Judicial Review & Human Rights law
Marc Beaumont has considerable experience of judicial review (“JR”) work in the Administrative Court in London. This work is in many respects idiosyncratic: the unwary will almost certainly make mistakes. Claimant JR requires early and expeditious legal analysis, an ability to be original and a willingness to pursue legal argument despite judicial rejection at the formative stages of the process. The work also engages the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Marc Beaumont has acted in a number of ground-breaking judicial reviews since the 1990s, first in the sphere of education law often acting for action groups and, more recently, as he has developed a niche practice defending Solicitors and Barristers in professional disciplinary work.
Marc’s recent JR work is typified by his never-say-die work in the case of Kaur v ILEX in 2011, in which, despite rejection at every stage of the justice system, he took the case to the Court of Appeal and won and in doing so, expanded the parameters of the law of bias.
The consistent thread of Marc’s JR work is that he acts as a champion for the underdog against Local Government and powerful regulators. This work is typified by compassion for the client, independence of mind and strength of will. The work is often about speaking truth to power.
In 2013, Marc was heavily involved on behalf of 2 barristers in the judicial review litigation arising from the defective appointments of disciplinary panels in barrister disciplinary cases between 2006 and 2012.
Selected notable cases conducted in the Public Law, Judicial Review and Human Rights fields.
- RICS v Martin Rushton (2017) March High Court, QBD.
(Online protest by surveyor wrongly convicted and struck off; surveyor won his appeal and was reinstated; online postings and correspondence claimed to be actionable harassment of RICS under Protection from Harassment Act 1997; whether ECHR Article 10 right to freedom of expression; whether need to prove “alarm and distress” from alleged harassment; whether RICS seeking an injunction had “clean hands”).
- H v RICS (2016) Summer
(Representing the quasi-judicial Chairman of Conduct and Appeals at RICS in a potential judicial review against RICS, who removed him when he refused to sign new terms of appointment providing for his removal on one month’s notice, a clause which would have defeated his ECHR Article 6 security of tenure).
- Regina (M, a barrister) v Legal Ombudsman  December
(High Court judicial review challenge to LeO findings against a barrister; LeO findings quashed by consent)
- Reg (Strong) v Secretary of State for Education (2015)
(whether land at a school was “playing fields” within the meaning of s. 77 of the School Standards & Framework Act 1998 such that development required the consent of the SSFE).
- Reg (W) v GMC (2015) May
(Judicial review of GMC application to Interim Orders Panel; GMC non-disclosure of case notes; whether case examiners referred matter to IOP at all. )
- Mire v RICS  Admin Court, Ouseley J; Feb 2015
(Judicial review; whether a disciplinary or regulatory decision to prosecute engages Article 8(1) of the ECHR where the accused has been prosecuted by a previous regulator).
- Reg (Russell) v Bar Standards Board Court of Appeal, 26.11.14
(Disciplinary tribunal panel member time expired. Whether unlawful & whether tribunal compliant with ECHR, Art 6, EU Charter, Art 47; whether panel member a de facto judge or whether de facto judge principle unlawful by virtue of Art 14 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights).
- Reg (M, a barrister) v Legal Ombudsman Administrative Court, Nov 2014
(Successful application for relief from sanctions applying Denton v White, arising from non-payment of court fee in JR)
- F v United Kingdom (2013) 5th Dec; (2012) No: 5908
(application to European Court of Human Rights; whether violation of presumption of innocence; challenge to refusal of the Secretary of State to grant F compensation under s. 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 arising from his wrongful conviction in 2004 for various sexual offences).
- R (Rosemarine) v Legal Ombudsman  EWHC 601 (Admin; Manchester)
(Judicial Review against the Legal Ombudsman; whether consideration of a fresh complaint outside of LeO jurisdiction by virtue of s. 126 of the Legal Services Act 2007; bias)
- P v United Kingdom January 2014
(Drafting an application to the European Court of Human Rights examining the administrative and judicial arrangements in the United Kingdom for dealing with errors in the allocation of judges to the specialist work areas of the High Court of Justice and the extent to which the UK’s purported solution [the “de facto judge principle”] violates Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) ).
- Reg (Mehey et al) v Bar Standards Board  16th October, High Court, Lawtel 24.10.13.
(Judicial review arising from failures of due process in the Bar’s disciplinary arrangements discovered by a report by COIC in 2012; time expired disciplinary judges – whether a tribunal “established by law” under ECHR Art. 6 and Art. 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; whether Art 47 now of direct effect in UK; whether laid down selection process of disciplinary judges had to be followed at all; whether prosecutor could partake in selection process of disciplinary judges; whether a disciplinary judge could properly receive an undisclosed salary from the prosecutor; whether logjam in Visitorial appeals process caused unlawful delay; whether proper Art. 6 security of tenure when BSB sits on committee (COIC) with the power to remove disciplinary judges from the “pool” at will; whether “discreditable” conduct should be defined).
