Save Kent Safe Schools

Pierce Glynn is instructed by a community interest company, Project Salus, to judicially review Kent County Council’s decision to cut its grant.

Kent Safe Schools provides a range of important services to children and young people in Kent, for example support services for children with mental health needs, drugs education services, and services to prevent bullying. These services were provided by Kent County Council until June 2011, at which point the KSS services were transferred to Project Salus, a community interest company staffed by former Kent County Council employees who were encouraged to leave their jobs and become part of Project Salus on the back of Kent County Council’s decision to support Project Salus with a 3-year grant. However, in December 2011, only 6 months into the 3-year grant, Kent County Council announced that the grant would be terminated.

Judicial review proceedings have now been issued challenging this decision so as to prevent the Kent Safe Schools services being lost. Project Salus’ solicitor, Gareth Mitchell, said: “These are highly-regarded and critically important front-line services whose loss will impact on some of the most vulnerable children in Kent. The Project Salus directors and staff took Kent’s commitment to support innovative ways of delivering public services at face value and had developed a highly-efficient model of service provision that would have delivered these services for a substantially reduced cost. However, only 6 months into this new venture their funding has been cut without any apparent appreciation of the effects on the children who benefit from the KSS services and on their parents and schools.”

Date added: 10.2.2012

UN to scrutinise detention by UKBA

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants has called for submissions on immigration detention leading to a report to the UN Human Rights Council in June 2012.

Pierce Glynn’s work with detainees shows that UKBA continues to violate the human rights of detainees including children, pregnant women, torture and trafficking survivors and people with serious mental health needs or disabilities

We have added harrowing case studies to submissions by Detention Action and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA). Click here for a copy of Detention Action's submissions and here for a copy of ILPA's submissions.

Jo Thomson, lead solicitor in our Detention Team commented: “This shocking evidence shows once again the urgent need for radical reform of the UK detention system”.

Date added: 01.02.2012

Newham advice cuts Equality Act challenge

Pierce Glynn has issued judicial review proceedings on behalf of a Newham resident against Newham Council’s decision to scrap funding for independent advice services. Newham Council has a long history of supporting Newham’s voluntary sector in helping residents resolve housing, debt and benefit issues, most recently via a consortium of eight charities. However, on 17 November 2011 Newham’s Mayor, Sir Robin Wales, approved a plan to cease Newham’s funding of independent advice services. In its place Newham residents are to have access to online information leaflets and, from April 2013, access to advice on how to be more resilient delivered by council officers.

Gareth Mitchell from Pierce Glynn said: “Newham don’t seem to understand how important independent advice is to local people. The decision was taken without proper consultation and in breach of the Equality Act. The charities who were previously providing these services report that many very vulnerable people are no longer getting the help they need, including women who have experienced domestic violence, the elderly, and people from BME communities with high rates of social exclusion. Moreover, Newham’s approach ignores all the research about how good independent advice prevents problems from spiralling out of control and costing taxpayers far more to resolve later down the road”.

Date added: 26.01.2012

Independence Panel publishes first report

The Panel on the Independence of the Voluntary Sector has published its first report warning of the risks unless urgent action is taken to protect the sector’s independence and highlighting that support to vulnerable groups is particularly under threat. Louise Whitfield Pierce Glynn is a member of the Panel, established by the Baring Foundation in June 2011 to ensure that independence is seen as a top priority by the voluntary sector and to make recommendations to ensure that independence is not lost. The report is the first of five annual assessments and focuses on the three key aspects of independence identified by the Panel: independence of purpose, of voice and of action. Louise was asked to join the Panel because of her expertise in working with voluntary sector organisations and their service-users in successful legal challenges. Pierce Glynn specialises in working with NGOs and the voluntary sector; click here for more information on our work in this area of law. A copy of the report and the Panel’s press release is available here.

Date added: 18.01.2012



Environmental Justice Parternship

The Environmental Justice Partnership is an exciting and innovative collaboration between UWE Bristol, Bristol Green Capital Partnership, the Environmental Law Foundation, Pierce Glynn and the ADR Group, Bristol. The service will offer a focal point to gather and address all environmental issues affecting Bristol and the South West to serve the interests of individuals as well as social and business communities. For more details please see the Partnership's new blog.

Date added: 12.12.2011

People First Lambeth: two-day trial in the High Court

Gina Barrett, a service-user and director of the voluntary organisation run by and for people with learning disabilities, People First Lambeth, instructed Louise Whitfield of Pierce Glynn in March this year, to bring a judicial review claim over Lambeth Council’s decision to cut all the grants and contracts it had previously provided to People First for many years. The case was heard in a two-day trial on 22 and 23 November in the High Court before Mr Justice Ouseley who reserved judgment. Kate Markus of Doughty Street Chambers represented Ms Barrett at the hearing.

