Fishmongers’ Hall Inquest
Acting for the family of one of the two deceased at the Inquest into the deaths arising from the Fishmongers’ Hall and London Bridge terror attack of 29 November 2019.
Philip Rule KC is head of the Public Law Group at No5.
He is an extremely versatile and accomplished leading advocate, whose appellate and first-instance work encompasses many areas of law where his experience and skills enable him to provide clients with the assistance that they need. In addition to his core areas listed below he also undertakes work in varied fields such as extradition cases, or commercial matters particularly involving civil and criminal elements, and employment cases with issues of public law or discrimination arising. He has led in cases before the UK Supreme Court, Privy Council, Court of Appeal (both Divisions of England and Wales) and in other jurisdictions in the Caribbean
Philip has been conducting cases involving animal welfare across different intersecting areas of law concerning animals for many years. Animal law, recently recognised as a subject area in its own right, is multi-disciplinary and Philip is well-placed to understand the various interactions as a public law specialist with an extensive experience of working in both criminal, civil, and regulatory spheres alongside his appellate and judicial review practice.
Philip has been involved in several judicial review claims where animal rights have been at the forefront, as well as having previously acted in criminal prosecutions concerning animal welfare. Often, because the law remains nascent in recognising animal rights as an inherent aspect of dignity for non-human living beings, he has been able to apply public law decision-making principles of the common law, and even human rights (impacted by the treatment of the animal kingdom) to bring proceedings that challenge current ill-treatment of animals.
Philip has particular experience of appearing in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal (both divisions), as well as the High Court.
Recent work includes:
R (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) v Secretary of State for Defence
CO/4131/2022
Instructed on behalf of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) in an ongoing dispute with the Ministry of Defence concerning use of real bearskin for the King’s Guards caps worn by foot soldiers in the Grenadier Guards, the Coldstream Guards, the Scots Guards, the Irish Guards and Welsh Guards.
PETA was concerned that the MoD failed to properly consider a synthetic replacement it has developed with faux furrier ECOPPEL.
R (The Animal Law Foundation) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Instructed to assist in advising and drafting for the pre-action and following action to challenge the government’s position that the sentience (ability to suffer pain) of decapod crustaceans (e.g. lobsters) has been proven, and is now recognised by the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, but that it shall nonetheless not provide clear guidance to prevent the boiling alive method of killing as contrary to the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015 (that transposed EU law Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009).
R (Humane Being) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
[2022] EWHC 300 (Admin); [2022] 1 WLUK 436
And CA-2022-00348
And ECHR Application 36959/22
Use of the Human Rights Act 1998 to challenge factory farming conditions that, via the poor welfare conditions for the animals, pose risks to humans through zoonotic disease transmission, through overuse of antibiotics causing disease resistance in diseases that affect humans also, and through methane gas emissions. The case challenged the governmental failure to regulate and take all reasonable steps to safeguard against these risks posed by those conditions of large-scale factory farming.
No5’s Philip Rule has been instructed on behalf of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment…
The Administrative Court shall today hear a permission application for a judicial review of the…
Philip specialises in work on behalf of individuals who are experiencing civil liberties issues, using his expertise across multiple jurisdictions to provide representation in cases raising human rights and constitutional protections in the context of prison law, criminal justice, community care, inquest, immigration detention and deportation, and discrimination.
A proven judicial review expert with significant experience of appearing in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal (both divisions), as well as the High Court. Also regularly undertakes civil actions against public authorities in human rights claim.
Previously as a junior appointed to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Panel of preferred counsel. Head of Public Law group at No5 Chambers.
Winner of Legal Aid Practitioner’s Group “LALYs” Legal Aid Barrister of the Year 2017 award. An independent panel awarded this considering over a dozen references.
Elected to Executive Committee of the Human Rights Lawyers’ Association.
Counsel for one of the victim families in the Fishmongers’ Hall terrorist incident inquests; and secured the acquittal of the Birmingham Pub Bombings Campaigners for alleged COVID lockdown breaches in demonstrating, relying on Article 10 and 11 freedoms of expression.
Acting for the family of one of the two deceased at the Inquest into the deaths arising from the Fishmongers’ Hall and London Bridge terror attack of 29 November 2019.
The High Court has handed down judgment in R (DXK) v The Secretary of State…
Today the Supreme Court reveals its judgment on the question of the permissible approaches for…
Successful claim brought by innocent couple left living for eight years with the uncertainty and…
Philip is frequently instructed in complex and test cases in community care matters, regularly appearing in the reported cases in this field.
He regularly advises, and appears on behalf of, parties in cases concerned with accommodation and service provision, discrimination, and other matters leading to judicial review proceedings. Philip has a detailed and comprehensive knowledge of public law and is able to provide prompt, accurate and thorough advice and representation. Despite his skill in the courtroom he is always alive to the need for consideration of appropriate settlement where that is in his client’s best interest, and recognises that some cases are better resolved ahead of contested litigation.
Philip has a very successful practice of urgent assistance in applications for interim relief before the Administrative Court, with paper decisions frequently granting the order sought on behalf of his client.
Philip’s work includes judicial review actions concerning, amongst other things, the statutory duties of local authorities (and of the Home Office) regarding accommodation provision, its adequacy, and timeliness; services and support available to disabled and vulnerable persons; educational needs provision; needs assessment provision; and former looked-after children’s provision of accommodation, care, or support; as well as age assessment and the requirements of Merton/caselaw and relevant guidance.
Philip is also very experienced in handling cases which raise issues under the Human Rights Act 1998, those invoking wider international human rights instruments, or raising questions of constitutional significance. His work also includes claims for discrimination engaging the protections of the Equality Act 2010 and/or Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. In cases that involve deprivation of liberty in the course of local authority provision he is able to draw on a background experience with various forms of detention and cases that involve issues of capacity.
In addition, Philip conducts inquests arising from deaths within care settings and where local authority (or other health service) provision is in issue, including those where Article 2 ECHR investigative duties may arise.
Philip has a wealth of experience in public law matters across a wide-range and variety. He has considerable experience in drafting and advocacy in matters that have gone before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Administrative Court.
Training Delivered
13 October 2015, Judicial Review Seminar for Local Authorities
Consultation Duties (an examination of the Supreme Court decision in Moseley v Haringey LBC [2014] 1 WLR 3947 and subsequent decisions); The New Permission Hurdle (of Section 84 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015); And Time-limits (application of the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Hysaj) v SSHD [2015] 1 WLR 2472 to public law proceedings).
Reported Cases
R (M) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2021] EWHC 696 (Admin); [2021] P.T.S.R. 1195; [2021] 3 WLUK 830; [2021] WLR(D) 254
2021
Where an asylum seeker challenged an age assessment conducted by the local authority, arguing that it was procedurally unfair and legally flawed, an application by the local authority for an unless order that his claim be struck out if he did not consent to the preparation of an expert report on his teeth and age was misconceived. Expert evidence on such matters was irrelevant to the exercise to be conducted by the court in the judicial review process. The evidence to be considered in the judicial review is the evidence which was before the decision makers at the relevant time.
R. (Henry) v National Probation Service [2020] EWHC 1246 (Admin), [2020] A.C.D. 81, QBD; CLW/20/28/18
Interim relief which would have allowed a man who had been imprisoned for public protection and subsequently released on licence to stay overnight at his family home during the COVID-19 lockdown instead of at accommodation approved by the probation service was refused. The risks of him staying in the family home permanently before the further necessary work around violence and triggering behaviour had been completed outweighed the risk of infection in moving between two properties and his loss of opportunity to stay overnight at his family home and share childcare duties.
R (AB) v Kent County Council [2020] P.T.S.R. 746; [2020] 4 All ER 235; [2020] EWHC 109 (Admin); [2020] WLR(D) 52; [2020] All ER (D) 106 (Jan); [2020] 1 WLUK 152
A local authority’s abbreviated age assessment was unlawful because it was based on AB’s physical appearance and demeanour, failed to adequately acknowledge the potential margin for error and to give AB the corresponding benefit of the doubt and to proceed to conduct a full Merton-compliant Age Assessment. In AB’s particular case the council’s suggested age range of between 20–25 being consistent to physical appearance and demeanour was insufficient to take account of the ‘margin of error’ required to be observed when disputing age. The local authority should have conducted a “Merton compliant” assessment. The Administrative Court ordered that a fresh assessment be conducted by independent social workers within a required timeframe.
The High Court has handed down judgment in R (DXK) v The Secretary of State…
On 31 March 2023 the Administrative Court (sitting at Leeds) allowed the judicial review claim…
Poole J, sitting in the Administrative Court, has today allowed the judicial review claims brought…
Philip has a wealth of experience in public law matters across a relatively wide-range, though he has established particular expertise in matters concerning the treatment of those subjected to detention or to imprisonment.
Philip’s public law work often involves cases that have a civil law and criminal law overlap or elements of both affecting the individual client, and he has expertise in conducting concurrent or sequential proceedings or litigation. Throughout practise he has also undertaken both civil law and criminal cases themselves and he is entirely comfortable in each jurisdiction. He frequently represents those with serious mental health issues and is familiar with a wide range of psychiatric and psychological issues, both as to the evidence of medical expertise and knowledge, and the applicable law.
Philip is an established specialist in matters raising issues under the Human Rights Act 1998, those invoking wider international human rights instruments, affecting civil liberties, or raising questions of constitutional significance. His work also includes claims for discrimination placing reliance upon the protections of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 and the Equality Act 2010 in particular.
He has considerable experience in drafting and advocacy in matters that have gone before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal (both Civil and Criminal Divisions), the Divisional Court, Administrative Court, Queen’s Bench Division and other higher tribunals and courts. He has also represented individuals before first-instance and appeal tribunals, and before the Parole Board.
