Adam represents claimants and NGOs in a broad range of public law and human rights cases. He has acted in a number of Supreme Court cases, as well as public law and constitutional cases in other jurisdictions. 

For example, Adam represents or has represented the Claimant in the following cases:

• The challenge to the decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organization: R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 721.
• Re Dillon [2026] UKSC 15, a Supreme Court case about the extent to which EU Law continues to apply in Northern Ireland, and in which the courts decided that legislation which barred Troubles-related inquests and civil claims in Northern Ireland was incompatible with the ECHR.
• Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission [2024] NIKB 35: a successful challenge to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which led to an order that it be disapplied in Northern Ireland, and that a number of the provisions were incompatible with EU Law and the ECHR.
• A successful challenge to the UK’s licensing of weapons exports to be used by Israel in its military operations in Palestine: R (Al Haq) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
• A number of successful judicial review claims on behalf of Afghan nationals who seek relocation to the UK on the basis of their support for the UK mission in Afghanistan, including R (CHD) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 566 (Admin); R (CX1) v Secretary of State for Defence [2024] EWHC 94 (Admin).
• A challenge to the roll-out of PAVA spray in youth custody: R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EWHC 74 (Admin).
• R (LR) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 373: arguing that the application of the Ukraine Family Scheme was discriminatory.
• Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] 1 WLR 4269: Adam represented Shamima Begum as a Special Advocate, in her appeals against the deprivation of her British citizenship.
• R (Dunne) v IOPC [2023] EWHC 3300 (Admin): a successful challenge to the IOPC’s policy and decision on the investigation of near-fatal incidents.
• R (W80) v Director General for the IOPC [2023] 1 WLR 2300: the Supreme Court held that, in disciplinary proceedings in relation to the use of force by a police officer in self-defence, the applicable test was the civil law test.
• R (AAA (Syria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] 1 WLR 3103: the challenge which decided that the Secretary of State's policy to relocate UK policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. 
• R (HZ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] 1 WLR 1003: a challenge to decisions on the accommodation provided for people relocated to the UK from Afghanistan.
• R (K) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] PTSR 729: A successful challenge to DWP policy on the deduction of overpayments from Universal Credit.
• R (Suleiman) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: in response to this challenge, the Defendants admitted the Gangs Violence Matrix breached the ECHR and that Black people were disproportionately represented; and decommissioned the Matrix.  
• Butterly v Coroner for Dublin [2022] 156 JR: The High Court held that unlawful killing is available at inquests in Ireland. This relates to the Stardust inquests, at which Adam represents the families of 47 of the 48 people who died.
• Cifci v Crown Prosecution Service [2022] EWHC 1676 (Admin): The High Court held that a criminal court must be satisfied that an examination under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was lawful and not discriminatory, before a person may be convicted of an offence under that schedule.   
• R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2022] 4 WLR 75: Whether the regime for use and sharing of bulk datasets by UK intelligence agencies to foreign intelligence agencies was compatible with article 8 ECHR.
• Khurana v North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group [2022] EWHC 384 (Admin): A challenge to the transfer of control of a large group of GP surgeries to an American healthcare giant.  
• Re McGuigan and McQuillan [2022] AC 1063. The Supreme Court held that the state’s investigation into evidence that Ministers authorised the torture of the ‘Hooded Men’ was unlawful.
• R (Schofield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 902 (Admin): A challenge to the law prohibiting the use of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings.
