Azeem Suterwalla

Azeem has undertaken judicial review cases across a number of different areas. Notable cases include:

• R (AE) v Croydon LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 547. The first successful appeal in the Court of Appeal against a finding of fact made in the High Court of an age disputed minor’s age.
• R (HA) v Hillingdon LBC [2012] EWHC 291 (Admin). Guidance given by the High Court on when a continuing duty under the Children Act 1989 subsists against a local authority, notwithstanding that the child in question has moved out of its area.
• R (R) v Croydon LBC (Thirlwall J 10 February 2012) The local authority was bound to treat the claimant as a former relevant child because it had wrongly assessed his age when he was a child, and therefore must be taken to have “looked after” him until he turned 18.
• R (J) v Croydon LBC [2011] EWHC 3970 (Admin). Guidance was given as to when it was appropriate for the High Court to transfer age dispute cases to the Upper Tribunal.
• R (B) v Nottingham City Council [2011] EWHC 2933 (Admin). The High Court considered in what circumstances a “retrospective” duty arose under s. 20 of the Children Act 1989.
• R (JF) v Hackney LBC [2010] EWHC 3130 (Admin). The local authority had acted unlawfully in failing to put in place a specific and particularised care plan to meet the needs of a severely autistic child.
• R (G) v The London Borough of Southwark [2009] 1 WLR 1299. Successful Supreme Court appeal as to the meaning and scope of s. 20 of the Children Act 1989 and the interrelationship between that Act and the Housing Act 1996.
• R (A) v The London Borough of Croydon [2009] EWHC 939 Admin; [2009] Fam. Law 659. The High Court ruled on the correct role of pediatric evidence when assessing the age of age disputed minors.
• R (Jones) v Nottingham City Council [2009] EWHC 271 (Admin); [2009] ACD 42. This case concerned the scope of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in revisiting orders made on costs.
• R (M) v The London Borough of Sutton [2007] EWCA Civ 1205; [2008] ELR 123. An appeal in the Court of Appeal concerning whether local education authorities were under an obligation to provide parents of children with special education needs with a specific choice of schools before absolving themselves of a duty to provide school transport.

Azeem often advises in urgent judicial review cases involving the resettlement of children leaving custody. He has undertaken numerous “out of hours” applications to Judges of the High Court and is happy to assist, if needs be, at short notice.

Azeem was junior counsel (led by Stephen Cragg also of Doughty Street Chambers) in the three leading cases governing the retention of information by the police:

• S v The United Kingdom [2008] 48 EHRR 50. Before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court held that the indefinite retention of DNA and fingerprint data in respect of persons not convicted of a crime constituted a violation of their Article 8 Convention rights.
• R (GC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] 1 WLR 1230. A decision of the Supreme Court that the ACPO policy allowing the continued retention of DNA and fingerprint data, in the light of the decision in S v UK, was unlawful.
• R (RMC) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2012] EWHC 1681. The Police’s policy of retaining photographs of persons not convicted of a crime was in breach of Article 8.

Azeem is the author of "Collection and Retention of Person Data" in "Human Rights in the Investigation and Prosecution of Crime" (2009), OUP, ed. Madeleine Colvin and Jonathan Cooper.

Azeem is able and happy to advise on freedom of information and data protection matters.

Azeem regularly undertakes cases involving community care and health disputes. He was junior counsel in R (G) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2010] PTSR 674, an appeal in the Court of Appeal for a number of patients challenging the lawfulness of the smoking ban in psychiatric hospitals.

Azeem regularly undertakes housing related judicial reviews and is able to undertake cases where there is an overlap between a housing issue and community care, asylum support and immigration issues. Azeem’s work includes challenges against refusals by local authorities to provide accommodation under sections 188(1) and (3) of the Housing Act 1996.

Recent housing cases of note, in which Azeem has been instructed, include: an appeal against Birmingham City Council’s refusal to accept a “Zambrano” carer’s eligibility for homelessness accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996; and a challenge against the policy of the London Borough of Newham to relocate homelessness applicants outside of London.

Azeem has undertaken cases in the COP and is familiar with this jurisdiction. He recently represented the mother of a protected (autistic child) party in proceedings, where she was seeking the child’s return to the family home. The case resulted in a favourable outcome with the COP declaring it was in the child’s best interests to return home.

Azeem is able to advise and undertake urgent COP work at short notice.

Azeem regularly advises on education related matters. He has undertaken appeals in the First tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care), previously the SENDIST. He has been instructed on a number of education judicial reviews and was counsel in R (M) v The London Borough of Sutton [2007] EWCA Civ 1205; [2008] ELR 123, which concerned the interrelationship between special education needs and the requirement by local authorities to provide school transport.

Azeem has previously advised, together with Gavin Millar QC (also of Doughty Street Chambers), on the merits of bringing a judicial review relating to a public procurement dispute. He is able and happy to advise on such matters.

Azeem is presently junior to Richard Hermer QC in a series of claims brought by Iraqis relating to alleged abuse suffered at the hands of British soldiers during the second Gulf War. He was also junior Counsel on behalf of REDRESS in R (Al Skeini (and others)) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, which considered whether the European Convention on Human Rights applied to UK occupied South-East Iraq.

Azeem was junior to Geoffrey Robertson QC in R v F [2007] 2 All ER 193; [2007] 2 Cr App R 3. This was the first case in the domestic courts to consider the meaning of "terrorism".