Trusted when it’s critical

Clients choose us to steer them through crucial cases, often involving important legal, ethical and social issues.

 

clerks@serjeantsinn.com

Read our profiles

Recent news

Explore our news archive

Rachel Spearing represents Sloan Helicopters Limited in Leicester City King Power Stadium Inquest.

3rd February 2025

The inquest investigating the deaths of five people including the Chairman of Leicester City Football Club Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha has concluded it was an accident.

Rachel Spearing, instructed by Patrick Slomski, Aviation & Aerospace Team Partner at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP, represented Sloan Helicopters Limited.  The Jury found the helicopter “had all its appropriate airworthiness and maintenance certificates” and followed the directed findings of the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) with causation being due to the A169 helicopter’s tail rotor bearing seizing, which in turn caused the crash.

See coverage here.

The Senior Coroner continues to review prevention of future death issues raised by the AAIB currently under review by the Civil Aviation Authority and EASA.


Previous Next

David Lawson and Katherine Hampshire successfully defend local authority against Human Rights and judicial review claims related to Care Act 2014 accommodation

31st January 2025

David Lawson and Katherine Hampshire represented the local authority in two linked judicial review claims concerning accommodation and services under the Care Act 2014. The claims were heard over seven days from September to November 2024 by Mr Justice Fordham.

The Claimant lived in Home Office Bail accommodation with a local authority care package. The judgment considers:

(i) whether a local authority may take Home Office Bail accommodation into account when assessing and responding to care and support needs under the Care Act 2014;

(ii) the correct approach to assessing whether an individual has an accommodation-related need for care and services that might oblige a local authority to provide housing under the Care Act 2014;

(iii) whether ‘physical things’ such as an accommodation layout or shower rails can comprise an accommodation related care need.

The judgment reviews case law under the National Assistance Act 1948, the Care Act 2014 as well as its statutory guidance and supporting regulations. The judgment finds that bail accommodation is legally “residual” (like asylum accommodation) and analyses how this conclusion can be applied to the Care Act 2014. It rejects the idea that physical things can be a need for care and support.

The judgements in BLZ2 [2025] EWHC 154 (Admin) is available here and BLZ1 [2025] EWHC 153 (Admin) is available here.


Previous Next

Rachel Spearing shortlisted for the Female Trailblazer of the Year award by the Clio Modern Law Awards 2025

30th January 2025

We are delighted to announce that Rachel Spearing has been shortlisted for the Female Trailblazer of the Year award by the Clio Modern Law Awards 2025.

Established in 2013, the Clio Modern Law Awards is a prestigious event that celebrates excellence and innovation within the legal industry. This event brings the legal sector together to celebrate the triumphs of all legal professionals within the UK, particularly those who are making invaluable contributions to a number of areas right across the sector.

Thank you to our clients for their support and congratulations to all others shortlisted.

View more about Rachel and her practice here.

See the full list of those shortlisted here.


Previous Next

Three Serjeants’ Inn Barristers to be appointed King’s Counsel in March

25th January 2025

We are delighted to announce the forthcoming appointments of George Thomas, Rachel Spearing and James Berry as King’s Counsel. They will be sworn in during a ceremony expected to take place at Westminster Hall in March.

Congratulations from all of us at Serjeants’ Inn to George, Rachel and James and many thanks to all those who participated in the application process as referees.


Previous Next

Matthew Holdcroft and Cecily White succeed in the Court of Appeal case of Woodcock and CJ & PJ

15th January 2025

This morning, the Court of Appeal overturned Mr Justice Ritchie’s judgment in Woodcock and upheld Mr Justice Martin Spencer’s judgment in HD and others.

Matthew Holdcroft and Cecily White, led by Andrew Warnock KC of Deka Chambers, represented the successful Chief Constables in both cases which concerned liability of the police for the criminal actions of a third party and alleged police failure to investigate.

This is a very significant judgment. In brief:

  • A generalised risk of future ill-treatment within Article 3 does not trigger the investigatory duty.
  •  A duty (under Article 3) cannot exist before it was owed.
  • Foreseeability of harm is not sufficient to give rise to a duty (even a narrow one on these facts).
  •  A claimant that relies on an alleged assumption of responsibility will usually require a specific representation or promise to take a particular action.
  •  A claim based on an assumption of responsibility will generally also require reliance (not in the case of e.g. a vulnerable child) on the representation to be proved.

The judgment will help clarify the merits of both negligence and Article 3 claims, and resolves what many considered an anomaly created by Ritchie J.