• R (Turner) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] PTSR 1312: A challenge to the DWP policy on assessing claimants who have mental health problems, for employment support allowance.
• R (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2021] AC 765: A challenge to the decision to deprive Shamima Begum of her citizenship
• R (Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2021] AC 454: Adam acted for INQUEST, and persuaded the Supreme Court to lower the standard of proof for the conclusion of ‘unlawful killing’ at an inquest.
• R (Delve) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] ICR 236. A challenge to the decision to delay the state pension age for women, and inadequate notice of the change.
• Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Dyer [2021] 1 WLR 1233: The leading case on the use of screens and anonymity at an inquest.
• R (RD) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] 1 WLR 262: a challenge to national law requiring disclosure of criminal reprimands and cautions in respect of certain employments.
• Re Ewart [2020] NIQB 33; and [2019] NIQB 88. A successful claim that the legal prohibition on abortion in Northern Ireland was incompatible with the ECHR.
• R (GS (A Child) v HM Senior Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon [2020] 1 WLR 4889: a challenge to the decision not to investigate Russian state responsibility for the use of Novichok in the attempted poisoning of Sergei Skripal.
• R (SXM) v Disclosure and Barring Service [2020] 1 WLR 3259: a claim challenging the DBS policy not to disclose to victims, the outcome of barring decisions.
• RXG v Ministry of Justice [2020] QB 703. The court granted a life-time order for anonymity in favour of the claimant, who was the youngest convicted terrorist in the UK.
• R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] AC 279. A challenge to legislation on compensation for miscarriage of justice.
• R (Schofield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 902 (Admin): A challenge to the law prohibiting the use of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings.
• R (Turner) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] 24 CCL Rep 75: A challenge to the DWP policy on assessing claimants who have mental health problems, for employment support allowance.
• R (Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2021] AC 454: Adam acted for INQUEST, and persuaded the Supreme Court to lower the standard of proof for the conclusion of ‘unlawful killing’ at an inquest.
• Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission [2018] UKSC 27. The Supreme Court concluded that legislation criminalising abortion in Northern Ireland is incompatible with article 8 ECHR, but declined to grant any relief. Adam represented Amnesty International and Sarah Ewart.
• R (Scarfe) v Governor of HMP Woodhill [2017] EWHC 1194 (Admin). Adam was instructed by the Claimants who sought orders requiring the Defendant to take action to tackle the unprecedented level of suicide at HMP Woodhill.
• R (Duggan) v Assistant Coroner for North London [2017] EWCA Civ 142. Adam acted for the family of Mark Duggan in this challenge to the conclusion at his inquest.
• R (Keyu) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] AC 1355. Adam acted in this claim regarding the duty to investigate historic deaths, and those taking place abroad.
• R (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk [2015] AC 225. A case about miscarriage of justice and the scope of the duty on the police to disclose relevant material to a convicted offender. Adam represented Mr Nunn.
• R (Sandiford) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (SC) [2014] 1 WLR 2697. Adam represented Mrs Sandiford. The Supreme Court advised the Foreign Secretary to urgently review his policy not to provide funding for legal representation for a British national facing the death penalty abroad, and to consider whether to make an exception in this case.
• R (Duggan) v Association of Chief Police Officers [2014] EWCA Civ 1635. A decision about the lawfulness of national policy on the investigation of deaths in police custody.
• R (JF) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] 1 AC 331. Adam represented the Claimant, who successfully argued that the absence of a right to a review for those subject to the sex offender registration requirements was contrary to article 8 ECHR.

