Shu Shin has an extensive public law practice with a strong human rights and anti-discrimination focus. She acts for a broad range of individuals across key public law areas including community care, education, prison law, immigration and asylum, mental health and healthcare. She has significant experience in acting for NGOs as claimants and interveners in public interest litigation. Her public law casework has materially contributed to changes to policy and practice for groups of individuals across a broad range of areas of law, such as in the context of immigration detention, access to and provision of social care, housing and welfare benefits.

Notable Cases:

R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 38 (Admin) and [2025] EWCA Civ 251, acting for Medical Justice in successful challenge to a policy concerning the treatment of vulnerable adults in immigration detention.

R (AA and 9 ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2023-2025) acting for 10 claimants, including children, victims of torture and trafficking, in a successful challenge to the Home Secretary’s failure to conduct an effective Article 3-compliant investigation into the policies, practices and arrangements that led to inhuman and degrading treatment of newly arrived migrants at Manston Short-Term Holding Facility near Dover port, in Kent. The judicial review challenge resulted in the Home Secretary announcing, in 2025, an inquiry to discharge the Article 3 investigative duty.

R (TG and Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 596 (Admin), acting for three asylum seekers and victims of torture and trafficking, in a successful challenge to the lawfulness of the Home Secretary’s decision to accommodate them in Wethersfield barracks in rural Essex. The Home Secretary’s policy on accommodation allocation of vulnerable asylum seekers to a former military barrack was held to be in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

R (RAMFEL and Adjei) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1374 (Admin), acting for RAMFEL and an individual in a successful challenge to the irrationality of the Home Office’s failure to make arrangements to document people who are lawful migrants but who are awaiting a decision on their application for further leave to remain in the UK, with the consequence of their being unable to prove their lawful immigration status and exposing them to hostile environment measures which excluded them from accessing their rights to work, access healthcare, welfare benefits, renting and education.

R (ECPAT UK) v Kent County Council and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1953 and [2024] EWHC 1353 (Admin), acting for ECPAT UK in successful challenge to Kent County Council’s unlawful refusal to accept and perform statutory duties to look after newly arrived unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and the Home Secretary’s unlawful use of hotels to house these children over a period of more than 2 years. The two defendants were required to produce a joint plan to ensure the failure to protect unaccompanied children was not repeated, and that moving forward there will be sufficiency of arrangements and funding of accommodation for this cohort of children.

R (A and B) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and Lord Chancellor [2021] UKSC 27, challenging a rule preventing two victims of modern slavery from accessing the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme because of historic unspent criminal convictions as being discriminatory in breach of Articles 4 and 14 ECHR.

R (NB and Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1489 (Admin), acting for two of six lead claimants challenging the unlawful use of Napier Barracks to house vulnerable and destitute asylum seekers under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The inadequacy of the conditions at the barracks led to a Covid-19 outbreak, during which the asylum seekers were unlawfully detained and denied adequate medical care.

R(DA and Ors) v Secretary of State for Works and Pension [2019] UKSC 21, acting for the intervener Shelter in a challenge to the revised benefits cap as being unlawfully discriminatory against lone parents with children under two and children under two.

Shu Shin regularly represents claimants in public interest litigation and civil claims which involve discrimination and failure to comply with the equality duties. She acts for interveners in public interest litigation concerning discrimination in government policy, particularly in the context of welfare benefits. She is on the panel of junior counsel for the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Notable Cases:

R (TG and Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 596 (Admin), acting for three asylum seekers and victims of torture and trafficking, in a successful challenge to the lawfulness of the Home Secretary’s decision to accommodate them in a former military barracks in rural Essex. The Home Secretary’s policy on accommodation allocation of vulnerable asylum seekers to a former military barrack was held to be in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

R (MM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and LB of Hillingdon [2024] EWHC 1577 (Admin) and [2025] EWHC 143 (Admin), acting for a man who lack mental capacity to make decisions about his care, accommodation, medical treatment and to engage with professionals or litigate arising from having suffered a traumatic brain injury. Judicial review concerned the Secretary of State’s unlawful and discriminatory failure to make reasonable adjustments to assist him to access independent advocacy to assist him on this range of decisions and the local authority’s refusal to meet his urgent care and support needs outside detention pending assessment under the Care Act 2014. Ongoing.

