Paul Bowen QC

Paul is a judicial review expert, particularly in cases with a human rights dimension, and is recommended as a leading silk in Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 in both Public and Administrative law and Human Rights and Civil Liberties: he "takes on difficult cases and makes them work" and "can identify the one issue that is going to make problems for the opposition” (Chambers & Partners 2013).  He practises across a range of subject areas notably mental health, healthcare and community care, discrimination, inquests, data protection, education, criminal justice, legal aid, social security, public procurement, prison and police law.  Paul also has experience in related areas of public law, for example claims under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006.  Recent cases include:

• R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWHC 2381 (Admin) Divisional Court (Toulson LJ, Royce and Macur JJ)  Right to assisted death  Mr. Nicklinson was a quadriplegic who formed a competent wish to end his life but could not do so without assistance.  He brought proceedings challenging the current law that criminalises a doctor’s provision of assistance in ending his life as being incompatible with Mr. Nicklinson’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8.  Lost in Divisional Court; currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• R (T) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2012] EWHC 1115 (Admin); [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2978 (Eady J)  Retention of unproven allegations of criminal conduct by police.  Joined claims challenging the system of issue ‘Harassment Warning Notices’ by the police arising out of unproven allegations and their subsequent storage, potentially in breach of Article 8.  Lost in High Court but due to be heard in Court of Appeal in January 2013.
• R (Public Interest Lawyers) v Legal Services Commission [2011] Eu. L.R. 447 (Administrative Court), successful challenge to the LSC contract tender exercise for public law and mental health solicitors’ firms on grounds including breach of the public sector equality duty in s 49A Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and breach of EU law in the Public Contracts Regulations 2006.
• R (RP) v Brent LBC [2011] EWHC 3251 (Admin), challenging closure of a children’s Short Breaks centre following Coalition government budgetary cuts
• R (MD (Angola)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] (Court of Appeal) (leading Alison Pickup) Intervention on behalf Medical Justice in support of judicial review claims by HIV+ immigration detainees arising out of the lack of effective treatment for their condition.
• R (Purdy) v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] 1 A.C. 345 (House of Lords), acting for Debbie Purdy in her successful challenge to the DPP’s policy in relation to assisted suicide.
• R (D) v Department for Work and Pensions [2010] 1 W.L.R. 1782 (Court of Appeal), acting for a number of prisoners transferred to psychiatric hospitals in two linked judicial review appeals in relation to the Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) Regulations 2010 which removed all entitlement to benefits. 
• R (Lewis) v HM Coroner [2010] 1 W.L.R. 1836 (Court of Appeal) Appearing for the appellant, the father of a young man who had died in custody, establishing that the jury’s verdict in Article 2 inquests can include matters that may have caused death, in addition to those that did cause the death.
• R (G) v. Notts. Mental Health NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 795 (Court of Appeal) An appeal to the Court of Appeal for a number of patients challenging the lawfulness of the smoking ban in psychiatric hospitals as a breach of Article 8 and 14
• R (LSS) v. Youth Justice Board [2009] EWHC 2347 (Admin) (Administrative Court) a judicial review of the decision of the Youth Justice Board to refuse to contract with a number of secure children’s homes for vulnerable children in the criminal justice and care system on grounds including breach of the general equality duties in s 49A DDA
• R (Harrison & Garnham) v Health Secretary [2009] EWHC 574 (Admin) (Administrative Court) a judicial review of the Health Secretary’s policy not to provide direct payments for healthcare services on grounds including that it violated Article 14 taken together with Article 8
• R (B) v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWHC 106 (Admin) (Divisional Court), successful claim for judicial review and under the HRA by a victim of a serious assault of the DPP’s decision to discontinue the prosecution of his alleged attacker on grounds that the victim’s mental disorder rendered him an unreliable witness.
• R (JL and LL) v. Islington LBC [2009] EWHC 458 (Admin) (Administrative Court) (Black J).  Successful claim on behalf of a young disabled child and his mother, instructed by Mitchell Woolf of Scott-Moncrieff, Harbour and Sinclair, Solicitors. Mrs. Justice Black ruled that Islington LBC’s ‘eligibility criteria’ for disabled children’s services were unlawful in so far as they made no distinction between services the authority were under a duty to provide and those that they had only a power to provide.  The judge also found that the authority had breached its general equality duty under s 49A Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in failing to have due regard to the impact the new criteria would have upon the most severely disabled children in the borough.

