Charlotte Kilroy

c.kilroy@doughtystreet.co.uk

Year of Call

1999
Charlotte Kilroy
Profile

Charlotte Kilroy is a public law practitioner with particular emphasis on human rights and immigration.

 

Her recent significant cases are:

  • Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] 3 WLR 388. The Supreme Court held that the adoption of a closed evidence procedure in civil proceedings would constitute a fundamental departure from the basic principles which govern common law trials. It was not therefore open to a court to adopt this procedure in the absence of statutory authority.
  • R(Medical Justice) v Home Secretary [2011] EWCA 1710. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision that the Home Office's policy of giving little or no notice of removal directions to certain categories of individuals was ultra vires because it abrogated the constitutional right of access to justice.
  • ELS v Home Office. The Claimant, a victim of rape, trafficking and forced prostitution, brought a claim for damages against the Home Office for violating her rights under Articles 3 and 4 ECHR when it refused her asylum claim and returned her to Moldova whereupon she was severely ill-treated and re-trafficked for sex. The Home Office agreed to settle the claim for an undisclosed sum.
  • W (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 898 (The common law right to an irreducible minimum standard of fairness has been excluded by statute in appeals against deportation)
  • R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1925 (The Home Office's policy of giving little or no notice of removal to certain categories of asylum-seekers was quashed as ultra vires because it infringed the constitutional right of access to justice)
  • HA and NE v Home Office [2010] EWHC 1940 (The claimants, a mother and child, were entitled to damages for false imprisonment because their removal could not be viewed as imminent and the Home Office had therefore detained them in breach of its policy)
  • Al Rawi v Security Service [2010] EWCA Civ 482 (The High Court has no power to introduce a closed evidence procedure into trials of ordinary common law claims for damages)
  • Aamer v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2009] EWHC 3316 (The Divisional Court made a Norwich Pharmacal order that the Foreign Secretary should disclose documents in its possession which might show that the Claimant had been ill-treated while in the custody of foreign states).
  • R (L.) v. Commr of Police for the Metropolis [2010] 1 A.C. 410, SC (The Supreme Court ruled that when deciding under the Police Act 1997 whether to disclose information about an individual's past to an employer on an enhanced criminal record certificate the police must weigh the need to protect children against an individual's right to private life under Article 8 ECHR. The Court of Appeal had been wrong to conclude in X v Chief Constable of West Midlands [2005] 1 W.L.R. 65 that there was a presumption in favour of disclosure).
  • R (Cart) v. Upper Tribunal; R (U) v. Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2010] 2 W.L.R. 1012, DC (The Divisional Court held SIAC was not, by virtue of its status as a superior court of record, immune from judicial review by the High Court; SIAC's decision to revoke the U's bail solely on the basis of closed evidence violated his rights under Article 5(4) ECHR and therefore fell to be quashed).

 

Past cases also include:

  • BPB v European Commission (Plasterboard) [2008] 5 C.M.L.R. 18
  • R v Jones [2007] 1 AC 136, HL (justiciability of crime of aggression in relation to criminal law defences)
  • R(L) v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [2007] 4 All ER 128, CA (scope of police power to disclose information to employers under section 115 of the Police Act 1997)
  • R (Casey) v Crawley BC [2006] B.L.G.R. 239, Admin (eviction of travellers from unauthorised site),
  • I and O [2005] EWHC 1025 (re age assessments of disputed minors),
  • K v Croydon Crown Court [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 96, (Sentencing judicial review in relation to minor convicted of immigration offence),
  • BACONGO v Department of the Environment [2004] UKPC 47 (environmental impact assessment of a large dam in Belize)
  • Tokai Carbon and others v European Commission (Graphite Electrodes) [2004] ECR II-1181
  • R (CND) v Prime Minister [2002] EWHC 2777 (legality of proposed invasion of Iraq).
About cookies on our website

Following a revised EU directive on website cookies, each company based, or doing business, in the EU is required to notify users about the cookies used on their website.

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience of certain areas of the site and to allow the use of specific functionality like social media page sharing. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but as a result parts of the site may not work as intended.

To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits)