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 a 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  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.
Further details of Philip’s civil law work are here https://www.no5.com/barristers/barrister-cvs/philip-rule-prison-and-police-law/
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.
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
The reversal of Kaiyam (2017) 181 C.L.andJ 767
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 CLandJW 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
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  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
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.
First-tier leading junior in public law. Noted to have particular expertise in the field of human rights and detention law. “Frighteningly intelligent.”
Legal 500 (2017)
First-tier leading junior in public law. Recognised for specialism in human rights cases and experience in the higher courts. “He has great attention to detail and a professional manner with clients.”
Legal 500 (2016)
Listed as a first-tier leading junior in public law: “A very confident operator in judicial review matters”...“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”...“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”...“able to intersect different areas of law to obtain the best possible outcome”
Legal 500 (2013)
R (Massey, Robinson, Haney, and Kaiyam) v SSJ  AC 1344;  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).
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  4 W.L.R. 134, C.A. (Civ. Div.);  EWCA Civ 1053;  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  4 WLR 152;  EWHC 1967 (Admin);  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  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  EWHC 704 (Admin)
 All ER (D) 46 (May),  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  EWHC 658 (Admin)
 1 W.L.R. 3705,  2 Cr App R (S) 17 (113),  A.C.D. 64 (190),  Crim LR 809,  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  EWCA 1414
Judicial review of test of causation and procedure in an Art. 2 ECHR inquest.
R (Connell) v SSHD  4 WLR 38;  EWHC 100 (Admin)
 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  EWHC 2057 (Admin)
 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  EWHC 2178 (Admin)
(2016) C.L. and J. 180 (35),  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  EWHC 1957 (Admin)
R (Gourlay) v SSJ and Sodexo Ltd  EWHC 1957 (Admin)
R (GJD) v Secretary of State for Justice  EWHC 345 (Admin)
 ACD 197 (69),  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  EWHC 288 (Admin)
 ACD 68 (193), (2016) 160 (19) S.J. 37,  All ER (D) 224 (Feb), (cited by A New Chapter for the Parole Board  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  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  EWHC 1014 (Admin)
 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  EWHC 858 (Admin)
Category A prisoners and rehabilitation opportunity
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.
Philip is a selected expert for the Lexis Nexis PSL Q and A public law panel.
Called to the Bar of the Cayman Islands (2017)
Admitted to the International Criminal Court’s list to work on cases proceeding at the Hague
Administrative Law Bar Association
Criminal Bar Association
Bar Human Rights Committee
Human Rights Lawyers Association