Thursday
11 Mar 2010

Contact

Strong administration, with an approachable and friendly ethos

Areas of Work

Administrative Law

1 Temple Gardens is recommended as a leading set for general administrative and public law by Chambers and Partners (2007).

1 Temple Gardens is instructed in a wide variety of Administrative Law including:

  • Asylum
  • Coroners
  • Human Rights
  • Illegality
  • Immigration
  • Judicial Review
  • Prisons
  • Procedural Fairness
  • Public Inquiries
  • Unreasonable Exercise of Power

Members of Chambers have appeared in leading administrative law cases:

R (on the application of Refugee Legal Centre) V SSHD (CA) Times, November 24, 2004 – the fast-track system for processing asylum claims at Harmondworth Removal Centre was not unlawful or inherently unfair (Robin Tam).

M v SSHD (CA) The Times, March 3, 2003 – where the Court of Appeal had quashed an order recommending deportation, the Home Secretary was obliged to consider the reasoning of the Court of Appeal and explain why he disagreed with it (Robin Tam).

R v SSHD, ex p (1) Kariharan (2) Koneswaran (3) Pabeendran (CA) (2003) QB 933 – directions made after 2 October 2000 for the removal of a person refused leave to enter, or remain, or of an illegal entrant, could be appealed under s.65 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Robin Tam).

R v (1) Lord Saville (2) Hoyt (3) Toohey ex p (1) 28 Widgery Soldiers (2) 8 Inq Soldiers (CA) (2002) 1 WLR 1249 – the Administrative Court was correct when it held that the Bloody Sunday Inquiry’s ruling on the venue of soldier-witness hearings did not comply with Art.2 ECHR and fair procedure (Ian Burnett QC, William Hoskins, Nicholas Moss).

Terry v Craze (HM Coroner for East Sussex) (CA) – a coroner was not functus officio in a case that came within s.19(3) Coroners Act 1998. An appeal court could not conclude that an inquest should be held unless the coroner’s factual conclusion was irrational or he had misdirected himself in law (Jonathan Hough).

R v SSHD, ex parte Daly (23/05/01) (HL) 1 WLR 2099 – a prisoner maintained three rights whilst in custody: (i) the right of access to a court; (ii) the right of access to legal advice; and (iii) the right to communicate confidentially with a legal adviser under legal professional privilege (Ian Burnett QC).

Dennis & Anor v Ministry of Defence (2003) - low flying military aircraft/claims in nuisance & under ECHR (William Hoskins).