Ms Barrett explained her concern over the cuts: “I was completely devastated when I found out the Council had decided to stop funding all the services. There is nowhere else for us to go and the Council does not understand what it has done to us.” The case arises from the Council’s failure to consult properly with service-users and its failure to meet its equality duties. Judgment is expected some time in December, and further updates will be posted then. Follow this link to see the service-users talk about what it means to them to lose their services.

Date added: 26.11.2011

Keeping Epping Forest Unenclosed: Public Inquiry

Epping Forest Horse Riders Association (EFRA) has instructed Pierce Glynn to oppose plans by the City of London and Essex County Council at a 4 day public Inquiry this week. The riders object to proposals to install cattle grids and miles of fencing around Epping forest which has been open common land since the Epping Forest Act of 1878.

Sue Willman has instructed barrister Ned Westaway. He will be arguing on EFRA’s behalf that the proposals are not “expedient” because of the cost and the reduced access to the forest, especially for young, old and disabled riders.

We will be asking the inspector to recommend alternative solutions such as invisible electronic fencing which would allow cattle to graze without the risk of them straying onto local roads and keep the forest unenclosed in the spirit of the Act.

Date added: 21.11.2011



Chambers 2012 - top ranked

The Chambers legal directory is the leading source for information about the best lawyers in the UK. In this year’s directory Pierce Glynn has been ranked in Band 1 for judicial review work, Band 1 for housing law, and Band 2 for human rights and civil liberties. In addition, seven of the firm’s lawyers are identified as leaders in their fields. Overall Pierce Glynn is said to be a “niche public law firm [that] provides first-class advice” and is “unflinchingly committed to the clients it represents”

Date added: 26.10.2011


Louise Whitfield in BBC cuts debate

Pierce Glynn solicitor Louise Whitfield took part in a debate on BBC Radio4's legal series Unreliable Evidence alongside former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer, human rights lawyer, Hugh Southey , and former appeal court Judge, Sir Stephen Sedley .

The panel discussed how human rights and equalities law can be used to stop government or local authorities from cutting back on such things as disability benefits, libraries, advice centres, national parks and school buildings.

The programme was broadcast on the evening of Wednesday 19 October 2011. For more information about the programme and to hear the podcast: click here.

Date added: 20.10.2011



Clause 24(1)(b) LASPO Bill briefing note

For a copy of our briefing note about clause 24(1)(b) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill please click here. For a copy of our letter to Robert Wright, head of Civil and Family Justice at the MOJ please click here. We would very much welcome feedback from other practitioners about the issues highlighted in the briefing note. Please direct these to gmitchell@pierceglynn.co.uk.

UPDATE: The MOJ has now clarified their position, which explains that regulations will be enacted to ensure that suppliers will continue to be entitled to benefit from legal aid only costs, including in partial costs order cases. In order words from a supplier’s perspective the current position will not change.
For a copy of the MOJ’s letter click here.

Date added: 01.11.2011 updated 09.11.2011



Gloucestershire Race Equality Council lives to fight another day!

Gloucestershire Race Equality Council (GLOSREC), who faced eviction from their offices and inevitable closure, has been allowed to remain there after the Council was threatened with litigation.

One of GLOSREC’s service users instructed partner Adam Hundt, who heads our South West office, to challenge the decision to bring to an end the current arrangement, in place since the 1960s, whereby GLOSREC occupied offices at a peppercorn rent and provided assistance to people facing discrimination and victims of hate crime. Despite numerous requests for details of the building so
that GLOSREC could try and raise money to buy the building, the Council refused to negotiate until litigation was threatened, and then backed down at the last minute.

For further details see local press coverage of the story here.

Date added: 19.10.2011

Dale farm travellers refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal the High Court decision of Thursday 12 October of Mr Justice Ouseley that Basildon council had acted lawfully in deciding to remove the 86 families from the site at Dale Farm. The travellers had appealed directly to Justice Sullivan at the Court of Appeal to stay the eviction and to decide if they have an arguable case based on new legal points. Lord Justice Sullivan decided yesterday, on the 17 October, that the travellers could not proceed with the appeal against the decision of the High Court judge and no stay of eviction was granted.

The appeal was based on the argument that Mr Justice Ouseley had applied the law incorrectly when he rejected the arguments raised by the travellers at the High Court hearing. In particular it was argued that Mr Justice Ouseley should have found that Basildon council had failed to properly consider the change of circumstances since their initial decision to evict by direct action taken in May 2011. These circumstances included an offer by the HCA of brownfield land in Basildon which could be made available to the travellers, the personal circumstances of the residents, and the duties the council have to provide travellers sites.