Please click here for a copy of the judgment.


Previous Next

Head of Metropolitan Black Police Association dismissed for gross misconduct

10th January 2025

A misconduct panel of the Metropolitan Police Service has today dismissed Inspector E, who is the chair of the Metropolitan Black Police Association.

Inspector E faced allegations that he sent numerous highly inappropriate messages to PC F and failed to challenge and report similar messages sent to him by PC F between 2017 and 2020.

The panel found that Inspector E had engaged in racist, sexist, misogynistic, ableist and otherwise inappropriate messaging and failed to challenge similar messaging from PC F, (who had already been dismissed for other matters).

Inspector E’s defence was that he had not sent or received any of the messages concerned. He submitted that the messages had been fabricated by PC F or by the Directorate of Professional Standards (“DPS”) with a racist motive. The Panel dismissed this defence as “spurious” and “fanciful”. It “strongly rejected” the counter-allegation against DPS.

James Berry and Chloe Hill represented the Appropriate Authority who brought the allegations. Laura Nash assisted with the preparation of the case.

James, Chloe and Laura regularly present and defend misconduct proceedings and appear in associated appeals and judicial review challenges.

The case attracted significant media coverage: see BBC; GuardianTimes.


Previous Next

Angus Moon KC and Rachael Gourley deliver a presentation on ‘The Assisted Dying Bill: where we are and where we go next’ to the Medico-Legal Society of England and Wales

10th January 2025

On 9 January 2025, Angus Moon KC and Rachael Gourley delivered a talk titled ‘The Assisted Dying Bill: where we are and where we go next’ to the Medico-Legal Society of England and Wales.

Angus and Rachael analysed The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-2025 and addressed possible issues from the perspective of both doctors and lawyers.

They began by summarising the domestic case law and recent cases before the European Court of Human Rights.

They identified further points to be considered to ensure that the law developed is fit for purpose and subject to appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse and achieves respect for the right to life.

Their talk identified a lack of detail in the Bill including on:
How, in practice, the Court will assess whether a patient is making a voluntary decision free from coercion and undue influence;
The precise role of the judge and whether live evidence will be heard; and
Whether the hearings will be heard in private or public.

Angus and Rachael concluded that a meaningful conversation about the development of assisted dying law must also consider how to fund and develop palliative care and how to improve access to psychiatric care in the community.


Previous Next

Sarah Clarke KC & Aaron Rathmell successfully act in the Tate Brothers £2.6 million forfeiture case

20th December 2024

Tate Brothers £2.6 million forfeiture case: the Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) for England and Wales has today allowed the application of the Chief Constable of Devon & Cornwall Police, for proceeds of crime forfeiture orders against the bank and crypto-currency accounts of Andrew and Tristan Tate. The total sum forfeited was the total sum applied for, over £2.6 million.

The successful Chief Constable was represented by Sarah Clarke KC and Aaron Rathmell, who argued the case on the basis that the frozen funds were part of a longstanding and sophisticated tax evasion and money laundering arrangement effected through a complex web of accounts. Part of the evidence relied on included YouTube videos of Andrew Tate in which he explained why he refuses to pay tax.

The Judgment concluded “I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that they [the Tate brothers] have engaged in long-standing, deliberate conduct in order to evade their tax/VAT liabilities”, part of a picture of “overall criminality of deliberate and dishonest cheat of the revenue”. The case is being reported extensively by UK and international media.


Previous Next

James Berry and Chloe Hill act in significant IPT proceedings concerning access to journalists’ data – case published

18th December 2024

On 17 December 2024, the IPT released its notable ruling in McCaffrey and Birney v PSNI and others. The case concerned complaints that the claimants’ journalistic material was obtained unlawfully in criminal investigations into the alleged leaking of confidential information by public servants.

The investigations were undertaken by and on behalf of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

You can find out more about the case and its result here.

James Berry and Chloe Hill act for the Metropolitan Police Service. They are acting in a similar claim brought by the BBC and BBC journalist Vincent Kearney which will be heard by the Tribunal in due course.

 


Previous Next

Hannah Hinton successfully applies for permission to appeal a decision that an individual could not be extradited to Lithuania on the grounds of Article 3 ECHR

11th December 2024

Hannah Hinton successfully applies for permission to appeal a decision that an individual could not be extradited to Lithuania on the grounds of Article 3 ECHR

In Lithuania v Michailov [2024] EWHC 3001 (Admin), the respondent was a Lithuanian national who, while present in the United Kingdom, was the subject of an ‘accusation warrant’ issued by the appellant. The warrant related to offences of causing non-serious bodily harm and a violation of public order while the respondent was in Lithuania.