RE and 8 Other (Napier Barracks civil claims) (2023-2024), acting for 10 asylum seekers accommodated in Napier Barracks between September 2021 and March 2022 in successful claims for damages for disability discrimination and false imprisonment.

R (A and B) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and Lord Chancellor[2021] UKSC 27, challenging a rule preventing two victims of modern slavery from accessing the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme because of historic unspent criminal convictions as being discriminatory in breach of Articles 4 and 14 ECHR.

Luton Community Housing Ltd v Durdana[2020] EWCA Civ 445, intervening on behalf of the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the nature and scope of the Public Sector Equality Duty in the context of housing possession cases and the remedies for a breach of PSED.

R (DA and Ors) v Secretary of State for Works and Pension[2019] UKSC 21, acting for the intervener Shelter in a challenge to the revised benefits cap as being unlawfully discriminatory against lone parents with children under two and children under two.

R (K) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 2951 (Admin), acting in a successful test case challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to cut subsistence payments to asylum-seeking victims of trafficking as discriminatory in breach of Articles 4 and 14 ECHR. This resulted in the quashing of the decision and an order requiring repayment of monies unlawfully withheld to all affected victims, amounting to more than £1.5 million.

Shu Shin has considerable experience in tort and human rights claims against public authorities and their contractors in the context of immigration detention, social care, education and healthcare law. She has particular expertise in claims relating to the forced separation of families both in the context of immigration detention and in the context of family court proceedings, and in historic abuse claims. Shu Shin regularly acts in claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 in respect of the provision of goods and services in the social care and education context. Shu Shin has also acted for individuals in claims against traffickers and companies in the supply chain.

She acted for Medical Justice and five individual Core Participants in the Brook House Inquiry and is currently acting for individuals in the Manston inquiry (which is currently being set up).

Shu Shin has advised and regularly acted for individuals and organisations as applicants or Third Party Intervener / amicus curae in human rights claims before other national courts and international courts. In 2018 / 2019, she acted as a specialist legal advisor to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its immigration detention inquiry.

Notable Cases:

Brook House Inquiry (2022-2023): Acted for Medical Justice and 5 former detainees Core Participants and led, on behalf of all former detained people, led, on issues concerning clinical care policy, practice and arrangements which contributed to the misuse of force and segregation on mentally ill or otherwise vulnerable detainees in immigration detention. More than half of the 33 recommendations concerned failings in clinical care policy, practice and arrangements affecting vulnerable detainees.

AA and 9 ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2023-2025), acting for 10 claimants, including children, victims of torture and trafficking, in a successful challenge to the Home Secretary’s failure to conduct an effective Article 3-compliant investigation into the policies, practices and arrangements that led to inhuman and degrading treatment of newly arrived migrants at Manston Short-Term Holding Facility near Dover port, in Kent. The judicial review challenge resulted in the Home Secretary announcing, in 2025, an inquiry to discharge the Article 3 investigative duty.

PT, JQ, NA v the Home Office (2023-2024). Acted for three claimant migrant fishermen who were deceived into coming to the UK to work on a fishing trawler but were instead subject to slavery at sea. Successful claim for damages for human rights breaches under Article 4 ECHR challenging the visa regime operated by the Home Office which required the migrant fishermen to be tied to their employer, with no checks or monitoring of the working conditions, the employment contract or the health and safety of the migrant fishermen. 