Pierce Glynn was instructed by one of the residents to launch the original judicial review on 27th September 2011.

The original judicial review was conducted by Polly Glynn with assistance from Chessie Aeron-Thomas. Richard Harwood and Ellen Wiles from 39 Essex Street Chambers are the barristers that were instructed by Pierce Glynn in the judicial review hearing. They were also instructed, but not by Pierce Glynn, to make the appeal application.

Date added: 18.10.2011



Judgment awaited in Dale Farm judicial review

Judgment is due at 2pm on 12th October in a judicial review of the decision to evict the Dale Farm travellers because of lack of planning permission. Pierce Glynn were urgently instructed by one of the residents to launch this judicial review on 27th September 2011. The case was heard on 29th September. Our client argued that the decision to evict was unlawful, because it was made without considering that the site could lawfully be used as a scrapyard, without considering whether an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed direct action works was required, and without considering recent government planning guidance on planning or a decision on another local Traveller site made by the Secretary of State.

It was also argued that the council had failed to take account of the on-going negotiations between the council and the Travellers. These negotiations had resulted in the Homes and Communities Agency offering two alternative sites in the area for Travellers on brownfield sites, if Basildon asked for them. Solicitor, Polly Glynn commented, “We are disappointed that Basildon DC has refused to consider this very sensible compromise, instead insisting on proceeding with the eviction”.

The case was conducted by Polly Glynn with assistance from Chessie Aeron-Thomas. Richard Harwood and Ellen Wiles from 39 Essex Street Chambers are the barristers instructed in this case.

Date added: 11.10.2011

High Court victory for disabled Gloucester man

A 33 year old man has been given permission to apply for judicial review of Gloucestershire County Council’s refusal to give him more personal care, sparking a debate in Gloucester about the Council’s funding of services for the disabled.  

Colin Bennett is being forced to leave his home despite suffering from a degenerative condition called Friedreich’s Ataxia, which has left him almost completely paralysed. He has to spend long periods in soiled clothes and severe pain because of the Council’s refusal to give him more than 9 hours of help per day. This leaves him unable to get to the toilet or administer pain relief, so he ends up biting his hand to try and cope with the pain until his carers, or his elderly mother, arrive. 

His solicitor, Adam Hundt, said “Colin is an intelligent man who is facing a lingering and painful death at a young age. He has coped incredibly well with his illness, but it is degenerative and has deteriorated badly over the last 12 months or so. Instead of increasing the amount of care he gets the Council has kept it at the same level, leaving him in distressing and disturbing conditions that nobody should have to endure.” 

His Honour Judge Nicholas Cooke QC gave Colin permission to proceed with his judicial review at a hearing in the Cardiff Administrative Court on Friday 30th September 2011. There will now be a further hearing later this year. His case was argued by Stephen Cragg of Doughty Street Chambers.

The hearing was written up in the local press (see here and here).

Date added: 05.10.2011

Do trees have rights… felling highlights urgent need for environmental justice

Pierce Glynn client, Mark Snow (‘Snoz') lost his battle to prevent the felling of an ancient beech tree in the Yorkshire village of Irton when it was felled, today. His solicitor Sue Willman commented, ‘The villagers had no access to legal aid and no ‘standing’ or effective right to be represented in the County Court proceedings which decided the fate of the tree. This case highlights the urgent need for government reforms to properly implement the Aarhus Convention, which gives the public the right to participate in environmental decision-making.’

The background to the dispute is that a local developer sued North Yorkshire County Council, arguing it had to fell the tree because it was causing a nuisance on the highway. Faced with a range of expert evidence and escalating court fees the Council eventually backed down and withdrew its defence. So in August 2011, the Scarborough County Court ordered the felling. This was despite the fact that it was protected by a Tree Preservation Order granted earlier by Scarborough Council. The people of Irton who benefit from the amenity value of the tree were not represented in the proceedings.

When Snoz occupied the tree to try to save it, North Yorkshire County Council applied for a High Court injunction ordering him to leave and preventing any unnamed protesters from taking action which might stop the tree felling. The High Court granted the order, but also ordered a suspension on the felling of the tree until Friday 30th September while the council produced evidence that the tree was causing a nuisance. Unfortunately, by then it was too late for Snoz to re-open the County Court decision, and the situation was aggravated by the threat of heavy legal costs and limited legal aid for environmental disputes. It now appears that the tree may have been a bat roost, so requiring a licence from Natural England before it could be felled, because  bats have recently been seen and recorded in the vicinity of the tree; North Yorkshire County Council claims it has a survey showing the tree was not a bat roost, but to date this has not been produced.