Before the Administrative Court Philip’s principal work is judicial review. He also has experience in pursuing applications for a writ of habeas corpus by the Part 8 claim process, seeking a certificate of inadequacy under the earlier proceeds of crime legislative schemes (i.e. the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (and as amended by the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995), and Drug Trafficking Act 1994), and conducting case stated appeals from the Magistrates’ and the Crown Courts.
Philip has acted in several Supreme Court cases that proceeded to a full hearing, and has drafted both written application, and respondent’s objection, submissions to the Supreme Court on a number of other occasions. Philip also has considerable experience of making applications directly to the European Court of Human Rights.
Philip is recognised for his skill in identifying legal issues of general public importance in the papers supplied to him. He relishes the challenge of addressing important or novel legal problems that arise in cases where the resolution of that issue offers potential benefit to his client.
Civil actions and other cases
A specialist in claims for unlawful imprisonment, negligent imprisonment, and violations of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to liberty). Philip also has also enjoyed considerable success in claims for violation of Art. 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life) particularly where detained persons have been denied family visitation rights.
Philip conducts civil claims for damages on behalf of former or serving prisoners or detained persons before the High Court and county court complaining of breaches of Articles of the ECHR, or of unlawful imprisonment at common law, and other actions. In 2009 Philip was the first advocate to secure compensation for a prisoner who was not released but whose parole hearing was delayed in violation of Art. 5(4) ECHR (through a successful judicial review claim).
In 2014 his notable cases have included settlement with the Treasury Solicitors for payment of damages to a client who was not immediately released from prison despite a Parole Board direction in the sum of 12,500. Philip also obtained a settlement of 2000 for another client in respect of a failure to provide him with inter-prison visits to enable visitation with his brother over an unreasonable period of time for which an Art. 8 ECHR claim was pursued.
Philip successfully established for the very first time a duty of care owed to a prisoner in the provision of Home Detention Curfew, and that as a result of negligent failure to administer and provide that HDC an award of damages may be made: McCreaner v MOJ [2014] EWHC 569 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 354, [2014] All ER (D) 77 (Mar)). That success involved persuading one High Court judge not to follow the example set by another High Court Judge in a previous claim. The proper level of damages was subsequently agreed with the Treasury Solicitors.
Philip’s work in 2014 has continued to push boundaries, and he successfully overturned on appeal a refusal to find that a delay to a prisoner’s move to open conditions had setback the return to liberty by that prisoner at the subsequent parole review: establishing that there is no impediment to such a claim for consequential delay in R (Parratt) v SSJ [2014] EWCA Civ 1478, [2014] All ER (D) 255 (Nov).
In 2013 Philip won an appeal at the Leeds County Court in relation to an Art. 8 ECHR claim concerning the prevention of a son visiting his father in a high-security prison, and the Judge on appeal awarded damages to both son and father.
Philip has represented claimants at full trial in multi-track actions against the police brought for assault, negligence or misfeasance.
He regularly advises as to quantum, and settles Particulars of Claim, including for personal injury, but more commonly in relation to unlawful detention or Article 8 ECHR infringements.
Philip conducts work that is privately-funded, publicly-funded, and under Conditional Fee Agreements in suitable cases.
Other elements of practice
In addition to his principal areas of practice some occasional types of work Philip has undertaken includes:
No5’s Public Law Group are delighted with the 2022 Legal 500 rankings and extend their…
Two counsel from No5 Barristers’ Chambers have been shortlisted in the Barrister of the Year…
Philip is listed as a leading junior barrister practising in Crime in London, and recently also on the Midland circuit courts, with the recognition that: ‘His undoubted talent in appeal work has complemented his already strong criminal defence practice’ and ‘A criminal appeal specialist’ (Legal 500, 2017). ‘His ability to form the most complex legal arguments is outstanding’ (Legal 500, 2016). He ‘Goes above and beyond…’ the work of others (Legal 500, 2015).
Please see below for a description of Philip’s practice, appointments, and further information concerning:
Philip is a criminal appeal specialist with considerable experience in drafting and advocacy in matters that have gone before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Divisional Court, and Administrative Court. He is frequently instructed on behalf of the defence, providing advice and representation where the client is seeking a second opinion from an appeals specialist, or is unhappy with previous counsel. Philip is often instructed to provide privately-funded representation, or to draft advice or grounds for potential or ongoing appeals. On occasions he is also instructed by the specialist CPS Appeals and Review Unit in criminal appeals where he did not act at first-instance.
His considerable experience of, and expertise in, appellate work complements his busy practice in the Administrative Court. He is particularly interested in human rights and public international law as aspects of his criminal practice. He has extensive experience of taking cases to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in relation to both sentence and conviction, and to the Administrative Court on behalf of either party to criminal proceedings. Many of Philip’s cases have established points of law of general application and are cited in the leading practitioner textbooks.
Philip also has an extensive criminal plea and trial practice in which he accepts private client instruction to advise and to represent in all manner of criminal and regulatory proceedings, and will also accept instructions in the most serious matters that are tried before the Crown Court. Philip primarily defends at first instance, though has in the past also been instructed by the CPS Homicide Team in London in particular.
In 2017 Philip was called to the Bar of the Cayman Islands. His work there has included trials by jury before the Grand Court and settling grounds before the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal. One such appeal concerned a death caused by driving offence and on appeal the sentence was reduced from a term of 40 months to one 30 months’ imprisonment. He also has conducted actions brought under the Bill of Rights and by way of judicial review in the Cayman Islands.
Alongside his advocacy and trial work Philip also advises private clients on legal issues related to criminal proceedings. For example he has been instructed and retained by a leading global firm to advise a member of a foreign royal family regarding matters arising from a criminal trial of other persons with whom it was alleged there had been business dealings. Issues included legal professional privilege, access to the court and the ability for members of the public to take notes of proceedings, witness summonses, etc. Philip also regularly accepts private-client work from non-criminal firms and solicitors whose longstanding clients primarily occasionally require assistance with regulatory or road-traffic matters, including deaths caused on the roads. Philip guides the professional client through the criminal litigation process so that they may maintain conduct of the matter for their existing client.
Philip’s public law work in judicial review and appeals by way of case stated often involve cases that have a civil law and criminal law overlap or elements of both affecting the individual client, and he has expertise in conducting concurrent proceedings or litigation. Throughout practise he has also undertaken both civil law and criminal cases and is comfortable in each jurisdiction.
Philip has experience of representing and advising those seeking licences, or appealing the loss of licences for work purposes providing door supervisor or taxi services, and liquor licensing. He also has experience of inquest proceedings.
Criminal first-instance work
Philip has specialist expertise and experience in criminal offences involving fatalities, drugs, firearms, sexual offending and violence. He has expertise in proceeds of crime and fraud work. He is well-experienced with a wide variety of expert evidence particularly including causation of injury, mental health issues, pathology, and road traffic reconstruction.
He has experience and knowledge of confiscation and related proceedings at all stages, including restraint, cash forfeiture proceedings, and following conviction. He has experience of such work under POCA 2002, and the CJA 1988 (as amended) and DTOA 1994.
Philip has extensive experience of dealing with defendants with mental health issues (both psychiatric illnesses and psychological disorders) which are or may be relevant to the offence, available defences, or ultimate disposal of the case. He has dealt with such issues in the context particularly of arson, violent offences and murder, as well as in his extensive prison law experience, alongside much less serious matters e.g. Matthew Sadler (18 March 2005, The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror) where a drink-drive automatism defence succeeded. Philip’s expertise includes partial defences, and full defences such as automatism and insanity, arising from a number of potential causes or of particular categories.
His considerable experience in practice of complex trials at first instance gives him a practical insight to the working of such trials in practice, both from the defence and prosecution point of view. He has particular expertise on the law of evidence and is recognised amongst his peers for sound legal knowledge. Even at first instance he is able to take complex legal points others might not recognise, and to provide detailed drafting.
Philip has been instructed as the instructed advocate in six murder trials by four different solicitors’ firms, in a number of large-scale conspiracies concerning facilitation of immigration, money laundering, conspiracy to defraud, firearms supply and intent to endanger life, drugs supply including importation conspiracies. Areas of work regularly undertaken include offences of dishonesty including complex deception and conspiracy to defraud, robbery, violence including Section 18 GBH, public order, drugs conspiracies, racially aggravated offences, Firearms Act offences, arson with intent to endanger life, sexual offences of all seriousness, death by dangerous driving, and murder.
Philip demonstrates a thorough, practical and friendly approach with strong advocacy allied to particular expertise on the law of evidence and sound legal knowledge.
His previous performances have caused a number of Instructing Solicitors to choose him for the most serious cases as reflection of his diligence and pain-staking approach to preparation and representation in more complex, paper-heavy and difficult cases.
Philip has been a Grade 3 Prosecutor on the Attorney-General’s list for CPS prosecutions on the South Eastern and Western circuits. In 2013 he was appointed to the CPS specialist lists for fraud and serious crime. Prosecution instructions were received from the Homicide team based at the CPS Headquarters. Philip was instructed regularly as trial counsel for deaths caused by dangerous driving and other similar offences, and instructed by other units to provide remunerated pre-charge advice in large-scale frauds involving mortgage, credit card, and benefits payments frauds on several occasions, and by the Appeals Unit to provide appeal documentation through Respondent’s Notice or skeleton argument particularly in cases raising difficult points of law. As well as the CPS he has worked for the Department of Work and Pensions, and Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office (as it was). He has also defended in cases brought by the Department of Work and Pensions, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Environment Agency, Trading Standards, Customs and Excise, and District Councils.
