John Walsh

Profile

John represents clients in immigration tribunals, parole hearing and the Administrative Tribunal. He appears before the High Court and Court of Appeal and have had an impressive success rate before the European Court of Justice.

He takes cases on public access and undertakes work on a CFA basis as well as legal aid and privately funded cases. He undertakes cases for the Bar Pro Bono Unit and the Free Representation Unit.

John practises in immigration and asylum law, appearing frequently before the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal and First-Tier Tribunal in all areas of immigration law, including refugee, human rights, family, EEA, student, points-based system, and deportation cases.

What the Directories say

John is recommended by Chambers and Partners, (Read more), where he is commended for his expertise in EU law and described as ‘very good, particularly in deportation cases’. He is also ranked in Legal 500 in the immigration category: (Read more).

John is chair of a charity campaigning for elderly Irish, prisoners and travellers (The Irish Chaplaincy in Britain). He is also a Trustee of another charity involved with the provision of basic services to refused asylum applicants (Notre Dame Refugee Centre).

European Law

A particular and long-standing expertise John has is in the area of European Union law. He succeeded in persuading the Court of Justice that the proposed deportation of a third country national, and wife of a British national who carried out some business across EU borders, was contrary to EU law:C-60/00 Carpenter. He succeeded in the landmark case of C-37/98 Savas which held that a standstill clause in an Agreement between the EU and Turkey had direct effect with the result that immigration rules in place when the UK became a member of the EEC are the applicable rules when assessing if Turkish business people can enter or remain in the UK. In C-186/10 Oguz, the Court of Justice accepted the submission that the developing abuse principle in EU law did not restrict the application of the standstill clause.

In the domestic courts he has argued successfully that the Home Office breached its duty of fairness and EU law by construing immigration rules in such a way as to restrict the freedom of Turkish business people to do business in the UK: KA (Turkey) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ~~[2012] EWCA Civ 1183~~.

Other noteworthy cases are Case T-318/01 Othman ~~Court of First Instance~~ involving challenge to the freezing of funds in respect of terrorist suspects and SA (Divorced Women) Bangladesh CG ~~[2011] UKUT 00254~~ on divorced women and their children in Bangladesh.

Immigration Asylum and Personal

~~Family Courts~~

John has been consulted in many cases in the Family Courts for advice on the immigration status of children which were the subject of care proceedings. The Courts often required an opinion on the likely long-term immigration status of children in the UK.

~~Unlawful detentions~~

Another feature of his practice are unlawful detention cases in the County and High Court. He won significant damages in the County Court for a client who had been detained for an unreasonable period of time while the Home Office sought to remove him to Algeria. He succeeded in the High Court in winning damages for a women and her children who were detained with a view to their removal from the UK:see N v SSHD [~~2012] All ER (D) 187~~

Prison Law and Criminal Justice

John represents prisoners before parole boards including lifers.

In Weszka v Ministry of Justice ~~[2012] EWHC 287,~~ John represented in a case in the Administrative Court that concerned the decision of a Parole Board refusing to order the release of a prisoner, sentenced to life imprisonment. The Administrative Court accepted the argument that fairness demanded that the Parole Board should have adjourned the hearing for the prisoner to consider police evidence adduced at a late stage and for his representative to take instructions on it.

Administrative and Public Law

John represents prisoners before parole boards including lifers.

John succeeded in a recent case before the Administrative Tribunal in getting the Tribunal to quash a decision of the Independent Safeguarding Authority (the predecessor to the Disclosure and Barring Service) in respect of a person whose name was put on the child barring list due to a conviction: SR v Disclosure and Barring Service ~~[2013] 0103 (AAC).~~

In Weszka v Ministry of Justice ~~[2012] EWHC 287~~, John represented in a case in the Administrative Court that concerned the decision of a Parole Board refusing to order the release of a prisoner, sentenced to life imprisonment. The Administrative Court accepted the argument that fairness demanded that the Parole Board should have adjourned the hearing for the prisoner to consider police evidence adduced at a late stage and for his representative to take instructions on it.