Mark Snow was represented by Sue Willman with assistance from Charlie Dobson. She instructed counsel, Dan Kolinsky of Landmark Chambers. The case was referred to Pierce Glynn by the Environmental Law Foundation.

Date added: 04.10.2011

Legal 500 Directory 2011

Pierce Glynn's lawyers have again been recognised by the Legal 500 Directory 2011. As well as receiving high praise for their work in each practice area, all of Pierce Glynn's lawyers have been singled out individually for acclaim.

In the area of administrative and public law Pierce Glynn is described as ‘One of the best claimant firms around'. Within social housing it is ranked as a tier 1 firm and described as ‘always 100% on top of social housing legal issues'. Within civil liberties and human rights, Pierce Glynn receives praise as ‘extremely assiduous, organised and capable' and ‘100% on top of complex legal issues'. In the area of healthcare it is described as a ‘leader in the UK in the area of improving access to healthcare'.

Date added: 23.9.2011

Letter about squatting law sent to the Guardian newspaper

A number of Pierce Glynn's lawyers have signed an open letter sent to the Guardian newspaper and published on Sunday 25 September. The letter accuses the government of misrepresenting the law around squatting to enable them to push through reforms and clarifies the legal position in relation to homeowners.

For more details see the Guardian's article about the letter here and the published letter here.

Dated added: 29.09.2011

Government U-turn on Further Education fees

In response to pre-action correspondence from Pierce Glynn, the Skills Minister, John Hayes, has announced a significant U-turn on fee remissions for people from low income households who want to enrol on further education courses.

The U-turn relates to a decision by the Skills Funding Agency in May 2011 to end fee remissions for most income-based benefit recipients seeking to study FE courses at level 3 and above (i.e. vocational training courses equivalent to A-level standard and above). The decision had meant that many low income people who were trying to retrain to enter the workforce were being prevented from enrolling on FE courses starting in September 2011. The problem was particularly acute for disabled people given that fee remission entitlement was being limited to people in receipt of two income-based benefits that people with more serious disabilities do not qualify for.

After being instructed by a person with learning disabilities who had been told that he would need to pay fees over £1300 to enrol on a level 3 course in September, we wrote to the Skills Funding Agency on 1 August 2011 explaining why the changes breached the Equality Act 2010 and were unlawful. We told the SFA that action needed to be taken within 7 days to ensure that our client and others in his position were able to enrol on FE courses in the forthcoming year otherwise judicial review court proceedings would be commenced. In response, on 9 August 2011, the Skills Minister announced that FE colleges would once again be able to provide fully subsidised courses for anyone in receipt of an income-based benefit – a decision which is likely to benefit tens of thousands of low income people seeking vocational training to help them get back into work. For a copy of the Skills Minister’s announcement click here. For a copy of the revised fee remission rules issued by the SFA on 12 August 2011 click here (see paragraphs 102 & 103).

This case was conducted by partner, Gareth Mitchell, who said: “This change of heart on FE funding makes a really big difference, not least to the many learning disabled people who are especially reliant on vocational training to help them enter employment. At present, the concession only applies to the 2011/12 academic year with an announcement expected within the next few months as to whether it will be continued pending the introduction of FE loans in 2013. It will be important for current and prospective FE students to look out for that announcement and to seek urgent legal advice if the government attempts once again to reduce the availability of fee remissions for those on income-based benefits.”

Dated added: 26.8.2011

An article co-authored by Pierce Glynn partner, Sue Willman, on environmental law and its interaction with international human rights law has just been published in the KHU Global Law Review. For a copy of the article click here. Sue is a former law fellow at the Centre for International Environment Law. The article was co-authored with CEIL’s former president, Daniel Magraw.

Date added: 24.08.2011

Court of Appeal success for mentally ill people in need of accommodation

On 10 August 2011 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal brought by our client SL deciding that he was entitled to residential accommodation under s.21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.

Following a period as street homeless and a suicide attempt, Mr L was admitted to hospital for several months as a voluntary psychiatric patient. Westminster Social Services assessed that on discharge he would need various services including weekly meetings with his social worker, the support of a “befriender” and counselling  services from gay support groups but that this did not amount to “care and attention” and so there was no duty to accommodate him under s21 NAA. He applied for judicial review which was refused in the High Court.

The Court of Appeal allowed his appeal finding that the assessed needs did amount to care and attention. The Court emphasised that support does not need to be particularly intense to constitute care and attention and nor is it limited to acts done by the local authority.  The Court also ruled that local authorities must accommodate under section 21 unless it would be “reasonably practicable and efficacious” to supply the care services without giving housing.  The Court found that given Mr L’s mental health condition it would be “absurd to provide a programme of assistance and support through a care coordinator without also providing the obviously necessary basis of stable accommodation”. The Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture and the mental health charity, Mind, intervened in the proceedings supporting the appeal because they were so concerned about these issues. 

