [2019] EWCH 2727 (TCC). A claim for substantial loss alleging breach of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011. Azeem was instructed by the Government Legal Department.
• Acting for the Secretary of State for Transport in the Eurotunnel (“Brexit Ferries”) litigation [2019] EWHC 419 (TCC) and the follow-on claim of P&O Ferries v Secretary of State for Transport.
• DHL Supply Chain Ltd v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2018] EWCH 2213 (TCC). Acting for an Interested Party, where the Claimant, DHL, sought to challenge the award of a contract for the provision of logistics services for the NHS and social care services, with a value of £730m.
• Openview Security Solutions Ltd v London Borough of Merton [2015] EWHC 2694 (TCC); [2015] B.L.R. 735, a leading case on the appropriate test as to when an automatic suspension of a contract should be lifted.

Azeem undertakes competition and general commercial law work.

Cases

• Royal Mail Group Limited v DAF Trucks Limited and Others. Azeem is one of a team of counsel acting for DAF in this follow-on litigation arising out of the European Commission’s Trucks Decision.
• CMA v viagogo. Acting for the CMA together with Rob Williams in this claim seeking enforcement acting against viagogo for failures to comply with consumer rights obligations in connection with the secondary ticketing market.
• Advising the CMA as to enforcement action in the online hotel bookings’ market.
• Acting (together with Daniel Beard KC and Josh Holmes KC) for a “big six” energy provider in a dispute with the Competition and Markets Authority.
• Acting (together with Daniel Beard KC) for a major global pharmaceutical company in a patent dispute with another such company, where a key defence to the claim was based on competition law principles: Generics (UK) Limited trading as Mylan v Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Secretary of State for Health [2015] EWHC 2548 (Pat)
• Acting (together with Philip Moser KC) for a Californian company in defence of a claim by a UK agent under the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (Brand Studio Ltd v St John Knits Inc [2015] EWHC 3143 (QB); [2015] Bus LR 1421).

Azeem regularly advises on and acts in Freedom of Information and Data Protection matters. He was junior counsel in a series of leading cases governing the use of information by the police and is the author of “Collection and Retention of Person Data” in “Human Rights in the Investigation and Prosecution of Crime” (2009), OUP, ed. Madeleine Colvin and Jonathan Cooper.

Cases

• Coombs v Information Commissioner [2023] UKFTT 264 (GRC). Acting for Cambridge University, instructed by Harrison Clark Rickerbys, in resisting disclosure of requested information under FOIA relating to 11+ testing.
• Representing the Department of Health in Department of Health v The Information Commissioner [2019] UKFTT 2018_0001 (GRC), an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of the Information Commissioner to allow the release of information relating to the Government’s childhood obesity plan.
• Advising a government department as to the applicability of the GDPR/DPA to proposals it wished to make to combat online harm.
• Advising a property company in respect of a potential claim under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, concerning a refusal by a Council to grant planning permission.
• Representing the Ministry of Justice in a DPA claim brought against it.
• Advising a pharmaceutical company in respect of a FOIA request made to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulation Authority.
• Providing advice to a government department on the applicability of the GDPR/DPA 2018, in the context of the reporting of persons from abroad with no entitlement to free access to the NHS.

Other cases include:

• R (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester and Secretary of State or the Home Department [2014] 3 WLR 96. The Supreme Court held that the disclosure provisions of the Police Act 1997 – requiring all cautions and convictions to be disclosed on criminal record certificates – were incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention.
• R (GC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] 1 WLR 1230. A decision of the Supreme Court that the ACPO policy allowing the continued retention of DNA and fingerprint data, in the light of the decision in S v UK, was unlawful.
• R (RMC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 1681. The Police’s policy of retaining photographs of persons not convicted of a crime was in breach of Article 8.
• S v The United Kingdom [2008] 48 EHRR 50. Before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court held that the indefinite retention of DNA and fingerprint data in respect of persons not convicted of a crime constituted a violation of their Article 8 rights.