Paul is recommended as a leading silk in Police Law: Mainly Claimant in Chambers & Partners 2013, where he is described as "a Renaissance man of public law, human rights and civil liberties work" who has “worked on numerous cases of police accountability, many of which have contributed to the development of the law in this area”.  Paul has a specialist interest in public law, civil actions and HRA challenges to the actions of the police and other criminal justice agencies (arrests, questioning, the taking and retention of intimate samples, the execution of search warrants), prosecuting authorities (decisions to prosecute and not to prosecute) and inferior courts and tribunals (issue of search warrants, orders for third party disclosure and the like).

Paul appeared in the ground-breaking case against the DPP on behalf of Debbie Purdy challenging his failure to provide prosecution guidance in relation to cases of assisted suicide (R (Purdy) v DPP) and brought the first successful HRA challenge to a decision of the CPS to discontinue the prosecution of a mentally disordered man, R (B) v DPP [2009].  In 2010 he represented the victim of a serious sexual assault in JR and HRA proceedings against the DPP following the discontinuance of the prosecution of her assailant: the matter settled with a public apology from the DPP and compensation of £16,000 (R (KH) v DPP).

Paul also appears in civil actions (both public law and private law) arising out of the conditions of detention and deaths in custody and other deaths at the hands of state agents including police, prisons, immigration detention centres and psychiatric hospitals.

Relevant cases include:

Actions against the police

• R (T) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2012] EWHC 1115 (Admin); [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2978 (Eady J)  Retention of unproven allegations of criminal conduct by police.  Joined claims challenging the system of issue ‘Harassment Warning Notices’ by the police arising out of unproven allegations and their subsequent storage, potentially in breach of Article 8.  Lost in High Court but due to be heard in Court of Appeal in January 2013.
• R (Diedrick) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Chief Constable of Hertfordshire [2012] EWHC 2144 (Admin); [2012] A.C.D. 127; Challenge to PACE amendments stopping the requirement for ethnic monitoring of all police stops.  The requirement to monitor all police stops, not just those leading to a search, was introduced following the McPherson Inquiry into the killing of Stephen Lawrence.  This judicial review challenge was made following amendments to the PACE Code A which removed this monitoring requirement, on grounds that the SSHD failed to comply with the public sector equality duty under s 149 Equality Act 2010 on race grounds.

Actions against prosecuting authorities

• R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWHC 2381 (Admin) Divisional Court (Toulson LJ, Royce and Macur JJ)  Right to assisted death  Mr. Nicklinson was a quadriplegic who formed a competent wish to end his life but could not do so without assistance.  He brought proceedings challenging the current law that criminalises a doctor’s provision of assistance in ending his life as being incompatible with Mr. Nicklinson’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8.  Lost in Divisional Court; currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal.
• R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45 (House of Lords), Ground-breaking assisted suicide challenge.  Acting for Debbie Purdy in this successful challenge to the DPP’s failure to publish detailed guidance as to the circumstances in which individuals would or would not be prosecuted for assisting another person to commit suicide.
• R (B) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWHC 106 (Admin) (Divisional Court), successful claim for judicial review and under the HRA by a victim of a serious assault of the DPP’s decision to discontinue the prosecution of his alleged attacker on grounds that the victim’s mental disorder rendered him an unreliable witness.

Actions arising out of deaths in custody & other deaths at hands of State agents

• Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2011] (Supreme Court) (leading Alison Pickup) Intervention on behalf of Mind, JUSTICE, Liberty and Inquest concerning the Article 2 duties owed by a psychiatric hospital to informal patients at risk of self-inflicted death.
• Daniel v HMRC [2011] Q.B. 866, (Court of Appeal) (leading Alex Gask) Intervention on behalf of JUSTICE in a civil action arising out of the death of a drugs suspect while in detention, on the question of whether the defence of ex turpi causa applies to claims under s 6 HRA.
• Morgan v Ministry of Justice [2010] EWHC 2248 (QB) (leading Alex Gask) concerning the liability of the Crown in civil actions arising out of a death in custody where multiple public authorities are involved both in tort and under Article 2
• Van Colle [2008], Smith [2008] and Savage [2008] (House of Lords) Intervention in the House of Lords in three cases concerning the tortious and Article 2 duties owed by the police and by psychiatric hospitals, respectively, to those at risk of death.