This is a very significant and helpful decision which will assist many vulnerable people, particularly those with mental health problems, to access accommodation and support. 

The case was conducted by Joanna Thomson of Pierce Glynn, Stephen Knafler QC of Garden Court Chambers and Jonathan Auburn of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square. Adrian Berry and Kate Markus acted for the interveners. For a copy of the full judgment click here. For our press release click here.

Date added: 10.08.2011



Bank improves access to information for visually-impaired people

After a lengthy battle based on the duties under the Equality Act 2010, Pierce Glynn has convinced a visually-impaired client’s bank to provide all his banking information on multi-media discs, so that he does not have to rely on third parties to open and read his confidential correspondence about his finances. The bank has also agreed to accept instructions – for example to request a new PIN – over the telephone, rather than insisting our client write in which he is unable to do because of his impairment.

In response to the bank finally giving way, our client said: “That is brilliant news! This now allows me complete choice and control over my own financial arrangements. Marry this decision with your achievement of ensuring accessible appointments and information from Dudley group of hospitals, and I now have genuine privacy over what is probably the most important two areas of people’s lives namely finance and health. I have other barriers to overcome but they should, in retrospect, be a lot easier to achieve. It has given me a lot more confidence that we fought these battles and won. I would like to say a big thank you for all your hard work and it has resulted in a massive difference in my life. Thank you again".

The case was conducted by Louise Whitfield.

Date added: 16.08.2011

Seven of Pierce Glynn’s lawyers have been recognised as leaders in their field by the Chambers Legal Directory 2012; they are:

Adam Hundt - Administrative & Public Law  (London & UK-wide) and Civil Liberties & Human Rights (London & UK-wide); Gareth Mitchell - Administrative & Public Law (London & UK-wide), Civil Liberties & Human Rights (London & UK-wide); and Social Housing (London & UK-wide); Louise Whitfield - Administrative & Public Law (London & UK-wide) and Civil Liberties & Human Rights (London & UK-wide); Polly Glynn - Administrative & Public Law (London & UK-wide) and Social Housing (London & UK-wide); Stephen Pierce - Social Housing (London & UK-wide); Sue Willman - Administrative & Public Law (London & UK-wide), Civil Liberties & Human Rights (London & UK-wide), and Social Housing (London & UK-wide) Zubier Yazdani - Civil Liberties & Human Rights (London & UK-wide).

Date added 29.07.2011

Legal aid reform bill success for victims of domestic violence

Southall Black Sisters, represented by Louise Whitfield, have successfully forced a climb down by the Ministry of Justice in respect of the legal aid proposals which would have removed legal aid from immigration cases where applicants had been victims of domestic violence and were seeking leave to remain in the UK on the basis of the so-called Domestic Violence Rule.

SBS had responded in detail to the original government proposal which would see the most vulnerable unrepresented and unable to leave violent relationships because of their uncertain immigration status.  Despite vigorous opposition to the plan by SBS and others, the government confirmed on 21 June 2011 that it intended to go ahead.  Pierce Glynn sent a detailed letter before claim to the Ministry of Justice on 4 July requesting a response by 18 July.  On 19 July, the government confirmed its intention to amend the bill to put these cases back into the scope of legal aid.  Pragna Patel, SBS’ director said “We are all thrilled with this.  I bet this was the result of the legal action we threatened to bring about.”

For more details see the Law Society's Gazette's article on the important policy u-turn.

Date added 29.07.2011

After we highlighted that the Council and PCT were acting unlawfully by proposing to make these changes without adequate notice or consultation, and without an appropriate assessment of the impacts of their propoals, the Council and PCT agreed to carry out a consultation and to extend the current funding arrangements for 6 months while they did so.

As a result of that consultation exercise, the Council and the PCT have now announced that they will extend funding again, for a further 6 months, until March 2012. This decision will enable Mind, Swindon Carers' Centre and other third sector organisations to continue their invaluable work with their mentally and physically disabled service users.

For more information about this case see the article in the Third Sector magazine

Date added: 14.7.2011



DECC to conduct heating charge review

In response to a request from Pierce Glynn, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has announced that it will publish a consultation document later this year reviewing the need for individual metering in district heating systems.

District heating systems are found most commonly in the social-rented sector. The current lack of individual metering means that households pay flat rate charges; rather than charges based on their actual consumption. This means there is little incentive for individual households to limit their heating and hot water consumption, leading to disproportionately high energy usage and carbon emissions. It also results in much higher than average heating bills, which is problematic for many low income families who can be evicted by their landlords if they fail to pay these charges.

