Avril has a busy public law practice with a particular expertise in mental capacity, community care, and education. Avril is also instructed in inquests as well as prison law and asylum matters.
Avril is recognised in the Legal 500 as a leading junior in Court of Protection and Community Care.
Avril is a specialist Court of Protection practitioner in health and welfare representing the Official Solicitor, local authorities, ICB’s and family members in section 21A challenges and section 16 welfare applications with a particular interest in hoarding cases and cases where P’s capacity to engage in sexual relations is in issue.
Avril is also experienced in cases which involve both the Court of Protection and the Family Court such as the deprivation of liberty of children and Forced Marriage Protection Orders.
In respect of property and financial affairs proceedings, Avril is regularly instructed by the Public Guardian in a variety of proceedings, including where there are concerns in relation of the execution and operation of Lasting Powers of Attorney, and the time-limited appointment of deputies. Avril is also instructed by family members in challenging applications to revoke their Lasting Powers of Attorney and in applications for statutory wills.
Avril has an advisory practice in mental capacity law , in particular applications for the recognition of foreign protective measures, the interface between the mental capacity law and SEN law and damages claims for breaches of Article 8 ECHR.
Avril regularly provides training to solicitors on topics such as: fluctuating capacity, creative use of the Court of Protection, the interplay between Mental Capacity Law and Special Educational Needs Law, and the role of the inherent jurisdiction. Most recently, she presented at the 2025 Mental Health Lawyers Association National Conference on the topic of “Unwise v Incapacitous Decision-making”.
Avril was instructed by the Official Solicitor in a complex case concerning whether a young woman ought to be forcibly given medical treatment for severe rheumatoid arthritis under restraint. Avril successfully argued, on behalf of the Official Solicitor, that RB had capacity to refuse the treatment and that her decision was unwise rather than incapacitous.
Avril was instructed in section 16 proceedings where P was not engaging in capacity assessments and there are concerns in relation to capacity silos for residence and care
Avril appeared in an ex-parte application for non-disclosure of certain pieces of evidence on a protective basis, and persuaded Mr. Justice Newton that SA’s interests outweighed the interests of the implicated party to view and respond to those pieces of evidence.
Avril was instructed by the Health Board (Wales) in a case where the diagnostic element of the capacity test had not been resolved. While P was found to lack capacity in the relevant domain, the question was still live as to whether she may regain capacity following treatment (if available).
Avril was instructed by the Official Solicitor in a section 21A challenge where those holding a Lasting Power of Attorney were opposed to a move due to the attendant increased cost of care.
Avril was instructed by a litigant in person (pro bono through Advocate) in proceedings where contact was in issue between the parties and successfully negotiated changes to a communication and behaviour protocol.
Avril was instructed to represent the CCG in a case concerning whether P’s current needs resulted in eligibility for s.117 aftercare
Avril was instructed to represent the CCG in an application by P’s next of kin to remove her from her current placement..
Avril was instructed by a Local Authority in a dispute as to P’s capacity relating to his residence, care, and contact. Avril was also required to advise on the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
Avril was instructed by the Official Solicitor in this section 16 case concerning capacity to engage in sexual relation and to make decisions regarding residence, care and contact. The case involved overlapping issues of mental health law stemming from an extant Guardianship order
Avril was instructed by the Public Guardian in proceedings investigating P’s retrospective capacity to execute the LPA.
Avril was instructed by the Public Guardian in proceedings where there were allegations of undue influence by the professional deputy in the partial revocation of a joint power of attorney, as well as dispute regarding when a power of attorney is deemed revoked. Avril successfully negotiated a way forward whereby all parties were willing to accept the appointment of a professional panel deputy.
Avril was instructed by the Public Guardian in a case involving the alleged mismanagement of P’s funds and the payment of retrospective gratuitous care payments.
Avril was instructed to represent P’s sons in their application to oppose their sister’s registration of an EPA.
Avril was instructed by the Public Guardian in proceedings concerning whether the attorney had capacity to act under the LPA and/or had acted contrary to P’s best interests.
Avril has appeared before the First-Tier Tribunal (Mental Health), seeking the release of those detained pursuant under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Representing P in parallel Forced Marriage Protection Order proceedings in the Family Court and Court of Protection where P had fathered a child with his putative wife. At a contested final hearing, the court determined that P had capacity to marry and retrospective capacity to marry at the time of the marriage.
Representing P in on-going section 16 proceedings concerning P’s residence, care and contact where P’s family are against the proposed new placement.
Representing the applicant local authority in on-going proceedings concerning the discharge destination of a teenage girl currently under section 3 to the backdrop of a lack of clarity as to which ICB is jointly responsible for P’s section 117 aftercare
Represented P’s mother DMM in a contentious and protracted section 16 case seeking a further trial home for P.