- Kaur v ILEX  EWCA Civ 1168
(Ground-breaking decision of the Court of Appeal on the law of apparent bias and automatic disqualification in disciplinary proceedings; Vice President of ILEX unlawfully sat on disciplinary tribunal; Marc Beaumont, (on Public Access), defeated ILEX, (represented by Leading Counsel), securing the reversal of the decision of 4 previous senior Judges).
- P v Hertfordshire County Council  Lawtel, 30.1.09
(School closure; judicial review; Closure Notice failed to show how closure would improve SEN provision for SEN children; Closure Notice held to be invalid; closure decision quashed. Defect I identified will affect closures across England & Wales).
For a BBC radio interview with Marc Beaumont about the decision in P v Hertfordshire County Council in December 2008, please click here
- SR v Kent County Council  ELR 648, Lawtel, 21st September
(Education, racist bullying, child withdrawn from school, LEA offered same school or school distant from home, whether discharge of LEA duty under s. 19 of the Education Act 1996)
- R (Energy Financing Team Ltd) v Serious Fraud Office, GML International Ltd (Interested Party)  All ER 285, Divisional Court
(Foreign proceedings, international fraud, mutual assistance, SFO, search warrants far wider than overseas request, judicial review, specificity of warrant, s.2 Criminal Justice Act 1987, ECHR, formal Guidance from Divisional Court)
- J and B v Governors of H School  Lawtel, 2nd September, Court of Appeal.
(school exclusion, fights and serious injury; bullying of assailant; Governors reinstated excluded child; victim (the bully) sought JR of that decision; Governors capitulated; excluded child arguing that in its discretion court should not order a re-hearing by Governors as alternative remedy and hardship to him as a third party; absence of reasons of Judge below.)
- BJ and MB v Governors of H School  All ER (D) 274
(school exclusion, fights and serious injury; bullying of assailant; Governors reinstated excluded child; victim (the bully) sought JR of that decision; Governors capitulated; excluded child arguing that in its discretion court should not order a re-hearing by Governors as alternative remedy and hardship to him as a third party
- M v Worcestershire CC  Lawtel 27th April
(SEN, breach of s. 19(1) Education Act 1996, assurances of provision broken)
- Louden v Bury School Organisation Committee  Lawtel 19th December
(Constitutionality/illegality; bias of Chairman; evidence ignored; conduct of SOCs)
- Boulton & Andrew v Leeds School Organisation Committee  ELR 67
- Boulton & Andrew v Leeds School Organisation Committee  EWCA 20th June, Lawtel, Court of Appeal
(school closure, right of objectors to appear before SOC, scope of SOC´s duty to hear objections orally, natural justice, locus/whether pupils can be the applicants; abuse of process;)
- London Borough of Islington v Michaelides  Crim LR 843,  Divisional Court.
(Planning, breach of Enforcement Notice, autrefois acquit inapplicable where previous acquittal secured by improperly obtained certificate of lawful development).
- Thornberry v Coleman  All ER (D) 357, Court of Appeal
(Planning, slander by officer of Local Government, exemplary and aggravated damages, whether slander of Company Director is slander of the Company )
- Reg v Kingston Upon Hull MBC ex parte Rhodes  ELR 230
(s.13 Education Act 1996, breach of statutory duty, judicial review)
- Reg v Kirklees MBC ex parte Beaumont  ELR 204
(Local Government, bias, non-pecuniary interest, leading case on circumstances in which a Councillor must recuse himself from a Council vote)
- Reg v Sheffield CC ex parte McCloskey  ELR 85
- Reg v Rotherham MBC ex parte Tomlinson & Ors  ELR 500,  ELR 76, Court of Appeal(s. 411(5) Education Act 1996, lawfulness of catchment areas, Greenwich decision, out-catchment applicants)
- Reg v Sheffield CC ex parte Hague and others  ELR 242 & 511, Court of Appeal
(A leading case on school admissions, Section 411 Education Act 1996, conduct of appeals, whether Appeal Committees can take into account anterior unlawfulness of policy)
- Reg v London Borough of Redbridge ex parte Benning & ors  6 Ed CR 959
(School admissions, s. 411 Education Act 1996, catchment areas and ECHR)
- Reg v Rotherham MBC ex parte Clark & others  2 ELR 152, Court of Appeal
(education; leading modern case on school admissions; judicial review of school admissions policy based on catchment areas rather than parental preference; s. 411 Education Act 1996)