DECC’s review will focus on the UK’s transposition of Article 13 of the EU’s Energy Services Directive . The review will also need to take account of the UK’s climate change targets and its commitment to reduce fuel poverty. For further information about this case please contact Gareth Mitchell.

Date added: 6.7.2011



Detention of children and nursing mother

Judge Anthony Thornton QC has allowed an appeal brought by a mother and 3 children, whose claims for damages for unlawful detention had been struck out.

JE and her children, one of whom was 2 months old at the time, were detained in an immigration removal centre for 3 months following a ‘dawn raid’. Whilst in detention the youngest child, who was a 2 month old baby, suffered repeated health problems and was denied milk for almost 24 hours. The Home Office applied successfully to strike out the case claiming that it was an abuse of process. However, on 8 June 2011, the High Court has overturned that decision. For a copy of the full judgment, click here.

The claim will now proceed to determine whether or not it was lawful to detain the family for 3 months. JE and her children are represented by Adam Hundt of Pierce Glynn, and by Hugh Southey of Tooks Chambers.

Date added: 29.6.2011

Working With Refugee Children

Pierce Glynn associate Zubier Yazdani has co-authored a chapter on
age dispute challenges within the Immigration Law Practitioner's Association's (ILPA's) new book on ‘Working with Refugee Children’.

In his foreward, Ian MacDonald QC describes the book as: "[an] invaluable discussion about protecting the best interests of children and practical advice about some of the most common challenges faced by practitioners in their representation of young people."

Date added: 7.6.2011



Access to healthcare for migrants

Almost 2 years after the Court of Appeal declared that the Department of Health’s guidance on withholding hospital treatment from destitute refused asylum seekers was unlawful, the government has issued its response to the subsequent consultation. In its response the government has agreed to make new Regulations which will mean that refused asylum seekers who are supported by the Home Office (under either section 4 or 95 of the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999) will not be charged for treatment.

The decision has been welcomed by partner Adam Hundt, who has worked on this issue for the several years: “This is a very welcome concession, which will remove some of the uncertainty facing this vulnerable group of people, and prevent much of the suffering that people caught by the unlawful guidance had to endure."

Date added: 8.4.2011



Lambeth Taxicard scheme success

Lambeth Council have agreed to reinstate the full benefits of the Taxicard scheme to their residents and to carry out a consultation and equality impact assessment of the effect the proposed changes would have on people with severe disabilities.

The Taxicard scheme provides subsidised door-to-door transport for people who have serious mobility impairment and difficulty using public transport. Lambeth Council had reduced the benefits of the Taxicard scheme from 4 January 2011, so that users of the scheme were no longer able to double-swipe their Taxicard for longer journeys, would have to pay more money for each journey, and could not go on as many journeys each year.

Following the threat of judicial review by our client, Youcef Bey-Zekkoub, Lambeth Council agreed to reinstate the full benefits of the Taxicard scheme from 1 April 2011. The council will be conducting a consultation and equality impact assessment in respect of the proposed changes to the Taxicard scheme. Mr Bey-Zekkoub said “My freedom had been greatly reduced, as I was no longer able to afford to go out as much as I used to. With the consultation there now appears to be a chance that people like me will be able to tell the council how vital the benefits of the Taxicard scheme are, and hopefully we will be able to convince them of the importance of keeping these benefits, in particular the double-swiping, which makes a huge difference to people with severe disabilities”. The Claimant was represented by Sasha Rozansky and Louise Whitfield.

Date added: 8.4.2011



Home Office disability discrimination

In an important test case the High Court has ruled that the Home Office unlawfully detained an amputee and breached the disability discrimination legislation.

BE is an Iranian man who has lived in the UK for the last 30 years. He suffers from a degenerative condition that resulted in the amputation of his leg above the knee when he was young, leaving a deformed and painful stump. He lived in the UK legally, but had his leave to remain revoked after a criminal conviction. After serving his sentence he was detained under the Immigration Act pending deportation, in progressively unsuitable conditions. After 2 years of detention he was moved to accommodation that was so unsuitable that he could not access basic sanitation facilities without the risk of injury. BE issued proceedings challenging the legality of his detention and claiming a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).

In an important judgment the High Court found that BE’s detention had become unlawful after 26 months, and that although he was not entitled to compensation under the DDA, the Home Office had failed to have due regard to his disability-related needs by failing to ensure that he was detained in suitable accommodation.

BE was represented by Adam Hundt of Pierce Glynn, and by Nick Armstrong of Matrix Chambers. For the High Court judgment click here.

Date added: 29.3.2011



Interpreters at GP appointments

NHS Haringey have agreed to carry out an equality impact assessment in relation to the interpreting services it provides to patients at GP surgeries following intervention by Pierce Glynn on behalf of a number of clients.