Other notable trials (defending unless otherwise stated):
appeal against conviction for murder. Case tried prior to CA ruling on treatment of infidelity in new law on loss of control defence; trial judge’s directions wrong in law. Permission granted: [2014] EWCA Crim 2217. Appeal against conviction allowed: [2015] EWCA Crim 296.
Grounds of failure to impose a sentence that would have been imposed at the time of the offence under the prevailing guidelines applicable at that time.
Appeal against conviction for murder following Guilty plea. Appeal on basis of unexplored diminished responsibility and provocation defences. Appeal lodged.
Appeal against murder conviction on the basis that the diminished responsibility burden is contrary to the presumption of innocence and Art. 6 ECHR. A certificate of general public importance was granted by the Court of Appeal (Hughes LJ V-P, as he then was, presiding). Application was submitted to the Supreme Court but permission refused to appeal.
Appeal against sentence allowed. Minimum term (“tariff”) for murder reduced from 14 years to 11 years.
Two-month trial. One of two trials in which eight defendants were separated into groups of four to be tried. Allegation of conspiracy to murder from prison cell laid against client, and against one other prisoner alleged to be the ringleader, the offence committed by the use of two mobile telephones that has been used by both prisoners in the cell during lock-up time. The murder was committed by gunshot to the head of a young boy whose body was found burnt in the remains of a car set ablaze in south-east London the day before a trial was due concerning the client and the other alleged conspirators for conspiracy to supply firearms, the deceased being a co-accused who had given an unhelpful prepared statement to the police in his interview. Client’s cell-mate tried jointly along with him was convicted, but Philip’s client was not convicted.
Liverpool Crown Court. Re-trial for murder of young girlfriend by strangulation. Defences of loss of control (new law) and diminished responsibility.
Luton Crown Court. Prisoner serving for murder accused of the murder of a fellow prisoner imprisoned at HMP Grendon Underwood therapeutic community prison. Two-week trial. Issue at trial was diminished responsibility.
Birmingham Crown Court. Stabbing by co-habitee of multiple-occupancy hostel accommodation (Philip and his leader were compelled to withdraw from this case shortly before trial).
Reading Crown Court, before a High Court Judge. Double-murder charge concerning ex-partner and her adult son. Four-week trial. Client’s defence raised issues of intention, self-defence, provocation and diminished responsibility.
Reading Crown Court, one of two co-accused charged with both conspiracy to rob and with murder. The issue at trial was one of intention. Two-week trial.
Reading Crown Court, one of three co-accused charged with murder arising from an apparent attempted robbery of a drugs-den. Four-week trial.
Point of law of general public importance certified: [2014] EWCA Crim 1582 (Treacy LJ presiding). Queen’s Counsel was instructed to draft the notice of objection for the Crown in reply to Philip’s application but permission was granted in February 2015 (UKSC 2014/0207). The Secretary of State intervened in the proceedings. The appeal determines the application of the rule of “lex mitior” in English law and Article 7 ECHR in its application to sentences of IPP imposed post-abolition date.
Application to appeal against murder conviction on the basis that the diminished responsibility burden is contrary to the presumption of innocence and Art. 6 ECHR. Point of law of general importance certified by Hughes LJ V-P, as he then was. Supreme Court refused permission to appeal (UKSC 2013/0157).
Considering written submissions the Supreme Court refused permission to the Prosecution to appeal against this decision in which Philip successfully obtained the quashing of a confiscation order imposed upon a landlord who had breached a regulatory requirement (UKSC 2013/0020).
Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to the Court of Appeal [Instructed only for the CCRC reference and on appeal]. Raised points of novel importance concerning maximum sentences and IPP indeterminate sentences. Heard by the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, along with a civil appeal concurrently lodged.
Application for habeas corpus allowed, application for judicial review dismissed. Concerns days in custody pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant and the application of s243 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Appeal allowed: life sentence quashed. Determinate term of 10 years imposed (less than 12-year notional determinate term judge had taken in the court below) [Instructed only for appeal]
Whether it is necessary to specify the intended sexual offence in an allegation of trespass with intent to commit a relevant sexual offence.
Successful appeal against conviction for an offence of breach of a non-molestation order contrary to section 42A of the Family Law Act 1996. Guidance as to the correct judicial direction and ingredient of “oppression” concerning an allegation that conduct is harassing.
Application to appeal ten years out of time against sentence for murder [instructed only on appeal]
Appeal against conviction for arson with intent to endanger life. Good character direction not given.
Appeal allowed against IPP imposed in 2006. Sentence was unlawful due to dates of offence pre-dating the implementation of the IPP statutory regime. Determinate sentence with extended licence substituted (the custodial term reflecting the notional determinate sentence identified at the original sentencing date). [instructed only on appeal]
Appeal allowed against sentence of 3.5 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery: reduced to 2 years. Co-accused received 5.5 years’ imprisonment by comparison.
Long extension of time granted to challenge IPP imposed for robbery with knife in July 2006. Appeal allowed: determinate 6-year sentence of imprisonment substituted. Prisoner released. [instructed only on appeal]
Concerning sentencing to an IPP post 3.12.12 abolition date. Point of law of general public importance certified: [2014] EWCA Crim 1582 (Treacy LJ presiding) [instructed only on appeal]
Successful claim brought by innocent couple left living for eight years with the uncertainty and…
…where the CCRC refers a conviction appeal following a guilty plea at the magistrates’ court…
No5’s Philip Rule KC has been instructed on behalf of the Appellant in a case…
Philip has a wealth of experience in public law matters across a relatively wide-range, though he has established particular expertise in matters concerning the treatment of those subjected to detention or to imprisonment.
Philip’s public law work often involves cases that have a civil law and criminal law overlap or elements of both affecting the individual client, and he has expertise in conducting concurrent or sequential proceedings or litigation. Throughout practise he has also undertaken both civil law and criminal cases themselves and he is entirely comfortable in each jurisdiction. He frequently represents those with serious mental health issues and is familiar with a wide range of psychiatric and psychological issues, both as to the evidence of medical expertise and knowledge, and the applicable law.
Philip is an established specialist in matters raising issues under the Human Rights Act 1998, those invoking wider international human rights instruments, affecting civil liberties, or raising questions of constitutional significance. His work also includes claims for discrimination placing reliance upon the protections of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 and the Equality Act 2010 in particular.
He has considerable experience in drafting and advocacy in matters that have gone before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal (both Civil and Criminal Divisions), the Divisional Court, Administrative Court, Queen’s Bench Division and other higher tribunals and courts. He has also represented individuals before first-instance and appeal tribunals, and before the Parole Board.
Before the Administrative Court Philip’s principal work is judicial review. He also has experience in pursuing applications for a writ of habeas corpus by the Part 8 claim process, seeking a certificate of inadequacy under the earlier proceeds of crime legislative schemes (i.e. the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (and as amended by the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995), and Drug Trafficking Act 1994), and conducting case stated appeals from the Magistrates’ and the Crown Courts.
Philip has acted in several Supreme Court cases that proceeded to a full hearing, and has drafted both written application, and respondent’s objection, submissions to the Supreme Court on a number of other occasions. Philip also has considerable experience of making applications directly to the European Court of Human Rights.
Philip is recognised for his skill in identifying legal issues of general public importance in the papers supplied to him. He relishes the challenge of addressing important or novel legal problems that arise in cases where the resolution of that issue offers potential benefit to his client.
Philip has experience of representing and advising those seeking licences, or appealing the loss of licences for work purposes providing door supervisor or taxi services, and liquor licensing. He also has some experience of inquest proceedings, and successful defence of automatic deportation proceedings pursuant to the UK Borders Act 2007.
Civil actions and other cases
A specialist in claims for unlawful imprisonment, negligent imprisonment, and violations of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to liberty). Philip also has also enjoyed considerable success in claims for violation of Art. 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life) particularly where detained persons have been denied family visitation rights.
Philip conducts civil claims for damages on behalf of former or serving prisoners or detained persons before the High Court and county court complaining of breaches of Articles of the ECHR, or of unlawful imprisonment at common law, and other actions. In 2009 Philip was the first advocate to secure compensation for a prisoner who was not released but whose parole hearing was delayed in violation of Art. 5(4) ECHR (through a successful judicial review claim).
In 2014 his notable cases have included settlement with the Treasury Solicitors for payment of damages to a client who was not immediately released from prison despite a Parole Board direction in the sum of 12,500. Philip also obtained a settlement of 2000 for another client in respect of a failure to provide him with inter-prison visits to enable visitation with his brother over an unreasonable period of time for which an Art. 8 ECHR claim was pursued.
Philip successfully established for the very first time a duty of care owed to a prisoner in the provision of Home Detention Curfew, and that as a result of negligent failure to administer and provide that HDC an award of damages may be made: McCreaner v MOJ [2014] EWHC 569 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 354, [2014] All ER (D) 77 (Mar)). That success involved persuading one High Court judge not to follow the example set by another High Court Judge in a previous claim. The proper level of damages was subsequently agreed with the Treasury Solicitors.
Philip’s work in 2014 has continued to push boundaries, and he successfully overturned on appeal a refusal to find that a delay to a prisoner’s move to open conditions had setback the return to liberty by that prisoner at the subsequent parole review: establishing that there is no impediment to such a claim for consequential delay in R (Parratt) v SSJ [2014] EWCA Civ 1478, [2014] All ER (D) 255 (Nov).
In 2013 Philip won an appeal at the Leeds County Court in relation to an Art. 8 ECHR claim concerning the prevention of a son visiting his father in a high-security prison, and the Judge on appeal awarded damages to both son and father.
Philip has represented claimants at full trial in multi-track actions against the police brought for assault, negligence or misfeasance.
He regularly advises as to quantum, and settles Particulars of Claim, including for personal injury, but more commonly in relation to unlawful detention or Article 8 ECHR infringements.