Represented the local authority in proceedings concerning P who has had multiple encounters with the criminal justice system, where parties were not in agreement as to how and by whom P’s further psychological input ought to be funded
Represented the ICB in case where 15-year-old RP was medically fit for discharge from a general paediatric ward and the Hospital Trust indicated that it may take eviction proceeding. Case involved authorisation of chemical restraint by the court to enable rehabilitative physio to take place
Representing the Official Solicitor in on-going proceedings concerning 21year-old SCJ, who has been assessed to lack capacity in relation to contact and internet and social media usage but has capacity to engage in sexual relations
Represented the local authority in proceedings involving MH who has a diagnosis of hoarding disorder and schizophrenia and who has been detained on multiple occasions under section 3 MHA 1983 and MH seeking a trial return home.
Central issue in the case was the authorisation of a covert medication plan for KT’s diabetes. The court ordered additional reporting restrictions in the transparency order due to KT being known to search online for his case details.
Avril continues to develop a broad public law practice including immigration law, Court of Protection, prison law, education law, mental health law, inquests and coronial law, civil liberties, and age dispute/age assessments for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children,
Avril frequently appears in the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) in appeals against Educational, Health and Care Plans for parents in section B, F and I appeals, extended appeals for health and social care provision, and appeals for non-issuing of an EHCP. Avril also has a growing practice in discrimination, admissions and exclusions within education. Avril’s work in education law runs alongside a general public law practice, particularly in judicial review and she has an advisory practice in cases which straddle SEN law and mental capacity law.
Avril has successfully appeared before the Parole Board seeking release of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences and regularly advises on behalf of prisoners in judicial review challenges to decisions of the Parole Board and the Secretary of State for Justice, including decisions concerning release, recall, and the provision and prioritisation of oral hearings.
Avril also accepts instructions to represent prisoners at hearings before Independent Adjudicators and more generally in relation to alleged breaches of Article 8 of the ECHR.
Avril has a keen interest in actions against the state and has advised in false imprisonment claims against the police and the Home Office, which have resulted in financial settlement.
Avril has a busy claimant judicial review practice in Community Care focusing on the statutory duties of local authorities (and the Home Office) regarding accommodation provision, services and support available to vulnerable persons, as well as age assessments.
Avril is also instructed in relation to challenges under the Housing Act 1996 particularly sections 184, 188, and 202.
Avril has considerable experience appearing on behalf of a range of Interested Persons at coronial inquests, including multiple-day Article 2 jury inquests, and usually where mental health treatment and mental capacity are in issue.
Avril also advises on the prospects of successful post-inquest civil proceedings.
Avril has experience appearing on behalf of a range of IP’s at inquests and pre-inquest review hearings, including multiple-day Article 2 inquests, and usually where mental health treatment and mental capacity are in issue. Avril also advises on the prospects of successful post-inquest civil proceedings. Avril is a member of the Inquest Lawyers Group and accepts pro-bono instructions on behalf of families for representation at pre-inquest review hearings and inquests.
Avril has appeared in appeals before the First-Tier Tribunal, particularly in claims based on sexual orientation and political opinion. Avril has experience working with vulnerable clients and draws on her knowledge in mental health and mental capacity law in this regard.
Avril has appeared in protection appeals in the First-Tier Tribunal involving a broad range of States including Cameroon, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, Cameroon, Albania, Vietnam, Iraq, and Iran. Avril has also appeared in claims involving victims of trafficking and modern slavery
Avril regularly appears on behalf of immigration detainees in bail hearings before the First-Tier Tribunal. Avril has also appeared in human rights appeals before the First-Tier Tribunal against the Entry Clearance Officer and in the First-Tier Tribunal against removal decisions under the EEA Regulations 2016. In approaching these cases, Avril’s knowledge of prison law, including questions of risk management such as the interpretation of OASys reports, is an asset.
LISTEN TO PODCAST Join the No5 Court of Protection team in their fourth podcast in this series. In this episode we look as some recent…
Philip Rule and Avril Rushe were instructed in an urgent judicial review to challenge an unlawful recall, and a flawed executive release decision that did…
Avril has gained extensive experience in the field of public law and human rights. Avril has worked in human rights NGOs and legal advice centres in Germany, Bolivia, the UK, and the Netherlands, including the AIRE Centre where she advised on family reunification and the Citizenship Directive. Through this work, Avril has developed skills for dealing with vulnerable clients, particularly in the fields of LGBT rights, immigration and asylum, access to healthcare, anti-discrimination, and violence against women. Before joining Chambers, Avril taught in the LL.M programme at the Walther Schucking Institute for Public International Law.
Avril is contactable out of hours and is always happy to assist charities and NGO’s on a pro-bono basis.
LISTEN TO PODCAST Join the No5 Court of Protection team in their fourth podcast in this series. In this episode we look as some recent…
Philip Rule and Avril Rushe were instructed in an urgent judicial review to challenge an unlawful recall, and a flawed executive release decision that did…
