Ramby de Mello is an acknowledged and highly regarded practitioner in the field of human rights. He has represented clients in the Supreme Court, the European Court of Justice and the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. Ramby appears regularly in the UK Courts in test cases involving human rights.
Ramby represented a French citizen against the French State, with Belgium intervening, against the burca ban before the Grand Chamber of the ECHR. He argued on behalf of the applicant that the ban of the full face veil breached her right to privacy, freedom to manifest her religious belief and that the law prohibiting the wearing of the veil was discriminatory on grounds of gender and religion: SAS-v-France Judgment is expected in 2014.
Another one of his cases, the first internationally, involved a post-operative transgender person claiming that she was discriminated against on grounds of her status and that this was unlawful under the gender discrimination laws. This case was brought before the ECJ which ruled in her favour and led to the change of the UK Sex Discrimination Act 1975: P-v-S C13/94 [1996] ICR 795 ECJ
Another well-known case brought before the ECJ involved the rights of an EU citizen child to have her primary carer parent reside in the Member State with the child though the parent was a third country national. This case was the first internationally to define the rights of a child, under European Union law, to have his parent reside with the child so that the child’s citizenship rights could be exercised on her behalf: Chen-v-SSHD Case C-200/02.
Manjit Kaur ECJ Case C-192/99 [2001] ECR 1-1237 (whether British Overseas nationals are EU citizens).
Ramby was nominated lawyer of the week for the Times News Paper.
Ramby is also the General Editor of the book “Human Rights Act 1998 - A Practical Guide” (Jordans). Other published works include a chapter on Immigration and Nationality for the Discrimination Law Association book entitled “Making Rights Real” (a handbook on challenging racism and racial discrimination under the Human Rights Act) and contributions to the Bar Council Human Rights Handbook (Study Guide). He is also written a book for the NHS and Local Authorities on Human Rights (Monitor Press). He is also a consultant editor for the “Immigration and Nationality Law Reports” (Jordans).
Recommendations
“Always impressive. He has a constructive grasp of the law.”
Chambers UK 2023
Ranked Tier 3
Legal 500 2023 (London Bar)
Ranked Band 1
Chambers UK 2022 (Midland Bar)
“He is well regarded in the immigration field.”
Legal 500 2022
“He is an innovative lawyer, very good at picking a point and running with it. He has impressively deep legal skills.”
Chambers UK 2021
“He is well regarded in the immigration field.”
Legal 500 2021
“He thinks of new legal arguments on his feet spontaneously and has a natural flair in the court. He is a very creative barrister.”
Chambers UK 2019
Notable Cases
Brinklow Marina-v-HMRC [2013] UKFTT 522 (TC)
(Whether the mandatory requirement to make on line VAT payments was incompatible with article 8 ECHR)
MM, Javed [2013] EWHC 1900
(Amendments to the Immigration Rules concerning the maintenance requirements for the admission of spouses to the United Kingdom, including raising the minimum income level to be provided by a UK sponsor to 18,600, had a legitimate aim but were so onerous in effect as to be an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the ability of spouses to live together contrary to their rights under art 8 ECHR)
Birmingham CC-v-Gavin James [2013] EWCA Civ 552
(Gang injunctions and personal autonomy- There was no "closest fit" principle in deciding between the various pre-emptive orders available to control violence, provided the statutory conditions were met, it was at the judge’s discretion)
R (Ali and Bibi) v SSHD [2013] EWCA Civ 322, [2013] WLR(D) 139
(Appeal from the Administrative Court on the pre-entry English test. By a majority decision (Sir David Keene dissenting) the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held the requirement to be proportionate)
Ali and Anor R (on the application of) v Minister for the Cabinet Office the Statistics Board [2012] EWHC 1943 (Admin)
(The regime contained in the DPA 1998 and the census legislation constituted a sufficiently accessible and predictable body of law and satisfied the requirement that any disclosure of personal census data was in accordance with art8 ECHR)
AHK and ORS v Secretary Of State For The Home Department [2012] EWHC 1117 (Admin)
(The court held that there could be no closed material procedure in proceedings for judicial review of the secretary of state’s refusal to grant naturalisation to applicants whom she did not consider to be of good character, even though she had given few reasons for her decision on the ground that to do so would harm national security)
DL and Anor v LB of Newham [2011] EWHC 1127 (Admin) [2011] 2 FLR 1033, [2011] Fam Law 922 (Admin)
(The Defendant local authority had acted in breach of the procedural rights conferred by Article 8 and also breached the common law principle that a decision-maker should act in a way that is procedurally fair)
R (on the application of) v Derbyshire Constabulary [2011] EWHC 2362 (Admin)
(A case against the police force for issuing an enhanced criminal record certificate involving a psychiatrist – compatibility with articles 6 and 8 ECHR)
R (Ghai) v Newcastle upon Tyne City Council (Ramgharia Gurdwara, Hitchin and others intervening) [2010] EWCA Civ 59; [2010] 3 WLR 737; [2010] WLR (D) 36; [2010] 7 EG 101; [2010] PTSR 1003; [2011] 1 QB 591; [2010] 3 All ER 380
(That ‘open air’ funeral pyres were lawful under British law giving the term "building” a wide definition, fulfilling Baba Ghai’s pleas to be ‘naturally cremated in a sacrament of fire’)
Lee Ling Low-v-SSHD [2009] EWHC 35[2010] EWCA Civ 4[2010] 2 CMLR 34, [2010] ICR 755, [2010] Eu LR 415
(Where third country nationals had been employed by a company incorporated in one member state to provide services in the United Kingdom, they had no derivative claim to work in the UK under EC Treaty (Nice) art.49, as they had not been legally employed and lawfully resident in the first member state)
R(AHK)-v-SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 287 [2009] 1 WLR 2049
(The court set out the principles to be adopted in determining whether a special advocate should be appointed to represent an applicant seeking judicial review of a refusal of his application for British citizenship, where the refusal was on the ground that the applicant had not demonstrated good character and where the Home Secretary was not willing to disclose relevant material to the applicant on public interest grounds)
Rahim [2009] 1 WLR 466
(Whether on an appeal under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 the magistrate’s court could consider the merits by looking into the circumstances of the door supervisor’s conviction)
SSHD v AHK and Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 287; [2009] 1 WLR 2049
(Test case – The court set out the principles to be adopted in determining whether a special advocate should be appointed to represent an applicant seeking judicial review of a refusal of his application for British citizenship, where the refusal was on the ground that the applicant had not demonstrated good character for reasons that the Home Secretary was not willing to disclose on National Security Grounds (the Claimant is a Muslim preacher and is alleged to have been an Usama-Bin-Laden sympathiser and have given sermons in the mosque in support of UBL)).
