No5 Barristers' Chambers - Excellence is at the heart of everything we do.
Background

Philip Rule KC

Head of Public Law

Call: 2001 | Silk: 2023

"He has outstanding knowledge and tactical ability and provides excellent client service."

Chambers UK 2023

"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."

Legal 500 2023

"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."

Chambers UK 2023 (Administrative and Public Law)

"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."

Chambers UK 2023

"Philip is reliable, approachable, has a good rapport with clients, obtains positive outcomes and receives subsequent requests for representation by returning clients."

Legal 500 2023

Philip Rule KC is head of the Public Law Group at No5.

Expertise

Animal Law

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.

Related News, Resources and Events

No5’s Philip Rule has been instructed on behalf of PETA in its ongoing dispute with the Ministry of Defence

No5’s Philip Rule has been instructed on behalf of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment…

Humane Being challenge in High Court today. No5’s Philip Rule acts on behalf of the claimant

The Administrative Court shall today hear a permission application for a judicial review of the…

View all related Animal Law news

Civil Liberties & Human Rights

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.

Notable Civil Liberties & Human Rights Cases


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.


R (Dean Pearce) -v- The Parole Board of England & Wales [2023] A.C. 807, Supreme Court

Minter v United Kingdom (application 62964/14) (2017) 65 E.H.R.R. SE6

Massey v United Kingdom (application (28160/15) (2016) 62 E.H.R.R. SE13

R (Sturnham) v Parole Board and SSJ (Nos. 1 and 2) [2013] 2 AC 254, Supreme Court

Related News, Resources and Events

R (on the application of DXK) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 579 (Admin)

The High Court has handed down judgment in R (DXK) v The Secretary of State…

Supreme Court judgment handed down in R (Pearce) v Parole Board

Today the Supreme Court reveals its judgment on the question of the permissible approaches for…

Claimant v Metropolitan Police

Successful claim brought by innocent couple left living for eight years with the uncertainty and…

View all related Civil Liberties & Human Rights news

Community Care

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.

Related News, Resources and Events

R (on the application of DXK) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 579 (Admin)

The High Court has handed down judgment in R (DXK) v The Secretary of State…

HP v Greenwich judicial review allowed

On 31 March 2023 the Administrative Court (sitting at Leeds) allowed the judicial review claim…

High Court finds unlawful denial of accommodation to putative minors by London Borough of Brent

Poole J, sitting in the Administrative Court, has today allowed the judicial review claims brought…

View all related Community Care news

Court of Protection

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:

  • advising on appeal from the mental health tribunal
  • employment Tribunal work (for applicants pro bono and privately-funded),
  • licensing applications appeals concerning the Security Industry Authority, and liquor licensing appeals,
  • appeals before the Immigration Tribunal against automatic deportation following criminal conviction (relying on Art. 8 ECHR grounds, successful before the Upper Tier),
  • personal injury claims for injuries caused by assault or misfeasance by police or prison officers,
  • hearings before QBD Masters, civil actions against the police before Circuit Judges, and against prisons or the Ministry of Justice before the High Court.

Related News, Resources and Events

No5’s Public Law Group are delighted with the 2022 Legal 500 rankings

No5’s Public Law Group are delighted with the 2022 Legal 500 rankings and extend their…

No5 Barristers shortlisted for national award

Two counsel from No5 Barristers’ Chambers have been shortlisted in the Barrister of the Year…

View all related Court of Protection news

Crime

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:

  • Murder cases: Appeals and trials
  • Supreme Court criminal cases
  • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) including CCRC reference work
  • Judicial Review in criminal cases and Appeals by way of case stated
  • Criminal first-instance work

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):

  • R v P, Winchester Crown Court, trial. Defended man who walked naked into the home of strangers during a psychotic episode.
  • R v N, Guildford Crown Court. One-week trial. Defended man accused of sexual offences against relation in 1970s. Acquitted.
  • R v Hathaway, Reading Crown Court. Three-week trial. Defending a mother accused of neglect of her infant alongside the manslaughter charge against her husband arising from the same incident and sequence of events. Four types or categories of expertise concerning Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and medical conditions and examinations were involved in the trial. Philip secured the services of a QC to lead. Acquitted.
  • R v Simonson and others, Reading Crown Court. Five-handed conspiracy to supply and import drugs worth 1.5million (six-week trial). Philip secured a representation extension to allow Queen’s Counsel to lead. Philip represented the client alone at a four-day contested confiscation proceeding at which the Crown’s application was rejected by the Judge at ‘half-time’ on the basis of legal argument concerning the ‘courier’ role ascribed to the client and POCA provisions.
  • R v Niazi, Kingston Crown Court. Eight-defendant people-smuggling conspiracy (conspiracy to facilitate illegal entry to United Kingdom) and money laundering case. Concerning trafficking of Afghans into the UK through several channels in Europe. The case went to retrial and eventually the case was discontinued against the client, whose brother was convicted.
  • DWP v Hawes, conspiracy to defraud, 3-hander, 2-week trial at Oxford Crown Court. Postmistress of previous good character acquitted of defraud of 100,000 of benefits processed for just two customers over the course of less than one year.
  • R v Butt, sexual touching of child, 4-days of trial before acquittal upon no case to answer submission.
  • R v Houghton, death by dangerous driving. Aylesbury Crown Court. Bus driver knocked down and killed an elderly woman on a zebra crossing. Four days of trial, acquitted upon submission at half-time.
  • R v Kamil Mandes, Aylesbury Crown Court. Death by dangerous driving single-count indictment. Private-hire driver drove on wrong side of road for 1.5 miles, involved in head-on collision killing other driver. Automatism defence raised (“micro-sleep” issues), and issue whether careless or dangerous. First jury (5-day trial) unable to decide, unanimously acquitted at retrial (4-days). The Crown had rejected an offer of a plea to death by careless driving prior to the first trial.
  • R v Saunders, rape, Harrow Crown Court, five days, acquitted.
  • R v Gallagher, Winchester Crown Court, two-week trial. Benefits fraud (reported in tabloids)
  • R v Latus and others, 3-hander, possession with intent to supply class A, Winchester Crown Court. Two-week trial.
  • R v Rigby large-scale E-bay fraud involving six defendants, Oxford Crown Court. All others pleaded on first day. Philip’s client was acquitted after a 7-day trial.
  • R v Morgans, Reading Crown Court, 2-week trial, arson with intent to endanger life.
  • R v Donaldson, arson with intent to endanger life. Five days. Wood Green Crown Court. Philip prosecuted this trial. Convicted relying on facial mapping evidence.
  • R v Gregory, sexual penetration, Wood Green Crown Court. Philip was prosecuting. Convicted despite complainant denying her original statement.
  • R v Tesfamichael and Tesfamariam, conspiracy to defraud, 6-days, Wood Green Crown Court. Prosecuting: convicted.
  • R v Lyefook death by dangerous driving trial at Wood Green Crown Court (12 days). Prosecuting: convicted. Sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment.
  • R v Cheng, death by dangerous driving, five-days. Prosecuting: convicted. Conviction upheld on appeal also.
  • R v Phaedonos, possession with intent to supply class A worth 30,000, eight days. Prosecuting: convicted.
  • R v Syedzadah death by careless driving trial. Croydon Crown Court. 5-days. Prosecuting.
  • R v Mathieson, death by uninsured driving trial (6-days). Identification issue. Snaresbrook Crown Court. Prosecuting: convicted. The maximum two-year sentence was imposed. An appeal was lodged and Philip drafted the Respondent’s notice. The Court of Appeal refused permission and the appellant did not renew.

