Emma Sutton KC

Expertise & Experience

Emma has considerable experience in constitutional law. Whilst studying for her Commercial Law Masters, she worked as a legal advisor for the Welsh Government within the Office of the Counsel General. Her role included drafting and amending statutory instruments, statute commencement orders, and undertaking parliamentary bill research. Alongside private practice, Emma is currently studying an MPhil in Law at Balliol College, Oxford University, in her specialist areas.

Emma is frequently instructed in complex and unusual cases for and against public bodies and regularly advises on an urgent basis due to the issues involved. As Emma appears in cases in both England and Wales, she is able to comprehensively advise upon the evolving variances in the legal frameworks, and cross-border issues, primarily in the fields of health and social care, and education. Emma has been appointed by the Attorney General as a Special Advocate in cases of national security, and also as Advocate to the Court, and sits part time as a Mental Health Tribunal Judge and Judge of the Court of Protection.

Court of Protection: Emma has appeared in numerous high-profile medical cases and guidance cases concerning life and death decisions of children and adults and also specialises in complex property and affairs cases, including disputes about the estates of well-known public figures in the UK and internationally. She is highly experienced in applications involving serious medical treatment for children and adults, the former under the inherent jurisdiction (particularly in cases involving eating disorders), unusual deprivation of liberty cases (including advising and obtaining damages and/or other relief), and in cases where there is an overlap between the MCA 2005 and MHA 1983. She is very experienced in all aspects of welfare disputes (including fluctuating capacity), and decisions including experimental treatment, covert treatment, sterilisation, contraception, sexual relations, internet and social media use, and marriage (including forced marriage). Emma is also regularly instructed in property and affairs disputes which include retrospective capacity issues, statutory wills, authority for “gifting”, and the appointment and removal of deputies and attorneys which include multi-million pound estates in the UK and abroad.

Public and Administrative law: Emma frequently advises and acts for and against public bodies in judicial review claims and contractual claims in the KBD, primarily in the fields of health and social care, mental health, and education (which regularly involve human rights issues), Secretary of State determinations in respect of ordinary residence, and funding disputes between public bodies. Emma also has experience of acting as independent reviewer in adult and child practice reviews (involving multi agencies) and has provided advice on a local and national level. An example was Emma’s instruction by CYSUR (a Safeguarding Children’s Board in Wales) in a statutory Child Practice Review to report into the death of a young girl, age 2. Her written report, published in June 2024, can be found here.

Education: Emma is instructed by Local Authorities, Governors, Headteachers, the Welsh Government, Charities, and parents in special educational needs disputes, discrimination claims (on the grounds of disability, race, and religious belief, for example), school admission appeals (including legally advising the panel) and school exclusions in England and Wales. Emma also advises upon education outside school, school attendance, school organisation, school governance and finance, school closures, school staffing, and school transport.

Inquests and inquiries: Emma frequently represents parties in Article 2 inquests (including lengthy jury inquests); particularly in cases where the mental capacity and mental health of the deceased was in question prior to their death, or where they have been killed by persons known to mental health services, where corporate manslaughter or gross negligence manslaughter are relevant considerations, where significant criticism is raised against public authorities regarding their duties to children and vulnerable adults (including in prisons and inpatient and community settings), and where there is national media interest.

Emma often undertakes work on a pro bono basis and completed the “25 for 25” Challenge which involved undertaking a significant number of hours of pro bono work through Advocate. Emma was also included on the Pro Bono Recognition List 2026. She has also been appointed as a specialist member of the Sport Resolutions Pro Bono Service.

Cases & Work of Note

(from the last 3 years: see individual practice pages for cases outside this period)

A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 [2026] UKSC 16, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens, Lady Rose and Lady Simler
Instructed by the Official Solicitor to the Senior Courts of England and Wales to address the question of whether the Minister of Health for Northern Ireland had the power to revise the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Code of Practice so that persons aged 16 and over who lack capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment can give valid consent to their confinement through the expression of their wishes and feelings. The Supreme Court determined that the Minister of Health did have such power, and, in doing so, overruled P v Cheshire West and Cheshire Council and another [2014] UKSC 19. Hugely significant case regarding the interpretation of Article 5 ECHR which will impact a significant number of people. Emma led Rhys Hadden. Please see here for the judgment and here for written arguments and to access the oral hearings.