Adam represents claimants and NGOs in immigration, asylum and trafficking cases. He has acted in a wide range of immigration cases, including a successful challenge to the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and to the government’s Rwanda policy, claims relating to specific schemes such as the Afghan and Ukraine schemes, and claims on behalf of Palestinians. He has expertise in related areas such as asylum support, migrant victims of domestic abuse, accommodation and trafficking. 

He has a particular interest in national security cases, SIAC, the IPT and POAC. For example, he acts in deprivation of citizenship cases, such as for Shamima Begum, exclusion order appeals, for example on behalf of Sali Berisha, the former President of Albania, and other national security cases such as Bank Mellat’s challenge to an Order prohibiting it from trading with UK financial institutions. He has been involved in a number of claims on behalf of claimants who were tortured after the UK allegedly shared intelligence with other countries (including the US and India). 

Some recent examples are: 

• Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission [2024] NIKB 35: a successful challenge to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which led to an order that it be disapplied in Northern Ireland, and that a number of the provisions were incompatible with EU Law and the ECHR.
• A successful challenge to the UK’s licensing of weapons exports to be used by Israel in its military operations in Palestine: R (Al Haq) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
• A number of successful judicial review claims on behalf of Afghan nationals who seek relocation to the UK on the basis of their support for the UK mission in Afghanistan, including R (CHD) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 566 (Admin); R (CX1) v Secretary of State for Defence [2024] EWHC 94 (Admin).
• R (LR) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 373: arguing that the application of the Ukraine Family Scheme was discriminatory.
• Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] 1 WLR 4269 and [2021] AC 765: Adam represented Shamima Begum as a Special Advocate, in her appeals against the deprivation of her British citizenship.
• R (AAA (Syria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] 1 WLR 3103: the challenge which decided that the Secretary of State's policy to relocate UK policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. 
• R (HZ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] 1 WLR 1003: a challenge to decisions on the accommodation provided for people relocated to the UK from Afghanistan.
• Acting in the Al Hawsawi and Al Nashiri claims, alleging the UK shared intelligence with the CIA leading to the claimants’ torture. Similarly acting on behalf of Jagtar Johal, alleging the UK shared intelligence with Indian authorities, leading to his torture.
• R (Rahmatullah) v Secretary of State for Defence [2017] 2 WLR 219. Adam represented Mr Rahmatullah in this claim about the investigation of, and liability for, rendition and mistreatment by the British and US armies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Adam has a particular interest in claims involving terrorism, sensitive material, closed material procedures, and national security. He regularly acts on behalf of individuals alleged to be involved in terrorism or extremism, in judicial review claims as well as in SIAC, POAC and the IPT. His recent cases in this context include: 

• A successful challenge to the UK’s licensing of weapons exports to be used by Israel in its military operations in Palestine: R (Al Haq) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
• Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] 1 WLR 4269 and [2021] AC 765: Adam represented Shamima Begum as a special advocate, in her appeals against the deprivation of her British citizenship.
• Acting in challenges to exclusion decisions, such as on behalf of Sali Berisha, the former President of Albania.
• Representing Bank Mellat, as a special advocate, in its challenge to an Order prohibiting it from trading with UK financial institutions
• Adam currently acts in the Al Hawsawi and Al Nashiri claims, alleging the UK shared intelligence with the CIA leading to the claimants’ torture; and on behalf of Jagtar Johal, alleging the UK shared intelligence with Indian authorities, leading to his torture.
• R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2022] 4 WLR 75: Whether the regime for use and sharing of bulk datasets by UK intelligence agencies to foreign intelligence agencies was compatible with article 8 ECHR.
• R (Schofield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 902 (Admin): A challenge to the law prohibiting the use of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings.
• RXG v Ministry of Justice [2020] QB 703. Adam represented the claimant, who was the youngest convicted terrorist in the UK, successfully obtaining a life-time order for anonymity.
• R (Rahmatullah) v Secretary of State for Defence [2017] 2 WLR 219. Adam represented Mr Rahmatullah in this claim about the investigation of, and liability for, rendition and mistreatment by the British and US armies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Adam represented two young boys who were referred to the police under the Prevent duty as being at risk of radicalisation. The defendant Education Authority admitted unlawful discrimination and breach of articles 8, 9 and 10 ECHR, and that its policy on the Prevent duty was unlawful. 

Adam is a special advocate.

Adam regularly represents claimants in judicial review, civil claims and other proceedings which involve discrimination and failure to comply with the equality duties. He wrote the LAG book ‘Discrimination in public law’, and has a particular interest in discrimination claims against public authorities. His discrimination cases include the following:

• A challenge to the roll-out of PAVA spray in youth custody, including that it breached the public sector equality duty: R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EWHC 74 (Admin).
• R (LR) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 373: arguing that the application of the Ukraine Family Scheme was discriminatory.
• R (Suleiman) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: a successful challenge to Gangs Violence Matrix. The Defendants admitted the Matrix breached the ECHR and that Black people were disproportionately represented; and decommissioned the Matrix.  
• Cifci v Crown Prosecution Service [2022] EWHC 1676 (Admin): holding a criminal court must be satisfied that an examination under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was lawful and not discriminatory, before a person may be convicted of an offence under that schedule.   
• R (Delve) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2019] All ER (D). This was a claim that the decision to delay the state pension age for women, and inadequate notice of the change, were discriminatory. Adam acted for the claimants.
• Adam acts on behalf of Dr Neville Lawrence in the Undercover Policing Inquiry, with a particular emphasis on race discrimination by undercover officers. 

Adam acts in inquests, public inquiries and other investigations, on behalf of the interested persons/core participants and also as counsel to the inquiry. 

He has acted for the family of the deceased in respect of many of the most controversial recent inquests and inquiries. They include the deaths of Dawn Sturgess, who died by Novichok poisoning, Mark Duggan, Alexander Litvinenko, Anthony Grainger, Jean Charles de Menezes, the Stardust inquests in Ireland and the Hillsborough tragedy. Adam acted for the family of Azelle Rodney at the inquest and inquiry into his death, which ended with the first ever upheld conclusion of unlawful killing against a UK firearms officer. 

He has a particular expertise in cases involving sensitive material, police shootings, deaths following restraint, state sponsored assassination, and public law challenges relating to inquests. For example, he acted for Mark Duggan's family in judicial review claims which argued that the national law should be changed to enable the IPCC to compel officers to attend interviews, and to ensure officers are separated before they give their first accounts, following a death in custody. The law has subsequently been changed. 

Adam has brought a number of successful applications for fresh inquests or for public inquiries, in major cases, such as the Stardust fire in Dublin, the Hillsborough stadium disaster, the Undercover Policing Inquiry (acting on behalf of Neville Lawrence), and the cases which led to the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry and the Alexander Litvinenko Inquiry. He has acted in numerous public inquiries, both on behalf of core participants and as counsel to the Inquiry. For example, Adam was leading counsel for the investigation into custodial institutions for the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse.

He co-authored the Legal Action Group book 'Inquests - a practitioner's guide', and wrote the Article 2 chapter in Sweet & Maxwell’s Human Rights Practice.

Some other examples of recent cases:

• Re Dillon [2026] UKSC 15, a Supreme Court case in which the courts decided that legislation which barred Troubles-related inquests and civil claims in Northern Ireland was incompatible with the ECHR.
• R (Dunne) v IOPC [2023] EWHC 3300 (Admin): a successful challenge to the IOPC’s policy and decision on the investigation of near-fatal incidents.
• Butterly v Coroner for Dublin [2022] 156 JR: The High Court held that unlawful killing is available at inquests in Ireland. This relates to the Stardust inquests, at which Adam represents the families of 47 of the 48 people who died.
• Re McGuigan and McQuillan [2022] AC 1063. The Supreme Court held that the state’s investigation into evidence that Ministers authorised the torture of the ‘Hooded Men’ was unlawful.
• Davison v HM Senior Coroner for Hertfordshire [2022] EWHC 2342 (Admin): the court ordered a fresh inquest into a death resulting from diabulimia.
• R (Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2021] AC 454: Adam acted for INQUEST, and persuaded the Supreme Court to lower the standard of proof for the conclusion of ‘unlawful killing’ at an inquest.
• Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Dyer [2021] 1 WLR 1233: The leading case on the use of screens and anonymity at an inquest.
• R (Schofield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 902 (Admin): A challenge to the law prohibiting the use of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings following an inquest/public inquiry.
• R (GS (A Child) v HM Senior Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon [2020] 1 WLR 4889: a challenge to the decision not to investigate Russian state responsibility for the use of Novichok in the attempted poisoning of Sergei Skripal.
• R (Keyu) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] AC 1355. Adam represented the intervener in a claim regarding the duty to investigate historic deaths, and those taking place abroad.
• R (Duggan) v. Assistant Coroner for North London [2017] EWCA Civ 142. Adam acted for the family of Mark Duggan in this challenge to the conclusion at his inquest.
• Da Silva v United Kingdom [2016] 63 EHRR 12. Adam represented the family of Jean Charles de Menezes in this challenge to the UK law on self-defence.

