Pierce Glynn - Solicitors

Victoria baths closure

Pierce Glynn has been instructed by local residents to fight against the closure of Victoria Baths in Nottingham.

The Victoria Leisure Centre contains the oldest swimming pools in Nottingham, and was first opened in 1850. Although the Centre continues to be very popular with local residents, Nottingham City Council has announced that the baths are to be closed and then demolished. This decision has been met with a vociferous response from local residents and from the Save Victoria Baths campaign group. Several local residents have now instructed Pierce Glynn to challenge the closure decision. Louise Whitfield, who has particular experience of challenging local authority funding cuts, is advising the residents.

Chambers 2010 directory recommendations

Pierce Glynn has been identified as a leading firm in the Chambers 2010 directory.

The firm’s accolades include: “this excellent team is … recognised for its high-profile cases and fantastic reputation”; “interviewees identify its ‘willingness to go the extra mile’ as a key factor in its success.”; and, "the country's predominant community care firm.”

The directory also identifies four of our solicitors as leaders in their fields: “Managing partner Polly Glynn has a long track record in public and human rights law”; “ Sue Willman[’s] … expertise relating to asylum seekers is outstanding”; “ Stephen Pierce is ‘a dominant influence within the sector’”; and “ Gareth Mitchell’s grasp of detail always puts opponents at a disadvantage." For an online version of the directory click here.

Ombudsman’s report highlights injustice to Pierce Glynn client

The Parliamentary Ombudsman has upheld a complaint by Mr. M, a learning-disabled Lithuanian Roma man who was left unable to work and street homeless because the UKBA would not return his documents.

After Pierce Glynn complained to the Ombudsman, he received his passport and compensation. The Ombudsman found Mr. M had suffered a ‘considerable injustice’ and said that: ‘the Agency’s failure to return Mr M’s passport and their delay in responding to his complaint were likely to have caused him considerable worry, distress and inconvenience, particularly given his difficult personal circumstances (he has learning difficulties, long-term health problems, and language and literacy needs).’ Sue Willman represented Mr. M.

The case is highlighted in the new report ‘Fast and fair?’ A report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman on the UK Border Agency, 2010. For a copy of the report click here.

Age assessment appeal

On 8th December 2009, Pierce Glynn filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal seeking to overturn a High Court about local authority age assessments.

The case raises two issues of wider importance about local authority age assessments: when should age disputed children be given the benefit of doubt and when should local authorities be required to put adverse findings to age disputed children before making a final decision. The appeal seeks to overturn the High Court’s decision in R (AW (Afghanistan)) v Croydon London Borough Council [2009] EWHC 3090 (Admin). For a copy of that decision click here. Our client is represented by Zubier Yazdani, together with Michael Fordham QC and Shu Shin Luh.

Defending human rights in Columbia

In 2008 Pierce Glynn partner, Sue Willman, was part of delegation of UK human rights lawyers who visited Columbia to support the work of Columbian lawyers defending human rights. Human rights lawyers in Columbia work in extraordinarily dangerous conditions with over 400 lawyers having been assassinated since 1991 as they struggle to secure basic human rights such as access to water and the right to a fair hearing. For a recent article about the work of the delegation and plans for a return visit later this year click here.

Successful High Court human rights challenge

On 6th November 2009 the High Court ruled that a First-Tier Tribunal decision, that a homeless and destitute asylum seeker should not receive accommodation and support from the Home Office, was wrong.

Our client, NS, challenged the decision on the grounds that the withdrawal of her support while her applicaton for judicial review of the immigration decision was pending breached her human rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Justice Stadlen agreed that the Tribunal's decision was wrong, and it should take a different approach when considering cases like this. The judgment sets an important precedent for other cases of this kind. NS was represented by Adam Hundt.

Tribunal allows Holocaust survivor appeal

For the past year Pierce Glynn have worked with the Association of Jewish Refugees http://www.ajr.org.uk/ in bringing a test case about the treatment of Holocaust reparations under the Pension Credit scheme.

Following the reunification of Germany, the German government agreed to fund a reparations programme for eastern European Jewish holocaust survivors. This scheme (the Article 2 scheme) is operated by Claims Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany, who pay monthly reparations to several hundred holocaust survivors living in the UK. The payments are modest in amount, but hugely significant to a group of Jews who have waited over 40 years for recognition and redress for the horrific persecution they experienced.

Pension Credit is paid to those over 60 and who have very low incomes. In 2007 the Department for Work and Pensions decided to reduce the Pension Credit payments made to holocaust survivors by an amount equal to any Article 2 payments; in effect, depriving this group of holocaust survivors of the benefit of the reparations they had waited over 40 years to receive.

On 12th November 2009 a Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) upheld an appeal in a test case brought by one such holocaust survivor against the Secretary of State's decision to pay a lower level of Pension Credit to him because he receives Article 2 payments. The Judge held that the Pension Credit legislation does not entitle the Secretary of State to take such payments into account when calculating Pension Credit entitlement.

The appellant, Mr Danon, was represented by solicitor-advocate, Gareth Mitchell.

Legal 500 recommendations

Pierce Glynn's Public Law and Human Rights Department has been identified in the Legal 500 annual directory as one of the leading firms in the UK.

The team is recommended in both the public and administrative law category ('extremely knowledgeable') and the civil liberties and human rights category (Pierce Glynn takes on difficult and complex cases in under-explored areas of law, and is confident, courageous and fearless'). For an online version of the directory click here.

New book: Support for Asylum Seekers and other Migrants.

Initially aimed at the legal rights of destitute asylum seekers, the third edition of this essential guide, co-authored by Sue Willman of Pierce Glynn, also incorporates information about welfare provision for EU nationals. There is also a useful chapter on healthcare, contributed by Pierce Glynn solicitor Adam Hundt. For more information about the book please click here.