Philip conducts work that is privately-funded, publicly-funded, and under Conditional Fee Agreements in suitable cases.
Other elements of practice
In addition to his principal areas of practice some occasional types of work Philip has undertaken includes:
Led before the Supreme Court. Court found breach of the ancillary duty to progress indeterminate-sentence prisoners to release in violation of Art. 5 ECHR. Damages awarded.
Divisional Court. Established breach of public law duty by SSJ in failing to resource offending-behaviour work programmes. SSJ has not appealed against that finding. Permission to “leapfrog” appeal to Supreme Court was obtained.
Test for release from IPP sentences challenged. (The Court of Appeal decision was also reported at [2012] 3 WLR 476)
The Supreme Court re-instated the damages award made at first instance for breach of Art. 5(4) ECHR by delayed parole hearing leading to frustration but not delayed release. Philip acted alone at first instance: [2011] EWHC 938 (Admin). Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Divisional Court and Administrative Court.
Successful quashing of decision of the Parole Board and order for rehearing within specified time frame
Material considerations for the parole board and challenges to continued detention under the IPP scheme.
No breach of Articles 3, 5 or 14 ECHR in continued detention under IPP regime.
Judicial review of delayed provision of release on temporary licence, the public law duty owed to provide sufficient places in Approved Premises for release of indeterminate prisoners, and Equality Act 2010 duties and gender discrimination.
Court of Appeal rejected challenge to imprisonment as contrary to Art. 5 ECHR where IPP has been belatedly quashed on the basis the statutory criteria had never been met for its imposition.
Art. 5(4) ECHR breach in parole delay. Damages awarded for distress in sum 2500. Secretary of State’s cancellation of parole board hearing while offender being psychiatrically assessed breaching offender’s right to timely review – decision to cancel review taken unilaterally, undermining parole board’s status independent of executive and frustrating discharge of its art.5 functions.
Appeal successful in challenge to dismissal of claim for damages for Art. 5(4) ECHR breach. Judgement establishes the balance of probabilities test is appropriate to establishing consequential effect of loss of liberty at delayed previous hearing enabling move to open conditions.
Test case for breach of public law duty in lack of HSP sex-offender course provision. Declaration granted for breach of general provision duty required by the James public law duty. Question of mandatory relief adjourned for SSJ to show steps being taken to remedy. Remedies hearing: [2014] EWHC 4338 (Admin). Court remains seized of case to ensure Defendant meets his public law duty and the Court will determine the question of further relief in July 2015.
ECtHR. Application admitted and notice given to UK. Friendly settlement proposed for Art. 5(4) ECHR breach. Struck out upon unilateral declaration by the Government on the basis that the Government is paying an appropriate damages sum, but permission given to restore the case to the list if the Legal Aid Agency seeks to recoup from the client’s award of damages (that being the principal concern of the applicant otherwise not to accept the proposed settlement).
Court of Appeal grant of permission to judicially review detention on grounds challenging the length or continuation of detention pursuant to an IPP as a violation of Articles 3, 5(1) and/or 14 ECHR.
Alleged discrimination by LASPO 2012 against existing IPPs, contrary to HRA 1998. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal (Laws LJ). Application has been made to the ECHR.
SSJ breached public law duty to provide opportunity for prisoners serving indeterminate sentences to demonstrate to the Parole Board that it is no longer necessary for the public that they should remain in detention (delayed moves to open conditions), and unlawfully failed to publish his amended policy on transfer of prisoners to open prisons.
Challenge to the interpretation given to the sex offender notification requirements by the Hampshire Police. Challenged as breach of Art. 8 ECHR, and domestic legislative difference between decisions of Graham and Wiles determined. (Appeal confirmed Divisional Court’s decision: [2014] 1 WLR 179, CA. Application by the claimant for permission to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) refused by Supreme Court: [2014] 1 W.L.R. 1233, S.C).
Court of Appeal judgment the appeal was not in a “criminal cause or matter” and that jurisdiction properly lay from the Divisional Court’s judgment.
Court of Appeal judgment granting permission to proceed on ground (2) of the appeal from the Administrative Court against the dismissal of the claim concerning the test for release.
Categorisation decision (Category A) made by Director of High Security on the papers quashed – oral hearing ordered.
Judicial review claim challenging HDC scheme policy conditions and operation.
Successful claim for damages for violation of Art. 5(4) ECHR despite fact prisoner was not released or moved to open conditions.
Duties of police officers, breach of the peace, and resisting PC.
SSJ’s interpretation of his own policy for offering pre-tariff reviews only to those with over 3-year ‘tariff’.
Delayed parole hearing and delay before future parole hearing. Successful Art. 5(4) ECHR claim.
Challenge to dismissal of judicial review and habeas corpus application consequent upon Parole Board decision and challenging test to apply to release from IPP sentence.
The High Court has handed down judgment in R (DXK) v The Secretary of State…
The Turks and Caicos Islands Court of Appeal has allowed the appeal of three detainees…
At an oral hearing at the Administrative Court on 28 October 2020, listed to consider…
Philip has particular expertise in international human rights law.
Philip worked in the Cayman Islands in the summer of 2017, and is an attorney called to the Bar of the Cayman Islands. His work there included an action under the Bill of Rights and by way of judicial review successfully seeking an injunction to prevent the removal from the jurisdiction of a Jamaican man facing a charge of murder that raised the real risk of a death penalty being imposed. A diplomatic and prosecutorial assurance was sought from Jamaica to ensure the risk of a violation of the right to life guaranteed under the constitution of the Cayman Islands was removed. https://www.thelawyer.com/no5-chambers-philip-rule-obtains-injunction-protect-art-2-right-life-man-wanted-murder/
He was also instructed to settle judicial review proceedings seeking to quash the removal of a prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence taken to the UK many thousands of miles from his family to serve his sentence. This action also relies upon international human rights protections and constitutionally protected human rights. https://www.caymancompass.com/2017/10/04/second-murderer-challenges-removal-to-uk/
Philip’s skill in appellate work attracts instruction also in matters arising in a variety of other contexts that require the expertise of an appellate advocate. For example Philip was instructed by a leading US firm to settle an appeal application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in a matter arising in the context of copyright law, appealing from the Falkland Islands Court of Appeal.
Philip is an established specialist in matters raising issues under domestic and international human rights protections, invoking more than one international human rights instrument, cases affecting civil liberties, or raising questions of constitutional significance. He has established particular expertise in matters concerning the treatment of those subjected to detention or to imprisonment. His work also includes claims for discrimination concerning the protection of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. He has experience of advancing human rights arguments concerning international norms and Convention rights before the domestic courts and to courts outside the UK.
Philip has advised foreign-based companies, and private-client individuals, including a member of a well-known Gulf state Royal Family, in relation to criminal proceedings within England and Wales in which they have been involved or retained an interest in. This has included consideration of matters beyond the four walls of the courtroom and included advice upon issues of legal professional privilege, witness summonses, access to closed proceedings, and matters extending to management of publicity and press relations. He provides tailored and tactically astute guidance and advice to his clientele.
Philip was instructed by a Cuban national detained in the Cayman Islands and seeking advice and representation in relation to delays to processing of his asylum application, and concerning the conditions of immigration detention in which he was held. The issues concerned the Bill of Rights protections similar to, and familiar to those who have knowledge of, those found within the European Convention on Human Rights 1950.
Philip has been instructed to advise a person repatriated to the UK from a country in the Far East as to his human rights in relation to the length of sentence to be imposed within the UK following his transfer.
Philip’s public law work often involves cases that have a civil law and criminal law overlap or elements of both affecting the individual client, and he has expertise in conducting concurrent or sequential proceedings or litigation. He is comfortable in both the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the courts. In criminal assets recovery and confiscation work he has experience of dealing with assets held in multiple jurisdictions.
Philip is regularly instructed by firms based in the United States and Ontario, Canada, and is often sought out by commercial and business law solicitors or attorneys who require guidance on the practice of an area of law for an existing client with which they are not themselves yet familiar. He is friendly and approachable and happy to guide professional clients through practical and procedural steps relating to the English criminal law, or any other area in which a lay client may find themselves embroiled and requiring legal services.
Philip has recognised skill both as an advocate in oral submissions and in cross-examination, and in drafting pleadings. In the UK for example Philip has acted in several Supreme Court cases that proceeded to a full hearing, and has drafted both written applicant submissions and respondent’s objection submissions to the Supreme Court on a number of other occasions. Philip also has considerable experience of making applications directly to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Philip is recognised for his skill in identifying legal issues of general public importance in the papers supplied to him. He relishes the challenge of addressing important or novel legal problems that arise in cases where the resolution of that issue offers potential benefit to his client.
In addition to his skills in identifying and formulating legal argument and presentation of the same, Philip also has considerable trial experience involving evidential fact-finding and witness handling.
European Court of Human Rights
Kaiyam, Massey and Robinson v United Kingdom (Application no. 28160/15, 28103/15 and 28443/15) (12 January 2016) 62 E.H.R.R. SE13
Application concerning Article 5(1)(a) ECHR inadmissible: this decision establishes a higher threshold test is applied to arbitrariness or disproportionality in that particular violation in comparison to that which applies to the ancillary rehabilitative obligation within Article 5 ECHR generally that is recognised by UK law.
Minter v United Kingdom (application no. 62964/14) (2017) 65 E.H.R.R. SE6
Application communicated by the Court to the Government on 15 December 2015. Concerns Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR.