Mitchell v the United Kingdom (App no 20695/24), acting for the applicant, a victim of child sexual abuse, in an application to the European Court of Human Rights to challenge the compatibility of the rule in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme which excludes victims of crimes of violence who have unspent criminal convictions from accessing compensation for criminal injuries that they have suffered. The applicant’s experience of child sexual abuse by her teacher at her boarding school affected her significantly. Although her own conviction was for a minor public order offence, she was refused compensation for severe injuries to her because of the blanket rule barring compensation for victims who have unspent criminal conviction. 

R (MXK and SXB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1272 (Admin), acting for two claimants with outstanding debts for NHS treatment who were detained and questioned about their debts when re-entering the UK even though they had lawful residence permits. Successful challenge to the Home Secretary’s unpublished policy which sanctioned border officials to use examination and detention powers to detain and question anyone with unpaid NHS debts when this went beyond the permissible use of these powers. The Court also found the Home Secretary in breach of her duty to consider the policy’s impact on women as a protected group under the Equality Act 2010 s.149 who were disproportionately impacted by NHS charges.

MS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 9, acting for the Aire Centre as the intervener in this important appeal concerning the extent to which decisions of the Competent Authority may be binding on a tribunal and the scope of the protective and investigative duties under Article 4 ECHR.

Sh.D and Ors v Greece and 6 other countries (App No 14165 /16), 13 June 2019, acting for the Intervener, State Watch, in respect of the failure of the Greek state to operate a system for registering and processing asylum claims made by unaccompanied asylum- seeking children in Greece, resulting in the unlawful detention of children and the denial of child- specific support in breach of Articles 3, 5 and 8 ECHR.

VCL v United Kingdom (App No 77587/12) and AN v United Kingdom (App No 74603/12) acting as Third Party Intervener for Liberty in applications concerning the extent to which Article 4 ECHR requires member states to implement specific measures for the non- punishment of defendants who are recognised victims of trafficking.

Chowdury v Greece [2017] ECHR 300 acting for the Intervener Anti-Slavery International in a landmark victory establishing that the wide scope of the definition of forced labour for the purposes of Article 4 ECHR includes those who are controlled by their exploiters notwithstanding ability to have limited free movement.

A v Essex County Council [2010] UKSC 33, on nature and ambit of right to education under Article 2 Protocol 1 for severely disabled children out of education for more than 18 months. The case was admitted by the European Court of Human Rights and subject to a friendly settlement.

Community care and education law has always been a focus of her practice. Her work in advancing the rights of vulnerable children earned the Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year award in 2012. Her casework has influenced policy change at the local and central government levels in the areas of homelessness, financial support to children in need and their families, fair access to education funding for migrant care leavers and safeguards in age assessments.

Shu Shin regularly advises and supports NGOs on consultation responses to policy change and on amendments to draft legislation. She has been involved in this capacity in the Parliamentary processes for the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the Immigration Act 2016, the Children and Social Work Act 2017, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and is currently advising on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. She is co-author of Legal Action Group’s Migrant Support Handbook and write the quarterly Case Law Update for Community Care Law Reports.

Notable Cases

R (MM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and LB of Hillingdon [2024] EWHC 1577 (Admin) and [2025] EWHC 143 (Admin), acting for a man who lack mental capacity to make decisions about his care, accommodation, medical treatment and to engage with professionals or litigate arising from having suffered a traumatic brain injury. Judicial review concerned the Secretary of State’s unlawful and discriminatory failure to make reasonable adjustments to assist him to access independent advocacy to assist him on this range of decisions and the local authority’s refusal to meet his urgent care and support needs outside detention pending assessment under the Care Act 2014. Ongoing.

R (ECPAT UK) v Kent County Council and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1953 and [2024] EWHC 1353 (Admin), acting for ECPAT UK in successful challenge to Kent County Council’s unlawful refusal to accept and perform statutory duties to look after newly arrived unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and the Home Secretary’s unlawful use of hotels to house these children over a period of more than 2 years. The two defendants were required to produce a joint plan to ensure the failure to protect unaccompanied children was not repeated, and that moving forward there will be sufficiency of arrangements and funding of accommodation for this cohort of children.