Adam represents claimants in public law claims relating to all aspects of the criminal justice system, including the prison service, police, CPS and IPCC. He acts in cases involving the international criminal justice system, such as those involving rendition and UK involvement in torture, and a claim on behalf of Mrs Sandiford that the UK Government should provide funding for legal assistance for British nationals facing the death penalty abroad. He also undertakes civil claims for damages, and has been successful in a number of claims for mistreatment and human rights breaches in custody.

Examples of recent cases: 

• Acting in the Al Hawsawi and Al Nashiri civil claims, alleging the UK shared intelligence with the CIA leading to the claimants’ torture. Similarly acting on behalf of Jagtar Johal, alleging the UK shared intelligence with Indian authorities, leading to his torture.
• A challenge to the roll-out of PAVA spray in youth custody: R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EWHC 74 (Admin).
• R (W80) v Director General for the IOPC [2023] 1 WLR 2300: the Supreme Court held that, in disciplinary proceedings in relation to the use of force by a police officer in self-defence, the applicable test was the civil law test.
• R (Suleiman) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: The Defendants admitted the Gangs Violence Matrix breached the ECHR and that Black people are disproportionately represented; and agreed to make fundamental changes.  
• Cifci v Crown Prosecution Service [2022] EWHC 1676 (Admin): The High Court held that a criminal court must be satisfied that an examination under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was lawful and not discriminatory, before a person may be convicted of an offence under that schedule.   
• R (Schofield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 902 (Admin): A challenge to the law prohibiting the use of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings.
• RXG v Ministry of Justice [2020] QB 703. The court granted a life-time order for anonymity in favour of the claimant, who was the youngest convicted terrorist in the UK.
• R (Hall) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWHC 1905 (Admin). Adam represented the claimant, who is an autistic prisoner who argued that there has been a failure to meet his disability needs in prison.

Adam acts in a wide range of community care, health and social welfare cases. His public law work involves children, welfare benefits, asylum support, mental health, age assessments and challenges to refusals to fund or meet the care needs of individuals. He has acted in a number of challenges to welfare benefits and pensions law and policy, including the following:

• R (K) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] PTSR 729: A successful challenge to DWP policy on the deduction of overpayments from Universal Credit.
• Khurana v North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group [2022] EWHC 384 (Admin): A challenge to the transfer of control of a large group of GP surgeries to an American healthcare giant.  
• R (Turner) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] PTSR 1312: A challenge to the DWP policy on assessing claimants who have mental health problems, for employment support allowance.
• R (Delve) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] ICR 236. A challenge to the decision to delay the state pension age for women, and inadequate notice of the change.

Adam also represented Sarah Ewart in her successful challenge to the prohibition on abortion in Northern Ireland, and Paul Lamb in his challenge to the ban on assisted suicide.

Adam represents claimants in civil actions against public authorities. His claims involve a wide range of public authorities, including the police, healthcare, prisons, immigration authorities, and the secret intelligence services. For example, Adam acted for the family of Mark Duggan and Anthony Grainger, who settled their civil claims for damages against the police in respect of these fatal police shootings. He has represented a number of individuals in claims for damages against the UK government in respect of its alleged complicity in mistreatment and torture abroad. 

