For this website the lawyers at Bhatt Murphy have created a unique resource. Explore our timelines to understand the impact of our client's cases.
Learn how legal challenges relate to legislation and other political action. Understand the law in context and learn how political and legal events impact on one another. Find out more about Bhatt Murphy's contribution to legal change.
In an order agreed at the High Court today, the Secretary of State will reconsider whether Kevin Lane should remain a category A prisoner. Kevin maintains his innocence for an alleged ganagland killing and despite his exemplary prison behaviour, remains cateogry A some 10 years after his conviction.
Kevin has been refused downgrading until he attends courses that are designed to "address his offending behaviour". However, in order to complete the courses he must admit his guilt. Kevin has an application pending before the CCRC to challenge his conviction and feels that he is caught in a "catch 22" situaiton where the secretary of State is trying to force him to choose between clearing his name and making some progress in prison.
Tony Murphy of Bhatt Murphy is currently acting for four NGOs (INQUEST, JUSTICE, Liberty and Mind) in an intervention before the House of Lords in two landmark cases on public authorities' duties to protect victims of crime (Van Colle v The Chief Constable of Hertfordshire; and Smith V The Chief Constable of Sussex). The four day hearing commenced on 19 May and judgment is awaited.
The Secretary of State has accepted that the monitoring of telephone calls between Harry Roberts and his solicitor, Simon Creighton of Bhatt Murphy, should not have happened. In a written Ministerial Statement he has set out steps to prevent a reoccurence.
Whilst the acceptance that this should not have occured is welcomed, Mr Roberts takes issue with some of the findings. He maintains that he did notfiy the authorities of his legal telephone numbers and he is disappointed that no proper explanation has been given for the failure to notify him of the breach. The matter only came to light by accident and it is a matter for concern that no-one thought to take responsibility voluntarily.
Simon Creighton, on behalf of Mr Roberts, commented:
“My client is pleased that the Minister has acknowledged that there was no justification or lawful basis for his legally privileged calls to have been monitored. He remains worried, however, that this could have occurred at all and it is difficult to understand how the system failed to provide any real safeguards in terms of self-regulation. He also wishes to make it clear that he did inform the authorities of his legally privileged numbers and has provided a copy of the form he used to do this to them. It must be remembered that this all occurred against the backdrop of a secret court procedure that had already been strongly criticised by two senior law Lords and this makes it all the more reprehensible that the basic principles of justice were not followed. I am also concerned that no-one saw fit to admit what had happened and that there is no proper explanation given for the failure to notify my client of this breach, even after the secrecy order in relation to his parole review had been lifted. My client remains deeply concerned at this course of events and is worried that there are still not any proper safeguards in place to prevent a reoccurrence in the future.”
The Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal brought by Wayne Black that the Secretary of State breached his Convention rights by rejecting a Parole Board recommendation for his release.
Wayne Black is serving a prison sentence of 24 years. The Parole Board recommended he should be released but this recommendation was rejected by the Minister for Justice. The High Court upheld that decision but the Court of Appeal has ruled that the legislation is in breach of Article 5(4) of the European Convention as thedecision should be made by a judicial body and not the executive.
The full judgment can be read here.
Court finds that there was flawed and unlawful decision making leading to the introduction of new rules governing the use of restraint on children in secure training centres.
Mark Scott of Bhatt Murphy said:
"It is disappointing that an application to Court had to be made for the true nature of the change in the rules governing the use of restraint of vulnerable children in STCs to be recognised by the Ministry of Justice. Albeit that it is to be welcomed that the court have recorded the unlawful failures of decision making prior to the introduction of the rules, it is of concern that the rules have been allowed to stay in place when important safeguards of consultation and a race assessment have still not been carried out."
Read the INQUEST press release about this story here.
Read the full judgment here.
Lawyers representing complainants in respect of police misconduct have withdrawn their participation from the Advisory Board of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in a damming vote of no confidence in the watchdog body.