Notable Crime Cases


R v Wilcocks (No.2) [2017] 4 WLR 39; [2017] 1 Cr App R 23; [2017] 1 Archbold Review 3; CLW/17/02/3; Arch. 19-63; 19-91 (guidance as to “general capacity for tolerance or self-restraint” in section 54(3) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009)

R v Wilcocks [2015]

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.


R v Wilson – appeal against sentence for murder in 2000; sentenced in 2005.

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.


R v Edwards

Appeal against conviction for murder following Guilty plea. Appeal on basis of unexplored diminished responsibility and provocation defences. Appeal lodged.


R v Foye [2013] EWCA Crim 475; (2013) 177 JP 449; [2013] Crim LR 839 (Andrew Ashworth QC); [2013] M.H.L.R. 182; [2013] All ER (D) 248 (Apr)

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.


Lotto Williams [2011] EWCA Crim 1889

Appeal against sentence allowed. Minimum term (“tariff”) for murder reduced from 14 years to 11 years.


R v Thompson, Old Bailey.

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.


R v Wilcocks

Liverpool Crown Court. Re-trial for murder of young girlfriend by strangulation. Defences of loss of control (new law) and diminished responsibility.


R v Foye

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.


R v Ghani

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).


R v Roszavolgyi

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.


R v Mustafa

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.


R v Williams

Reading Crown Court, one of three co-accused charged with murder arising from an apparent attempted robbery of a drugs-den. Four-week trial.


R v Docherty [2016] UKSC 62; [2017] 1 WLR 181; [2017] 1 Cr.App.R.(S) 31 (234); [2017] 4 All E.R. 263; [2017] 1 Archbold Review 5; (2017) 81 J.C.L. 232.

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.


R v Foye

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).


London Borough of Newham v Sumal and Sons

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).


R (Massey, Robinson, Haney, and Kaiyam) v SSJ [2015] 2 WLR 76; [2014] UKSC 66; The Times, 15 December 2014; [2014] All ER (D) 114 (Dec); Crimeline Updater 2014/103

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; and R (Sturnham); R (Faulkner) v Parole Board and SSJ [2013] 2 AC 254; [2013] UKSC 23; [2013] 2 W.L.R. 1157; [2013] 2 All E.R. 1013; [2013] H.R.L.R. 24; (2013) 157(18) S.J.L.B. 31; The Times, 4 June 2013.

R. v. Knights (Secretary of State for Justice intervening) [2017] 2 Cr App R (S) 33 (288); [2017] EWCA Crim 1052.

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.


R (Shields-McKinley) v Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor [2017] EWHC 658 (Admin); [2017] 1 W.L.R. 3705; [2017] 2 Cr App R (S) 17 (113); [2017] A.C.D. 64 (190); [2017] Crim LR 809; [2017] All ER (D) 22 (Apr)

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.


R v Younas [2017] EWCA Crim 1; [2017] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 44

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]


R v Pacurar [2016] EWCA Crim 569; [2016] 1 WLR 3913; [2016] 2 Cr App R 26; [2016] 6 Archbold Review 3; 181 J.P. 186; (2016) 160 (19) S.J. 37; [2016] All ER (D) 216 (Apr); CLW 16/19/3

Whether it is necessary to specify the intended sexual offence in an allegation of trespass with intent to commit a relevant sexual offence.


R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92; [2016] 2 Cr App R 10; (2016) 180 J.P. 252; [2016] 4 Archbold Review 3; 166 N.L.J. 7701(7) [instructed privately initially, only on appeal] Leading Ramya Nagesh.

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.


R v Roberts and 12 others [2016] EWCA Crim 71; [2016] 1 WLR 3249; [2016] 2 Cr App R (S) 14; [2016] Crim LR 510; (2016) 80 J.C.L. 157; [2016] 4 Archbold Review 3; [2016] Crim LR 797 (comment).