Mental Capacity Law. Paul is recommended as a leading silk in Court of Protection work in Chambers & Partners 2013, “receiving effusive market praise and in recognition of the fact that he has a high-profile caseload” and described as "forging ahead and ... a real heavyweight in this area".   Paul appears mainly in health and welfare cases invoking the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection and the High Court involving disputed issues of care and residence, the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and deprivations of liberty, representing vulnerable adults and children (usually through the Official Solicitor), local authorities, health authorities and other interested parties.  He is the author of 'Blackstone’s Guide to the Mental Health Act 2007’ (OUP, 2008), which considers in detail the health and welfare jurisdiction of the Court of Protection under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the amendments of the 2007 Act which introduced the ‘deprivation of liberty safeguards’.  He was involved in key cases in the development of this area of law including R v Bournewood Community Mental Health NHS Trust ex p L, [1999] 1 A.C. 458, HL v United Kingdom [2004] 40 EHRR 761 and Re F (Adult Patient: Court’s jurisdiction) [2001] Fam 38 and has been in a number of more recent important cases, including:

• J Council v GU [2012] EWHC 3531 (COP) (Mostyn J); Protection of incapacitated adult in care home subject to strip-searching, monitoring of correspondence and telephone calls.  Acting for GU, instructed by the Official Solicitor as litigation friend, in COP proceedings in which the Trust sought declarations that GU’s care plans were lawful in his best interests.  These care plans included a number of restrictive aspects including strip-searches, monitoring of correspondence and monitoring of telephone calls.  On behalf of GU we obtained orders requiring the Trust and the private care home in which GU was placed to draft policies setting out safeguards in order to comply with SH’s rights under Article 8 ECHR, which the judge confirmed in a short judgment were sufficient to meet those requirements.  The case is likely to have a significant impact on the treatment of other incapacitated adults in private care homes.
• A Local Authority v E [2012] EWHC 1639 (Fam); [2012] 2 F.C.R. 523 (Peter Jackson J); Life-sustaining medical treatment: anorexia.  Leading counsel (with Steve Broach) for the local authority bringing proceedings in the Court of Protection seeking declarations that it would be lawful to provide life-sustaining treatment for a young woman in the end stages of anorexia.  An important case that looked, among other things, at the test for when an advance decision is to be considered valid and enforceable.
• A Local Authority v DL [2012] EWCA Civ 253 (Court of Appeal); (2011) 14 C.C.L. Rep. 441 (Theis J), [2011] 3 W.L.R. 445 (Wall P). Leading Counsel (with Alison Pickup) in this important case confirming the continuing existence of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction where the Mental Capacity Act 2005 does not apply, namely where persons who lack capacity due to coercion or undue influence of a third party rather than due to any mental impairment.
• P & Q v Surrey CC [2011] EWCA Civ 190; [2011] 2 F.L.R. 583 (Court of Appeal), Intervening on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in a case concerning “deprivations of liberty” of an incapacitated adult and child.  Currently on appeal to the Supreme Court in joined case of P v Cheshire West, to be heard in October 2013.
• A Local Authority v A [2010] EWHC 978 (Fam) (High Court, Family Division, Munby J), Intervening on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in this case concerning the positive obligations of local authorities under Article 5 to protect vulnerable adults and children from deprivations of liberty by private individuals

Mental Health law Paul represents detained patients in the Administrative Court and Upper Tribunal in mental health related judicial reviews concerning detention, release and treatment, along with related appeals, and in large scale Mental Health Tribunal appeals.  He also acts for bereaved families in inquests and civil actions arising out of the deaths of psychiatric patients.  He is described in Chambers & Partners 2013 as "a master of his field when it comes to mental health matters that raise human rights issues".  He is the author of the Blackstone’s Guide to the Mental Health Act 2007, published in January 2008 (OUP).