Bayliss v United Kingdom (Application no. 440/10) (10 June 2014)
Unilateral declaration and so-called ‘friendly settlement’ obtained from Government (Article 5(4) ECHR violation)
On that basis case removed from list but “the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration or should the Legal Aid Agency seek to recover, against the award made in the present decision, sums paid by way of legal aid in the domestic proceedings, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 372 of the Convention”
In 2014 his notable cases have included a significant settlement with the Government’s Treasury Solicitors for payment of damages to a client who was not immediately released from prison despite a Parole Board direction. Philip also obtained a monetary settlement for another client in respect of a failure to provide him with inter-prison visits to enable visitation with his brother over an unreasonable period of time for which an Art. 8 ECHR claim was pursued.
In 2013 Philip won an appeal at the Leeds County Court in relation to an Art. 8 ECHR claim concerning the prevention of a son visiting his father in a high-security prison, and the Judge on appeal awarded damages to both son and father.
Philip has represented claimants at full trial in multi-track actions against the police brought for assault, negligence or misfeasance.
He regularly advises as to quantum, and settles Particulars of Claim, including for personal injury, but more commonly in relation to unlawful detention or Article 8 ECHR infringements.
Point of law of general public importance certified: [2014] EWCA Crim 1582 (Treacy LJ presiding). Queen’s Counsel was instructed to draft the notice of objection for the Crown in reply to Philip’s application but permission was granted in February 2015 (UKSC 2014/0207). The Secretary of State intervened in the proceedings. The appeal determines the application of the rule of “lex mitior” in English law and Article 7 ECHR in its application to sentences of IPP imposed post-abolition date.
Led before the Supreme Court. Court found breach of the ancillary duty to progress indeterminate-sentence prisoners to release in violation of Art. 5 ECHR. Damages awarded.
Divisional Court. Established breach of public law duty by Secretary of State in failing to resource offending-behaviour work programmes. Permission to “leapfrog” appeal to Supreme Court was obtained.
Test for release from IPP sentences challenged
(The Court of Appeal decision was also reported at [2012] 3 WLR 476)
The Supreme Court re-instated the damages award made at first instance for breach of Art. 5(4) ECHR by delayed parole hearing leading to frustration but not delayed release. Philip acted alone at first instance: [2011] EWHC 938 (Admin).
Application to appeal against murder conviction on the basis that the diminished responsibility burden is contrary to the presumption of innocence and Art. 6 ECHR.
Point of law of general importance certified by Hughes LJ V-P, as he then was.
Supreme Court refused permission to appeal (UKSC 2013/0157).
Considering written submissions the Supreme Court refused permission to the Prosecution to appeal against this decision in which Philip successfully obtained the quashing of a confiscation order imposed upon a landlord who had breached a regulatory requirement (UKSC 2013/0020).
Application for habeas corpus allowed, application for judicial review dismissed. Concerns days in custody pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant and the application of s243 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Judicial review of delayed provision of release on temporary licence, the public law duty owed to provide sufficient places in Approved Premises for release of indeterminate prisoners, and Equality Act 2010 duties and gender discrimination.
ECHR breach in parole delay. Damages awarded for distress. Secretary of State’s cancellation of parole board hearing while offender being psychiatrically assessed breaching offender’s right to timely review – decision to cancel review taken unilaterally, undermining parole board’s status independent of executive and frustrating discharge of its art.5 functions.
Judgment establishes the balance of probabilities test is appropriate to establishing consequential effect of loss of liberty at delayed previous hearing enabling move to open conditions.
Test case for breach of public law duty in lack of HSP sex-offender course provision. Declaration granted for breach of general provision duty required by the James public law duty. Question of mandatory relief adjourned for SSJ to show steps being taken to remedy. Remedies hearing: [2014] EWHC 4338 (Admin). Court remains seized of case to ensure Defendant meets his public law duty and the Court will determine the question of further relief in July 2015.
Struck out upon unilateral declaration by the Government on the basis that the Government is paying an appropriate damages sum, but permission given to restore the case to the list if the Legal Aid Agency seeks to recoup from the client’s award of damages (that being the principal concern of the applicant otherwise not to accept the proposed settlement).
Court of Appeal grant of permission to judicially review detention on grounds challenging the length or continuation of detention pursuant to an IPP as a violation of Articles 3, 5(1) and/or 14 ECHR.
Divisional Court. Alleged discrimination by LASPO 2012 against existing IPPs, contrary to HRA 1998. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal (Laws LJ). Application has been made to the ECHR.
SSJ breached public law duty to provide opportunity for prisoners serving indeterminate sentences to demonstrate to the Parole Board that it is no longer necessary for the public that they should remain in detention (delayed moves to open conditions), and unlawfully failed to publish his amended policy on transfer of prisoners to open prisons.
Divisional Court. Challenge to the interpretation given to the sex offender notification requirements by the Hampshire Police. Challenged as breach of Art. 8 ECHR, and domestic legislative difference between decisions of Graham and Wiles determined. (Appeal confirmed Divisional Court’s decision: [2014] 1 WLR 179, CA. Application by the claimant for permission to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) refused by Supreme Court: [2014] 1 W.L.R. 1233, S.C).
Divisional Court. Challenge to the interpretation given to the sex offender notification requirements by the Hampshire Police. Challenged as breach of Art. 8 ECHR, and domestic legislative difference between decisions of Graham and Wiles determined. (Appeal confirmed Divisional Court’s decision: [2014] 1 WLR 179, CA. Application by the claimant for permission to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) refused by Supreme Court: [2014] 1 W.L.R. 1233, S.C).
Philip successfully established for the very first time a duty of care owed to a prisoner in the provision of Home Detention Curfew release, and that as a result of negligent failure to administer and provide that HDC an award of damages may be made: McCreaner v MOJ [2014] EWHC 569 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 354, [2014] All ER (D) 77 (Mar)). That success involved persuading one High Court judge not to follow the example set by another High Court Judge in a previous claim. The proper level of damages was subsequently agreed with the Treasury Solicitors.
Philip’s work in 2014 has continued to push boundaries, and he successfully overturned on appeal a refusal to find that a delay to a prisoner’s move to open conditions had setback the return to liberty by that prisoner at the subsequent parole review: establishing that there is no impediment to such a claim for consequential delay in R (Parratt) v SSJ [2014] EWCA Civ 1478, [2014] All ER (D) 255 (Nov).
Court of Appeal judgment the appeal was not in a “criminal cause or matter” and that jurisdiction properly lay from the Divisional Court’s judgment.
Case tried prior to CA ruling indicating trial judge’s directions wrong in law. Conviction quashed by Court of Appeal.
Appeal against murder conviction on the basis that the diminished responsibility burden is contrary to the presumption of innocence and Art. 6 ECHR. A certificate of general public importance was granted by the Court of Appeal (Hughes LJ V-P, as he then was, presiding). Application was submitted to the Supreme Court but permission refused to appeal.
appeal against sentence allowed. Minimum term (“tariff”) for murder reduced from 14 years to 11 years.
Philip is repeatedly instructed as first and sole counsel in murder defences and in each case he successfully secured extension for Queen’s Counsel to lead him at trial. He has been instructed as the junior advocate to defend in murder cases by five different firms with whom he regularly worked, in recognition of his skill and his diligent work for all his clients.
One of two trials in which eight defendants were separated into groups of four to be tried. Allegation of conspiracy to murder from prison cell laid against client, and against one other prisoner alleged to be the ringleader, the offence committed by the use of two mobile telephones that has been used by both prisoners in the cell during lock-up time. The murder was committed by gunshot to the head of a young boy whose body was found burnt in the remains of a car set ablaze in south-east London the day before a trial was due concerning the client and the other alleged conspirators for conspiracy to supply firearms, the deceased being a co-accused who had given an unhelpful prepared statement to the police in his interview. Client’s cell-mate tried jointly along with him was convicted, but Philip’s client was not convicted.
Prisoner serving for murder accused of the murder of a fellow prisoner imprisoned at HMP Grendon Underwood therapeutic community prison. Two-week trial. Issue at trial was diminished responsibility.
Stabbing by co-habitee of multiple-occupancy hostel accommodation (Philip and his leader were compelled to withdraw from this case shortly before trial).
Reading Crown Court, before a High Court Judge. Double-murder charge concerning ex-partner and her adult son. Four-week trial. Client’s defence raised issues of intention, self-defence, provocation and diminished responsibility.
Reading Crown Court, one of two co-accused charged with both conspiracy to rob and with murder. The issue at trial was one of intention. Two-week trial.
Reading Crown Court, one of three co-accused charged with murder arising from an apparent attempted robbery of a drugs-den. Four-week trial.
A specialist in claims for unlawful imprisonment, negligent imprisonment, and violations of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to liberty). Philip has also enjoyed considerable success in claims for violation of Art. 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life) particularly where detained persons have been denied family visitation rights.
Philip conducts civil claims for damages on behalf of former or serving prisoners or detained persons before the High Court and county court complaining of breaches of Articles of the ECHR, or of unlawful imprisonment at common law, and other actions. In 2009 Philip was the first advocate in England and Wales to secure compensation for a prisoner who was not released but whose parole hearing was delayed in violation of Art. 5(4) ECHR (through a successful judicial review claim).
No5’s Philip Rule KC has been instructed on behalf of the Appellant in a case…
On 20 August 2020 and during the hearing of what was the third writ of…
The Court has reduced the minimum term of imprisonment to be served from 35 to…
An experienced inquest practitioner who acts for the families of the deceased as well as for organisations and public authorities (such as care providers), and has represented coroners in judicial review matters. Philip has expertise in representation at inquest, in bringing or defending judicial review, and applying to the Attorney General for a fiat to seek a fresh inquest.
His legal knowledge and attention to detail ensures that he works effectively to obtain the appropriate conclusions recorded. He has particular skill with a jury which he puts to effective use in his inquest practice. As well as his legal skills, Philip always seeks to bring to any case a humanity and understanding of the client’s concerns.