Before coming to the Bar Azeem worked for the United Nations in the Middle East (Gaza City) and was a Judicial Assistant to the former Master of the Rolls, Supreme Court Justice Lord Clarke. He was awarded a Major Scholarship from Inner Temple for the PgDL (2002) and was a Chapman Scholar during the BVC year (2003).

Azeem’s publications include:

– Judicial Review, Supperstone, Goudie and Walker, 6th ed.

– Children in Need: local authority support for children and families, LAG, 2013

– Collection and Retention of Personal Data in Human Rights in the Investigation and Prosecution of Crime, eds. Madeline Colvin and Jonathan Cooper, OUP 2009

Azeem is a member of the Administrative Law Bar Association and the Human Rights Lawyers Association.

Education

BA (Oxon) Modern History 1st Class

MA (Harvard) Arabic and Middle Eastern Studies, Thesis with Distinction

PgDL; Major Scholar, Inner Temple, 2002,

Chapman Scholar, Inner Temple, 2003

Languages

Arabic (Intermediate)

Memberships

Administrative Law Bar Association

Human Rights Lawyers Association

Administrative & Public Law: “Azeem is very able and personable. His written work is great.” “He is very good at engaging with clients and at lateral thinking about tricky issues.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “He is very good with the client, very empathetic and firm in his advice. He really likes to talk issues through and is very personable” – Chambers UK, 2024

Community Care: “He fights incredibly in court and is charming with it though.” “Azeem is extremely bright and client-focused.” “Azeem is intelligent, quick, and has good judgement.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Public Procurement: “He is calm, analytical and confident, with a good eye for the big picture.” “Azeem’s drafting is clear and punchy, his strategic advice is excellent and he is someone who works well as part of the wider legal team.” “Client-friendly and collaborative. He is forward-thinking, strategic, responsive and communicative.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Leading junior in Administrative law and Human Rights: “A junior with a pragmatic approach; his advice is focussed and pragmatic. He has an excellent manner with clients.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading junior in Public Procurement: “Azeem is an exceptional barrister.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading junior in Court of Protection and Community Care: “Azeem is an incredible barrister. He is knowledgeable, creative and a great advocate. He engages with the evidence in the cases, gets to know the client’s story, and his passion for his work shines through.” – Legal 500, 2024

Administrative & Public Law: “He is very approachable, responsive and collaborative.” “He is pragmatic, effective and shows great vision. He can map out the trajectory of a case very well.” “Azeem is very user-friendly, has great attention to detail and immediately grasps the issues at play.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “He is very collaborative – it is easy to explore new ideas and problems with him.” “Azeem is inventive and dynamic, particularly in matters relating to community care.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Community Care: “Azeem is an excellent and extremely committed barrister.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Public Procurement: “A bright procurement lawyer and a good team player. Very impressive, he’s a really, really hard worker.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Leading junior in Administrative law and Human Rights: “Azeem has a first-class mind. His drafting skills are excellent. He is one of the barristers of choice (for both claimants and defendants) in high-profile public law matters.” – Legal 500, 2023

Leading junior in Public Procurement: “Azeem is hugely knowledgeable and personable. He is also hard working and very responsive.” – Legal 500, 2023

Leading junior in Court of Protection and Community Care: “Azeem knows the facts of cases inside out, knows how to tactically pursue matters and is always well-prepared with authorities to back up legal arguments.” – Legal 500, 2023

Administrative & Public Law: “His advice is clear and thorough, he looks at everything in detail and is receptive to ideas.” “Azeem is able to distil complex problems into simple, client-focused solutions.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “He is a very good advocate and ferociously bright too.” “Azeem is able to distil complex problems into simple, client-focused solutions. He is also very approachable, responsive and good at communicating with clients.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Community Care: “Azeem is extremely experienced and dynamic.” “He is very responsive, thorough and client-focused.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Public Procurement: “A very good advocate who is very commercial.” “He is highly practical and very good with clients” – Chambers UK, 2022

