Source: https://www.1cor.com/london/barristers/neil-sheldon/
Timestamp: 2020-02-28 02:53:39
Document Index: 659274861

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'art 36', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art 5', 'EWCA ']

Neil Sheldon QC - 1 Crown Office Row, London, Barrister Chambers
Neil Sheldon QC is recommended by the directories as a leading new silk in a broad range of practice areas, including public & administrative law, public inquiries & inquests, professional discipline, and clinical negligence.
He has acted in many of the most important public inquiries and inquests of recent years including the Inquests into the terrorist attacks on Westminster Bridge, London Bridge and Manchester Arena, the Victoria Climbie Inquiry, the Zahid Mubarak Inquiry, the Al Swaedy Inquiry, the Iraq Inquiry and the Alexander Litvinenko Inquiry. He is currently acting for the NCA and a number of government departments in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). He is instructed by the Cabinet Office in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, and by a leading medical defence union in the Infected Blood Inquiry.
Neil was first appointed by the Attorney General as junior counsel to the crown in 2002, and has been on the A Panel since 2010. He undertakes a range of high profile work for a variety of government departments. He has particular experience of national security work, and holds developed vetted (DV) security clearance.
He has extensive experience of advocacy in the higher courts. He has appeared in over 50 cases in the Court of Appeal, and in a number of the most important recent human rights appeals in the Supreme Court. Neil is currently instructed in a number of forthcoming Supreme Court appeals, and several cases before the European Court of Human Rights.
In 2018 he was named ‘Public Inquiries Barrister of the Year UK’ by The Lawyer Monthly.
Neil has acted in a wide range of high profile inquests. He regularly appears in high-profile and complex inquests, and has particular experience of cases involving confidential material. He is currently acting for the NCA in the case of Jermaine Baker, a high-profile fatal shooting inquest.
He acted for the Foreign and Home Secretaries in the Alexander Litvinenko and Khalil Dale inquests. He has represented the Youth Justice Board in a number highly sensitive inquests concerning the deaths of young people in custody.
London Bridge & Borough Market Inquests.
Prof. Bitner-Glindzicz Inquest.
Neil Sheldon is recommended by the directories as a leading new silk in a broad range of practice areas, including public & administrative law, public inquiries & inquests, professional discipline, and clinical negligence.
“He’s one to watch.” “He’s very good with clients and they adore his approach.” (Chambers & Partners 2019)
“His skeleton arguments are impressive.” “Highly composed, organised, thorough and comprehensive. He has a very cool head.” “Extremely clever and good humoured and a delight to work with.” (Chambers & Partners 2018)
Infected Blood Inquiry (ongoing).
Grenfell Tower Inquiry (ongoing).
Victoria Climbie Inquiry: Counsel to Inquiry.
Zahid Mubarak Inquiry: Counsel to Inquiry.
Al Sweady Inquiry: Counsel to the Military Witnesses.
Iraq Inquiry: Counsel to several prominent political and military witnesses.
Alexander Litvinenko Inquiry: Counsel to Foreign and Home Secretaries.
IICSA: Counsel to several government departments.
Chantler Review into Standardised Tobacco Packaging: Counsel to Review.
Investigation of Jimmy Savile at Broadmoor: Counsel to Investigation.
Neil has been heavily involved in national security work since 2003 when he was first appointed as a special advocate to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. He acted as special advocate for, amongst others Abu Hamza and a number of the original Belmarsh detainees.
More recently, Neil has acted exclusively for government departments and agencies in work of this nature and has been involved in some of the most-high profile such cases including the Alexander Litvinenko inquest/inquiry, the Saudi arms trade litigation and a number of applications to European Court of Human Rights concerned with the bulk interception of communications and communications data.
Neil has extensive experience of SIAC and has acted for the Secretary of State in a variety of appeals including deportation with assurances, deprivation of citizenship and naturalization.
Neil has held Developed Vetted (DV) security clearance continuously since 2003.
E3 and G3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ongoing): Deprivation of citizenship (SIAC)
Al Khayer v Secretary of State for the Home Department (ongoing): refusal of naturalisation for various members of President Assad’s extended family (SIAC).
Bureau of Investigative Journalism v United Kingdom (ongoing): ECHR application concerning bulk interception of communications; Articles 8 and 10.
Saudi Arms Trade Litigation (ongoing): JSA 2013 closed material procedure; international humanitarian law; relationship between national security and international relations.