Philip advises and represents family members in complex and high-profile cases. He has acted for the family in cases that range from self-inflicted deaths in custody to unexplained or complex medical response and treatment deaths. He has particular expertise in cases engaging the investigative duty of the state arising by virtue of the positive obligations to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Many of the cases he is involved in concern deceased children or young adults.
He was instructed on behalf of the family of one of the deceased whose two-month long inquest was heard by the Chief Coroner concerning the terrorist attack at the Fishmongers’ Hall and London Bridge. That inquest raised important issues of systemic and operational matters engaging a multitude of public and private bodies, and a large number of recommendations followed in the Chief Coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report.
In addition, Philip is also instructed on behalf of care service providers in inquest proceedings, and therefore understands the workings of organisations that provide essential care to the elderly and disabled in the community (and benefits also from his work in the community care field also).
In a very unusual case Philip settled the proceedings and appeared before the Chancery Division of the High Court in a case concerning the Worcester Crematorium, a funeral care home and the representatives of a deceased person, seeking an injunction to prevent a funeral proceeding to enable a person suspected of a homicide offence and under police investigation to obtain a pathologist’s post-mortem of the body prior to its destruction.
Since 2016 Philip has regularly presented at No5’s Annual Inquest and Public Inquiries seminars.
He has a keen interest in legacy cases and transitional justice, and historic miscarriages of justice. Philip spoke at the joint Bar Council and Law Society conference in Bogota, Colombia, in 2019 on issues of public law accountability and judicial review. Philip has also spoken about continuing efforts to obtain a public inquiry into a murder and State collusion in Northern Ireland.
Philip has a particular interest in detention and the safeguarding of vulnerable individuals. His detailed knowledge of the procedures and policies applied to detention for instance in police stations, and in prisons and young offender institutions, is an advantage to him in inquest and inquiry work that concerns events and deaths in custody. However Philip’s attention to detail and analytical strengths make him a force also in cases concerning detailed medical issues and contests of expert opinion. He has been instructed in cases concerning ‘shaken baby syndrome’ as well as a wide variety of psychiatric conditions.
In other forms of inquiry, in 2017 Philip was instructed to advise the Chairman of a football association in the Caribbean in relation to an investigation by an anti-corruption commission concerning matters connected to the international investigations FIFA are undertaking into corruption and misappropriation of funds.
Philip was also instructed to advise the director of an organisation providing care and rehabilitation accommodation to remanded young boys facing a corporate manslaughter investigation following the drowning of one boy on a day trip conducted by the home.
West Sussex Coroner’s Court. Art. 2 inquest for family of a man who died of self-inflicted death whilst subject to the IPP sentence which is no longer a lawful sentence to receive and who had been told he was being recalled. PFD issued.
Croydon. For the mother of the deceased. Two-week inquest for family of 17 year-old girl, a Looked-After Child, who killed herself after series of local authority children’s and adolescent care and mental health services failings.
Bolton. Instructed for the family for a 2-week Article 2 inquest with a jury examining a death in custody at HMP Forest Bank. Jury found medical care failings contributed to death.
Judicial review proceedings before Administrative Court (King’s Bench Division of the High Court).
Represented family in relation to death in custody at HMP Isle of Wight. Two-week Article 2 ECHR inquest resulting in findings by jury of multiple failings by prison and healthcare services that contributed to the death of Mr MacNeil.
Judicial review challenge at the High Court to Coroner’s approach to various aspects of the inquest.
Junior counsel in the Court of Appeal in judicial review proceedings concerning the conduct of an inquest and the test for causation involving Art. 2 ECHR.
A jury has reached a decision that the IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) sentence handed…
Philip Rule KC was instructed by Will Whitaker of Bindmans Solicitors, assisted by Carmen Hall,…
A jury has returned a conclusion of suicide and of numerous failings by a prison…
View all related Inquests, Public Inquiries & Coronial Law (Public Law) news
Philip is instructed in a variety of regulatory and public law contexts, and has considerable experience and expertise in particular in:
(1) Judicial review proceedings, and appeals by way of case stated, predominantly for claimants, but also for local authorities and defendant companies;
(2) Injunctions proceedings;
(3) Proceeds of Crime Act confiscation proceedings and applications; and
(4) Cases involving human rights and environmental protections, with obligations and rights established in international treaties including in the EU
Charter, and ECHR Protocols, as well as relevant UN Conventions. His experience includes cases concerning gypsy and travellers’ rights brought before the Administrative Court.
In the planning and environmental law context Philip is particularly interested in the protection of the environment and of wildlife (aquatic, marine and land-based), pollution and waste disposal, and assurance of air and water quality conditions for both human and animal populations.
Philip has considerable experience amassed during over 19 years’ full time practice at the Bar. As well as public law and regulatory work, he has years of experience of both criminal and civil work and is able to provide tactical and practical advice where proceedings are concurrently running in different jurisdictions.
Philip has considerable experience in drafting and advocacy in matters that have gone before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal (both Civil and Criminal Divisions), the Divisional Court, Administrative Court, Queen’s Bench Division and other higher tribunals and courts. He also represents and advises individuals before tribunals and regulatory bodies; and has brought proceedings to the European Court of Human Rights.
Philip regularly presents seminars run by No5 and externally to solicitors and to events hosted by professional representative organisations.
Examples of Work Undertaken
Philip is a versatile and thorough advocate, with considerable experience of appellate proceedings, and particularly well-placed to be able to advise and represent where there are concurrent proceedings arising from events.
Philip has acted in several Supreme Court cases that proceeded to a full hearing, and has drafted submissions to the Supreme Court on a number of other occasions (both written applications, and respondent’s objections). He has appeared in the Supreme Court, and at all levels of the appellate system. He has drafted submissions and advised in relation to appeals to the Privy Council also.
Many of Philip’s appeal cases have involved points of law of general public importance, and are frequently subject to law report and inclusion in the leading textbooks.
Jurisdictional question concerning s18 SCA 1981; “clear and well-structured arguments”.
Minter v United Kingdom (application 62964/14) (2017) 65 E.H.R.R. SE6
Point of law of general public importance certified by Court of Appeal: [2014] EWCA Crim 1582. Queen’s Counsel was instructed to draft the notice of objection for the Crown in reply to Philip’s application for permission, but permission was granted in February 2015 (UKSC 2014/0207). The Secretary of State intervened in the proceedings. Philip presented oral submissions to the Supreme Court on an additional ground concerning discriminatory treatment.
Appeal against confiscation order allowed; rent obtained when offence committed contrary to s95 Housing Act 2004 not property obtained as a result of or in connection with the offence. Raised a number of novel legal arguments concerning the Proceeds of Crime Act regime, and its application to summary-only offences. The Supreme Court subsequently refused permission to the prosecutor to appeal against Philip’s success in this case.
Crimeline updater 294 [Commentary at 153 CL and J 86] [Regulations concerning private ambulances and sirens and blue lights; meaning of “ambulance” purposes]
Criminal Law Week CLW/06/32/04; Crimeline updater issue 181, case and commentary. [Interpretation of the legislation concerning street-trading motor vehicles. Philip acted for the appellant accused].
No5’s Philip Rule has been instructed on behalf of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment…
The Administrative Court shall today hear a permission application for a judicial review of the…
Much of Philip’s work on behalf of prisoners or accused persons is judicial review conducted before the Administrative and Divisional Court. He also regularly appears in the Court of Appeal, both the Civil and Criminal Divisions, in matters of appeal from judicial reviews concerning human rights, and in appeals against sentence or conviction.
Philip’s Public Law profile lists his most high-profile work on behalf of prisoners and others in judicial review. His Criminal Law page lists some of his criminal appeal successes.
Philip is also a specialist in civil claims for unlawful imprisonment, negligent imprisonment, and violations of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to liberty). Philip also has also enjoyed considerable success in claims for violation of Art. 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life) particularly where detained persons have been denied family visitation rights.
A specialist in claims for unlawful imprisonment, negligent imprisonment, and violations of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to liberty). Philip also has also enjoyed considerable success in claims for violation of Art. 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life) particularly where detained persons have been denied family visitation rights.
Philip conducts civil claims for damages on behalf of former or serving prisoners or detained persons before the High Court and county court complaining of breaches of Articles of the ECHR, or of unlawful imprisonment at common law, and other actions.
In 2016 Philip challenged the lawfulness of an indeterminate prisoner’s detention continued for a period after a parole board direction had been made for the prisoner’s release, on the basis of a lack of available space at a release hostel. The claim was settled with a payment of damages in the sum of 4,500, and a declaration of the breach of the duty to release by the Secretary of State (R (Langley) v SSJ).
In 2014 his notable cases have included settlement with the Treasury Solicitors for payment of damages to a client who was not immediately released from prison despite a Parole Board direction in the sum of 12,500. Philip also obtained a settlement of 2000 for another client in respect of a failure to provide him with inter-prison visits to enable visitation with his brother over an unreasonable period of time for which an Art. 8 ECHR claim was pursued.
Philip successfully established for the very first time a duty of care owed to a prisoner in the provision of Home Detention Curfew, and that as a result of negligent failure to administer and provide that HDC an award of damages may be made: McCreaner v MOJ [2014] EWHC 569 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 354, [2014] All ER (D) 77 (Mar)). That success involved persuading one High Court judge not to follow the example set by another High Court Judge in a previous claim. The proper level of damages was subsequently agreed with the Treasury Solicitors.
Philip’s work in 2014 continued to push boundaries, and he successfully overturned on appeal a refusal to find that a delay to a prisoner’s move to open conditions had setback the return to liberty by that prisoner at the subsequent parole review: establishing that there is no impediment to such a claim for consequential delay in R (Parratt) v SSJ [2014] EWCA Civ 1478, [2014] All ER (D) 255 (Nov).