The Police Action Lawyers Group (PALG), a nationwide coalition of lawyers representing members of the public on complaints against police, has been involved on the IPCC Advisory Board since its inception in April 2004. Over the years, PALG members have found themselves inundated with an endless flow of cases where the IPCC has failed to properly handle complaints about police misconduct, ranging from racism, violence and fabrication of evidence, to corruption and even deaths in police custody. As far back as 2005, PALG submitted to the IPCC a dossier of cases highlighting serious failings which had remained unaddressed depsite repeated representations. The continuing lack of any progress in the organisation has now left PALG with no option but to resign from the IPCC Advisory Board and call for immediate action to address the growing crisis of confidence in the IPCC.
PALG representative Tony Murphy said as follows:
"The rigorous investigation of complaints against the police has long been held as essential for our democracy. The IPCC leadership is failing to fulfil its responsibilities in relation to that vital task. Urgent action is needed if the IPCC is not to become another obstacle on the road to police accountability "
Read Tony Murphy's Comment is Free article here.
Further articles in the press about this story can be found here and here.
Read the response from the Chair of the IPCC here.
The Court of Appeal have upheld the finding that the Parole Board is not sufficiently independent of the Secretary of State in a case started by Bhatt Murphy. Details of the case can be found here.
The judgment maintains the finding that the Parole Board is not sufficiently independent of the Secretary of State for Justice and suggests that a clearer sponsorship arrangement is necessary. The Secretary of State will also need to decide how properly to commodate the Parole Board within the Ministry of Justice to ensure that there is no appearance of bias in the future. The full judgment can be read here.
Bhatt Murphy are delighted to announce that Tony Murphy has joined the firm as a new partner. Tony, who was previously a partner at Bindmans, specialises in actions against the police.
Bhatt Murphy represented a life sentenced prisoner who has successfully challenged the refusal by the Secretary of State to move him to open conditions.
Robert Hill succeeded in establishing that the decision to reject a parole recommendation on his move was unlawful on the individual facts of his case. Mr Justice Irwin, went on to hold that the Secretary of State was operating an unbalanced policy whereby he always accepted advice from the Parole Board which was unfavourable to prisoners but that he now rejected advice which is positive to prisoners in nearly 40% of cases.
Bhatt Murphy acted for a former prisoner who has successfully challenged the lack of independence of the Parole Board from the Secretary of state for Justice. The full judgment of the court can be found here.
Hamish Arnott, who acted for the prisoner, commented that: "the case is important as it demonstrates the need for judicial bodies to be independent from the executive, both in practice and in form. Given that the Secretary of State is a party to all parole applications, it is difficult to understand how he can also retain ultimate responsibility for appointments to the Board and its funding. Although leave to appeal has been granted, I am hopeful that the Court of Appeal will uphold this decision."
The family of Roger Sylvester, who died after being arrested and restrained by police officers, have expressed their disappointment at the decision of the Independent Police Complaints Commission not to recommend any disciplinary action against the officers involved. Further information on the decision and a statement from the family can be obtained from INQUEST.
Bhatt Murphy have successfully challenged a refusal by the Secretary of State to move a lifer to open conditions. Robert Hill succeeded in establishing that the decision to reject a parole recommendation on his move was unawlful and the High Court wnet on to hold that the Secretary of State was operating an unbalanced policy whereby he always accepted advice from the Parole Board which was unfavourable to prisoners but that he now rejected postive advice in nearly 40% of cases.
The Judge who presided over the inquest into the death of Gareth Myatt, the only child to die in custody following restraint, wrote today to the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor saying that it would be ‘wholly unforgivable and a double tragedy’ if there was any delay in learning from and acting upon the lessons of Gareth’s death. further details can be found here.
Harry Roberts was granted permission by the High Court to challenge the decision of the Parole Board to rely on secret evidence at his parole review which concluded in December 2006. He argued that the secrecy was unnecessary and prevented him from having a fair hearing of his case. A full hearing of his challenge will take place in 2008.
The just has returned an verdict into the death of Gareth Myatt who died while being restrained is a secure training centre. The verdict outlined a series of failings by the authorities. Further details of the verdict can be found here.