McGartland v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 686: National Security; JSA 2013 closed material procedure; NCND principle; correct approach to case management under the JSA.
Foreign Secretary v Coroner for Inner North London [2014] ACD 43 PII; Litvinenko Inquest; successful Jr of Coroner’s decision to order disclosure of material.
McGartland v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2248 (QB): JSA 2013 closed material procedure; s.6 declaration; case management.
LO (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 164: Appeals against preliminary rulings of SIAC; application of s.7 of the SIAC Act 1997.
E v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] HRLR 18.
Neil regularly appears in the higher courts in a wide variety of judicial review cases, with particular emphasis on claims involving the European Convention on Human Rights. A selection of his recent cases in this area is set out below.
Neil is currently instructed in a number of cases before the European Court of Human Rights including AL v United Kingdom (female genital mutilation in Nigeria), Bureau of Investigative Journalism v United Kingdom (bulk interception of communications; protection of journalistic sources), and Nait-Liman v Switzerland (universal jurisdiction for acts of torture; state immunity).
KV (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA 119: Asylum; self-infliction of injuries by proxy; correct approach to medical evidence in asylum cases.
R (Kiarie & Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (judgment awaited): Article 8; certification; procedural fairness in out of country appeals.
SXH v Crown Prosecution Service [2017] UKSC 30: Article 8; whether decisions to prosecute can engage the right to respect for private/family life.
Agyarko v Secretary of State for Home Department [2017] UKSC 11: Article 8; removal of overstayers; need for 'insurmountable obstacles' to continuation of family life and 'exceptional circumstances'.
MM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 10: Articles 8/14; proportionality of minimum income requirement; discrimination; correct approach to a challenge to the immigration rules.
Hesham Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60: Article 8; deportation of foreign criminal; principles to apply; function of the Tribunal in human rights appeals.
R (Eastenders) v HMRC) [2014] UKSC 34: Article 6; power to detain goods pending enquiries as to whether duty paid; construction of s.139 of CEMA 1979.
Nguyen v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 258: Article 8; foreign criminal deportation; interests of children, including step-children whose biological parents are opposed to relocation.
R (Rights of Women) v Lord Chancellor [2016] 1 WLR 2543: Challenge to LASPO regulations concerning victims of domestic violence; Padfield ulra vires; financial abuse as component of domestic abuse.
WW (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 648: Article 8; foreign criminal deportation; correct approach to proportionality assessment.
BB (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 25: Immigration; interpretation of long residence rules; transitional provisions; statutory construction.
Danso v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 596: Article 8; foreign criminal deportation; correct approach to proportionality assessment.
Ikuga v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] 1 WLR 390: Article 8; removal of overstayers; need for 'insurmountable obstacles' to continuation of family life and 'exceptional circumstances'.
FZ (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] 3 CMLR 12: EU law; Article 20, TFEU; deportation; Zambrano principle.
CG (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 194: Article 8; foreign criminal deportation; young offenders; correct approach to application of immigration rules.
AJ (Angola) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1636: Article 8; foreign criminal deportation; correct approach to application of immigration rules.
LC (China) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] INLR 302: Article 8; foreign criminal deportation; best interest of children in foreign criminal cases.
HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1304: Article 8; foreign criminal deportation); correct approach to the public interest in the deportation of serious offenders.
SJ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] 1 WLR 1073: Articles 8/14; proportionality of minimum income requirement; discrimination; correct approach to a challenge to the immigration rules.
SXH v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWCA Civ 90: Article 8; whether decisions to prosecute can engage the right to respect for private/family life.
AA (Iran) v Upper Tribunal [2013] EWCA Civ 1523: Asylum; unaccompanied minors; duty to trace; imputed political opinion.
MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2014] 1 WLR 544: Article 8; foreign criminal deportation; correct approach to new immigration rules.
CW (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 915: Article 8; foreign criminal deportation; public interest in deportation of serious drugs offender.
MB (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 220: Right of Abode; presumption of legitimacy under s.1(4) of Legitimacy Act 1976.
Hayat & Treebhowan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] INLR 17: Article 8; requirement to apply from abroad; interpretation and application of Chikwamba.
R (Eastenders) v HMRC [2012] 1 WLR 2067: Article 6; power to detain goods pending enquiries as to whether duty paid; construction of s.139 of CEMA 1979.