R (BC) v Surrey County Council [2023] EWHC 3209 (Admin), concerning the circumstances in which a young adult could secure a remedy retrospectively to require a local authority to treat him as a care leaver with attendant rights to statutory social care support in circumstances where the local authority had unlawfully refused to take him into care when he presented as a homeless child. Case required resolution of competing authority concerning the circumstances where child protection duties could be secured from the local authority retrospectively and the legal consequences for doing so.

R (HL) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2023] EWHC 866 (Admin): challenge to failure of the Health Secretary to implement an appeal process as an additional remedy for resolving adult social care disputes. The case affected thousands of disabled adults because social care disputes often involve protracted arguments over the hours of care or the rate of pay to carers.

R (DA and Ors) v Secretary of State for Works and Pension [2019] UKSC 21, acting for the intervener Shelter in a challenge to the revised benefits cap being unlawfully discriminatory against lone parents with children under two and children under two.

Samuels v Birmingham City Council [2019] UKSC 28, intervening on behalf of Shelter in a case examining the interrelationship between welfare benefits and homelessness legislation.

R (CXF) v Central Bedfordshire Council and Anr [2018] EWCA Civ 2852, on whether the duty to provide after-care services arise in respect of a mental health patient given temporary leave of absence from hospital.

R (Against Borders for Children) v Secretary of State for Education (2018), acting for a group of concerned members of the public, in a challenge to the systemic collection of children's nationality and country of birth data as part of the school census as being in breach of data protection principles under EU and domestic law. Further to the litigation, the Education Secretary decided in May 2018 to cease collection of such data in future school census.

Nzolameso v City of Westminster [2015] UKSC 22, intervening on behalf of Shelter on the nature and ambit of the duty to safeguard children's welfare under section 11, Children Act 2004 in the housing authority's discharge of homelessness duties under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.

R (FZ) v LB of Croydon [2011] EWCA Civ 59, acting for an age disputed child in appeal establishing the test for permission in age assessment judicial review claims.

Shu Shin is particularly well known for her expertise in the area of anti-trafficking and modern slavery. She acts for individuals in judicial review challenges to disputes over their status as victims of trafficking, the level of support and other rights to protection by the state. She also acts for individuals in private law claims for compensation against public authorities, companies and traffickers. She has been involved in key cases on the nature and scope of the prohibition against slavery under Article 4 ECHR both at the domestic and international levels.

During the Modern Slavery Act 2015, Shu Shin provided legal advice on the protection obligations of the UK to leading NGOs and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. She has also given written and oral evidence before the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and is regularly invited to speak on legal policy issues relating to modern slavery by leading NGOs in the UK and at the EU level. 

Notable Cases:

R (HJK and Ors) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2025] EWHC 774 (Admin), acting for four claimants in successful challenge to the refusal of legal aid to victims of trafficking to facilitate them to make applications for criminal injuries compensation awards where they were otherwise unable to effectively participate in the decision-making process owing to the harm they suffered from their trafficking experiences.

PT, JQ, NA v the Home Office (2023-2024) Acted for three claimant migrant fishermen who were deceived into coming to the UK to work on a fishing trawler but were instead subject to slavery at sea. Successful claim for damages for human rights breaches under Article 4 ECHR challenging the visa regime operated by the Home Office which required the migrant fishermen to be tied to their employer, with no checks or monitoring of the working conditions, the employment contract or the health and safety of the migrant fishermen. 

R (A and B) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and Lord Chancellor [2021] UKSC 27, challenging a rule preventing two victims of modern slavery from accessing the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme because of historic unspent criminal convictions as being discriminatory in breach of Articles 4 and 14 ECHR.

