Public Inquiries
The Covid-19 Public Inquiry
Shamik leads the team of lawyers at Bhatt Murphy representing four national Disabled People’s Organisations in the Public Inquiry investigating the government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The team represents Disability Rights UK, Disability Action Northern Ireland, Disability Wales and Inclusion Scotland.
Read more on the Inquiry website here and press reports here and here.
The Grenfell Tower fire
Shamik jointly leads the Bhatt Murphy team representing more than 40 victims of the tragic Grenfell Tower fire comprising bereaved families, survivors and local residents. The team has represented the victims through the entire course of the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry as well as in related civil litigation. This work contributed to the Inquiry’s final report which found that responsibility for the fire lay at the hands of a range of private companies and public sector bodies, including local and central government who, in Inquiry Chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s words, displayed “incompetence”, “calculated dishonesty” and “greed”.
Read the final Public Inquiry report here with press reports here, here, and here.
Public Inquiry into Undercover Policing
Shamik has worked as part of the team representing nine individuals and organisations granted Core Participant status in the Public Inquiry into Undercover Policing. The Inquiry is examining the extent to which individuals and groups, searching for accountability following police misconduct and deaths in custody, were subject to covert undercover policing operations.
Read more here.
Public Law
R (Liberty) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Shamik represents national campaign group ‘Liberty’ in its ongoing challenge to the covert surveillance measures contained in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (also known as ‘the Snooper’s Charter’). In response to the litigation, hailed as ‘a victory for press freedom’, from October 2024 bodies such as MI5 and MI6 must now obtain independent authorisation before searching for or holding onto confidential journalistic material they obtain through ‘bulk’ interception of data and hacking people’s devices.
In an earlier ruling in 2018 the High Court ruled Part 4 of the Act unlawful on the basis it was incompatible with both EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights by giving the government powers to order private companies to store people’s communications data, including internet history, location tracking and contacts, so state agencies could access it.
Shamik continues to act for Liberty in an ongoing application before the European Court of Human Rights against the UK government challenging other aspects of the legislation.
Read more on Liberty’s website here and press reports here and here
John Catt v United Kingdom [2019]
Shamik represented World War Two veteran and anti-war protestor John Catt in his successful European Court challenge to the police retention of information about him on the police ‘Domestic Extremism’ database. The case established a precedent that it is unlawful for governments across Europe to label citizens engaged in peaceful protest ‘domestic extremists’ and put them on a searchable database for an indefinite period.
Read the Judgment here with some press reports here and here.
Shamik was named The Times Lawyer of the Week for his work on this case here.
R (GC) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] UKSC 21
Shamik pursued this leading case involving a challenge to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) policy on the indefinite retention of DNA, photographs and fingerprint samples. The Supreme Court ruled that the ACPO policy was unlawful and that, unless Parliament changes the law within a reasonable period of time, police forces must alter their policies on the indefinite retention of DNA samples and other biometric data. Following this judgment the coalition government introduced the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to remedy the indefinite retention of biometric data.
Read the judgment here.
R (H and others) v Chief Constable Greater Manchester Police and Manchester City Council
Successful challenge to the Defendants’ decision to remove political stallholders from Market Street, Manchester in December 2011. Political stallholders continue to campaign in that area without interference since this threatened challenge.
R (A) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009]
The claimant, a Muslim man with no previous convictions, was detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. During the detention his DNA and biometric data was seized. He pursued a successful judicial review challenging the seizure and retention of his data.
Civil Litigation
The Critical Mass cycle ride [2012]
Shamik represented 32 cyclists in a successful group action against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner arising from their arrests for breach of s.12 Public Order Act 1986 during the 2012 London Olympic opening ceremony. The Metropolitan Police paid substantial damages and amended its policies on such arrests following this successful civil claim.
Read more here
Kennedy-Macfoy v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Shamik represented black fireman Edric Kennedy-Macfoy following an incident in Harrow in September 2011 when Mr Kennedy-Macfoy was sworn at, shot with a taser, arrested and then prosecuted. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has paid substantial damages to Mr Kennedy-Macfoy and offered a full apology in settlement of his civil claim for assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and race discrimination. Mr Kennedy-Macfoy also accepted an invitation from the Metropolitan Police to help them learn from his experience.
Andrew and Christopher Hilliard v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2015]
The Claimants were brothers arrested at the student protests in 2011 and wrongfully accused by police officers and Prime Minister David Cameron of pulling a mounted police officer from his horse. They were prosecuted for the alleged offence of violent disorder and acquitted after two Crown Court trials. The Commissioner offered a full apology and paid £50,000 in damages in settlement of their civil claim for assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
See the Channel 4 News report here.
Edmondson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2013]
The Claimant was arrested while driving in Colindale. During the arrest he was struck with police batons and subjected to CS spray. He was acquitted and instructed Shamik to pursue a claim for assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and race discrimination. The Commissioner agreed to pay £45,000 in damages in settlement of the civil claim and offered a full apology. Following settlement of the civil claim the officers have been subject to a police complaint investigation.
See the Channel 4 news report here.
M v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011]
The claimant was stopped and searched outside his home address before being arrested and detained. He was subsequently released without charge. He pursued a claim for assault, false imprisonment and race discrimination. He also applied for disclosure of previous complaints lodged against one of the officers who searched and arrested him. The Court ordered that the Commissioner must allow the claimant to inspect and rely, at trial, upon documents related to the officer’s previous disciplinary record. The Commissioner agreed to pay the claimant £19,500 in settlement of his claim.
John Bosco Nyombi v Home Office [2010]
A civil claim was brought in the High Court on behalf of John Bosco Nyombi, a gay man who was detained in the UK before being forcibly removed to Uganda. He was detained there by the Ugandan authorities before the Administrative Court ordered that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should return him to the UK. The Home Office admitted liability and paid £100,000 in damages to Mr Nyombi.
Read the press report here
E v Home Office [2010]
E, a victim of torture, was detained unlawfully by the Home Office in breach of its own policies. The claimant brought an action for false imprisonment and was awarded £57,500 at court including £25,000 exemplary damages which the Court awarded to the claimant for “institutional failings” in the provision of adequate medical examinations and reports under rules 34 and 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001.
Mark Thomas v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2010]
The comedian and journalist Mark Thomas instructed Shamik to pursue a police complaint and civil claim for assault and false imprisonment after his stop and search at an anti-arms fair demonstration at the DSEi in Docklands. The police complaint was upheld and the Metropolitan Police awarded Mr Thomas damages after admitting trespass and false imprisonment. Shamik continues to act for Mark Thomas.
M & ME v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009]
M & ME, a father and his son, were arrested outside school gates in North London. ME was given a formal reprimand during his detention which he successfully challenged by way of a judicial review. He and his father then brought a claim alleging assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in a public office and race discrimination. The Commissioner offered a full apology and paid damages of £25,000.