• Acting in the Al Hawsawi and Al Nashiri civil claims, alleging the UK shared intelligence with the CIA leading to the claimants’ torture. Similarly acting on behalf of Jagtar Johal, alleging the UK shared intelligence with Indian authorities, leading to his torture.
• A challenge to the roll-out of PAVA spray in youth custody: R (Howard League for Penal Reform) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EWHC 74 (Admin).
• Hallam and Nealon v United Kingdom (2024) 79 EHRR 22: an application challenging UK legislation which limited the compensation available for minscarriages of justice.
• R (W80) v Director General for the IOPC [2023] 1 WLR 2300: the Supreme Court held that, in disciplinary proceedings in relation to the use of force by a police officer in self-defence, the applicable test was the civil law test.
• R (Suleiman) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: The Defendants admitted the Gangs Violence Matrix breached the ECHR and that Black people are disproportionately represented; and agreed to make fundamental changes.  
• R (Schofield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 902 (Admin): A challenge to the law prohibiting the use of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings.
• RXG v Ministry of Justice [2020] QB 703. The court granted a life-time order for anonymity in favour of the claimant, who was the youngest convicted terrorist in the UK.
• R (Rahmatullah) v Secretary of State for Defence [2017] 2 WLR 219. Adam represented Mr Rahmatullah in this claim about the investigation of, and liability for, mistreatment by the British and US armies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Adam regularly acts in cases involving international law. They include EU Law, the ECHR, international refugee law, challenges to the licensing of weapons abroad, and claims involving rendition and UK complicity in torture. Adam has been involved in advisory work and claims concerning constitutional issues in other jurisdictions. He has worked extensively in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and in cases in Strasbourg including appearing in the Grand Chamber in Da Silva v UK and in Hallam v UK. He is involved in civil claims which rely on foreign law. Some recent examples are: 

• Re Dillon [2026] UKSC 15: a Supreme Court case about the extent to which EU Law continues to apply in Northern Ireland.
• Hallam and Nealon v United Kingdom (2024) 79 EHRR 22: an application challenging UK legislation which limited the compensation available for minscarriages of justice.
• Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission [2024] NIKB 35: a successful challenge to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which led to an order that it be disapplied in Northern Ireland, and that a number of the provisions were incompatible with EU Law and the ECHR.
• A successful challenge to the UK’s licensing of weapons exports to be used by Israel in its military operations in Palestine: R (Al Haq) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade.
• R (AAA (Syria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] 1 WLR 3103: the challenge which decided that the Secretary of State's policy to relocate UK policy of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. 
• R (Rahmatullah) v Secretary of State for Defence [2017] 2 WLR 219. Adam represents Mr Rahmatullah in this claim about the investigation of, and liability for, mistreatment by the British and US armies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• R (Sandiford) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (SC) [2014] 1 WLR 2697. Adam represented Mrs Sandiford. The Supreme Court advised the Foreign Secretary to urgently review his policy not to provide funding for legal representation for a British national facing the death penalty abroad, and to consider whether to make an exception in this case.

Adam has a great deal of experience in this area. This includes: 

• Acting in the Al Hawsawi and Al Nashiri claims, alleging the UK shared intelligence about the Claimant with the CIA leading to the claimants’ torture. Similarly acting on behalf of Jagtar Johal, alleging the UK shared intelligence about the Claimant with Indian authorities, leading to his torture.
• R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2022] 4 WLR 75: Whether the regime for use and sharing of bulk datasets by UK intelligence agencies to foreign intelligence agencies was compatible with article 8 ECHR.
• R (Schofield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 902 (Admin): A challenge to the law prohibiting the use of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings.
• R (RD) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] 1 WLR 262: a challenge to national law requiring disclosure of criminal reprimands and cautions in respect of certain employments.
• R (SXM) v Disclosure and Barring Service [2020] 1 WLR 3259: a claim challenging the DBS policy not to disclose to victims, the outcome of barring decisions.
• R (JF) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] 1 AC 331. Adam represented the Claimant, who successfully argued that the absence of a right to a review for those subject to the sex offender registration requirements was contrary to article 8 ECHR.

Adam is currently instructed in a number of cases challenging the UK’s wrongful disclosure of data, whether by judicial review or civil claim for damages. They include challenges on behalf of Afghan nationals who had applied under the ARAP policy, whose data was leaked in 2022. 

Adam represents claimants in civil actions against public authorities.   His claims involve a wide range of public authorities, including the police, healthcare, prisons, immigration authorities, and the secret intelligence services. They concern all aspects of tort law and human rights. For example, Adam acted for the family of Mark Duggan and Anthony Grainger, who settled their civil claims for damages against the police in respect of these fatal police shootings. He has represented a number of individuals in claims for damages against the UK government in respect of torture and mistreatment abroad.