Paul has been in many of the leading cases concerning the rights of psychiatric patients in the last 15 years.  The following is a selection of the more important cases:

• Munjaz v United Kingdom (2913/06), (European Court of Human Rights), 17 July 2012 (Times, 9 October 2012), intervening on behalf of Mind in this application concerning the lawfulness of seclusion practices at Ashworth High Security Hospital.
• Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2011] (Supreme Court) (leading Alison Pickup) Intervention on behalf of Mind, JUSTICE, Liberty and INQUEST concerning the Article 2 duties owed by a psychiatric hospital to informal patients at risk of self-inflicted death.
• Savage v S Essex NHS Partnership Trust [2008] UKHL 74, [2009] 2 WLR 115, Times, December 11, 2008 (House of Lords), [2007] EWCA Civ 1375, Times, 9 January 2008 (Court of Appeal) (representing JUSTICE, Liberty, INQUEST and MIND as interveners, led by Dinah Rose QC with Richard Hermer), establishing that the duty owed by a psychiatric hospital under Article 2 to a patient detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 is the same as that owed by a prison to a prisoner, namely that set out in Osman v United Kingdom.  Instructed by Tony Murphy of Bhatt Murphy.
• R (G) v. Notts. Mental Health NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 795 (Court of Appeal) (leading Azeem Suterwalla) An appeal to the Court of Appeal for a number of high security psychiatric patients challenging the lawfulness of the smoking ban in psychiatric hospitals as a breach of Article 8 and 14
• R (MH) v Secretary of State for Health [2006] 1 AC 441; [2005] UKHL 60 (House of Lords), [2005] 1 WLR 1209 (Court of Appeal), Compatibility of Sections 2 and 29 Mental Health Act with Article 5(4) in cases involving incapacitated adults. Currently subject of an application to the ECHR.
• R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS  Trust [2006] 2 AC 148; [2005] UKHL 58 (House of Lords) [2003] 3 WLR 1505, (Court of Appeal), lawfulness of seclusion of mental patients under Articles 3 and 8 (instructed by Mind (the National Association for Mental Health) as interveners)
• R (B) v Dr. SS & Ors [2006] 1 WLR 810; [2006] EWCA Civ 28 (Court of Appeal); [2005] EWHC 1936 (Admin) (Administrative Court) Neither Article 3 nor 8 ECHR entitled the claimant patient to refuse compulsory medical treatment under section 58 Mental Health Act 1983 as (a) he lacked capacity to consent to treatment (b) in any event his doctor had concingly shown that treatment was a therapeutic necessity
• Wilkinson v United Kingdom, [2006] Application No. 14659/02, 28 February 2006 (European Court of Human Rights) (admissibility decision).  Lawfulness of compulsory treatment of incapacitated detained patient Article 3 or Article 8.
• R (AN) v Mental Health Review Tribunal [2006] QB 468 (Court of Appeal), [2005] EWHC 587 (Admin) (Administrative Court) (Munby J) Whether the criminal standard of proof or a heightened civil standard is to be applied by the Mental Health Review Tribunal in determining the criteria for detention in sections 72 and 73 MHA 1983
• R (MH) v Secretary of State for Health [2006] 1 AC 441; [2005] UKHL 60 (House of Lords), [2005] 1 WLR 1209 (Court of Appeal), Compatibility of Sections 2 and 29 Mental Health Act with Article 5(4) in cases involving incapacitated adults. Currently subject of an application to the ECHR.
• R v Tower Hamlets Mental Health NHS Trust, ex p. Count Von Brandenburg, [2004] 2 AC 280, (House of Lords), [2002] QB 235 (Court of Appeal), lawfulness in domestic law &  under Article 5 of section 3 MHA admission of patient recently discharged by a MHRT
• R (Wilkinson) v Broadmoor RMO (1) MHAC (2), [2002] 1 WLR 419 (Court of Appeal), lawfulness of compulsory treatment of detained patient under Articles 3, 6 & 8
• R (H) v Mental Health Review Tribunal, [2002] Q.B. 1 (Court of Appeal), first declaration of incompatibility ever made under HRA in respect of ‘reverse burden of proof’ requirement in Mental Health Review Tribunals under Mental Health Act 1983
• R v Bournewood Community Mental Health NHS Trust ex p L, [1999] 1 A.C. 458, House of Lords; Joined habeas corpus and judicial review applications as to whether hospital may lawfully admit a mentally disordered patient "informally", rather than under the Mental Health Act, in the absence of capacity to consent to such admission; lost at first instance, won in CA, lost in HL.