Bhatt Murphy are delighted to announce that Hamish Arnott has joined the partnership. Hamish has worked at Bhatt Murphy for 6 years, specialising in prison law and immigration detention. We are also very excited to be able to welcome three new solicitors to the firm: Kim Bouwer and Alice Hardy have joined our police law team and Nancy Collins has joined the prison law team.
The jury delivered a narrative verdict at the conclusion of the inquest into the death of Adam Rickwood. Aged just 14 years at the time of his death, Adam is the youngest person to have died in penal custody for a quarter of a century. A press release issued on behalf of Adam's family can be found here.
Very substantial damages and an apology have been agreed in respect of the repeated sexual assault of a young girl by a police officer and her professional carers. Damages were sought in respect of the negligent investigation by the police of the victim's allegations. The police and the relevant local authority have made a payment of compensation and provided an acknowledgement of the sufering our client endured.
On 17 April 2007 the House of Lords will begin to hear an appeal in the case of R (Al-Skeini & Ors) v Secretary of State for Defence. The hearing will concern the extent to which the jurisdiction of the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 may extend to civilian deaths at the hands of British soldiers in Iraq. Bhatt Murphy has been given permission to intervene at the hearing on behalf of 11 organisations – The Law Society of England and Wales, The Bar Human Rights Committee, Amnesty International Ltd, Justice, Liberty, Interights, The Association for the Prevention of Torture, British Irish Rights Watch, Kurdish Human Rights Project, The Redress Trust and the AIRE Centre.
The House of Lords dismissed an appeal by the Home Secretary in the case brought by Bhatt Murphy on behalf of Paul Stellato. The Home Secretary had argued that it is lawful for the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to impose a harsher parole system retrospectively but this argument was rejected and the Lords ordered the release of Mr Stellato. The full judgment can be found here.
Fiona Murphy gave a presentation to the All Party Parliament Group on Army Deaths concerning the legal and human rights issues relevant to public funding for controversial inquests concerning members of the armed forces. A copy of her paper may be downloaded from here.
Home Office admits it has operated an unlawful policy resulting in the detention of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Following litigation on behalf of a group 34 Claimants, all of whom were children when detained, the Home Office admitted today that the age dispute policy which permitted immigration officers to treat child asylum-seekers as adults and so subject them to detention was unlawful.
See full press release for further details.
The High Court today approved the terms of an agreed settlement between 197 Claimants and the Home Office in a claim arising out of the inadequacy of the medical care the Claimants were given on entering prison.
It is well established that prisoners are entitled to the same standard of healthcare as that offered in the community. In this case it was clear that the medical care offered to the Claimants in this action fell below acceptable standards. The Home Office have accepted that this was the case in admitting full liability in all cases and settlement figures have now been agreed.
It is to be hoped that this case will contribute to ensuring that those in prison are given the same standard of healthcare as that expected to be offered within the community.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, has ordered a fresh inquest into the mysterious death of HH Judge Andrew Chubb in July 2001.
The decision comes upon a hearing of proceedings before the High Court brought by Kerry Sparrow with the authority of the Attorney General. Quashing the verdict of accidental death returned by the East Somerset Coroner in December 2001, Lord Phillips ruled that “it would be contrary to the interests of justice to leave undisturbed, in a case which has been the subject of wide public interest, a verdict which is based on only part of the relevant evidence and which the balance of the relevant evidence suggests may be open to doubt”.
Ms Sparrow was represented by Raju Bhatt of Bhatt Murphy, first in her application to the Attorney General for his authority, and then in her ensuing proceedings before the High Court. See attached press release on behalf of Ms Sparrow and approved judgment for details.
An inquest jury has held that failures by state agencies to properly safeguard a vulnerable young man were ‘contributory factors' in his death. Karl Lewis, whose family was represented by Bhatt Murphy solicitors at the inquest, was just 18 years old when he was found hanged in his cell at Stoke Heath Young Offender’s Institution. See INQUEST press release for details.
An inquest jury has found that a vulnerable prisoner died because the prison in which he was held did not properly recognize his vulnerability. Bhatt Murphy acted for the family of Dennis Williams who was found hanged in Bedford prison in December 2004. The jury noted that the prison’s monitoring system had been closed too early and as a result, Mr Willams had died 'unintentionally from his own hands'. See the INQUEST press release for details.