Leading junior in Administrative and Public law: “Azeem is a first-class barrister. He has a first-class mind, is a great tactician, is good with clients, and understands the bigger picture.” – Legal 500, 2022

Leading junior in Civil liberties and human rights (including actions against the police) – Legal 500, 2022

Administrative & Public Law: “Very good at having a wider appreciation of our litigation strategy. His judgement is excellent and he helped to steer us through some difficult issues.” “Excellent at reassuring the client and putting them at ease. He put forward quite a cutting-edge argument and the client was happy to go with it.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “He’s very clever, well organised and good on paper.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Public Procurement: “A pragmatic, precise and authoritative junior, particularly in cases where complex public law and judicial review issues intermesh with regulated procurement and freedom of information law.” “He knows procurement law inside and out.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Community Care: “He fights his clients’ cases really hard but is also very open to discussions and negotiations. He’s very fair-minded and his advocacy is excellent.” “A particularly skilled and knowledgeable public law barrister. He is able to focus on the pertinent issues and advise on the risks and difficulties each case brings, but is always willing to fight for his clients.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Leading junior in Administrative and Public law: ‘‘Ability to see core issue and formulate best strategy to achieve outcome sought. A great awareness of potential pitfalls and the ability to steer through them.’’ – Legal 500, 2021

Leading junior in Civil liberties and human rights (including actions against the police): ‘‘Clarity of thought and the ability to draw on considerable expertise in a client-friendly manner. Sound judgement and pragmatic approach.’’ – Legal 500, 2021

Administrative & Public Law: “I like his style very much – he’s quick and client-focused and he knows what we’re trying to achieve.” “He’s keen to take on challenging cases and push the boundaries of the law where appropriate. He has sound judgement and is able to think tactically about a case.” “He is reliable and very prompt to respond to any issues you may have. He is good on his feet in court and persuasive with his written pleadings.” Chambers UK, 2020

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “Azeem is reliable and very prompt to respond to any issues you may have. He is good on his feet in court and persuasive in his written pleadings.” “He makes it look easy. He has a special rapport with the clients, especially those who have been let down by the system on a number of occasions.” – Chambers UK, 2020

Public Procurement: “Extremely responsive, often at very short notice, and great at communicating with the clients.”- Chambers UK, 2020

Community Care: “He’s absolutely charming and very effective as an opponent.” “He gets to grips with the key issues of a case really quickly, and has the wider case in his mind at all times. He’s always thinking about the next steps and what evidence would be required.”- Chambers UK, 2020

Leading junior in Administrative and Public law: ‘‘Good at seeing every angle.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Leading junior in Civil liberties and human rights (including actions against the police): ‘‘His advocacy is excellent.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Administrative & Public Law: “Prompt, efficient, personable and easy to work with. He turns around work extremely quickly.” “A sensible advocate.” Chambers UK, 2019

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “Azeem is a committed and bright public law barrister. He is keen to take on challenging cases and push at the boundaries of the law, where appropriate. He has sound judgement and is able to think tactically about a case.” – Chambers UK, 2019

Public Procurement: “Really responsive and has a great grasp of some horribly complex areas of law.” “He’s incredibly approachable and builds up a good rapport with our clients.”- Chambers UK, 2019

Community Care: “He is one of our go-to barristers: he delivers every time and he really cares about the client.”- Chambers UK, 2019

Leading junior in Civil liberties and human rights (including actions against the police): ‘‘Excels on his feet and is exceptionally good at cross-examination.’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Administrative & Public Law: “His drafting is really good, and tactically he is very strong.” “Brilliantly friendly, incredibly enthusiastic and he has an eye for detail. He can think through and unpick the most complex problems.” “His advocacy is really superb, he has the ear of the court.” Chambers UK, 2018

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “He is efficient and always ready to be helpful with queries.” “He is very pleasant and has a good manner with the court.” – Chambers UK, 2018

Community Care: “He is willing to discuss cases on an initial pre-funding basis, and he’s got a very good grasp of the leading care duties. He is very responsive, highly approachable and very good at making you feel comfortable.”- Chambers UK, 2018