In 2013 Philip won an appeal at the Leeds County Court in relation to an Art. 8 ECHR claim concerning the prevention of a son visiting his father in a high-security prison, and the Judge on appeal awarded damages to both son and father.
In 2009 Philip was the first advocate to secure compensation for a prisoner who was not released but whose parole hearing was delayed in violation of Art. 5(4) ECHR (through a successful judicial review claim).
Philip has represented claimants at full trial in multi-track actions against the police brought for assault, negligence or misfeasance.
He regularly advises as to quantum, and settles Particulars of Claim, including for personal injury, but more commonly in relation to unlawful detention or Article 8 ECHR infringements.
Philip conducts work that is privately-funded, publicly-funded, and occasionally under Conditional Fee Agreements in suitable cases.
Examples of work undertaken
Much of Philip’s work on behalf of prisoners or accused persons is judicial review conducted before the Administrative and Divisional Court. He also regularly appears in the Court of Appeal, both the Civil and Criminal Divisions, in matters of appeal from judicial reviews concerning human rights, and in appeals against sentence or conviction.
Philip’s Public Law profile lists his most high-profile work on behalf of prisoners and others in judicial review. His Criminal Law page lists some of his criminal appeal successes
Philip is also a specialist in civil claims for unlawful imprisonment, negligent imprisonment, and violations of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to liberty). Philip also has also enjoyed considerable success in claims for violation of Art. 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life) particularly where detained persons have been denied family visitation rights.
A specialist in claims for unlawful imprisonment, negligent imprisonment, and violations of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to liberty). Philip also has also enjoyed considerable success in claims for violation of Art. 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life) particularly where detained persons have been denied family visitation rights.
Philip conducts civil claims for damages on behalf of former or serving prisoners or detained persons before the High Court and county court complaining of breaches of Articles of the ECHR, or of unlawful imprisonment at common law, and other actions.
Philip worked in the Cayman Islands in the summer of 2017. His work there included a judicial review action seeking to quash the removal of a prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence taken to the UK many thousands of miles from his family to serve his sentence. This action also relies upon international human rights protections and constitutionally protected human rights. https://www.caymancompass.com/2017/10/04/second-murderer-challenges-removal-to-uk/
In 2016 Philip challenged the lawfulness of an indeterminate prisoner’s detention continued for a period after a parole board direction had been made for the prisoner’s release, on the basis of a lack of available space at a release hostel. The claim was settled with a payment of damages in the sum of 4,500, and a declaration of the breach of the duty to release by the Secretary of State (R (Langley) v SSJ).
In 2014 his notable cases have included settlement with the Treasury Solicitors for payment of damages to a client who was not immediately released from prison despite a Parole Board direction in the sum of 12,500. Philip also obtained a settlement of 2000 for another client in respect of a failure to provide him with inter-prison visits to enable visitation with his brother over an unreasonable period of time for which an Art. 8 ECHR claim was pursued.
Philip successfully established for the very first time a duty of care owed to a prisoner in the provision of Home Detention Curfew, and that as a result of negligent failure to administer and provide that HDC an award of damages may be made: McCreaner v MOJ [2014] EWHC 569 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 354, [2014] All ER (D) 77 (Mar)). That success involved persuading one High Court judge not to follow the example set by another High Court Judge in a previous claim. The proper level of damages was subsequently agreed with the Treasury Solicitors.
Philip’s work in 2014 continued to push boundaries, and he successfully overturned on appeal a refusal to find that a delay to a prisoner’s move to open conditions had setback the return to liberty by that prisoner at the subsequent parole review: establishing that there is no impediment to such a claim for consequential delay in R (Parratt) v SSJ [2014] EWCA Civ 1478, [2014] All ER (D) 255 (Nov).
In 2013 Philip won an appeal at the Leeds County Court in relation to an Art. 8 ECHR claim concerning the prevention of a son visiting his father in a high-security prison, and the Judge on appeal awarded damages to both son and father.
In 2009 Philip was the first advocate to secure compensation for a prisoner who was not released but whose parole hearing was delayed in violation of Art. 5(4) ECHR (through a successful judicial review claim).
Philip has represented claimants at full trial in multi-track actions against the police brought for assault, negligence or misfeasance.
He regularly advises as to quantum, and settles Particulars of Claim, including for personal injury, but more commonly in relation to unlawful detention or Article 8 ECHR infringements.
Philip conducts work that is privately-funded, publicly-funded, and occasionally under Conditional Fee Agreements in suitable cases.
Today the Supreme Court reveals its judgment on the question of the permissible approaches for…
Successful claim brought by innocent couple left living for eight years with the uncertainty and…
In a judgment handed down on 15 March 2023, the Divisional Court (Lady Justice Macur…
Philip has a wealth of experience in public law matters across a wide-range and variety. He has considerable experience in drafting and advocacy in matters that have gone before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal (both Civil and Criminal Divisions), the Divisional Court, Administrative Court, Queen’s Bench Division and other higher tribunals and courts. He has also represented and advised individuals before tribunals and regulatory bodies.
Philip’s public law work often involves cases that have a civil law and criminal law overlap or elements of both affecting the individual client, and he has expertise in conducting concurrent or sequential proceedings or litigation. Throughout practise he has also undertaken both civil law and criminal cases and he is experienced in those jurisdictions as well as within the Administrative Court. He frequently represents those with serious mental health issues and is familiar with a wide range of psychiatric and psychological issues, both as regards evidence of medical expertise and knowledge, and the applicable law.
Philip is a specialist in matters raising issues under the Human Rights Act 1998, those invoking wider international human rights instruments, affecting civil liberties, or raising questions of constitutional significance. His work also includes claims for discrimination placing reliance upon the protections of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 and the Equality Act 2010 in particular.
Before the Administrative Court Philip’s principal work is judicial review. He also has experience in pursuing applications for a writ of habeas corpus by the Part 8 claim process, and conducting case stated appeals from bodies including the Magistrates’ and the Crown Courts. He has established particular expertise in matters concerning the treatment of those subjected to detention or to imprisonment, with many reported cases in this field.
Philip has acted in several Supreme Court cases that proceeded to a full hearing, and has drafted submissions to the Supreme Court on a number of other occasions (both written applications, and respondent’s objections). Philip also has considerable experience of making applications directly to the European Court of Human Rights.
Philip is recognised for his skill in identifying legal issues of general public importance in the papers supplied to him. He relishes the challenge of addressing important or novel legal problems that arise in cases where the resolution of that issue offers potential benefit to his client.
In late 2017 before the Contract Review Board of the Legal Aid Agency Philip successfully argued against the termination of a legal aid contract for a breach of a fundamental term under the 2017 standard criminal contract. The Board reversed the decisions previously taken by the LAA and imposed a lesser sanction.
Philip advised the Chairman of a football association in the Caribbean in relation to an investigation by an anti-corruption commission concerning matters connected to the international investigations FIFA are undertaking into corruption and misappropriation of funds.
Philip has experience of representing and advising those seeking licences, or appealing the loss of licences for work purposes providing door supervisor or taxi services, and liquor licensing. He also has some experience of inquest proceedings, and successful defence of automatic deportation proceedings pursuant to the UK Borders Act 2007.
Philip worked in the Cayman Islands in the summer of 2017, and is an attorney called to the Bar of the Cayman Islands. His work there included an action under the Bill of Rights and by way of judicial review successfully seeking an injunction to prevent the removal from the jurisdiction of a Jamaican man facing a charge of murder that raised the real risk of a death penalty being imposed. A diplomatic and prosecutorial assurance was sought from Jamaica to ensure the risk of a violation of the right to life guaranteed under the constitution of the Cayman Islands was removed. https://www.thelawyer.com/no5-chambers-philip-rule-obtains-injunction-protect-art-2-right-life-man-wanted-murder/
He was also instructed to settle judicial review proceedings seeking to quash the removal of a prisoner serving a mandatory life sentence taken to the UK many thousands of miles from his family to serve his sentence. This action also relies upon international human rights protections and constitutionally protected human rights. https://www.caymancompass.com/2017/10/04/second-murderer-challenges-removal-to-uk/
Philip has settled proceedings and appeared before the Chancery Division of the High Court in a case concerning the Worcester Crematorium, a funeral care home and the representatives of a deceased person, seeking an injunction to prevent a funeral proceeding to enable a person suspected of a homicide offence and under police investigation to obtain a pathologist’s post-mortem of the body prior to its destruction.
Philip is currently instructed on behalf of the family of a deceased person seeking to secure a fresh inquest to comply with the state’s Article 2 ECHR investigative duties.
Civil actions and other cases
A specialist in claims for unlawful imprisonment, negligent imprisonment, and violations of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to liberty). Philip also has also enjoyed considerable success in claims for violation of Art. 8 of the ECHR (the right to respect for private and family life) particularly where detained persons have been denied family visitation rights.
In 2009 Philip was the first advocate to secure compensation for a prisoner who was not released but whose parole hearing was delayed in violation of Art. 5(4) ECHR (through a successful judicial review claim, R (Guntrip) v PB and SSJ). Philip successfully established for the very first time a duty of care owed to a prisoner in the provision of Home Detention Curfew, and that as a result of negligent failure to administer and provide that HDC an award of damages may be made: McCreaner v MOJ [2014] EWHC 569 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 354, [2014] All ER (D) 77 (Mar)). That success involved persuading one High Court judge not to follow the example set by another High Court Judge in a previous claim.
Other elements of practice
In addition to his principal areas of practice some occasional types of work Philip has undertaken includes:
Crimeline Updater 2014/103. Led before the Supreme Court. Court found breach of the ancillary duty to progress indeterminate-sentence prisoners to release in violation of Art. 5 ECHR. Damages awarded.