Re Gardner (Deceased) (Court of Protection: Disclosure of Position Statements) [2026] EWCA Civ 640, Sir Stephen Cobb (President of the Family Division and the Court of Protection), Peter Jackson LJ and Coulson LJ
Instructed by the First Intervener, Professor Kitzinger,  in an appeal concerning whether, and if so in what circumstances, position statements drafted by advocates and filed by the parties for a court hearing in the Court of Protection can be disclosed to non-party observers. This is an extremely important guidance case which will be referenced in all Court of Protection cases moving forwards. It engages P’s right to respect for their private and family life (Article 8 ECHR), as against the public interest in the dissemination of information about court proceedings (Article 10 ECHR). Emma led Gemma McNeil-Walsh (5RB). Please see here for the judgment.

In the Matter of the Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWCA Civ 3, Peter Jackson LJ, Jeremy Baker LJ, & Laing LJ
Appointed by the Attorney General as Advocate to the Court in an appeal brought by the SSD against an order made by Swift J. The key issue was whether the learned judge exceeded his jurisdiction when sitting in the Administrative Court by requiring counsel for the SSD and a Special Advocate to attend a closed hearing and by requiring the SSD to revise an Afghanistan Response Route policy. The appeal is linked to the decision of Chamberlain J in Ministry of Defence v Global Media and Entertainment Limited and others [2025] EWHC 1806 (Admin), wherein a super (contra mundum) injunction was discharged, which had prevented disclosure of (i) the fact that someone working for the UK Government had released a dataset containing personal information and contact details of persons who applied under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy for relocation to the UK from Afghanistan following the Taliban coup in 2021, and (ii) the existence of the injunction itself. Appeal allowed. Please see here for the judgment.

In the matter of AA  & Ors v The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority & Ors  [2026] EWHC 317 (Fam), Morgan J
Instructed on behalf of 15 Claimants who are patients whose embryos or gametes are stored in a number of Fertility Clinics across the UK, but where their consent for the renewal of such storage, in accordance with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended by the Health and Care Act 2002, had not been given, in many cases (it was submitted) due to circumstances beyond their control. As the HFEA framework is silent on how errors or mitigating circumstances should be dealt with, and where the patients were alive and continued to consent, it was argued that the court should use its interpretive powers under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to read into the HFEA framework an ability to consent out of time, in order to avoid an infringement of the Article 8 ECHR rights of each patient. It is understood that this is the first case where the court has considered the HFEA legislative provisions for multiple patients at one time. Emma led Imogen Goold. All, bar one, of the applications was granted. Please see here for the judgment and here for press commentary.

Bristol City Council v CC & Ors (1) [2026] EWCOP 4 (T3) and (2) [2026] EWCOP 19 (T3), Theis J (Vice President of the Court of Protection)
Instructed on behalf of TT, by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor, in a multifaceted application which required consideration of closed material on the basis of protecting operational details of policing, and where risks to the wider public were raised as a basis for imposing restrictions on a vulnerable young person. On balance, Article 5 ECHR was found to be engaged. Emma led Jake Rylatt. Please see here for the closed material judgment and here for the welfare judgment.

Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board v SR & Ors [2026] EWHC 348 (Fam), Garrido J
Instructed on behalf of the child, through their Guardian, in an application by an NHS body to withdraw life sustaining treatment for the child, due to various medical complications, including irreversible brain damage. Complex medical expert evidence was considered (including a consultant paediatric neurologist and consultant paediatric intensivist). The Guardian ultimately submitted that life sustaining treatment was causing the child harm without any appreciable benefit and was no longer in their best interests. The parents opposed the application. The application was granted, and treatment in accordance with a palliative care plan was endorsed. Emma led Lucy Leader (Angel Chambers). Please see here for the judgment.

In the matter of NM (A Child) [2026] EWHC 253 (Fam), Keehan J
Instructed on behalf of the applicant Trust for declaratory relief under the court’s inherent jurisdiction concerning the future medical care and treatment of a 13 week old child born prematurely, and who required intensive life-sustaining treatment arising from multiple complex medical conditions. It was submitted that it was no longer in NM’s  best interests for life-sustaining treatment to continue to be given; but which was opposed by her parents. Application granted. Please see here for the judgment.