[Instructed privately for W, only on appeal] Guideline case issued by the Lord Chief Justice concerning out-of-time IPP (indeterminate imprisonment for public protection) sentence appeals.


R v Wilson

Application to appeal ten years out of time against sentence for murder [instructed only on appeal]


R v Morgans [2016] 3 Archbold Review 3

Appeal against conviction for arson with intent to endanger life. Good character direction not given.


R v G.J.D [2015] EWCA Crim 599 (17th February 2015)

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]


R v Clark [2014] EWCA Crim 2930; [2015] M.H.L.R. 527

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.


R v Gibson [2014] EWCA Crim 2579

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]


R v Docherty [2014] 2 Cr App R (S) 76; [2014] EWCA Crim 1197; Crimeline updater 2014/55; [2014] All ER (D) 184 (Jun) Art. 7 ECHR and lex mitior

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]


Related News, Resources and Events

Claimant v Metropolitan Police

Successful claim brought by innocent couple left living for eight years with the uncertainty and…

Divisional Court gives guidance on the procedure to be followed by the Crown Court

…where the CCRC refers a conviction appeal following a guilty plea at the magistrates’ court…

Philip Rule KC instructed in Privy Council joint enterprise appeal from the Bahamas

No5’s Philip Rule KC has been instructed on behalf of the Appellant in a case…

View all related Crime news

Immigration, Asylum & Nationality

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:

  • advising on appeal from the mental health tribunal
  • employment Tribunal work (for applicants pro bono and privately-funded),
  • licensing applications appeals concerning the Security Industry Authority, and liquor licensing appeals,
  • appeals before the Immigration Tribunal against automatic deportation following criminal conviction (relying on Art. 8 ECHR grounds, successful before the Upper Tier),
  • personal injury claims for injuries caused by assault or misfeasance by police or prison officers, hearings before QBD Masters, civil actions against the police before Circuit Judges, and against prisons or the Ministry of Justice before the High Court.

Notable Immigration, Asylum & Nationality Cases


R (Massey, Robinson, Haney, and Kaiyam) v SSJ [2015] 2 WLR 76; [2015] 2 All ER 822; (2014) 38 BHRC 313; The Times, 15 December 2014; 179 CJ and J 244 and 317; [2014] All ER (D) 114 (Dec); 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 (Massey and Robinson) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 3777 (Admin); [2013] All ER (D) 253 (Dec)

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.


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)


R (Sturnham); R (Faulkner) v Parole Board and SSJ [2013] 2 AC 254; [2013] UKSC 23; [2013] 2 W.L.R. 1157; [2013] 2 All E.R. 1013; [2013] H.R.L.R. 24; (2013) 157(18) S.J.L.B. 31; The Times, 4 June 2013

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.


R (Tait) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 2953 (Admin)

R (Davies) v Parole Board (14 May 2015; Collins J.)

Successful quashing of decision of the Parole Board and order for rehearing within specified time frame


R (Stevenson) v HMP Wakefield and SSJ [2015] EWHC 1014 (Admin); [2015] All ER (D) 348 (Mar)

R (Dunn) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 858 (Admin)

R (Hall), R (Koselka) v Parole Board [2015] EWHC 252 (Admin); [2015] A.C.D. 69; [2015] All ER (D) 145 (Feb)

Material considerations for the parole board and challenges to continued detention under the IPP scheme.


R (Knights), R (O’Brien) v SSJ and Parole Board [2015] EWHC 136 (Admin); [2015] A.C.D. 68 (184); [2015] All ER (D) 112 (Feb)

No breach of Articles 3, 5 or 14 ECHR in continued detention under IPP regime.


R (Dilks) v SSJ and Probation Service [2015] EWHC 11 (Admin); [2015] All ER (D) 93 (Jan)

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.


R (Bayliss) v Parole Board and SSJ [2014] EWCA Civ 1631; [2014] All ER (D) 184 (Dec)

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.


R (Guntrip) (no2) v Parole Board and SSJ [2014] EWHC 4180 (Admin); [2015] A.C.D. 67 (181); [2014] All ER (D) 185 (Dec), Divisional Court.

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.


R (Parratt) v PB and SSJ [2014] EWCA Civ 1478; [2014] All ER (D) 255 (Nov)

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.


R (Fletcher, Young and another) v SSJ [2014] EWHC 3586 (Admin); [2015] A.C.D. 41; [2015] 3 All E.R. 558; [2014] All ER (D) 10 (Nov)

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.


Bayliss v United Kingdom (application 440/2010),

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).


R (Knights) v PB and SSJ [2013] EWCA Civ 1783

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.


R (Massey) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 1950 (Admin); [2013] All ER (D) 148 (Jul), 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.


R (Jarvis) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 803 (Admin); [2013] A.C.D. 78

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.


R (Parratt) v Secretary of State for Justice and Parole Board [2013] EWHC 17 (Admin); [2013] A.C.D. 161 (59). Breach of Art. 5(4) ECHR by parole hearing delay upheld but no damages awarded (appeal subsequently allowed by Court of Appeal and award of damages made)

R (M) v Chief Constable of Hampshire [2012] 1 WLR 1157; [2011] EWHC 1610 (Admin); [2011] All ER (D) 208 (Jul) [2012] A.C.D. 55 (19), DC; CLW/12/06/17; (2013) 157(15) S.J. 10; and at Archbold para. 20-267. 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).


R (M) v Chief Constable of Hampshire [2011] EWCA Civ 1630

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.


R (Sturnham) v SSJ and PB [2011] EWCA Civ 1730

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.