RS (Uganda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1749: Article 8; deportation of young offenders; application of Maslov v Austria.
Quila v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 3 All ER 81: Articles 8 & 12; proportionality of raising age limit to combat forced marriages; paragraph 277 of Immigration Rules.
High Court / Divisional Court
Gill (on behalf of the Sikh Federation UK) v Cabinet Office [2019] EWHC 3407: challenge by the Sikh Federation to 2021 census.
R (Britcits) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 956: Article 8; Padfield ultra vires; challenge to immigration rules restricting rights of entry for adult dependant relatives.
R (Rights of Women) v Lord Chancellor [2015] 2 FLR 823: Challenge to LASPO regulations concerning victims of domestic violence; Padfield ulra vires; financial abuse as component of domestic abuse.
R (Litvinenko) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] HRLR 6: Challenge to Home Secretary's decision not to order a statutory inquiry; Article 2; public interest considerations in investigation of high profile deaths.
Foreign Secretary v Coroner for Inner North London [2014] ACD 43: PII; Litvinenko Inquest; successful Jr of Coroner's decision to order disclosure of material.
R (Majid) & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] 1 WLR 2306: Articles 8/14; proportionality of minimum income requirement; discrimination; correct approach to a challenge to the immigration rules.
SXH v Crown Prosecution Service [2013] EWHC 71 (QB): Article 8; whether decisions to prosecute can engage the right to respect for private/family life.
R (Wilmot) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 3139 (Admin): Life prisoners; transfer to open conditions; principles to be applied by parole board.
Raed Mahajna v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2481: Article 5; detention pending deportation; requirement to give accurate reasons for deportation.
R (Bonhoeffer) v General Medical Council [2012] IRLR 37: Hearsay evidence in professional disciplinary proceedings; Article 6; compelling reasons required to justify absence of witness.
R (MA) v National Probation Service [2011] ACD 86: Article 6; challenge to conditions imposed after release on licence; sufficiency of judicial review.
R (English) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1726: Foreign students; minimum educational requirement; ultra vires; application of Pankina.
In the 100th episode of our podcast Law Pod UK, listen to Neil discuss Disaster Avoidance for Experts here.
Neil undertakes a wide range of costs work, and has particular experience of cases concerning the costs consequences of Part 36 offers. He appeared for the successful claimant in the recent Court of Appeal of Webb which set out the principles to be applied when a claimant beats a Part 36 offer but does not succeed on all issues in the case.
Neil has acted in a number of judicial review cases involving protective costs orders, and he has regularly acts for the Lord Chancellor in cases concerning criminal defending funding.
Webb v Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust [2016] 1 WLR 3899: Part 36; principles to apply if claimant beats Part 36 offer but only succeeds on some issues in the case.
R (Litvinenko) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2013] EWHC 3135: protective costs orders in judicial review claims; public interest; claimant’s means.
Wilson v Ministry of Defence [2013] CP Rep 33: Part 36; preliminary issues; meaning of 'trial has started' in CPR 36.9(3)(d).
Eastenders v HMRC [2012] STC 2036: application of s.144(2)(b) of CEMA 1979 to costs recover following successful claim.
Lord Chancellor v McLarty & Co [2012] 1 Costs LR 190: interpretation and application of Litigators Graduated Fee Scheme; special preparation fee; audio recordings.
Lord Chancellor v Michael J Reed & Co [2010] 1 Cost LR 72: criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007; special preparation fee; DVD footage.
Neil has represented hundreds of doctors, dentists and other health professionals in disciplinary proceedings before the GMC, the GDC, the HCPC and the GOC. He has extensive experience of employment related disputes concerning health professionals, including the application of MHPS, and of judicial review challenges arising out of such cases.
Neil has acted in some of the most important professional disciplinary cases of recent years including the cases of Dr Andrew Wakefield (MMR), Professor Philip Bonhoeffer (the leading case on hearsay), Dr Ruscillo (the first CHRE appeal), and SS & Ghosh (legal representation in Trust disciplinary hearings).
Al-Mishlab v Milton Keynes Hospital Trust [2015] EWHC 3096 (QB): internal disciplinary proceedings; MHPS; injunction; correct approach to defects in investigation.
Al Mishlab v Milton Keynes Hospital Trust [2015] EWHC 91 (QB): claim by doctor for breach of contract; duty to seek alternatives to suspension; breakdown in working relationships.