Paul represents individuals and public authorities in advice work and judicial review claims concerning the provision of health, community care and education services including decisions relating to the assessment and provision of services; direct payments; the development and application of eligibility criteria; charging; and the closure of care homes, among others.  Paul is listed as a leading silk in Community Care in Chambers & Partners 2013 with a “highly regarded practice, most notably in relation to cases concerning disabled adults and children”.  Recent cases include:

• R (RP) v Brent LBC [2011] EWHC 3251 (Admin) (Administrative Court), challenging closure of a children’s Short Breaks centre following Coalition government budgetary cuts
• R (D) v Department for Work and Pensions [2010] 1 W.L.R. 1782 (Court of Appeal), acting for a number of prisoners transferred to psychiatric hospitals in two linked judicial review appeals in relation to the Social Security (Hospital In-Patients) Regulations 2010 which removed all entitlement to benefits. 
• R (JL and LL) v Islington LBC [2009] EWHC 458 (Admin) (Administrative Court), a successful judicial review challenge to Islington LBC’s ‘eligibility criteria’ for disabled children’s services (as sole counsel)
• R (Garnham) v Secretary of State for Health [2009] EWHC 574 (Admin) (Administrative Court) joined cases challenging the policy of the Health Secretary   not to make direct payments available to patients receiving NHS continuing care services, including a challenge under Article 8 and 14 ECHR (as sole counsel).  He has recently appeared in a number of cases involving cuts to public services including R (Patel) v Brent LBC (2011).
• R (G) v Notts. Mental Health NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 795 (Court of Appeal) An appeal to the Court of Appeal for a number of high security psychiatric patients challenging the lawfulness of the smoking ban in psychiatric hospitals as a breach of Article 8 and 14

Discrimination issues arise in many of Paul’s cases, in particular disability discrimination, whether as free-standing discrimination claims or in conjunction with claims for judicial review invoking the public sector equality duties under (now) s 149 Equality Act 2010.  Legal 500 2013 notes Paul’s ‘unparalleled expertise in the representation of people with disabilities’.  Cases include:

• R (Diedrick) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2144 (Admin); [2012] A.C.D. 127; Challenge to PACE amendments stopping the requirement for ethnic monitoring of all police stops.  The requirement to monitor all police stops, not just those leading to a search, was introduced following the McPherson Inquiry into the killing of Stephen Lawrence.  This judicial review challenge was made following amendments to the PACE Code A which removed this monitoring requirement, on grounds that the SSHD failed to comply with the public sector equality duty under s 149 Equality Act 2010 on race grounds.
• R (Baybasin) v MOJ [2010] Paul (leading Alison Pickup) successfully sued the Ministry of Justice in joined judicial review/ disability discrimination proceedings on behalf of a wheelchair-using prisoner under the Equality Act 2010 in relation to his conditions of detention, which settled for a substantial sum of compensation and an apology.
• R (Public Interest Lawyers) v Legal Services Commission [2011] Eu. L.R. 447 (Administrative Court), successful challenge to the LSC contract tender exercise for public law and mental health solicitors’ firms on grounds including breach of the public sector equality duty in s 49A Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and breach of EU law in the Public Contracts Regulations 2006.

