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.
Recommendations
“He has outstanding knowledge and tactical ability and provides excellent client service.”
Chambers UK 2023 (Administrative and Public Law)
“Possibly the most enthusiastic barrister I know. He really does go the extra mile for his clients.” “He is an excellent advocate who provides in-depth insights.”
Chambers UK 2022 (Administrative and Public Law)
“The outstanding prison law junior. He is very committed to his clients and always willing to go the extra mile. His performances in court are always whole hearted ...”
Legal 500 2022 (Administrative and Public Law (inc Elections))
Awards
Winner of the LAPG Legal Aid Barrister of the Year award 2017
Nominated for the Modern Law Award for Barrister of the Year 2017-2018