R (Sturnham) v Parole Board and SSJ (No. 2) [2013] 2 AC 254; [2013] UKSC 47; [2013] 3 WLR 281; [2013] 4 All E.R. 177; The Times, 1 August 2013
Test for release from IPP sentences challenged (The Court of Appeal decision was also reported at [2012] 3 WLR 476)
The Supreme Court re-instated the damages award made at first instance for breach of Art. 5(4) ECHR by delayed parole hearing leading to frustration but not delayed release. Philip acted alone at first instance: [2011] EWHC 938 (Admin).
Whether or not breach of Art. 5 ECHR by reason of arbitrariness in detention resulting from delays to course provision.
Application admitted and notice given to UK. Friendly settlement proposed for Art. 5(4) ECHR breach. Struck out upon unilateral declaration by the Government on the basis that the Government is paying an appropriate damages sum, but permission given to restore the case to the list if the Legal Aid Agency seeks to recoup from the client’s award of damages (that being the principal concern not to accept the proposed settlement).
Successful inter-partes application for injunction (and its extension) to prevent the removal from the jurisdiction of a Jamaican man facing a charge of murder that raised the real risk of a death penalty being imposed.
Appeal from judicial review proceedings alleging that as a consequence of the duration of detention and/or amendment to the IPP sentencing regime, continued detention was in breach of the ECHR.
Concerns an application for a prisoner’s release on compassionate grounds. Considers the requirements of procedural fairness including (i) disclosure, (ii) participation, and (iii) the possibility for an oral hearing before the decision-maker.
Challenge to the Secretary of State’s failure to consult or to exercise a power to alter the release test for IPP prisoners to address unfairness and failings with that type of sentence.
Judicial review of test of causation and procedure in an Art. 2 ECHR inquest.
(2016) C.L. and J. 180 (35), [2016] All ER (D) 38 (Sep) Whether, deciding not to re-release a prisoner, the Board had: (1) failed to apply the presumption in favour of release, (2) allowed an inference of assault against his ex-partner to inform its risk assessment unduly, and (3) irrationally concluded that, inter alia, he posed a high risk of harm to his ex-partner.
Successful quashing of decision of the Parole Board and order for rehearing within specified timeframe
Category A prisoners and rehabilitation opportunity
Material considerations for the parole board and challenges to continued detention under the IPP scheme.
No breach of Articles 3, 5 or 14 ECHR in continued detention under IPP regime
Judicial review of delayed provision of release on temporary licence, the public law duty owed to provide sufficient places in Approved Premises for release of indeterminate prisoners, and Equality Act 2010 duties and gender discrimination.
Court of Appeal rejected challenge to imprisonment as contrary to Art. 5 ECHR where IPP has been belatedly quashed on the basis the statutory criteria had never been met for its imposition
Art. 5(4) ECHR breach in parole delay. Damages awarded for distress in sum 2500. Secretary of State’s cancellation of parole board hearing while offender being psychiatrically assessed breaching offender’s right to timely review – decision to cancel review taken unilaterally, undermining parole board’s status independent of executive and frustrating discharge of its art.5 functions.
The High Court has handed down judgment in R (DXK) v The Secretary of State…
…where the CCRC refers a conviction appeal following a guilty plea at the magistrates’ court…
Today the Supreme Court reveals its judgment on the question of the permissible approaches for…
Philip is instructed in a variety of regulatory contexts and has considerable experience and expertise in judicial review including matters concerning regulatory decisions and tribunals. He has also written extensively on various regulatory topics.
Philip has considerable experience amassed during over 18 years’ full-time practice at the Bar. As well as regulatory work, he has years of experience of both criminal and civil work and has been appointed to various bodies’ lists of counsel maintained for prosecution, for criminal defence, and for inquest and civil work.
Philip regularly presents seminars on relevant topics, including at No5’s annual Regulatory Law Seminars, and externally to solicitors and to events hosted by professional representative organisations.
Examples of recent work undertaken
Philip is a versatile and thorough advocate, with considerable experience of criminal, civil, regulatory and appellate proceedings and particularly well-placed to be able to advise and represent where there are concurrent proceedings arising from the subject matter events. He also appears before disciplinary tribunals and at inquests, and in Court of Protection matters (relevant to the work of the Care Quality Commission and its regulatory functions).
Philip has acted in several Supreme Court cases that proceeded to a full hearing and has drafted submissions to the Supreme Court on a number of other occasions (both written applications, and respondent’s objections). He has appeared in the Supreme Court, and at all levels of the appellate system. He has drafted submissions and advised in relation to appeals to the Privy Council also.
Many of Philip’s appeal cases have involved points of law of general public importance and are frequently subject to law report and inclusion in the leading textbooks.
Before the Contract Review Board of the Legal Aid Agency Philip has successfully argued against the termination of a legal aid contract for a breach of a fundamental term under the 2017 standard criminal contract. The Board reversed the decisions previously taken by the LAA and imposed a lesser sanction.
Philip has advised the Chairman of a football association in the Caribbean in relation to an investigation by an anti-corruption commission concerning matters connected to the international investigations FIFA are undertaking into corruption and misappropriation of funds.
Philip was also instructed to advise the director of an organisation providing care and rehabilitation accommodation to remanded young boys who is facing a corporate manslaughter investigation following the drowning of one boy on a day trip conducted by the home.
Philip has acted for a member of the royal family of a significant Arab state in relation to proceedings occurring in the UK and on behalf of a company operating in the Falkland Islands in relation to a dispute with the government.
At the other end of the scale, and equally thorough and tenacious in his approach, Philip has for example been instructed to defend a company and director facing allegations of breach of a noise abatement notice. Philip has experience of advising and representation in relation to licensing applications; appeals concerning the Security Industry Authority (door supervisors, etc); taxi licensing; and liquor licensing appeals.
Philip is also instructed in professional conduct and discipline matters.
Divisional Court
Quashing of a decision not to prosecute a police officer for perverting the course of justice and perjury [Philip instructed to act for the successful claimant]
Point of law of general public importance certified by Court of Appeal: [2014] EWCA Crim 1582. Queen’s Counsel was instructed to draft the notice of objection for the Crown in reply to Philip’s application for permission, but permission was granted in February 2015 (UKSC 2014/0207). The Secretary of State intervened in the proceedings. The appeal determined the application of the rule of “lex mitior” in English law and Article 7 ECHR. Philip presented oral submissions to the Supreme Court on an additional ground concerning discriminatory treatment.
Appeal against conviction concerning the exclusion of an alleged confession. The Court quashed the conviction. Philip successfully established the exclusion required of unfairly obtained evidence in breach of standards of conduct.
Unfairness resulting from flawed processes for conducting identification procedures. Philip successfully established the need for review and revision of a code for viewing CCTV evidence by police officers, and the appeal was allowed.
Leading Ramya Nagesh, No5. Successful appeal against conviction for an offence of breach of a non-molestation order contrary to section 42A of the Family Law Act 1996.
Appeal against confiscation order allowed; rent obtained when offence committed contrary to s95 Housing Act 2004 not property obtained as a result of or in connection with the offence. Raised a number of novel legal arguments concerning the Proceeds of Crime Act regime, and its application to summary-only offences. The Supreme Court subsequently refused permission to the prosecutor to appeal against Philip’s success in this case.
Duties of police officers, breach of the peace, and resisting a constable. Instructed by the Crown.
Regulations concerning private ambulances and sirens and blue lights; meaning of “ambulance” purposes.
Interpretation of the legislation concerning street-trading motor vehicles. Philip acted for the appellant accused.
Successful claim brought by innocent couple left living for eight years with the uncertainty and…
On 6th and 7th February 2023 the Administrative Court heard the judicial review of the…
In a judgment urgently handed-down on 9 August 2022 (R (Bailey) v SSJ [2022] EWHC…
Uncategorised
We are delighted to announce that following the successful completion of their pupillage, Anna Stein, Samuel Leach, Matthew Wyatt, Mirren Gidda and Tutku Bektas have…
On Friday 16 August 2024, following the urgent judicial review proceedings and interim relief application brought by the Prisoners’ Advice Service, instructing Philip Rule KC…
"He has outstanding knowledge and tactical ability and provides excellent client service."
"He is very committed to his clients and always willing to go the extra mile. His performances in court are always whole hearted even when the court is obviously against him."
"Possibly the most enthusiastic barrister I know. He really does go the extra mile for his clients." "He's an excellent advocate who provides in-depth insights."
"Philip is quick thinking on his feet. He is a very good tactical thinker, and able to utilise this effectively in written advice and in advocacy. He has strong attention to detail, which is particularly important in factually knotty cases."
"Philip is reliable, approachable, has a good rapport with clients, obtains positive outcomes and receives subsequent requests for representation by returning clients."
"Philip is an incredibly bright and talented advocate who is absolutely fearless in court."
"Philip is my first choice of counsel in all serious and complex criminal defence cases. His attention to detail, astute advocacy, calming way with clients and thorough written legal argument are better than any other counsel I instruct."
"Absolutely fantastic in his work. His written work is flawless, his advice creative and with deep understanding of novel points of law. Instructing solicitors have been very impressed and would jump at the chance to instruct him again."
"…He is very committed to his clients and always willing to go the extra mile…"
"He's very committed and great at turning round urgent work"
"…He is very committed to his clients and always willing to go the extra mile. His performances in court are always whole hearted..."
Regulatory/Licensing
Proceeds of Crime
Prison law and Sentencing
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
Others
Uncategorised
We are delighted to announce that following the successful completion of their pupillage, Anna Stein, Samuel Leach, Matthew Wyatt, Mirren Gidda and Tutku Bektas have…
On Friday 16 August 2024, following the urgent judicial review proceedings and interim relief application brought by the Prisoners’ Advice Service, instructing Philip Rule KC…
