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  EWHC 569 (QB),  1 WLR 354,  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  EWCA Civ 1478,  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.
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?  1 Archbold News 5 (comments on decision in R. (Wilkinson) v DPP  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)
Sentencing for Breach of ASBOs (2007) 171 Justice of the Peace Journal 420 [171 J.P.N. 420]
ASBO Sentencing, The Times (Law Supplement), 28 August 2007.
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 CL and JW 406
Lawful Stopping of Vehicles (2009) 174 CLandJW 121 (issues over police officers not in uniform stopping vehicles)
Resisting Unlawful Arrests The Journal of Criminal Law (2010) 74 JCL 189–195
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  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  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.
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).
Listed as a first-tier leading junior in public law: “A very confident operator in judicial review matters” and “Rule, who also handles criminal work, has expertise in human rights cases concerning individuals accused or convicted of criminal offences, including matters involving the unlawful treatment of prisoners”
Legal 500 (2015)
Listed as a first-tier leading junior in public law: “A public law specialist with expertise in judicial reviews and civil claims arising from unlawful treatment of prisoners” and “recognised for his experience in prison law cases where there have been alleged breaches of human rights”
Legal 500 (2014)
“judicial review expert Philip Rule” and “able to intersect different areas of law to obtain the best possible outcome”
Legal 500 (2013)
R (Massey, Robinson, Haney, and Kaiyam) v SSJ  2 WLR 76;  2 All ER 822; (2014) 38 BHRC 313; The Times, 15 December 2014; 179 CJ and J 244 and 317;  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  EWHC 3777 (Admin);  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)  2 AC 254;  UKSC 47;  3 WLR 281;  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  3 WLR 476)
R (Sturnham); R (Faulkner) v Parole Board and SSJ  2 AC 254;  UKSC 23;  2 W.L.R. 1157;  2 All E.R. 1013;  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:  EWHC 938 (Admin). Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Divisional Court and Administrative Court.
R (Tait) v Secretary of State for Justice  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  EWHC 1014 (Admin);  All ER (D) 348 (Mar)
R (Dunn) v Secretary of State for Justice  EWHC 858 (Admin)
R (Hall), R (Koselka) v Parole Board  EWHC 252 (Admin);  A.C.D. 69;  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  EWHC 136 (Admin);  A.C.D. 68 (184);  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  EWHC 11 (Admin);  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  EWCA Civ 1631;  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  EWHC 4180 (Admin);  A.C.D. 67 (181);  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  EWCA Civ 1478;  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  EWHC 3586 (Admin);  A.C.D. 41;  3 All E.R. 558;  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:  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  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  EWHC 1950 (Admin);  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  EWHC 803 (Admin);  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  EWHC 17 (Admin);  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  1 WLR 1157;  EWHC 1610 (Admin);  All ER (D) 208 (Jul)  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:  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:  1 W.L.R. 1233, S.C).
R (M) v Chief Constable of Hampshire  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  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  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  EWHC 867 (Admin)
Judicial review claim challenging HDC scheme policy conditions and operation.
R (Guntrip) v SSJ and Parole Board  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  EWHC 3353 (Admin) (Div. Ct); (2010) 174 J.P. 149;  1 Archbold Review 3; CLW 10/06/07; (2010) 154(33) S.J. 25; (2010) 154(8) S.J. 17;  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  1 W.L.R. 1848;  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  EWHC 2 (Admin); CLW 10/03/18; (2010) 154(2) S.J. 30; Lawtel doc AC0123263;  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  All ER (D) 230 (Jul);  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.
Admitted to the International Criminal Court’s list to work on cases proceeding at the Hague
Pupil supervisor (2010)
Administrative Law Bar Association
Criminal Bar Association
Bar Human Rights Committee
Human Rights Lawyers Association