Paul is instructed in inquests arising out of deaths in custody and other deaths engaging State responsibility under Article 2 including police shootings, self-inflicted deaths in prison and other detaining institutions.  Paul also appears in related civil actions (see above).  He has a particular expertise in the rights of the deceased and their families arising under Article 2 and has spoken regularly on this subject at high profile conferences.  Forthcoming and recent inquests include:

• Re. Darren Linfoot (deceased) [2013] (self-inflicted death in high secure psychiatric hospital)
• Re. Janey Antoniou (deceased) [2012] (self-inflicted death in psychiatric hospital);
• Re. Andrew Sheppard (deceased) [2011] (self-inflicted death in police custody);
• Re. Tosh Sanderson [2010] (police shooting);
• Re. Karl Lewis (deceased) [2008] (self-inflicted death in a YOI).

Paul represents prisoners in judicial reviews and other civil actions arising out of their detention, conditions of detention and other decisions including transfers into conditions of lesser security and to and from psychiatric hospital.  Relevant cases include:

• R (LSS) v. Youth Justice Board [2009] EWHC 2347 (Admin) (Administrative Court) a judicial review of the decision of the Youth Justice Board to refuse to contract with a number of secure children’s homes for vulnerable children in the criminal justice and care system on grounds including breach of the general equality duties in s 49A DDA
• R (Nejad) v Home Secretary [2004] EWCA Civ 33 (Court of Appeal), Home Secretary not entitled to substitute his own view on the appropriate discretionary life tariff for that recommended by the Lord Chief Justice under Sch. 12 para 9 Criminal Justice Act 1991
• R (Morley) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2003] 1 All ER 784 (Court of Appeal), challenge to lawfulness of hospital and home secretary’s joint decision to remit transferred lifer from mental hospital back to prison;
• R (Craven) v Home Secretary [2001] EWHC Admin 813, Administrative Court (Stanley Burnton J.), lawfulness of exclusion zone condition on a mandatory lifer’s release on licence from prison under Art.8(1)

Paul acts for persons detained under immigration detention powers  in judicial reviews and civil actions relating to the lawfulness of their detention and conditions of detention.  He also has experience of SIAC proceedings having acted as a Special Advocate in such cases until his resignation in 2012.  Relevant cases include:

• R (MD (Angola)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011], (Court of Appeal) Paul led Alison Pickup in an intervention on behalf of HIV+ immigration detainees in the Court of Appeal on behalf of Medical Justice.
• Al Jedda v. Home Secretary [2009] (SIAC), appeal against deprivation of citizenship.  Acting as Special Advocate.
• Chahal v UK, [1997] 23 EHRR 413, ECHR As amicus curiae on behalf of JUSTICE (paper application only).  Use of Public Immunity Certificates in national security cases constitutes a breach of Article 5(4) of the European Convention.

Paul advises individuals and local authorities and other public bodies and NGOs in relation to issues concerning corporate governance and the development of policy.  He is a member of the Advisory Board of the Children’s Commissioner and regularly advises and appears on behalf of local authorities and other public bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Care Quality Commission and Official Solicitor.  He has particular expertise in the application of the public sector equality duties, now under s 149 Equality Act 2010.  He has also has experience in the law of public procurement, having successfully challenged the Legal Services Commission’s tendering exercise in relation to its failure to comply with public procurement law in R (Public Interest Lawyers) v Legal Services Commission [2010].  He is regularly asked to advise in relation to the development of policy, notably in relation to the protection of vulnerable adults and children.

Although primarily a public lawyer, Paul spent his early years of practice exclusively in the criminal courts and has maintained his interest in the area and continues to accept instructions in appropriate criminal cases.  In appellate crime he retains an expertise in defences based on mental disorder (insanity, fitness to plead, diminished responsibility etc.).   He has acted in many Privy Council appeals from former commonwealth countries throughout his career, particularly in cases involving the death penalty.   He also specialises in the crossover between crime and public law and human rights, particularly (a) actions against the police and challenges to decisions of other criminal justice agencies arising out of the investigation, prosecution and punishment of crime; (b) cases engaging the rights of detainees (police, prison, psychiatric hospital, immigration detention); and (c) deaths in custody or at the hands of state agents (including inquests and civil actions), (for which see separate section on Actions against the Police and other criminal justice agencies).  Relevant cases include:

