D&F v Persons Unknown  EWHC 157 (QB)
The High Court granted a life long worldwide injunction preserving the anonymity of two girl prisoners who committed murder as children. For the first time in this exceptional jurisdiction the Court found that it had a duty under Article 2 ECHR to make a lifelong anonymity order to prevent the real and immediate risk of suicide by F, a young vulnerable person. It also found for the Claimants on Article 8 ECHR. The judgment is available here.
Stillbirth in cell at HMP Styal Article 2/3 investigation (2020)
Investigation into the still birth of a baby at HMP Styal. See press coverage here.
R (Cleere) v Secretary of State for Justice (CO/4315/2020)
Judicial review challenging during the C19 pandemic the failure to release on compassionate grounds a prisoner with a terminal illness, resulting in his release.
R (Iffour) v SSHD (CO/2458/2020)
Judicial review challenging detention, during the C19 pandemic, of a highly vulnerable detainee, resulting in his release.
White v MOJ (D00MY730)
Claim resulting in substantive compensation under Article 3 EHCR arising from the conditions of detention at HMP Wormwood Scrubs including rats in cells and overcrowding. See press coverage here and here
R on the application of MO1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2019) JR/7303/2019
Judicial review for a woman victim of gender based violence and her three children concerning their reunification in the UK with their family. The Guardian reported on the case “Asylum seeker ‘stabbed in the eye by husband’ while waiting Home Office ruling.”
HBX v The Home Office
HBX, a gay asylum seeker was detained in the now defunct Detained Fast Track. He was subjected to homophobic abuse from detainees in detention including being spat at. He brought a civil claim against the Home Office and received a substantive settlement.
The Home Office has lost its appeal in this an important case relating to the rights of child refugees seeking family reunion. The judgment vindicates the rights of children to challenge family reunion decisions.
R (ASK, a protected party by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, NHSE, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Secretary of State for Justice and Equality and Human Rights Commission  EWCA Civ 1239
A judicial review challenging the detention of an immigration detainee who lacked capacity. Overturning the court below, the Court of Appeal found that the Home Office had discriminated against ASK and MDA under the Equality Act 2010 by failing to make reasonable adjustments for their mental health conditions, leading to calls for changes to the treatment of immigration detainees with mental health conditions.
An IPP sentenced prisoner who had served nearly three times his tariff successfully challenged the Parole Board’s decision to refuse to direct his release or recommend his transfer to open conditions.
R (KXJ) v SSJ and Governor of HMP Wymott CO/1267/2018
A successful challenge by a transgender prisoner on the grounds of Article 8 ECHR and procedural fairness in transgender case boards, the process in prison by which transgender prisoner are managed.
C v Avon and Somerset Police C00MY212 (2017)
In a ground breaking case, Avon and Somerset constabulary admitted discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment for the presence of male officers during the strip search of a transgender woman. C received substantive damages and an apology, as well as admissions of discrimination and assault. See press coverage here. This was the first time a police force has admitted gender reassignment discrimination in a non-employment context and has led to changes in practices within the police.
JXT v Ministry of Justice C00MY306 (2017)
A claim by a transgender woman prisoner who was allocated to a male prison and held in segregation in a male prison for fourteen months. JXT, brought legal proceedings against the Ministry of Justice for declaratory relief and damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages, for misfeasance, negligence, breaches of the Equality Act 2010, Human Rights Act 1998 (Articles 3, 8 and 14 ECHR). In July 2017 the Ministry of Justice agreed to settle JXT’s claims. The terms of the settlement were confidential however she received public apologies from the prisons because of the way she was treated. See press coverage here.
Tara Hudson v Secretary of State for Justice (2016)
Challenge on behalf of a transgender woman who was allocated to a male prison.
Read Jane’s article for Legal Action Group about transgender people’s rights in criminal justice here.
R (PA) v SSHD  CO/1978/2014
A groundbreaking challenge by a pregnant asylum seeker, known as PA, the Home Secretary agreed to review the policy on detention of pregnant women. The Home Office apologised to the claimant, agreed to review its policy on pregnant women in detention, issue a new Detention Service Order and pay compensation for unlawful detention.
Read Jane’s article on the detention of pregnant women at Yarl’s Wood for the Justice Gap here.
R(PU) v SSHD  CO/814/2015
Test case challenging the detention of trafficking victims on the Detained Fast Track. The High Court declared that the detention of three potential victims of human trafficking in the Detained Fast Track breached Article 4 ECHR on the prohibition on slavery and exploited labour. This was the first time Article 4 has been found to be breached in an immigration detention context
The High Court found that a decision to impose “safeguarding children measures,” which prevented a prisoner from having contact with his daughter, was unlawful. The case resulted in a series of successful challenges to the practice at HMP Whitemoor.
This judicial review challenged Claimant’s detention and the Court found that the entire period of detention of 4 years 11 months was unlawful from the outset. It is thought to be one of the longest periods of immigration detention in a non-national security context
R (Chen and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CO/1119/2013)
This judicial review claim challenged the legality of the practice of the use of force against children and pregnant women under immigration powers, in circumstances where no policy was in place. The Children’s Commissioner supported the claim as an interested party. The case resulted in the reinstatement of a former policy prohibiting the use of force against both groups save for where it is essential to prevent harm. Owing to the reinstatement of the policy, the claim settled prior to permission. The relevant orders and statement of the Home Office’s concessions and current policy position will be posted here soon.