Practicalities of the new JR Practice Direction

Significant changes to CPR Part 54 will come into force from 31 May 2021. This webinar will provide an overview of the key changes as well as practical tips for navigating them. Our speakers will particularly focus on:

• Urgent applications and other applications for interim relief
• Third-party interventions
   

Recording

Speakers

Amanda Weston QC, Garden Court Chambers (Chair)
Amanda is a leading silk in many areas including Court of Protection, public law, civil liberties and immigration. She co-authors Judicial Review: A Practical Guide (Lexis Nexis) and is a member of the ‘A’ Panel of preferred Counsel who act for the Equality & Human Rights Commission. 

Amanda has over 20 years’ experience in judicial review at all levels including the Supreme Court. Substantive areas of her leading public law practice include community care, mental health and mental capacity, immigration, unlawful detention, trafficking, national security measures such as deprivation of citizenship, prison law, human rights, criminal procedure and discrimination. She has particular experience in challenges to both local and central government policy, rules and subordinate legislation. She is currently leading the judicial review challenge to the fees imposed on children’s citizenship applications, brought by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens (PRCBC).

The breadth of her expertise can be seen from her leading cases. They include McNally, the successful judicial review of the Education Secretary’s decision to intervene in a teacher’s disciplinary proceedings where natural justice principles were ‘read-in’ to primary statute and AHK on the principles which apply where the Secretary of State wishes to rely on undisclosed material in judicial review. She writes, teaches and trains other lawyers on the cutting-edge of public law. She has extensive experience in systemic and public interest JR including cost-capping orders.

Amanda’s paper on the threats to children’s rights in public law, delivered at the Public Law Project’s 2016 Conference in London, can be read here. Her keynote speech on Human Dignity in a Time of Austerity, delivered to the inaugural LAG Conference on Support for Migrants in 2018 can be read here.

Miranda Butler, Barrister, Garden Court Chambers
Miranda works in a broad range of public law areas, including unlawful detention, community care,  healthcare provision, trafficking, and strategic litigation. She is regularly instructed in judicial review challenges, including urgent matters and applications for interim relief.  Miranda is a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Panel of Counsel and in 2020 she was a finalist in the Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year Awards.

Miranda works on a broad range of challenges on behalf of those with no recourse to public funds, including claims concerning asylum accommodation, trafficking support and under the Children Act 1989. She was instructed in NN and LP v SSHD [2019] EWHC 1003 (Admin) and has a particular interest in the support provided to victims of trafficking. She has been involved in successful challenges to the level of financial support given to victims who are pregnant or new mothers and to the Home Office's cessation of trafficking support for those housed in initial accommodation. She 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 Court of Appeal, led by Richard Drabble QC.

In January 2020 Miranda was instructed by JCWI to intervene in linked challenges to the Home Secretary’s decision to pursue deportation flights to Jamaica despite the failure to publish the Windrush report. She is regularly instructed in urgent injunctions to prevent removals from the UK. She was recently led by Amanda Weston QC in EOG v SSHD, a challenge to the prohibition on working for certain victims of trafficking 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 QC in a challenge to the lack of support given to victims of trafficking in initial accommodation provided by the Home Office. 

Ollie Persey, Barrister, Garden Court Chambers
Ollie is a public law barrister. He joined Garden Court Chambers from Public Law Project, where he gained considerable experience in strategic litigation at all domestic levels including the Supreme Court.  Ollie has a broad public law practice, specialising in disability and migrant rights and has particular expertise in judicial review claims raising discrimination, education, EU citizens’ rights and retained EU law issues. At Public Law Project, Ollie worked on all aspects of judicial review litigation and is well-placed to advise from the earliest stages of a potential claim. He has in-depth knowledge of the legal aid scheme, with expertise in applying for Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) and challenging Legal Aid Agency funding decisions. Ollie also coordinated Public Law Project’s EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) support hub, providing second-tier advice to Law Centres and other organisations assisting vulnerable EU citizens and family members to apply to the EUSS. 

He has experience of high-profile Brexit-related judicial reviews, including Miller & Cherry v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, in which the Supreme Court held that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. Public Law Project’s intervention focused on the importance of Parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit-related statutory instruments. Ollie welcomes instructions in judicial review claims concerning EU citizens’ rights and questions of retained EU law. He acts for individuals and NGOs in judicial review claims challenging systemic unfairness. He was recently junior counsel for Project 17 (led by Amanda Weston QC and Bijan Hoshi) in W v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Project 17 intervening [2020] EWHC 1299 (Admin), in which the High Court held that part of the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) scheme breached Article 3 ECHR.