Leading junior in Civil liberties and human rights (including actions against the police): ‘‘He is tenacious in his advocacy yet approaches each issue with sensitivity.’’ – Legal 500, 2017

Administrative & Public Law: “Approachable and quick to turn around work. A sensible, pragmatic and no-nonsense approach. A very good trial lawyer. Easy to work with.” “He’s a very effective and engaging advocate.” – Chambers UK, 2017

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “He’s a very good trial lawyer with a sensible, pragmatic, no-nonsense approach.” “Azeem Suterwalla is efficient and always ready to help with queries.” – Chambers UK, 2017

Community Care: “He takes a sensible, pragmatic and no-nonsense approach.” – Chambers UK, 2017

Leading junior in Civil Liberties and Human Rights (including actions against the police): ‘‘Not afraid of a fight and strongly committed to his clients.’’ – Legal 500, 2016

Community Care: “It is a pleasure to be against Azeem. He is unflappable, tenacious and a real pro in anything to do with care users.” – Chambers UK, 2016

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “He is great to work with – he has a very friendly, approachable style. He is in his element in court and when on his feet he deals with complicated cases without fuss and with total ease. He’s very succinct in his written work and very quick as well. He’s unflappable, you can chuck urgent cases at him and he will churn them out.” – Chambers UK, 2016

Administrative & Public Law: “He’s great, good and effective. He fights well for his clients and is a delightful person and a fair opponent.” “He’s very passionate about the rights of children.” – Chambers UK, 2016

”A deep understanding of privacy and security cases.” Leading Junior Civil Liberties and Human Rights Law. Legal 500, 2015

Administrative & Public Law: “He fights tooth and nail for the client, the quality of his written work is very good and he has a very confident and assured courtroom manner.” “He’s a very nice opponent, but doesn’t pull any punches and is effective.” – Chambers UK, 2015

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “He is very capable and has a very good grasp of what is needed to assist the client.” – Chambers UK, 2015

Community Care: “Extremely engaged and a very good tactician.” “Really bright and pleasant to deal with.” – Chambers UK, 2015

Under Administrative and Public Law (2014):

Handles public law cases concerning the rights of prisoners, vulnerable adults, asylum seekers and children. He is also interested in matters relating to education.

Expertise: “His knowledge is amazing, and he makes himself available to answer queries.”

Recent work: Acted against the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. The case challenged the police’s policy of retaining photographs of suspects subsequent to their being released without conviction.

Under Civil Liberties and Human Rights (2014):

Specialises in the human rights aspects of cases concerning asylum, prisoners’ rights, social housing, education, disability and police retention of information. He demonstrates additional expertise in civil liberties cases arising in the field of public law.

Expertise: “His knowledge is amazing and he makes himself available to answer queries.” “He has a very good understanding of his areas of law and is a very good advocate.”

Recent work: Acted for the claimants in a case brought to determine whether the police’s retention of photographs of suspects who were not convicted of any crime was in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under Community Care (2014):

This promising junior has acted as sole counsel in both the High Court and Court of Appeal, and also appeared as junior counsel in the ECHR. Receives notable praise for his expertise in age assessment cases, and also specialises in work related to vulnerable and disabled children and adults.

Expertise: “He certainly has the respect of the court. He has quite a wide focus, but he is a big presence in age assessment cases.”

Recent work: Represented the claimant in R (R) v LB Croydon on leaving care duties under the Children Act 1989.

Earlier years include:

“His broad practice has caught the attention of his peers at the Bar, and his impact on clients is clear: ‘Within 20 minutes, everyone was laughing and smiling – the clients were happy because of his sense of authority and the fact that he’d clearly really understood the case.’ – 2013

“Bright and creative and makes real inroads.” – 2013

“Impresses with his responsive advice and creative approach to problem solving” – 2013

“a courageous advocate who ‘really pushes the boundaries’” – 2012

“a junior who is going places” and “excellent on the papers and has a great grasp of the issues” – 2011