Bigia [2009] EWCA Civ 79
(The court ruled on the extent to which the decision of the European Court of Justice in Metock v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (C-127/08) (2009) All ER (EC) 40 had affected domestic law on the rights of persons falling within Directive 2004/38 art.3.2(a), namely "other family members" of a "Union citizen". Minor grandchildren are "family members" within the meaning of Article 2.2(c) of the Directive 2004/38)
Baiai-v-SSHD [2007] 1 WLR 693 [2008] UKHL 53, [2008] UKHRR 1232, [2009] 1 AC 287
(the right to marry protected by article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
Birmingham City Council v Shafi and Ellis [2008] EWCA Civ 186; [2008] WLR (D) 341; [2009] 1 WLR 1961; [2009] 3 All ER 127; [2009] HLR 25; [2009] BLGR 367; [2009] CP Rep 1, [2009] PTSR 503
(Test case – Successfully defended an injunction obtained by the Birmingham City Council against alleged gang members. The Court of Appeal held that where a local authority sought an injunction in circumstances in which an antisocial behaviour order would be available, the court should not, save perhaps in an exceptional case, grant an injunction but should leave the local authority to seek an antisocial behaviour order so that the detailed checks and balances developed by Parliament and in the decided cases would apply)
Christie-v-Lord Chancellor’s Dept. Christie-v-Department for Constitutional affairs [2007] ICR 1553; O’Brien EAT [2008] UKEAT 0139_07_2204
(Whether part time judges are workers for purposes of obtaining pensions)
Kelly-v-Warley Magistrates’ Court [2007] EWHC 1836 (Admin) [2008] 1 WLR 2001
(Unconditional directions issued to the defendant under rule 3.5(2) of the Criminal Procedure Rules to disclose the names of his witnesses etc infringed legal professional privilege. Unconditional orders for disclosure of privileged material exceed this boundary)
Denise Rowley-v-DWP [2007] EWCA Civ 598 [2007] 1 WLR 2861
(The CSA does not owe the resident parent with care a duty of care to collect and enforce maintenance arrears)
Errington, R (on the application of) v Metropolitan Police Authority [2006] EWHC 1155 (Admin)
(Important issues in relation to control orders under part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which deals with the closure of premises which have been used in connection with the unlawful use, production or supply of Class A drugs (often referred to colloquially as "crack houses") and that use has given rise to disorder or serious nuisance to members of the public)
YD-v-Turkey [2006] 1 WLR 1646
(The Court of Appeal has an inherent jurisdiction to order the Home Secretary to refrain from removing an applicant whilst his out of time appeal is pending with the court)
YD-v-Turkey [2006] 1 WLR 1646
(The Court of Appeal has an inherent jurisdiction to order the Home Secretary to refrain from removing an applicant whilst his out of time appeal is pending with the court)
SN-V-SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 1683 [2006] INLR 273
(removal of an HIV/AIDS sufferer receiving treatment in the UK which would not be available in the destination country)
Kehoe-v-DWP [2005] 3 WLR 252 (HL) [2006] 1 AC 42
(Determination of civil rights and obligations whether civil rights are engaged under the Child Support Act 1991)
Reynolds-v-Department of Works and Pensions [2005] UKHL [2006] 1 AC 173 [2005] 2 WLR 1369
(Age related benefits are not discriminatory under article 14 ECHR)
Muhammad Afzal-v-The Election Commissioner and Election Court [2005] EWCA Civ 647
(Court of Appeal May 2005) (The Court of Appeal quashed that part of the Commissioner’s decision that found Mr Afzal to have been guilty of corrupt and illegal practices and made an appropriate order, thereby enabling Mr Afzal to cast his vote)
He and Dan-v-DARA [2004] EWHC 3021 (Admin)
(Recovery proceedings under Part 5 of the 2002 Act are not criminal proceedings for purposes of art 6 ECHR and though the criminal standard of proof does not apply the court should look for cogent evidence before deciding that the balance of probabilities has been met)
Chandler-v-Legal Services Commission QBD [2004] EWHC 925 (Admin)
(concerns the duty of the LSC to fund the representation of the claimant before the Coroner’s Court)
Williamson-v-Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2004] 1 WLR 14
(The Court of Appeal held that breach of the peace was not an offence for purposes of PACE taken together with article 5 EHCR but the Court nevertheless ruled that PACE should be applied to those arrested for breach of the peace)
Addison-v-Chief Constable of West Midlands Police (CA) [2004] 1 WLR 29
(Breach of the peace was not an offence for purposes of PACE 1984)
Qualifications
BA
MA
LLB
LLM