Planning Challenge Success

On 4th August 2009 Hastings Borough Council conceded High Court judicial review proceedings challenging the grant of planning permission for a £4 million gallery development on Rock-A-Nore Road in Hastings, East Sussex.

The claim, issued last month, was brought by a Rock-A-Nore resident, Jonathan Coe. Rock-A-Nore Road has been blighted by its use for high-speed, illegal road racing. During the planning consultation process Mr Coe and others made submissions about the need for Hastings Borough Council to place a condition on the gallery developer, the Jerwood Foundation, requiring it to install or contribute to the installation of traffic calming on Rock-A-Nore Road to eliminate the road racing problem. However Hastings Borough Council’s planning committee were not told of Mr Coe’s concerns and failed to consider the road racing problem at all when deciding to grant planning permission. Hastings Borough Council have belatedly conceded that that was unlawful and have agreed that the High Court should quash the planning permission. For further information about this case, or about our planning work more generally, please contact Gareth Mitchell or Polly Glynn.

Another Somali unlawful detention test case

The High Court has ordered the release of MM a young Somali with a wife and children who has lived legally in the UK since he was a child. He had been held as an immigration detainee for almost two years. Mr. Justice Davis said ‘enough is enough’; he had been unlawfully detained at least from the date when the Home Office decision-maker reconsidered the case and filed their defence to the court case. For a copy of the judgment click here.

Sue Willman who represented MM, said 'This decision is a warning bell that the Home Secretary should review the detention of any Somalis from Mogadishu as their detention is likely to be unlawful until the European Court of Human Rights has considered whether the UK is breaching human rights by sending people back there'.

Jerome Phelps, Director of London Detainee Support Group, commented ‘This case highlights the plight of indefinite detainees, who are trapped in a bureaucratic nightmare with no exit. We are supporting many detainees who cannot return and are detained for years, at public expense, because the Home Offices refuses to release them.’

Supreme Court refuses to consider appeal re squatters article 8 rights

Pierce Glynn represented a group of Luton residents in one of the first appeals to the new Supreme Court. Sadly, the court has refused to grant permission for their appeal against the Court of Appeal decision to go ahead. They now face eviction.

The residents had argued that if they were evicted, it would violate their right to family and home life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention and that they were entitled to a court hearing to consider their personal circumstances. They had moved into a derelict care home on the outskirts of Luton 16 years ago and have gradually improved it, but their housing co-op lease was ended, leaving them as trespassers. For the last two years, they have been fighting a legal battle against Bedfordshire County Council, (now Bedfordshire Central Council). The Minister for Communities and Local Government intervened in the case and supported the occupiers' argument that their case should be referred back to the County Court for full consideration of the facts and explained that the Minister was concerned to ensure that 'full and clear guidance was provided in these early cases in order to ensure a consistent application of the law in this area'. The Council of Europe's Council of Ministers is now investigating whether the UK is complying with the European Court of Human Rights judgements on article 8.

In his leading judgment in the Court of Appeal, LJ Waller decided that there was no right to have a review of the facts as known by the council at the date they decided to take possession, or at the date of the possession hearing, because the case involved trespassers, even though they had previously been licencees. He considered that the solution lay in the the right to suspend the order, so delaying the eviction. The difficulty with this is that is is understood since the case of McPhail that the court has no power to suspend such an order unless the landlord agrees. To read the judgment click here.

The residents are now applying to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that UK law does not give sufficiently to protect their right to respect for home and family life under article 8.

High Court orders release of Somali separated from son

On 25 June, the High Court ordered the release of Mr. D at a final judicial review hearing. He is a Somali who has been detained for 3 years, separated from his 4 year old son, who is being looked after by a relative. The Home Office detained him following media stories about the Government failing to deport ex-prisoners. It is only lawful to detain if removal from the UK is imminent. The European Court of Human Rights is currently granting injunctions to prevent Somali nationals being removed to Mogadishu because of the ongoing civil war there. A recent case (R (Abdi) v SSHD) decided that the ongoing litigation surrounding the issue of removals to Somalia may take years to be resolved. To read the High Court judgement click here. For more information about this case please contact Sue Willman.

Court of Appeal judgment in Access to Health case

We represent many patients who have been refused medical treatment for serious conditions like cancer and liver disease because of their immigration status. On the 30th March 2009 the Court of Appeal decided that the Department of Health's guidance restricting access to healthcare for migrants is unlawful. We brought a test case on behalf of a Palestinian former asylum seeker who is unable to return home and could not pay for treatment. He was given treatment after we applied to court but the case went ahead as a challenge to the government’s guidance, and was successful in the High Court [see ], where Mr Justice Mitting decided that refused asylum seekers can get free NHS treatment. The Department of Health appealed and the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision, ruling that refused asylum seekers cannot get free treatment. However, the Court also allowed our cross-appeal, and decided that the guidance is unlawful because it fails to explain what hospital’s should do if a patient cannot pay for treatment and cannot return home immediately. The judgment was widely reported in the media (see links below), and our press release can be found here

http://www.channel4.com/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

We are considering whether to appeal to the House of Lords or not, but in the meantime there is likely to be confusion about how to apply the judgement and the new guidance, so if you would like advice about this issue please contact us. The solicitor dealing with the case is Adam Hundt.

LSC awards “Excellence” rating

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) has awarded Pierce Glynn a Category 1 Excellence rating for our housing advice and representation, following an LSC Peer Review. The firm has already been awarded a Category 1 Excellence rating for its community care work following an earlier peer review. Only 3% of legal aid firms nationally have been awarded an Excellence rating.