R (Flinders) v SSJ and Parole Board [2011] EWHC 3194 (Admin)

Categorisation decision (Category A) made by Director of High Security on the papers quashed – oral hearing ordered.


R (Young) v HMP HighDown and SSJ [2011] EWHC 867 (Admin)

Judicial review claim challenging HDC scheme policy conditions and operation.


R (Guntrip) v SSJ and Parole Board [2010] EWHC 3188 (Admin)

Successful claim for damages for violation of Art. 5(4) ECHR despite fact prisoner was not released or moved to open conditions.


Cumberbatch v. Crown Prosecution Service; Mohammed Ali v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWHC 3353 (Admin) (Div. Ct); (2010) 174 J.P. 149; [2010] 1 Archbold Review 3; CLW 10/06/07; (2010) 154(33) S.J. 25; (2010) 154(8) S.J. 17; [2010] All ER (D) 256 (Nov.). Archbold para. 19-332

Duties of police officers, breach of the peace, and resisting PC.


R (Parratt) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] 1 W.L.R. 1848; [2009] EWHC 3089 (Admin); (2010) 154(6) S.J. 8; CLW 10/03/19

SSJ’s interpretation of his own policy for offering pre-tariff reviews only to those with over 3-year ‘tariff’.


R (Gray) v Secretary of State for Justice and Parole Board [2010] EWHC 2 (Admin); CLW 10/03/18; (2010) 154(2) S.J. 30; Lawtel doc AC0123263; [2010] L.S. Gazette, January 28, issue 14.

Delayed parole hearing and delay before future parole hearing. Successful Art. 5(4) ECHR claim.


R. (Bayliss) v SSJ and PB [2009] All ER (D) 230 (Jul); [2009] EWCA Civ 1016

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.


Related News, Resources and Events

R (on the application of DXK) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 579 (Admin)

The High Court has handed down judgment in R (DXK) v The Secretary of State…

Turks and Caicos Islands Court of Appeal rules 10-month detention of Sri Lankan refugees was unlawful

The Turks and Caicos Islands Court of Appeal has allowed the appeal of three detainees…

High Court grants interim relief ordering immediate release of immigration detainee

At an oral hearing at the Administrative Court on 28 October 2020, listed to consider…

View all related Immigration, Asylum & Nationality news

International

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.

Notable International Cases


R v Docherty [2016] UKSC 62, [2017] 1 WLR 181, [2017] 1 Cr.App.R.(S) 31 (234), [2017] 4 All E.R. 263, [2017] 1 Archbold Review 5, (2017) 81 J.C.L. 232.

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.


R (Massey, Robinson, Haney, and Kaiyam) v SSJ [2015] AC 1344, [2015] 2 WLR 76, [2015] 2 All ER 822, (2014) 38 BHRC 313, The Times, 15 December 2014, 179 CJandJ 244 and 317, [2014] All ER (D) 114 (Dec)

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 (Massey and Robinson) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 3777 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 253 (Dec).

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.


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)


R (Sturnham), R (Faulkner) v Parole Board and SSJ [2013] 2 AC 254, [2013] UKSC 23, [2013] 2 W.L.R. 1157, [2013] 2 All E.R. 1013, [2013] H.R.L.R. 24, (2013) 157(18) S.J.L.B. 31, The Times, 4 June 2013.

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).


R v Foye

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).


London Borough of Newham v Sumal and Sons

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).


Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Divisional Court and Administrative Court selected cases.

R. (Knights) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2017] 4 W.L.R. 134, C.A. (Civ. Div.), [2017] EWCA Civ. 1053. Judicial review appeal concerning detention and Article 5 and 14 ECHR.

R (Shields-McKinley) v Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor [2017] EWHC 658 (Admin), [2017] 1 W.L.R. 3705, [2017] 2 Cr App R (S) 17 (113), [2017] A.C.D. 64 (190), [2017] Crim LR 809, [2017] All ER (D) 22 (Apr).

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.


R (Dilks) v SSJ and Probation Service [2015] EWHC 11 (Admin), [2015] All ER (D) 93 (Jan)

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.


R (Guntrip) (no2) v Parole Board and SSJ [2014] EWHC 4180 (Admin), [2015] A.C.D. 67 (181), [2014] All ER (D) 185 (Dec), Divisional Court. Art. 5(4)

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.


R (Parratt) v PB and SSJ [2014] EWCA Civ 1478, [2014] All ER (D) 255 (Nov). Appeal successful in challenge to dismissal of claim for damages for Art. 5(4) ECHR breach.

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.


R (Fletcher, Young and another) v SSJ [2014] EWHC 3586 (Admin), [2015] A.C.D. 41, [2015] 3 All E.R. 558, [2014] All ER (D) 10 (Nov).

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.


Bayliss v United Kingdom (application 440/2010), 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).


R (Knights) v PB and SSJ [2013] EWCA Civ 1783.

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.


R (Massey) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 1950 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 148 (Jul)

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.


R (Jarvis) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 803 (Admin), [2013] A.C.D. 78.

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.


R (M) v Chief Constable of Hampshire [2012] 1 WLR 1157, [2011] EWHC 1610 (Admin), [2011] All ER (D) 208 (Jul) [2012] A.C.D. 55 (19), DC, CLW/12/06/17, (2013) 157(15) S.J. 10, and at Archbold para. 20-267.

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).


R (M) v Chief Constable of Hampshire [2012] 1 WLR 1157, [2011] EWHC 1610 (Admin), [2011] All ER (D) 208 (Jul) [2012] A.C.D. 55 (19), DC, CLW/12/06/17, (2013) 157(15) S.J. 10, and at Archbold para. 20-267.

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).


R (M) v Chief Constable of Hampshire [2011] EWCA Civ 1630

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.


