Ramby is a specialist barrister in judicial review and public law. He has many high profile reported cases and has appeared in the High Court, Court of Appeal, House of Lords (Supreme Court) and the European Court of Justice.
In addition he is an acknowledged expert in human rights (including being a general editor of Human Rights Act 1998 Practical Guide’ –published by Jordans) European Union law particularly in relation to anti-discrimination law, administrative law, public procurement, freedom of establishment, services and movement (including social security, immigration, crime, customs and excise) Nationality and immigration law (including national security and terrorism law).
His specialism includes child support law, social services, civil liberties, individual rights, civil actions against the state, extradition, education, prison and discrimination law.
Ramby frequently undertakes pro bono work and was Times Lawyer of the Week for representing a Hindu wishing to undertake an open air funeral pyre in the UK.
Ramby de Mello has advised clients from different countries on making representations to Interpol to remove red notices from their data base on grounds that it amounts to a misuse of applications of red notices by participating countries. These representations include reference to international law, human rights and EU data law. He specialises in human rights and EU data law. Certain countries that subscribe to Interpol often misuse red notices as a political means to persecute their nationals abroad. Interpol is aware of this being done. Ramby de Mello advises clients how to make representation to Interpol to remove the red notices and failing which to advise and represent clients how to challenge these decisions before domestic and international forums including making submissions to Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF).
The CCF can recommend to the General Secretariat that, as an interim measure pending completion of the CCF’s review, to restrict and block access to the information so that it becomes invisible National Central Bureau.
Ramby is a specialist barrister in judicial review and public law. He has many high profile reported cases and has appeared in the High Court, Court of Appeal, House of Lords (Supreme Court) and the European Court of Justice. He has also appeared for an applicant against the French Government in the ECHR Court Grand Chambers.
Ramby de Mello has also advised and represented foreign Embassies and Consuls on State Immunity defences.
Books and Articles:-
General Editor of the book “Human Rights Act 1998 - A Practical Guide” (Jordans). Other published works include a chapter on Immigration and Nationality for the Discrimination Law Association book entitled “Making Rights Real” (a handbook on challenging racism and racial discrimination under the Human Rights Act, contributions to the Bar Council Human Rights Handbook (Study Guide). He is also written a book for the NHS and Local Authorities on Human Rights (Monitor Press). He is also a consultant editor for the “Immigration and Nationality Law Reports (Jordan), writes articles for JCWI.
Recommendations
“Always impressive. He has a constructive grasp of the law.”
Chambers UK 2023 (Immigration)
Ranked Tier 3
Legal 500 2023 (Immigration London)
Ranked Band 1
Chambers UK 2022 (Immigration)
“He is well regarded in the immigration field.”
Legal 500 2022
“He is an innovative lawyer, very good at picking a point and running with it. He has impressively deep legal skills.”
Chambers UK 2021
“He thinks of new legal arguments on his feet spontaneously and has a natural flair in the court. He is a very creative barrister.”
Chambers UK 2019
Notable Cases
R(AHK)-v-SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 287 [2009] 1 WLR 2049
The court set out the principles to be adopted in determining whether a special advocate should be appointed to represent an applicant seeking judicial review of a refusal of his application for British citizenship, where the refusal was on the ground that the applicant had not demonstrated good character and where the Home Secretary was not willing to disclose, ) Ex parte Scullion (state liability for non-transposition of EC Directives in social security law),
SSHD-v-Ex parte Wolke (HL) [1997] 1 WLR 1640 (EC law and Social security)
P-v-S C13/94 [1996] ICR 795 ECJ; (transsexual and Sex Discrimination)
(this case changed domestic law to protect transsexuals against discrimination in the work place),
Ocezlik [2009] EWCA Civ 260
The time taken to process an application of a Turkish immigrant for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom did not count towards the one-year period of legal employment that would entitle him to remain in the UK under the EC,
Bigia [2009] EWCA Civ 79
The court ruled on the extent to which the decision of the European Court of Justice in Metock v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (C-127/08) (2009) All ER (EC) 40 had affected domestic law on the rights of persons falling within Directive 2004/38 art.3.2(a), namely "other family members" of a "Union citizen",
Manjit Kaur ECJ (whether British Overseas nationals are EU citizens);
R(Tofik)-v-IAT[2003] EWCA Civ 1138 [2003] INLR 623
(duty of tribunal to give reasons for refusing extension of time,
BI (PAKISTAN) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (2009)-[2009] EWCA Civ 834
When considering whether the removal of a person, who claimed that she was dependent on a daughter and her family in the UK because of her ill health, breached her right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8, the AIT failed to have proper regard to the positive duty on contracting states to show respect for family life and failed to appreciate that a person’s family was the group on which many people most heavily depended socially, emotionally and financially,
Lim-v-SSHD [2008] INLR 60 [2007] EWCA Civ 773
All questions arising under theA Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 s.10 were to be regarded as appealable and reviewable and the use of judicial review had to be calibrated to the nature of the issues through the exercise of judicial discretion to the nature of the issue or issues,
R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Khawaja [1984] A.C.