Ida Lock Inquest
Instructed by a Trust in a lengthy, complex maternity inquest, before a Senior Coroner, where concerns of corporate manslaughter and neglect were raised, where expert evidence needed to be challenged, and where multiple procedural issues required consideration throughout the inquest.

King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v LE [2025] EWCOP 46 (T3), Theis J (Vice President of the Court of Protection)
Instructed on behalf of LE, by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor, in a particularly difficult case where the Trust sought authority to amputate all four fingers and part of the palm on LE’s left hand, and most of her left thumb, the tips of the fingers on her right hand and parts of her toes on both feet due to dry gangrene, then carry out reconstruction surgery to both hands to cover exposed bone with tissue from other parts of her body. The evidence of t a consultant plastic surgeon required testing on behalf of LE, and although LE opposed the surgery, the final position of the Official Solicitor was that the proposed treatment was in her best interests, particularly as her opposition was founded on an irrational basis. The Vice President commented on the “excellent’ written documents drafted on behalf of LE. Please see here for the judgment.

R (on the application of ATB, by his litigation friend, ATL) v The Welsh Ministers [2025] EWHC 3114 (Admin), Farbey J
Instructed on behalf of a child claimant in an application for judicial review to challenge two sets of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers – (1) The National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Prescription of Drugs Etc) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, and (2) The National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Prescription of Drugs Etc) (Wales) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2024, both of which concerned the circumstances in which puberty blockers may be prescribed by GPs in Wales. The court ultimately found that the challenge was brought out of time in relation to the first set of Regulations, and that the second set of Regulations were to cure an anomaly in the first set (and not substantive). Emma led David Gardner (No5 Chambers). Please see here for the judgment.

University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Anor v AB & Ors [2025] EWCOP 45 (T3), Williams J
Instructed by the applicant Trust and ICB in complex welfare proceedings where creative thinking of the legal framework was needed regarding how AB, who lacked capacity to make decisions regarding his care and treatment, could be transferred to hospital, against the will of his mother, with whom he lived in a private home, in order for various medical reviews to be undertaken. The court granted an injunction, per section 16(5) MCA, and directed that AB’s mother, his deputy, must give effect to that order, otherwise the court would revoke her deputyship per section 16(8) MCA. Please see here for the judgment.

Re Gardner (Deceased) (Duration of Transparency Order) [2025] EWCOP 34 (T3), Poole J
Instructed by Professor Kitzinger, Co-Founder of the Open Justice Project, and observer and commentator on the Court of Protection, to intervene in proceedings which related to the operation of the transparency framework within the Court of Protection and whether, on the specific facts, a transparency order (a type of injunction) made prior to Mr Gardner’s death, should continue, as requested by members of his family. Professor Kitzinger opposed the application for an extension of the injunction, and in a detailed judgment, which considered the competing Article 10 and Article 8 rights, the court agreed, emphasising the strong public interest in being able to comment on the case following the conclusion of the substantive proceedings. Emma led Gemma McNeil-Walsh (5RB). Please see here for the judgment.

Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust v FF & Anor [2025] EWCOP 26 (T3), McKendrick J
Instructed by the applicant Trust in a case concerning the medical treatment and welfare of a highly vulnerable young women, FF. The Trust sought declarations and orders under the MCA 2005 that FF lacked capacity to consent to medical treatment for her anorexia; specifically in relation to receiving clinical artificial hydration and nutrition, and that it was in FF’s best interests not to be forced to receive nutrition or hydration (including by restraint or chemical sedation), even if the consequence was her premature death. The court also declared, pursuant to section 19 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, that it was lawful for the responsible clinician not to use section 63 MHA 1983 to enforce treatment. The court provided a useful framework and guidance for other similar/ difficult cases. Please see here for the judgment.

Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v MC [2025] EWHC 920 (Fam), Morgan J
Instructed by the applicant Trust in a complex and sensitive matter where a declaration was sought under the inherent jurisdiction that it would be lawful not to treat a patient detained pursuant to section 37/41 MHA 1983 in Rampton High Security Hospital pursuant to section 63 MHA 1983 for their diabetes, even if that led to their physical decline and premature death. The court rejected the argument made on behalf of the patient that the relevant treatment did not fall within section 63, and granted the relief sought. Please see here for the judgment.