• R v Shorn Samuel, Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (St. Vincent and the Grenadines) [2012], Successful appeal against murder conviction and death sentence on grounds of diminished responsibility, leading local lawyer Kay Bacchus-Browne
• R v Coonan [2011] EWCA Crim 5, Whole life tariff appeal.  Represented Peter Sutcliffe in his application to have his whole life tariff reduced on the grounds of his mental disorder (led by Edward Fitzgerald QC)
• R v Kim John & Francis Phillip [2007] UKPC 31 (Privy Council)  Successful appeal against conviction on behalf of two defendants on death row, extending the defence of insanity under the St. Lucia Criminal Code (led by Edward Fitzgerald QC)
• Benedetto v The Queen (No.1) [2003] 1 WLR 1545, (Privy Council), Successful appeal against murder conviction in British Virgin Islands on grounds that the prosecution’s use of a jail-house informant rendered the trial unfair (led by Edward Fitzgerald QC)
• Pringle v Queen [2003] UKPC 9, (Privy Council) Successful appeal against conviction on behalf of prisoner on death row (led by Edward Fitzgerald QC)

Although primarily a public lawyer, Paul spent his early years of practice exclusively in the criminal courts and has maintained his interest in the area and continues to accept instructions in appropriate criminal cases.  In appellate crime he retains an expertise in defences based on mental disorder (insanity, fitness to plead, diminished responsibility etc.). He has acted in many Privy Council appeals from former commonwealth countries throughout his career, particularly in cases involving the death penalty. He also specialises in the crossover between crime and public law and human rights, particularly (a) actions against the police and challenges to decisions of other criminal justice agencies arising out of the investigation, prosecution and punishment of crime; (b) cases engaging the rights of detainees (police, prison, psychiatric hospital, immigration detention); and (c) deaths in custody or at the hands of state agents (including inquests and civil actions), (for which see separate section on Actions against the Police and other criminal justice agencies).  Relevant cases include:

• R v Shorn Samuel, Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (St. Vincent and the Grenadines) [2012], Successful appeal against murder conviction and death sentence on grounds of diminished responsibility, leading local lawyer Kay Bacchus-Browne
• R v Coonan [2011] EWCA Crim 5, Whole life tariff appeal.  Represented Peter Sutcliffe in his application to have his whole life tariff reduced on the grounds of his mental disorder (led by Edward Fitzgerald QC)
• R v Kim John & Francis Phillip [2007] UKPC 31 (Privy Council)  Successful appeal against conviction on behalf of two defendants on death row, extending the defence of insanity under the St. Lucia Criminal Code (led by Edward Fitzgerald QC)
• Benedetto v The Queen (No.1) [2003] 1 WLR 1545, (Privy Council), Successful appeal against murder conviction in British Virgin Islands on grounds that the prosecution’s use of a jail-house informant rendered the trial unfair (led by Edward Fitzgerald QC)
• Pringle v Queen [2003] UKPC 9, (Privy Council) Successful appeal against conviction on behalf of prisoner on death row (led by Edward Fitzgerald QC)

Paul advises and represents individuals and public bodies in relation to all aspects of freedom of information and data protection law.  He also has experience in relation the restraining of disclosure and press reporting of confidential and private information, in particular cases raising issues of confidential medical information.  Relevant cases include:

• R (T) v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2012] EWHC 1115 (Admin), a judicial review of lawfulness under the Data Protection Act and Article 8 of the police practice in relation to the issue and retention (for 7 years) of Harassment Warning Notices following allegations of harassment that are not proceeded with
• Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v. MH [2009] UUKUT 4 (AAC) (Upper Tribunal), the first appeal to Upper Tribunal from the First-Tier Tribunal (Mental Health) concerning the ambit of the duty on an NHS Trust to disclose information to a patient in Tribunal proceedings to which a non-disclosure duty may attach under the Data Protection Act 1998 and under Article 8 ECHR.

Paul also has considerable experience as a Special Advocate in disputes concerning the disclosure of sensitive and secret material, in particular in the context of Closed Material procedures in a range of different courts and tribunals including Control Order (now TPIMs) proceedings in the High Court, SIAC, judicial review and employment and discrimination proceedings.