R v X

Case tried prior to CA ruling indicating trial judge’s directions wrong in law. Conviction quashed by Court of Appeal.


R v Foye [2013] EWCA Crim 475, (2013) 177 JP 449, [2013] Crim LR 839 (Andrew Ashworth QC), [2013] M.H.L.R. 182, [2013] All ER (D) 248 (Apr)

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.


Lotto Williams [2011] EWCA Crim 1889

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.


R v Thompson, Old Bailey. 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.


R v Foye, 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.


R v Ghani, 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).


R v Roszavolgyi

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.


R v Mustafa

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.


R v Williams

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).


Related News, Resources and Events

Philip Rule KC instructed in Privy Council joint enterprise appeal from the Bahamas

No5’s Philip Rule KC has been instructed on behalf of the Appellant in a case…

Turks and Caicos releases Sri Lankan refugees from detention after 10 months

On 20 August 2020 and during the hearing of what was the third writ of…

Cayman Islands Court of Appeal corrects error in sentence for murder

The Court has reduced the minimum term of imprisonment to be served from 35 to…

View all related International news

Inquests, Public Inquiries & Coronial Law (Public Law)

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.

Notable Inquests, Public Inquiries & Coronial Law (Public Law) Cases


Chief Coroner’s Inquest into the deaths arising from the Fishmongers’ Hall and London Bridge terror attack of 29 November 2019.

Andrew Malkinson independent non-statutory judicial inquiry into miscarriage of justice

Inquest into death of Francis Williams

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.


Inquest into death of Jasmine Dunnett

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.


Inquest into death of Michael Mcdonagh

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.


R (Varsani) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner North London CO/3468/2022 and AC-2022-LON-002604

Judicial review proceedings before Administrative Court (King’s Bench Division of the High Court).


Inquest into the death of Duncan MacNeil

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.


R (Gorani) v HMAC Inner West London [2022] EWHC 1680 (Admin); (2023) 192 B.M.L.R. 38; [2022] Inquest L.R. 252.

Judicial review challenge at the High Court to Coroner’s approach to various aspects of the inquest.


R (Wiggins) v HM Assistant Coroner for Nottinghamshire [2016] EWCA 1414

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.


Related News, Resources and Events

Jury finds IPP sentence caused or contributed to death of Francis Williams

A jury has reached a decision that the IPP (Imprisonment for Public Protection) sentence handed…

Inquest concludes multiple failings contributed to the death of a 17 year old Looked-After Child under care of community mental health team

Philip Rule KC was instructed by Will Whitaker of Bindmans Solicitors, assisted by Carmen Hall,…

Inquest into death in prison finds contributory failures by prison and healthcare service

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

Planning & Environment

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.

Notable Planning & Environment Cases


R (Kearney) v Chief Constable of Hants [2019] EWCA Civ 1841; [2019] 4 WLR 144; [2019] 10 WLUK 454; [2019] All ER (D) 24 (Nov).

Jurisdictional question concerning s18 SCA 1981; “clear and well-structured arguments”.


Connell v SSHD [2018] 1 WLR 3930; [2018] EWCA Civ 1329

Minter v United Kingdom (application 62964/14) (2017) 65 E.H.R.R. SE6


R v Docherty [2016] UKSC 62; [2017] 1 WLR 181; [2017] 1 Cr.App.R.(S) 31 (234); [2017] 4 All E.R. 263; [2017] 1 Archbold Review 5; (2017) 81 J.C.L. 232.

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.


Massey v United Kingdom (application (28160/15) (2016) 62 E.H.R.R. SE13

London Borough of Newham v Sumal and Sons [2013] 1 WLR 2078; [2012] EWCA Crim 1840; [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C. 692; [2012] H.L.R. 46; [2012] 2 P and CR DG19; CLW 12/31/3

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.


Lord-Castle v DPP [2009] EWHC 87 (Admin); [2009] All ER (D) 181 (Jan.); CLW 09/06/06; LTL doc. AC0119722

Crimeline updater 294 [Commentary at 153 CL and J 86] [Regulations concerning private ambulances and sirens and blue lights; meaning of “ambulance” purposes]


Onasanya v London Borough of Newham [2006] EWHC 1775 (Admin); [2006] 4 All ER 459; [2006] All ER (D) 199 (Jul)

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].


Related News, Resources and Events

No5’s Philip Rule has been instructed on behalf of PETA in its ongoing dispute with the Ministry of Defence

No5’s Philip Rule has been instructed on behalf of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment…

Humane Being challenge in High Court today. No5’s Philip Rule acts on behalf of the claimant

The Administrative Court shall today hear a permission application for a judicial review of the…

View all related Planning & Environment news

Prison & Police Law

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.

Related News, Resources and Events

Supreme Court judgment handed down in R (Pearce) v Parole Board

Today the Supreme Court reveals its judgment on the question of the permissible approaches for…

Claimant v Metropolitan Police

Successful claim brought by innocent couple left living for eight years with the uncertainty and…

Prohibitions of recommendations in Parole Board reviews deemed unlawful

In a judgment handed down on 15 March 2023, the Divisional Court (Lady Justice Macur…

View all related Prison & Police Law news

Public Law

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:

  • advising on appeal from the mental health tribunal
  • employment tribunal work
  • licensing applications appeals concerning the Security Industry Authority, and liquor licensing appeals
  • appeals before the immigration tribunal against automatic deportation following criminal conviction (relying on Art. 8 ECHR grounds, successful before the Upper Tier)
  • personal injury claims for injuries caused by assault or misfeasance by police or prison officers
  • hearings before QBD Masters, civil actions against the police before Circuit Judges, and against prisons or the Ministry of Justice before the High Court.