Following proceedings in Westminster Magistrates’ Court the District Judge held that, while extradition could not be regarded as disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR, the application should be rejected under Article 3 ECHR. Although the appellant had provided assurances as to the conditions of the prison in which the respondent would be remanded (and, on conviction, eventually detained), these were of a ‘generic nature’ and did not address specific concerns regarding the respondent’s physical and mental health.

On application for permission to appeal the High Court held that the District Judge had acted irrationally, in particular when finding that the assurances were too generic but incapable of rectification. If the District Judge required more specific information on the conditions in which the respondent would be detained, he was entitled to seek it. The High Court’s judgment contains a useful analysis of healthcare in Lithuanian prisons, and in particular adjustments for wheelchair users.

Hannah Hinton represented the appellants at all stages of the proceedings, which are ongoing. You can find out more information about the case by reading the judgment of the High Court, available here.


Previous Next

Jake Rylatt creates Intermediate Tier 1 Module of the PDF Accreditation Scheme

11th December 2024

On the 7th November 2024 the Professional Deputies Forum Accreditation Scheme was launched. The scheme is described as a “multi-tiered programme designed to be used alongside the OPG’s standards, completion of the Accreditation Programme will demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of what it means to be a Deputy or work as part of the team to represent P effectively”.

Jake Rylatt and Vicky Rylatt (of Anthony Gold Solicitors) and I have created the Intermediate Tier module on “Relationship Issues – Family law matters”.

The programme aims to elevate standards and demonstrate that accredited professional deputies have the expertise and a foundation of knowledge in a range of areas when looking after the property and affairs of vulnerable clients.

The accreditation programme has launched this autumn and is open to all legal members of the PDF.

  • Foundation Level – for people working at grades D to C, including paralegals.
  • Intermediate Level – for people working at grades C to B.
  • Advanced Level – for grade A deputies or trust corporation individuals (launching next year).

Each level includes a variety of modules, from investments, benefits, international law, wills, and annual returns, to managing people with disabilities and brain injuries. Each takes no more than an hour and can be completed flexibly.

For more information, please see https://www.deputiesforum.co.uk/


Previous Next

Woodcock and CJ & PJ appeals this week (live-streamed)

29th October 2024

Mat Holdcroft and Cecily White (led by Andrew Warnock KC and instructed by Keiron Walsh) act for the police force parties in these Court of Appeal hearings concerning liability of the police for the criminal actions of a third party and alleged police failure to investigate:

(1) CJ & PJ  (by her mother & Litigation Friend DJ) & anr (appellants) v The Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police (respondent) (in which Mat and Cecily also appeared for the respondent below)
and
(2) Woodcock (respondent) v The Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police (appellant) (in which Mat also appeared for the appellant below)

The hearings listed Monday 28th to Wednesday 30th have been selected for live-streaming as “high profile and legally significant case[s]”, in order to “increase open justice and improve public access and understanding of the justice system”.  Please click here for the link to watch the proceedings live, or on video afterwards.

These appeals follow last week’s Supreme Court dismissal of the appeal in Tindall v CC of Thames Valley Police (in which Andrew Warnock KC and Ella Davis appeared) the court unanimously re-iterated the law as set out in Michael, stated that the law in relation to negligence is not in flux, and that the police do not have a special status in relation to those known to be at a special risk of personal harm.


Previous Next

Dawn Sturgess Inquiry: John Beggs KC, Bridget Dolan KC and James Berry appearing for Core Participants

14th October 2024

On 14 October 2024 the public inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess commences with hearings in Salisbury. Dawn Sturgess died on 8 July 2018 after being poisoned with Novichok, the nerve agent that had been used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury on 4 March 2018. As well as ascertaining how Dawn Sturgess came about her death, the Inquiry will consider the issue of Russian state responsibility.

The public inquiry, chaired by retired Justice of the Supreme Court Lord Hughes, will be holding hearings in Salisbury and London until 6 December 2024.

The inquiry has attracted significant media attention.

John Beggs KC and James Berry act for Wiltshire Police.

Bridget Dolan KC acts for South West Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust.