The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture had referred several clients to us who were experiencing difficulties in accessing interpreters at their GP appointments. These clients were torture survivors who spoke limited English and were unable to speak to their doctor about their health problems or understand the advice their doctor was giving them. Although NHS Haringey confirmed that a telephone interpreting service should be provided whenever this is needed, and that face-to-face interpreters may be provided in exceptional circumstances, in our clients’ experiences this service was not working properly, so they were denied access to proper care from their GPs.

Following our representations to NHS Haringey, they confirmed that an equality impact assessment would be carried out in relation to the interpreting services it provides to patients at GP surgeries; this should look at the impact on race equality of the service provided and result in changes to reduce or eliminate any adverse impact on BME patients. Access to such services has also significantly improved for our clients following the threat of legal action on their behalf. The Claimants were represented by Sasha Rozansky and Louise Whitfield.

Date added: 29.3.2011



King's Stairs Gardens

Thames Water have just announced that an alternative site to King’s Stairs Gardens in Southwark has been purchased and that they will now consult on the use of this alternative site for constructing the Thames Tunnel.

The Thames Tunnel project involves the construction of a ‘super sewer’ running from west to east London designed to prevent overflows of sewage polluting the Thames. Thames Water’s proposal is that the tunnel be constructed in stages, with large ‘shaft sites’ at intervals along the tunnel route at which boring machines will be inserted and excavated material will be extracted. In September 2010, Thames Water announced that King’s Stairs Gardens, a much valued green space in inner-city London, had been selected as one of its preferred ‘shaft sites’. This would have involved the park being closed to local people for 7 years, the destruction of trees and habitats in the park, and a large permanent ventilation building in the middle of the park.

Thames Water's announcement on 23 February 2011 that they have purchased an alternative site for the construction works (a brownfield site known as Chambers Wharf) follows a vigorous campaign by local residents and a threat of judicial review proceedings. Pierce Glynn partner, Gareth Mitchell, has been advising local residents in this case. For Thames Water’s announcement click here and here . For more information about the Thames Tunnel project click here and for more information about the local campaign click here.

Date added: 01.3.2011



Report on HIV & detention

The Independent on Sunday has published details of a new report by the medical charity, Medical Justice, about HIV treatment failures in immigration detention centres.

In the article, Diane Abbott MP, the shadow public health minister, warns that poor treatment resulted in a "serious public health hazard"; "I've long been concerned at the medical facility for detainees. I think it's shameful they're given such poor treatment, but the situation with HIV is particularly worrying as it presents a very serious public health hazard," she said. The report itself notes that: “The UK is the 5th richest country in the world and envisages itself as a key partner in the international effort to prevent and reduce HIV/AIDS ... despite this rhetoric, the treatment of people detained for immigration purposes has been so detrimental that it may have left them requiring complex clinical care for their HIV infection.”

Medical Justice has been given permission to intervene in the on-going test case proceedings in the Court of Appeal about the use of immigration detention for those with serious medical conditions such as HIV. Pierce Glynn acts for the three HIV+ appellants in this case, which is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in May or June 2011.

Date added: 22.3.11



Funding reprieve for Swindon third sector organisations

Swindon Borough Council and Swindon PCT have agreed to extend funding for several third sector organisations in the face of threatened litigation. The funding decisions affect organisations that help people with mental or physical health problems and their carers, such as Mind, Swindon Carers Centre and others.

A number of service users instructed partner Adam Hundt , who heads our South West office, to challenge the refusal to renew existing funding arrangements, and to repackage services into new contracts that would be put out to tender, without adequate consultation, impact assessments or notice. After we challenged the legality of the process and threatened court proceedings the Council and PCT agreed to carry out a consultation on the proposals, assess their impact and extend funding for a further 6 months. For the Swindon Advertiser report on the issue click here

Date added: 24.2.2011



New Access to Healthcare Blog launched

Adam Hundt has co-authored a new blog hosted by Migrant Rights Network, challenging common misconceptions surrounding the issue.

Adam is well known for his expertise in this area and his commitment to this issue, and the blog is one example of his ongoing work with the third sector to raise awareness of the problems encountered by many of our clients. His co-authors are Wayne Farah, of Newham Primary Care Trust, and Fizza Qureshi of Doctors of the World UK.

The blog can be accessed here

Date added: 11.2.2011

Court of Appeal grants permission in Section 21 test case

On 4 February 2011 the Court of Appeal granted permission to our client Mr L to appeal a decision that he is not entitled to residential accommodation under s.21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.