Notable Public Law Cases


R (Massey, Robinson, Haney, and Kaiyam) v SSJ [2015] AC 1344; [2015] 2 WLR 76; [2015] 2 All ER 822; (2014) 38 BHRC 313; The Times, 15 December 2014; 179 CJ and J 244 and 317; [2014] All ER (D) 114 (Dec)

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 (Massey and Robinson) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 3777 (Admin)


[2013] All ER (D) 253 (Dec) 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.



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


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)


R (Sturnham); R (Faulkner) v Parole Board and SSJ [2013] 2 AC 254; [2013] UKSC 23; [2013] 2 W.L.R. 1157; [2013] 2 All E.R. 1013; [2013] H.R.L.R. 24; (2013) 157(18) S.J.L.B. 31; The Times, 4 June 2013

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).


Minter v United Kingdom (application 62964/14) (2017) 65 E.H.R.R. SE6

Massey v United Kingdom (application (28160/15) (2016) 62 E.H.R.R. SE13

Whether or not breach of Art. 5 ECHR by reason of arbitrariness in detention resulting from delays to course provision.


Bayliss v United Kingdom (application 440/2010), 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 not to accept the proposed settlement).


Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Divisional Court and Administrative Court

R (Ellis) v HM Governor of the Cayman Islands, Attorney-General and Chief Immigration Officer (Grand Court Cause No. 0146/2017) (equivalent to the High Court in Cayman)

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.


R. (Knights) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2017] 4 W.L.R. 134, C.A. (Civ. Div.); [2017] EWCA Civ 1053; [2017] All ER (D) 96 (Aug)

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.


R (Bruton) v SSJ [2017] 4 WLR 152; [2017] EWHC 1967 (Admin); [2017] All ER (D) 71 (Aug)

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.


R (Henley-Smith) v SSJ [2017] EWHC 1948 (Admin)

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.


R (Bruton) v SSJ and HMP Swaleside [2017] EWHC 704 (Admin)

[2017] All ER (D) 46 (May), [2017] A.C.D. 69 (205) Successful claim for breach of duties in respect to privacy for prisoner’s correspondence with lawyers and other bodies. Damages awarded for violation of Art. 8 ECHR.


R (Shields-McKinley) v Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor [2017] EWHC 658 (Admin)

[2017] 1 W.L.R. 3705, [2017] 2 Cr App R (S) 17 (113), [2017] A.C.D. 64 (190), [2017] Crim LR 809, [2017] All ER (D) 22 (Apr) 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.


R (Wiggins) v HM Assistant Coroner for Nottinghamshire [2016] EWCA 1414

Judicial review of test of causation and procedure in an Art. 2 ECHR inquest.


R (Connell) v SSHD [2017] 4 WLR 38; [2017] EWHC 100 (Admin)

[2017] All ER (D) 96 (Feb), CLW 17/09/05 commentary (supports Claimant’s contentions). Deputy Judge granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.


R (Bowen and Stanton) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 2057 (Admin)

[2016] All ER (D) 49 (Aug) Concerns the delays to releasing a prisoner following a parole board direction. The learned Judge granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.


R (Browne) v Parole Board [2016] EWHC 2178 (Admin)

(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.


R (Gourlay) v SSJ and Sodexo Ltd [2016] EWHC 1957 (Admin)

R (Gourlay) v SSJ and Sodexo Ltd [2016] EWHC 1957 (Admin)

R (GJD) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 345 (Admin)

[2016] ACD 197 (69), [2016] All ER (D) 235 (Feb). Considers correct test to apply to a violation of Article 5 ECHR by detention that followed from an unlawful Crown Court order subsequently quashed


R (Hussain) v Parole Board of England and Wales [2016] EWHC 288 (Admin)

[2016] ACD 68 (193), (2016) 160 (19) S.J. 37, [2016] All ER (D) 224 (Feb), (cited by A New Chapter for the Parole Board [2016] Crim.L.R. 379) (Leading Varsha Jagadesham) Established that: (1) the parole system is operating with unlawful delays in breach of the state’s duty to maintain a proper and lawful system, and that (2) the delay to a pre-tariff expiry parole hearing may often (and did in this case) amount to a violation of the ancillary obligation within Article 5 ECHR.


R (Tait) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 2953 (Admin)

R (Davies) v Parole Board (14 May 2015; Collins J.)

Successful quashing of decision of the Parole Board and order for rehearing within specified timeframe


R (Stevenson) v HMP Wakefield and SSJ [2015] EWHC 1014 (Admin)

[2015] All ER (D) 348 (Mar). Article 8 ECHR engaged in challenge to prisoner’s location, outcome finely balanced. “…Mr Rule made a series of detailed and effective submissions…”, “He has presented his client’s case very clearly and effectively…”, “…the realistic, clear and effective way in which this case has been presented by the claimant…”


R (Dunn) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 858 (Admin)

Category A prisoners and rehabilitation opportunity


R (Hall), R (Koselka) v Parole Board [2015] EWHC 252 (Admin); [2015] A.C.D. 69; [2015] All ER (D) 145 (Feb)

Material considerations for the parole board and challenges to continued detention under the IPP scheme.


R (Knights), R (O’Brien) v SSJ and Parole Board [2015] EWHC 136 (Admin); [2015] A.C.D. 68 (184); [2015] All ER (D) 112 (Feb)

No breach of Articles 3, 5 or 14 ECHR in continued detention under IPP regime


R (Dilks) v SSJ and Probation Service [2015] EWHC 11 (Admin); [2015] All ER (D) 93 (Jan)

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.