Previous Next

Former head of Police Federation found guilty of Gross Misconduct – Cecily White represents Hampshire Constabulary

7th October 2024

Cecily White presented the case against former PC John Apter, who was head of the Police Federation for England & Wales between 2018 and 2022 and at the time of the alleged misconduct.   Mr Apter was found to have made a sexually inappropriate comment about Lissie Harper, whose husband was a police officer killed in the line of duty, during preparations for an awards ceremony in January 2020.  Mr Apter has since retired from policing.

The Police Misconduct Panel concluded that Mr Apter would have been dismissed had he still been a serving police officer with the consequence that his name will be added to the Barred List maintained by the College of Policing.  Other allegations were found not proven.

The case received significant press coverage from the BBC, The Guardian and the Times Series.


Previous Next

James Berry and Rhys Hadden win Junior of the Year awards at the Legal 500 UK Bar Awards

7th October 2024

Congratulations to James Berry who was awarded Public Services and Charities Junior of the Year, and Rhys Hadden, who was award Court of Protection Junior of the Year at the Legal 500 UK Bar Awards 2024.

Thank you to all our clients and contacts for their continued support throughout the research process.

Recent Legal 500 testimonials for James and Rhys include:

  • ‘James is one of the best juniors. Very clever, great strategic brain, and a calm and authoritative style in court.’
  • ‘James is incredibly approachable, good with clients of all ranks and matches this with an excellent grasp of police law. His advocacy is understated – which suits the subject matter – but highly effective.’
  • ‘Rhys is a very experienced and specialist barrister. His engaging and collaborative approach ensures cases progress quickly and efficiently. His advocacy style is thorough, engaging and effective.’
  • ‘Rhys brings a wealth of knowledge to proceedings when dealing with difficult exclusion matters and school governors. Clients value his ability to cut through the extraneous matters and focus on what is important.’

Previous Next

James Berry and Chloe Hill acting in IPT significant proceedings concerning access to journalists’ data

2nd October 2024

This week the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (Singh LJ, Lady Carmichael and Stephen Shaw KC) is considering a significant claim brought by two Northern Irish journalists, Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney.

The Tribunal will consider the Claimants’ complaints including that their journalistic material was obtained unlawfully in criminal investigations into the alleged leaking of confidential information by public servants.

The investigations were undertaken by and on behalf of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

The case has attracted national media coverage.

James Berry and Chloe Hill act for the Metropolitan Police Service.

They are also acting in a similar claim brought by the BBC and BBC journalist Vincent Kearney which will be heard by the Tribunal in due course.


Previous Next

Benjamin Harrison successful in appeal before the Upper Tribunal (AAC)

13th September 2024

In London Borough of Islington v A Parent [2024] UKUT 252 (AAC) Upper Tribunal Judge Stout (building on the decision in AJ v London Borough of Croydon [2020] UKUT 246 (AAC)) has clarified: (1) the obligations imposed on the First-tier Tribunal (HESC) (“FTT”) when exercising its inquisitorial jurisdiction to determine appeals concerning Education Health and Care Plans and (2) the way in which the ‘burden of proof’ principle operates in this jurisdiction.

Judge Stout held that:

  • The FTT erred in law by placing a formal burden of proof on the Local Authority. The FTT’s task on appeal is to “stand in the local authority’s shoes” and apply section 39(4) of the Children and Families Act 2014 properly to the facts of the case before it, exercising its inquisitorial jurisdiction to ensure it has the necessary evidence on which to fairly determine the appeal: [54]-[60].
  • The FTT did not, at the hearing, explain that it was unable to make findings as to the cost of either placement nor did it canvas with the parties what should be done about that: [53]. Fairness required the FTT to put its concerns to the Local Authority at the hearing (or, if it thought of the concerns only in the course of deliberation, to give the Local Authority a further opportunity in writing or at an adjourned hearing to address those concerns): [63].
  • The school of parental preference in this case fell in another geographical area. The FTT failed to properly consider its case management powers to (1) require the parties and/or the third party Local Authority and school to provide further evidence and/or (2) order a witness from the third party Local Authority or school to attend the hearing: [63]. Such powers were available to the FTT, but not the Local Authority responsible for maintaining the EHC Plan: [61].
  • On the facts of this case, it was perverse for the FTT not to adjourn the hearing for further evidence, since the prejudice to the parent and child would have been minimal compared to the potential prejudice to the Local Authority to fund the child’s placement at a school at very significant additional cost to the public purse: [70].
  • The FTT’s task is to find out what the difference (or approximate difference) is between the costs of the two placements on the balance of probabilities. The fact that the FTT considers those costs to be unreasonable or inadequately explained will not normally be a basis for finding that those are not the actual costs. That is especially so where the school in question is not one the Local Authority is responsible for funding: [81].
  • The FTT failed to make any determination about the suitability of the school preferred by the Local Authority. On the parent’s case, those were all matters that were in dispute. The Upper Tribunal gave guidance reminding the FTT that it should normally make findings on the evidence it hears so that, in the event of an appeal, cost and public resources do not need to be wasted in an unnecessary rehearing. Dealing with a question of costs alone is the sort of issue that could normally be remade at Upper Tribunal level. The FTT’s decision not to complete its fact-finding function in this case, however, meant that the appeal needed to be remitted: [87]-[88].