R (Bonhoeffer) v General Medical Council [2012] IRLR 37: successful challenge to MPTS decision to admit hearsay evidence; only permissible in compelling circumstances.
R (SS) v Knowsley NHS Primary Care Trust [2006] EWHC 26 (Admin): right to legal representation at removal hearings; Article 6; common law fairness.
Ruscillo v CHRE [2005] 1 WLR: First appeal by CHRE for undue leniency; applicable principles.
Dr Andrew Wakefield v General Medical Council: MMR; legal aid funding; research ethics; dishonesty.
Neil has extensive experience of immigration law, and regularly appears in the higher courts in a wide range of appeals. He has particular experience of cases concerning the ECHR, and has appeared in many of the most important such cases in recent years including the recent appeals to the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali, MM (Lebanon), Agyarko and Kiarie & Byndloss.
Neil is currently acting in a number of applications to the European Court of Human Rights concerned with immigration.
“He is a really top-quality barrister and a very clever guy.” “He’s super hard-working and entirely reliable. He produces clear, concise and elegant written submissions and has very thorough knowledge of immigration.” (Chambers & Partners 2018)
Agyarko v Secretary of State for Home Department [2017] UKSC 11: Article 8; removal of overstayers; need for ‘insurmountable obstacles’ to continuation of family life and ‘exceptional circumstances’.
R (Kiarie & Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Article 8; certification; procedural fairness in out of country appeals.
Ikuga v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] 1 WLR 390: Article 8; removal of overstayers; need for ‘insurmountable obstacles’ to continuation of family life and ‘exceptional circumstances’.
CG (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 19: Article 8; foreign criminal deportation; young offenders; correct approach to application of immigration rules.
Quila v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 3 All ER 8: Articles 8 & 12; proportionality of raising age limit to combat forced marriages; paragraph 277 of Immigration Rules.
SL (Vietnam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 1NLR 651: Deportation; bests interests of children; Article 8; mistakes of fact.
TF (Angola) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 905: Asylum; Article 8.
MH (Syria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] 3 All ER 564: Article 1F of Refugee Convention; involvement in terrorism and crimes against humanity.
VK (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 1435: Detention following failed asylum claim; fresh claims; Hardial Singh principles.
EB (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] QB 1: Asylum; confiscation of identity documents as persecution; statelessness.
JN (DRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 320: Asylum; false documentation, procedural irregularity.
RJ (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 93: Deportation of foreign criminal; procedural fairness; absence of representative at appeal; professional conduct.
MT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 455: Asylum; Article 8.
SO (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 76: Asylum; Article 8; best interests of children.
HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 1373: Asylum; application of Tanveer Ahmed; standard of proof; documentary evidence in asylum claims.
High Court / Divisional Court / Tribunal
Cheryl Ribelli v Entry Clearance Officer, Pretoria [2018] EWCA Civ 611
TZ (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department : PG (India) v S Secretary of State for the Home Department (2018).
OA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 681.
R (Britcits) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 956: Article 8; Padfield ultra vires; challenge to immigration rules restricting rights of entry for adult dependent relatives.
Dasgupta (error of law-proportionality – correct approach) [2016] UKUT 28: Adult dependent relatives; correct approach to error of law findings; Article 8 proportionality.
Deelah (section 117B – ambit) [2015] UKUT 515: Presidential Panel; challenge to vires of Part 5A of 2002 Act.
R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] ACD 42: Unlawful detention; serious sexual offender; disputed nationality; imminence of return.
Neil Sheldon QC successful in landmark appeal on Parliamentary Privilege - Feb 2020
Neil Sheldon QC acted for the Foreign Secretary in the case of Gannon & Warsama v Foreign & Commonwealth Office and Sasha Wass QC [2020] EWCA Civ 142, which concerned the report of a...
High Court to hear challenge by Sikhs to Census - Nov 2019
Neil Sheldon QC is acting for the Cabinet Office in its a defence of a challenge by the Sikh Federation to the recommendation by the Office for National Statistics that ‘Sikh’ should not be...
“He provides clear written opinions and deals with matters promptly. He makes himself available and his manner with clients is caring and reassuring. His trial preparation is meticulous and his advocacy is measured and persuasive.”
‘A very polished silk who demonstrates great client empathy.’
“He’s often given high-pressure public impact cases and is hugely impressive.”
Law Pod UK Ep. 100: Disaster Avoidance for Experts