R (Bayliss) v Parole Board and SSJ [2014] EWCA Civ 1631; [2014] All ER (D) 184 (Dec)

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


R (Guntrip) (no2) v Parole Board and SSJ [2014] EWHC 4180 (Admin); [2015] A.C.D. 67 (181); [2014] All ER (D) 185 (Dec), Divisional Court.

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.


Related News, Resources and Events

R (on the application of DXK) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 579 (Admin)

The High Court has handed down judgment in R (DXK) v The Secretary of State…

Divisional Court gives guidance on the procedure to be followed by the Crown Court

…where the CCRC refers a conviction appeal following a guilty plea at the magistrates’ court…

Supreme Court judgment handed down in R (Pearce) v Parole Board

Today the Supreme Court reveals its judgment on the question of the permissible approaches for…

View all related Public Law news

Regulatory

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.

Notable Regulatory Cases


R (Purvis) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] 4 WLR 118; [2018] 2 Cr. App. R. 34; [2018] ACD 104; [2018] EWHC 1844 (Admin), CLW/18/32/4

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]


R v Docherty [2016] UKSC 62; [2017] 1 WLR 181; [2017] 1 Cr.App.R.(S) 31 (234); [2017] 4 All E.R. 263; [2017] 1 Archbold Review 5; (2017) 81 J.C.L. 232

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.


R v Jefferson (Appeal Case No. 27 of 2017), Cayman Islands Court of Appeal, 29 August 2018

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.


R v Oliver (Appeal Case No. 2 of 2018), Cayman Islands Court of Appeal, 29 August 2018

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.


R v N [2016] EWCA Crim 92; [2016] 2 Cr App R 10; (2016) 180 J.P. 252; [2016] 4 Archbold Review 3; 166 N.L.J. 7701(7)

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.


London Borough of Newham v Sumal and Sons [2013] 1 WLR 2078; [2012] EWCA Crim 1840; [2012] Lloyd’s Rep. F.C. 692; [2012] H.L.R. 46; [2012] 2 P and CR DG19; CLW 12/31/3

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.


Cumberbatch v. Crown Prosecution Service; Mohammed Ali v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWHC 3353 (Admin) (Div. Ct); (2010) 174 J.P. 149; [2010] 1 Archbold Review 3; CLW 10/06/07; (2010) 154(33) S.J. 25; (2010) 154(8) S.J. 17; [2010] All ER (D) 256 (Nov.)

Duties of police officers, breach of the peace, and resisting a constable. Instructed by the Crown.


Lord-Castle v DPP [2009] EWHC 87 (Admin); [2009] All ER (D) 181 (Jan.); CLW 09/06/06; LTL doc. AC0119722; Crimeline updater 294 [Commentary at 153 CL and J 86

Regulations concerning private ambulances and sirens and blue lights; meaning of “ambulance” purposes.


Onasanya v London Borough of Newham [2006] EWHC 1775 (Admin); [2006] 4 All ER 459; [2006] All ER (D) 199 (Jul); 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.


Related News, Resources and Events

Claimant v Metropolitan Police

Successful claim brought by innocent couple left living for eight years with the uncertainty and…

Judical Review heard: Is the Government informing the public of risks associated with 5G rollout?

On 6th and 7th February 2023 the Administrative Court heard the judicial review of the…

High Court protects right of parole Board to obtain evidence unhindered by Secretary of State

In a judgment urgently handed-down on 9 August 2022 (R (Bailey) v SSJ [2022] EWHC…

View all related Regulatory news

Related News, Resources and Events

Uncategorised


Assisted dying or assisted suicide – not a breach of private life or discriminatory for the law to allow prosecution of those who assist a terminally ill person incapable of unilaterally travelling abroad to die

Philip Rule KC provides an analysis of the most recent decision in this field. On 13 June 2024 the Chamber decision of the European Court…

Uncategorised


Privy Council allows appeal against murder conviction in The Bahamas

On 11 June 2024, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council advised His Majesty to allow the appeal against the conviction for the murder of…

View all related news

    

"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..."


  • 2017 winner of Legal Aid Barrister of the Year, awarded by the Legal Aid Practitioner’s Group at the Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year Awards
  • 2019/2020 and 2017/2018 Nominated for Barrister of the Year by the Modern Law Awards
  • Administrative Law Bar Association
  • Criminal Bar Association
  • Bar Human Rights Committee
  • Human Rights Lawyers Association
  • Executive Committee Member of the Human Rights Lawyers Association
  • Health and Safety Lawyers’ Association
  • Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers
  • HSE, CQC, Env. Agency, et al., Regulatory Counsel A-panel
  • Equalities and Human Rights Commission Panel of Counsel
  • Called to the Bar of the Cayman Islands (2017)
  • Selected expert for the Lexis Nexis PSL Q and A panel
  • Admitted to the International Criminal Court’s list to work on cases proceeding at the Hague
  • Pupil supervisor (2010)
  • Appointed to CPS specialist Fraud Panel (level 2) (March 2013); and specialist Serious Crime Group Panel (level 2) (March 2013)
  • Appointed Grade 3 in the CPS prosecution advocates scheme from its inception in London. June 2012 appointed to the new national list for three areas: South
  • Eastern – London, South Eastern – Non London and Western Circuits (Please note Philip no longer accepts general CPS work).
  • Appointed after competition to Attorney-General’s Unified List of Prosecution Advocates, administered by the RCPO as it then was, in 2006 (for 3-year term; extended in 2009 and 2010 until the cessation of that list system).