The judgment can be found here.

Benjamin Harrison, of Serjeants’ Inn Chambers, was instructed by Hannah Connors on behalf of the successful appellant.


Previous Next

Administrative Court rejects application for review of the Police Appeal Tribunal’s decision that a police officer’s challenge to his dismissal had ‘no realistic prospect of success’

12th August 2024

Parsing judgment: judicially reviewing decisions of the Police Appeals Tribunal

In an admirably in-depth judgment, the Court in R (Stephen Dalton) has considered on what bases decisions of the Police Appeals Tribunal (‘PAT’) may be properly subject to judicial review. The decision reiterates the ambit of the PAT’s discretion and is likely to affect how such proceedings are conducted going forward.

The misconduct proceedings

The relevant misconduct occurred when the claimant police officer, along with his colleagues, responded to a report that three youths were attempting to break into a bike shed. The claimant arrested and handcuffed one of the individuals, Richard Smith, walked him to the rear of a nearby police car, and forced his head downwards onto the vehicle. This caused Mr Smith to suffer lacerations to the face and possibly a fractured jaw.

Mr Smith complained that the claimant’s actions breached the Standards of Professional Conduct as set out in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 (in effect at the time). A Police Misconduct Panel (‘the Panel’) considered an array of evidence and concluded that the claimant was solely responsible for the use of excessive force and the lack of respect and courtesy shown to Mr Smith, and that his conduct was intentional and deliberate. The Panel dismissed the claimant without notice.

The claimant appealed to the PAT. The Chair of the PAT (‘the Chair’) conducted a review of the appeal under Rule 11 of the PAT Rules 2012 and dismissed it on the basis that it had no realistic prospect of success. The claimant applied for permission to judicially review the PAT’s decision.

The Court’s decision

Mrs Justice Lang, refusing the claimant’s application for judicial review, closely analysed the reasoning of both the Panel and the PAT. The main grounds of review and the reasoning of the Court are summarised below.

(i) Irrationality

The claimant alleged that the Chair acted irrationally in concluding that the evidence of two of the claimant’s colleagues, both of whom were on the scene when Mr Smith was arrested, was “not hugely significant.” Mrs Justice Lang held that this ground was “unarguable” and had no realistic prospect of success. The Panel had based their conclusions on high-quality Body Worn Video which contradicted or undermined key parts of the claimant’s evidence, rendering it unreliable. It was entirely rational for the Chair to reach the decision he did. In the alternative, Mrs Justice Lang considered that permission should be refused under section 31 Senior Courts Act 1981.

(ii) Failure to properly analyse the issue of apparent bias

The claimant submitted that the PAT had failed to properly engage with his contention that one of the Panel Members had acted in a manner that gave rise to an appearance of apparent bias. Mrs Justice Lang concluded that this ground was also unarguable and had no realistic prospect of success. The Panel was entitled to ask searching questions, and none of the language used was unfair or biased. The Panel Member was neither a trained lawyer or judge and was therefore entitled to some latitude in the phrasing of her questions. The Chair had applied the correct legal test and assessed the questions in their proper context.

(iii) Failure to give adequate reasons

The claimant alleged that the Panel had erred by (i) making findings in respect of witness credibility before resolving certain inconsistencies in the evidence presented to them, and (ii) failing to properly refer to the good character evidence presented to them. In turn, the PAT had failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting that ground of appeal.

Mrs Justice Lang rejected both of the claimant’s submissions. On the first issue, she concluded that it sought to “re-open the evidential issues under the guise of a failure by the PAT Chair to give adequate reasons.” After reiterating that judicial review is not an appeal on the merits, she held that the claimant’s argument turned entirely on how the Panel had drafted its judgment. This was a matter squarely within its discretion. In any event, it was clear that the Panel had considered all the evidence, decided which it accepted and which it rejected, and made its findings of fact. On the second issue, she concluded that the Panel was not required to refer to the character direction in their decision – they were merely required to take it into account. In the alternative, were she wrong on either ground, Mrs Justice Lang considered that permission should be refused under section 31 Senior Courts Act 1981.