74 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s.82 could be respected. CA (Civ Div) (Sir Mark Potter (President Fam), Sedley LJ, Wilson LJ) 25/7/2007,
YD-v-Turkey [2006] 1 WLR 1646
the Court of Appeal has an inherent jurisdiction to order the Home Secretary to refrain from removing an applicant whilst his out of time appeal is pending with the court,
Raghbir Singh-v-SSHD [1996]Imm AR 507 (deportation on grounds of national security);
SN-V-SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 1683 [2006] INLR 273
(removal of an HIV/AIDS sufferer receiving treatment in the UK which would not be available in the destination country).
Reynolds-v-Department of Works and Pensions [2005] UKHL [2005] 2 WLR 1369
(age related benefits are not discriminatory under article 14 ECHR),
Kehoe-v-DWP [2005] 3 WLR 252 (HL)
(determination of civil rights and obligations whether civil rights are engaged under the CSA 1991),
Lady Archer-v-Jane Williams (QBD 30 June 2003);
Baiai-v-SSHD [2007] 1 WLR 693
(declaration of incompatibility granted in respect of the requirement to obtain the written permission of the SSHD prior to marriage) (confirmed by the Court of Appeal and House of Lords). [2008] 3 WLR 549,
R-v-the Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith (CA) QB 517
(ban on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces),
Williamson-v-Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2004] 1 WLR 14
(the Court of Appeal held that breach of the peace was not an offence for purposes of PACE taken together with article 5 EHCR but the Court nevertheless ruled that PACE should be applied to those arrested for breach of the peace) He and Dan-v-DARA [2004] EWHC 3021 (Admin) (recovery proceedings under Part 5 of the 2002 Act are not criminal proceedings for purposes of art 6 ECHR and though the criminal standard of proof does not apply the court should look for cogent evidence before deciding that the balance of probabilities has been met,
Chandler-v-Legal Services Commission QBD (2004)[2004] EWHC 925 (Admin)
(concerns the duty of the LSC to fund the representation of the claimant before the Coroner’s Court, )
R-v-Wandswork LBC ex parte O [2000] 1 WLR 2539
(entitlement to assistance under the National Assistance Act to overstaying immigrants,
A-v-Coventry City Council [2009] EWHC 34 (Admin)
duties of local authority pursuant to the Children Act 1989 s.20 and s.23 to provide accommodation for a child. In need),
R(Rahim)-v-Birmingham Magistrates’ Court [2009] 1 WLR 466
The issue was whether on an appeal under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 the magistrate’s court could consider the merits by looking into the circumstances of the door supervisor’s conviction. The Court ruled that there was not such discretion conferred on the court in deciding the appeal,
DAVENDER KUMAR GHAI (Claimant) and (1) RAMGHARIA GURDWARA HITCHIN (2) ALICE BARKER WELFARE and WILDLIFE TRUST (Interveners) v NEWCASTLE CITY COUNCIL (Defendant) and SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE (Interested Party) (2009)
The burning of human remains on an open pyre (pending in the Court of appeal),
Zoe Errington-v-Metropolitan Police (QBD April 2006 (Admin)
(this case was a test case under the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 - concerning the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court to hear the application for a Closure Order under ASBA 2003 and whether it was dependent upon the existence of the validity of the closure notice issued and served under section 1 Part 1 of the ASBA),
R (on the application of DAVIES) v SOLIHULL JUSTICES (2008)[2008] EWHC 1157;
A magistrates’ court had erred in determining that an accused, by his behaviour, had deliberately absented himself from his criminal trial and that it was appropriate to proceed with the trial in his absence,
Dwaine Street-v-CPS QBD (Admin) (December 2003)
(this case decided that an loaded air weapon in a public place was a firearm offence under the Firearm Act 1968),
R(Ejaz Ahmed)-v-Bham Mag [2003] EWHC 72 (Admin)
Delay by prosecution led to the quashing of the DJ’s order because the trial did not take place within a reasonable time,
CPS-v-Billy Lawrence QBD (Admi) (July 2007)
(the Justices were not entitled to exclude the evidence of the words spoken by the defendant even though these words may have constituted the ingredients of the section 5 Public Order Act 1986 offence),
Kelly-v-Warley Magistrates’ Court [2007] EWHC 1836 (Admin) [2008] 1 WLR 2001
(unconditional directions issued to the defendant under rule 3.5(2) of the Criminal Procedure Rules to disclose the names of his witnesses etc infringed legal professional privilege.,
Qualifications
BA
MB
LLB
LLM