Regulatory/Licensing

  • Street Trading and Interpretation of s38 London Local Authorities Act 1990 (2006) 170 Justice of the Peace Journal 604 [170 J.P.N. 604]
  • Licensing Act Offences (2007) Entertainment Law Review Volume 18 Issue 7 (Sweet and Maxwell) 231, (2007) 171 JPN 50 (at p879) and 171 JPN 51 (at p899).
  • What it means to be an ambulance (2009) 153 C.L. and J. (Criminal Law and Justice) 86 (concerns regulations on vehicles being fitted with a siren, or blue beacon lights) And Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Law Bulletin Vol 23 No9 March 2009

Proceeds of Crime

  • An alternative handler: offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (2006) 170 Justice of the Peace Journal 884 [170 J.P.N. 884]
  • POCA or Handling? [2007] 1 Archbold News 5 (comments on decision in R. (Wilkinson) v DPP [2006] EWHC 3012 (Admin).
  • Confiscation Orders: Criminal Justice Act 1988 – Enforcement and Extension of Time to Pay (2007) Vol. 171 Justice of the Peace 607, (2007) 151 Solicitors Journal 1178

Prison law and Sentencing

  • Unlawful Consecutive Sentences: Sentences of Less Than 12-Months’ Length Ordered to Run Consecutively to a Period of Recall Under The CJA 2003 (2008) 172 J.P.N. 499 (also included in Crimeline)
  • Time on Remand and Maximum sentences (sub editor’s nom: Once punished twice served?) (2008) 152 (35) Sol. Jnl. 18
  • Crediting the Time spent on remand subject to a curfew to custodial sentences: the impact of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (sub editor’s nom: Getting a full discount) (2009) 153 No 8 SJ p19
  • Calculation of tariff length for the purposes of pre-tariff expiry reviews in the SSJ’s policy for indeterminate sentence prisoners (sub editor’s nom: When time doesn’t count (2010) 154 (6) S. J. 8 (16-02-2010)
  • No end in sight? Philip Rule ((2010) 154(16) S.J. 8) (parole/ indeterminate sentences: Bayliss)
  • Custodial Sentencing (174 C.L. and J. 613) (making allowance for time spent in custody or on bail subject to curfew conditions)
  • Employing Custody Too Readily. Philip Rule (174 C.L. and J. 745) (sentencing/ theft from an employer)
  • When Does Time Spent in Custody Really Count? – Part 1, and Part 2. Philip Rule (175 C.L. and J. 461, and 478)
  • Transparency, Finality and Crediting Time Spent in Custody on Remand (2014) 78 Journal of Criminal Law 286

Anti-Social Behaviour Orders

  • ASBO “victim”. Solicitors Journal [S.J. (2007) Vol.151 No.5 Page 151] (comment on R. (on the application of Gosport LBC) v Fareham Magistrates Court)
  • ASBO Sentencing, The Times (Law Supplement), 28 August 2007.

Others

  • The power to re-open the case in the “interests of justice” and Croydon (2009) 173 CLandJ 213 (considering proper approach to s142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980)
  • Viewing the Locus in Quo and Reconstruction of Events (2009) 173 CLandJW 406
  • Lawful Stopping of Vehicles (2009) 174 CLandJW 121 (issues over police officers not in uniform stopping vehicles)
  • 23.4.15 at Austin Court, 80 Cambridge Street, Birmingham, B1 2NP No5 seminar (full-day): Inquests, Public Inquiries and Coronial Law Seminar
  • 7.5.15 at No5. Press Relations training (by SEAL and CONNECT PR) (3 hours)
  • 20.5.15 at Birmingham Chambers. Court of Protection training delivered by NKQC (3 hours, 3.30-6.30pm).
  • 21.5.15 at London Chambers. Association of Prison Lawyers: Parole Board Member Case Management Effective Representation for Practitioners (3hours, 2pm-5pm)
  • 13 November 2017, Developments in Judicial Review and Human Rights claims
  • Training delivered to Hodge Jones and Allen solicitors, London
  • 6 November 2015, Introduction to Judicial Review for claimant solicitors
  • Training in relation to costs and funding of judicial review, amongst other things
  • 13 October 2015, Judicial Review Seminar for Local Authorities
  • Consultation Duties, The New Permission Hurdle, And Time-limits
  • An examination of the Supreme Court decision in Moseley v Haringey LBC [2014] 1 WLR 3947 and subsequent decisions, of Section 84 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, and of the application of the Court of Appeal’s decision in R (Hysaj) v SSHD [2015] 1 WLR 2472 to public law proceedings.
  • 24 June 2015, Public Law Project’s Private Law for Public Law Practitioners
  • Freshfields (London) (Chair of afternoon session) 26 March 2015, Detention Law Seminar
  • Recent Developments in the Right to Liberty and Art. 5 ECHR: The Path to Release from Indefinite Detention.
  • An examination in particular of landmark decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal at the end of 2014 concerning Article 5 ECHR, including the decision in Massey and Haney identifying the ancillary duty within that Article.
  • 18 October 2012, Criminal practice seminar, Matters arising following convictions or acquittals
  • Consideration of the growing number of ancillary orders applied to general offenders, sexual offenders and orders applied even to those who are acquitted of any offence, the tests for imposition and principles for advocates and representatives to be familiar with to argue for or against relevant potential ancillary orders.

Related News, Resources and Events

Uncategorised


Assisted dying or assisted suicide – not a breach of private life or discriminatory for the law to allow prosecution of those who assist a terminally ill person incapable of unilaterally travelling abroad to die

Philip Rule KC provides an analysis of the most recent decision in this field. On 13 June 2024 the Chamber decision of the European Court…

Uncategorised


Privy Council allows appeal against murder conviction in The Bahamas

On 11 June 2024, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council advised His Majesty to allow the appeal against the conviction for the murder of…

View all related news

Clerk Team

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

    Download    Add to portfolio   
    Portfolio
    TitleTypeCVEmail

    Remove All

    Download


    Click here to share this shortlist.
    (It will expire after 30 days.)