Commentary

Mrs Justice Lang’s judgment reiterates a number of important principles of law that must be borne in mind by both tribunals and reviewing courts alike. First, although it is crucial to maintain the highest standards of procedural fairness, misconduct panels have some discretion over how misconduct proceedings are conducted, and their independent members are not to be treated in the same manner as professional lawyers or judges. Appeals brought on the basis that the tribunal did not operate as a court might be expected to in criminal proceedings are unlikely to be successful (see Simon Brown LJ’s comments on the purpose of misconduct proceedings in Redgrave). Second, reviewing courts should be careful not to venture into unsuitable terrain and make a decision on the merits of the case, however the claimant’s application may be formulated. Perhaps such reminders will serve to reduce the number of ‘unarguable’ cases that come before the courts in future.

Matthew Holdcroft represented the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary as the Interested Party, who acted as the Appropriate Authority at the misconduct proceedings. The Court upheld his submissions on all grounds.


Previous Next

Rachel Spearing appointed as a Patron of The Next 100 Years

8th August 2024

Rachel Spearing has been appointed as a Patron of The Next 100 years after many years of being a member. Rachel joined The First 100 Hundred Years Pioneers for the 1990’s, celebrating her diverse background and co-founding of the Wellbeing at the Bar initiative in 2012.

The Next 100 Years is a project dedicated to achieving equality for women in law. They are focused on encouraging collaboration across the profession, improving the visibility of women in law, and supporting the women lawyers of the future.

The ten-year project is powered by Spark21, a charity founded to celebrate, inform and inspire future generations of women in the profession. It builds on the success of the First 100 Years project, created to chart the journey of women in law in the first 100 years following the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, which allowed women to become lawyers for the first time. The five-year project culminated in centenary celebrations in 2019.

The Next 100 Years will continue the work of the First 100 Years, capturing the inspirational stories of today’s pioneering women lawyers, educating the public on the legacy of the legal pioneers of the past, and driving the change needed to create an equal future for women in the profession.

Speaking about the project Rachel says: “As a Patron of the Next 100 Years ‘paving the way’ for this next generation for me means supporting their access to, resilience within, and successful retention or return to the profession. Building greater awareness of their challenges is what I aspire to do as a Leader.”

Visit their website here.

 


Previous Next

Chambers blogs

Specialisms

 

Serjeants’ Inn specialises in important, high profile medical, police, regulatory, criminal and public law cases, often involving political, ethical or social issues: read more

Transparency Standards

 

Serjeants’ Inn  accepts instructions from solicitors, whether working in private practice or in-house, and from individuals: read more

24 Hour Assistance

 

Serjeants’ Inn frequently deals with urgent applications including injunctions and declarations and provides a 24 hour service for matters requiring immediate assistance: read more

Awards

Angus Moon KC 1986 | 2006    Joint Head of Chambers
Michael Horne KC 1992 | 2016    Joint Head of Chambers
Adrian Hopkins KC 1984 | 2003
John Beggs KC 1989 | 2009
Michael Mylonas KC 1988 | 2012
John de Bono KC 1995 | 2014
Dijen Basu KC 1994 | 2015
Nageena Khalique KC 1994 | 2015
Katie Gollop KC 1993 | 2016
Simon Fox KC 1994 | 2016
Bridget Dolan KC 1997 | 2016
Gerard Boyle KC 1992 | 2017
Sarah Clarke KC 1994 | 2017
Debra Powell KC 1995 | 2017
Jon Holl-Allen KC 1990 | 2018
Mark Harries KC 1995 | 2019
Ian Skelt KC 1994 | 2020
Sophia Roper KC 1990 | 2022
Claire Watson KC 2001 | 2022
Neil Davy KC 2000 | 2023
Emma Sutton KC 2006 | 2023
Laura Nash 2009
Jemma Lee 2010
Liam Duffy 2012
Chloe Hill 2019
Sir Robert Francis KC 1973 | 1992    Associate Member
James Watson KC 1979 | 2000    Associate Member
His Honour Brian Barker CBE KC 1969 | 1990    Associate Member
Natalie Cargill 2016    Associate Member
Susan Burden 1985    Door Tenant
Anthony Jackson 1995    Door Tenant
Benedict Wray 2009    Door Tenant