The High Court has ordered a fresh inquest into the death of Rachel Whitear. Rachel, a recovering heroin addict, was found dead on 12 May 2000 holding a syringe. Rachel’s parents, who were represented by Raju Bhatt of Bhatt Murphy, had complained about the adequacy of the original investigation and the Court held that as well as other failures in the first inquest, Rachel’s family had been denied the opportunity to properly participate in the inquest. See attached BBC news report.
On 15 September 2006 Simon Creighton and Hamish Arnott both gave papers to a conference about the Parole Board organised by the Faculty of Law at Cambridge University and the Parole Board. All of the conference papers are to be published in a book later this year. Hamish spoke about the standards of fairness at recall hearing and Simon Creighton on the independence of the Board. See attached details.
Bhatt Murphy successfully challenged a police caution issued to Mr Wyman on the grounds that the police did not have sufficiently clear evidence or admissions to administer the caution. The court issued guidelines on future conduct in such cases and the caution has been expunged form our client’s record. See attached judgment.
Bhatt Murphy Solicitors are currently acting for a number of prisoners who have been removed from open prison conditions or refused release because of the chaos at the Home Office about the status of foreign national prisoners (see article). The problems run from prisoners who do face the prospect of deportation being refused release at the end of their prison sentences through to those prisoners who have British citizenship but are being treated as if they are susceptible to deportation. Judicial review proceedings have been brought on behalf of two prisoners in this second group.
Simon Creighton discusses the current issues regarding legal aid for parole hearings (see comment).
High Court highlights long standing failure by the Home Office to comply with legal requirements to protect torture victims from being detained at Oakington Immigration Detention Centre.
On 22 May 2006 The High Court gave judgment in a case which highlighted a “persistent and sustained failure” by the Home Office to abide by the legal requirement to ensure that detainees in immigration detention centres are medically examined within 24 hours of their detention. This failure led to the unlawful detention of two asylum seekers at Oakington Removal Centre in May 2005, who should have been assessed as unsuitable for detention as there was medical evidence that they had been tortured in their countries of origin. Read More
Very substantial damages and apology were agreed in the Sheffield High Court in respect of the assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution of the claimant arising from an unlawful and racially motivated stop and search. The case raised novel and complex issues of causation in respect of the psychiatric illness developed by the claimant after these events and the level of damages achieved together with the apology, reflected acceptance on the part of the Chief Constable that his officers’ actions had caused the claimant severe mental health problems.
Bhatt Murphy was commissioned by the Deepcut Review to provide an opinion concerning the rights and entitlements of bereaved families within controversial death inquiries. The opinion of Fiona Murphy has been published as an appendix to the Review on 30 March 2006. A copy can be downloaded here. The full Review document is available at www.deepcutreview.org.uk.
In Butchart v The Home Office, 15 March 2006 the Court of Appeal has considered a strike out application by the Home Office in respect of a psychiatric injury claim by Mr Butchart arising from the suicide of his cell mate, Ian Holms. Read More
Public law litigation undertaken by Bhatt Murphy exposed serious child protection concerns about the policy and practice of the Immigration Service in detaining children asylum seekers whose age was disputed without undertaking full age assessments and which had led to many children being wrongfully detained and fast tracked led to a change in the policy to provide greater protection for children before decisions were made to detain and fast track.
Hamish Arnott and Simon Creighton’s new book, Parole Board Hearings: Law and Practice was published by Legal Action Group in January 2006. The book is the first practitioners’ guide to the parole system and the preparation and presentation of cases to the Parole Board.
Sir Duncan Nichol, Chairman of the Parole Board, has prepared the forward to the book and stated, "I wholeheartedly welcome the chance to commend this book to its audience.”
The first review of the book by Andrew Keogh on Crimeline commented, “The authors are two of the most respected names in the field; they combine a sometimes rare feat in being able not only to practice at the highest level in their field, but also in being able to identify and explain to a beginner the core knowledge needed.”