Following a period as street homeless and a suicide attempt, Mr L was admitted to hospital for several months as a voluntary psychiatric patient. Westminster Social Services assessed that on discharge he would need various services including weekly support from social services. The council refused to accommodate him under s21 NAA and he applied for judicial review. At first instance Mr Justice Burnett considered that weekly meetings with the social worker fell short of care and attention since although Mr L needed to be kept an eye on, this did not amount to being ‘looked after’. He further held that even if Mr L did require care and attention, as the services were provided outside of his home this was care and attention which was available otherwise than by the provision of accommodation. He considered that Mr L would not be homeless because accommodation would be provided by NASS pursuant to s.4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. For the High Court judgment click here.

The appeal raises a number of important issues of general application and affects UK citizens, as well as migrants, who need residential accommodation: in particular those with a learning disability or a mental illness, and more widely anyone whose care needs can be met outside of the accommodation they live in. The case is conducted by Joanna Thomson of Pierce Glynn, and Stephen Knafler QC of Garden Court Chambers.

Date added: 9.2.2011



New age assessment guidance

The Court of Appeal has handed down a judgment today which has far reaching implications for children whose ages are in dispute.

The case relates to the assessment of vulnerable children where there is a dispute about the child’s age. The Court held that authorities must allow young people an opportunity to respond to any adverse impressions formed during the assessment process and before a final decision is taken. The Court also decided that young people should be given an opportunity to have an appropriate adult present at assessment interviews.

In addition, the Court clarified the role of the Administrative Court when dealing with application for permission to proceed with judicial review in age assessment cases, and in particular the relevant test for granting permission. Local authorities and other statutory bodies will need to pay careful attention to this judgment and revise their procedures accordingly.

Zubier Yazdani, head of the Children's Rights department at Pierce Glynn, was instructed by the child in this case, identified in the court proceedings as 'FZ'. Shu Shin Luh and Jan Luba QC were instructed as counsel. For a detailed summary of the decision click here. For a copy of the judgment click here.

Date added: 01.2.2011



London Councils judicial review

Mr Justice Calvert Smith has allowed a judicial review challenge of London Councils' decision to cut £10 million of funding from voluntary sector organisations in London.

The Judge held that London Councils’ decision making process was flawed and that they had failed to meet their statutory equality duties. He quashed all the funding cut decisions for the 200 plus projects and he said that London Councils must re-run the process, fully in accordance with their equality duties.

The Claimants’ solicitor, Louise Whitfield of Pierce Glynn, a specialist in claims raising equality issues and cuts to the voluntary sector, said:

“This case establishes that even in the current economic climate, it remains of paramount importance that public sector funding cut decisions are properly assessed for their gender, disability and race equality impacts. If they are not, public sector funding cut decisions will be unlawful.

London Councils simply did not consider the full effect of their £10 million cuts on the hundreds of voluntary sector groups and tens of thousands of members of the public who would be affected. They will now be required to do so.”

For a copy of the judgment click here.

The precise terms of the Order following the judgment were confirmed on the afternoon of 1 February 2011. The Order confirmed that the decisions taken by London Councils were unlawful because it had "reached those decisions without due regard to the statutory equality needs in the performance of its functions"; in essence, they had failed to meet their equality duties. All the decisions were quashed including the consequential decisions to stop funding 213 projects run by 177 different organizations. The judge also ordered London Councils to "undertake a lawful process of reconsideration in accordance with the public sector equality duties", and that no funding was to be terminated until "three months after the conclusion of the lawful consideration process".

For a copy of the judgment confirming the remedies order click here.

Also see: Patrick Butler in the Guardian here and Kiran Randhawa in the Evening Standard here.

Listen to the 9.2.11 podcast on Radio 4's Today programme: here

Date added: 28.1.2011
[Updated on 9.2.2011]



Upper Tribunal test case decision

A three judge panel of the Upper Tribunal has allowed our client’s appeal in a test case concerning the procedures adopted by the First-Tier Tribunal. A three judge panel was convened because of the wider importance of the case.

Our client was a single mother with young children threatened with eviction because of a gap in her housing benefit payments. A tribunal judge decided she had acted sufficiently quickly in raising her concerns about the missing housing benefit; however, six months later, a different tribunal judge attempted to reverse this decision and strike out her appeal. After a comprehensive review of the relevant law, the Upper Tribunal decided that the second tribunal judge was not permitted to do this and that our client should receive the missing housing benefit payments which, in turn, will prevent her eviction.

This case was conducted by Gareth Mitchell, and Tim Buley of Landmark Chambers. Our client was able to secure legal representation for her appeal under the legal aid scheme – funding which the government is now proposing to withdraw notwithstanding the complexity of cases like this, and their overwhelming importance to families at risk of eviction. For a copy of the decision, click here.


Date added: 20.01.11