MS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 9, acting for the Aire Centre as the intervener in this important appeal concerning the extent to which decisions of the Competent Authority may be binding on a tribunal and the scope of the protective and investigative duties under Article 4 ECHR.

R (MN and Anr) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1736 (Admin) acting in linked test case appeals on the correct standard of proof in determining whether a person is a victim of trafficking and the correct approach to the assessment of credibility and consideration of medical and other expert evidence in such cases.

R (DS) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 3046 (Admin), acting in a successful test case challenge, securing a declaration that the Home Office’s policy, which prevented victims of trafficking from making requests for reconsideration of negative decisions, is unlawful in breach of common law fairness and the Article 4 positive duty to investigate situations of trafficking and complete accurate identification of victims of trafficking. This resulted in the Home Office amending its policy.

R (K) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 2951 (Admin), acting in a successful challenge quashing the Home Secretary’s decision to cut subsistence payments to asylum- seeking victims of trafficking as discriminatory without objective justification in breach of Articles 4 and 14 ECHR. This resulted in an order to repay all affected victims for monies unlawfully withheld from them, amounting to more than £1.5 million.

R (O and Anr) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 148 (Admin), challenging the systemic delays in the Competent Authority’s process for identifying victims of trafficking as being contrary to the UK’s international obligations to trafficked victims

R (A and B) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and Lord Chancellor [2018] EWCA Civ 1534, challenging a rule preventing two victims of modern slavery from accessing the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme because of historic unspent criminal convictions as discriminatory in breach of Articles 4 and 14 ECHR.

VCL v United Kingdom (App No 77587/12) and AN v United Kingdom (App No 74603/12) acting as Third Party Intervener for Liberty in applications concerning the extent to which Article 4 ECHR requires member states to implement specific measures for the non- punishment of defendants who are recognised victims of trafficking.

Chowdury v Greece [2017] ECHR 300 acting for the intervener Anti-Slavery International in a landmark case establishing the definition of forced labour for the purposes of Article 4 ECHR includes those who are controlled by their exploiters notwithstanding ability to have limited free movement and the positive obligations under Article 4 including a duty to identify and assist in victim recovery.

R v L and Ors [2013] EWCA Crim 991, acting for the Equality and Human Rights Commission on the correct approach of the criminal courts to determining an application for a stay of criminal proceedings for abuse of process in the case of a defendant whose crime is connected with his exploitation and trafficking.

Shu Shin combines her public law and private law expertise in her immigration and asylum practice. She is known in particular for acting for unaccompanied children, mentally ill and incapacitated adults and victims of torture and trafficking in complex individual and public interest litigation challenges relating to their treatment by the state. She is co-author of Legal Action Group’s Migrant Support Handbook.

Shu Shin has experience advising states, organisations and individuals on matters concerning public international law and engaging in UN and regional special mechanisms. She has been involved in litigation at all levels of the UK domestic courts, the European Court of Human Rights. She has provided training in areas of her speciality to state bodies and organisations.

Shu Shin has considerable experience in private law claims and associated claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 against public authorities and their contractors in the context of immigration detention, social care, education and healthcare law. She has particular experience in claims involving historic abuse and is known in particular for acting for unaccompanied children, mentally ill and incapacitated adults and victims of torture and trafficking in complex individual and public interest litigation challenges relating to their treatment by the state.

Shu Shin is co-author of the forthcoming Legal Action Group publication, Migrant Support Handbook (forthcoming) She is also a contributing author to several key practitioners' texts, including Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery, Law and Practice (Bloomsbury) (second edition forthcoming) and the forthcoming Child Migration: International Family and Immigration Laws (Bloomsbury). She is a contributing author to MacDonald’s Immigration Law and Practice, Lexis Nexis (10th Edition, forthcoming) and was previously a General Editor for the 9th Edition. She is a contributor to Legal Action Magazine’s Community Care Law Quarterly Update on legal developments in child rights.