Re SB [2024] EWHC 2964, Keehan J
Instructed by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board in a complex case brought by Conwy County Borough Council concerning the care and treatment of SB, a 15-year-old diagnosed with autism and learning difficulties, placed in a General Adolescent Unit and subject to a DoL authorisation.  The issue between the local authority and heath board related to which statutory body was responsible for SB’s care and treatment and under what legal framework. The local authority sought a declaration and ancillary orders that SB was detainable under section 3 MHA 1983, such that the court did not have jurisdiction to grant a DoL pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction. The health board strongly opposed this, asserting that (i) the Family Division (in comparison to the Administrative Court) had no jurisdiction to exercise a supervisory or review function of decisions made by clinicians under the MHA 1983 and (ii) for the court to seek to use its powers and procedures to influence the decisions of clinicians and those involved in the assessment and commissioning processes under the 1983 Act was an abuse of process. The health board also distinguished the case of Re JS [2023] EWCOP 33; heavily relied on by the local authority. The court agreed with the health board. Although the local authority latterly sought to concede the issue, the court determined, considering the important matters raised, that it was clearly in the public interest to set out its analysis of and conclusions about the application made by the local authority. Please see here for the judgment.

Re J (Transgender: Puberty Blocker and Hormone Replacement Therapy) [2024] EWHC 922 (Fam), Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division
Instructed by the applicant father in a case concerning his child, J, a 16-year-old natal female who regarded himself as male. The issues for the court were whether J had capacity to consent to medical treatment in the form of cross-sex hormones (testosterone) from an unregulated internet provider, Gender GP, and even if he did, whether the court should nonetheless prevent such treatment by exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. A wider issue in the case concerned whether any treatment for gender dysphoria should have commenced without prior approval of the court. Due to agreement reached (that J would cease treatment pending assessment with a newly established UK clinic, Gender Plus), a determination was unnecessary. However, the President addressed the relevant legal framework and “urged any court faced with a case involving Gender GP to proceed with extreme caution before exercising any power to approve or endorse treatment that that clinic may prescribe”. The case continues. Please see here for the judgment.

Re AG (Welfare: Forced Marriage Protection Order) [2024] EWCOP 18, Theis J, Vice President of the Court of Protection
Instructed by the Official Solicitor on behalf of AG, a 24-year-old female, in a complex case involving multiple applications, including an application for a forced marriage protection order (brought by the local authority), an application under the inherent jurisdiction to restrict relations between AG and her parents due to coercion and undue influence (brought by the Official Solicitor), and for a determination of whether the circumstances of AG’s placement constituted a deprivation of her liberty for the purposes of Article 5 ECHR. In a detailed judgment, Theis J agreed with the submissions of the Official Solicitor on all contested points, and made a short term FMPO and IJ order and agreed that AG was not deprived of her liberty. The court also endorsed the “travel guidance” drafted by the Official Solicitor (as foreign travel remains a live issue) which will not only assist AG, but other parties in similar cases. The case continues. Please see here for the judgment.

Gregory v Nottingham University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2023] EWCA, Civ 1324, King LJ, Moylan LJ & Peter Jackson LJ
Instructed by the respondent Trust in an appeal by a father concerning the treatment of his child, Indi, aged 8-months-old, and the decision of Peel J that the removal of invasive mechanical ventilation should take place at a hospice and not at home. The appeal was complicated as the Italian Prime Minister had granted Indi Italian citizenship and a decree had been issued by an Italian consular official who had appointed a guardian and authorised Indi’s removal to Italy for treatment (contrary to the UK welfare decision). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, highlighting that the grounds were responded to “concisely and compellingly”. The court also emphasised that it would “not tolerate manipulative litigation tactics” and that the “highest professional standards are rightly expected of lawyers practising in this extremely sensitive area”. Please see here for the judgment.

Gregory v Nottingham University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 1262, King LJ & Birss LJ
Instructed by the respondent Trust in an appeal by a father concerning the treatment of his child, Indi, aged 8-months-old, and the decision of Peel J that it was lawful for Indi’s treating clinicians to withdraw life sustaining treatment due to her incurable complex health difficulties, including a metabolic disorder that caused progressive damage to the brain, and the court being satisfied that her clinicians had exhausted treatment options in the UK and internationally. Permission to appeal was refused on the three grounds advanced. Please see here for the judgment.

Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Gregory & Ors [2023] EWHC 2566 (Fam), Peel J
Instructed by the applicant Trust for orders under the inherent jurisdiction that it was not in the best interests of a 7-month-old child, Indi, to continue to receive invasive medical treatment, due to there being no prospect of her recovering from her profound metabolic, neurological, and cardiological disorders, and as the multiple treatments were causing her pain with no discernible quality of life. The application was opposed by her parents. However, the declarations were granted following oral evidence. The court was ultimately satisfied that the burdens of invasive treatment outweighed the benefits, notwithstanding that the outcome of such declarations meant that Indi would sadly die. Please see here for the judgment.

St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Casey & Ors [2023] EWHC 2244 (Fam), MacDonald J
Instructed by the Official Solicitor (in her capacity as Advocate to the Court) in response to a Part 8 claim by the applicant Trust for a declaration that Mr Casey, aged 20-years-old, had died following a catastrophic brain injury sustained following an assault, together with consequential declarations that it was lawful for doctors to withdraw ventilatory support. In addition to a consideration of the complex medical evidence, the Official Solicitor proposed guidance regarding the correct procedural and legal approach to applications of this nature. This is addressed at paragraph 61 of the judgment. The declarations were made. Please see here for the judgment.

Re IN (Withdrawal of CANH) [2023] EWCOP 32, Poole J
Instructed by the Official Solicitor (as litigation friend) on behalf of IN in response to an application of the Trust that it was lawful to withdraw clinically assisted nutrition and hydration, and for IN to receive palliative care only. IN had been assessed to have a lower awareness than a vegetative state and was in a permanent coma. IN was part of the Romanian Orthodox Church, and his family, who gave evidence from Romania, and another in the UK via an interpreter, opposed the application, primarily on religious grounds. At the conclusion of the oral evidence the Official Solicitor supported the application and submitted that the presumption to preserve life, on the specific facts, had been rebutted. Please see here for the judgment.

Gloucestershire Health & Care NHS Foundation Trust v FD & Ors [2023] EWHC 2634 (Fam), Francis J
Instructed by the applicant Trust for declarations and orders that it was not in FD’s best interests for active treatment against her wishes for her anorexia to be given under the MCA 2005 (it being submitted that she lacked capacity to make decisions regarding nutrition and hydration), and that FD’s treating clinicians were authorised not to take steps towards providing FD with nutrition and hydration by force under the MHA 1983. The court granted the application, principally as FD regarded her existence as “torture”, knowing that granting the relief could have fatal consequences. Emma led Jake Rylatt. Please see here for the judgment.

North East London NHS Foundation Trust v Beatrice & Edward [2023] EWCOP 17 (No 1 – capacity), Mostyn J
Instructed by the Official Solicitor (as litigation friend) on behalf of Beatrice in an application concerning whether she had capacity to make decisions about her nutrition and hydration. Beatrice had a longstanding history of anorexia nervosa. If she had capacity, it was lawful for Beatrice to refuse treatment designed to achieve weight gain without which she would die. The court agreed with the position advanced by the Official Solicitor that Beatrice lacked subject matter capacity and was unable to conduct proceedings. The court concluded by stating that “this has been a very disturbing case to hear. If anyone needs proof that the Family Division judges sitting in, and the professionals who practise in, the Court of Protection and High Court hearing cases of this type have to do the most difficult, demanding, stressful, and draining work that the law requires to be done in any field, then they only have to read this judgment”. Please see here for the judgment.

North East London NHS Foundation Trust v Beatrice & Edward [2023] EWCOP 60 (No 2 – best interests), Mostyn J
Instructed by the Official (as litigation friend) on behalf of Beatrice in an application concerning whether it was in her best interests to be forcibly fed against her wishes to achieve weight gain. Beatrice did not want to die, but also did not want her suffering to continue. Her father wanted active treatment to continue. In addition to the MCA 2005, the court considered Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR and agreed with the Official Solicitor that on the particular facts, respect should be given to Beatrice’s very strong opposition to compulsory feeding and treatment should not be forced upon her. Please see here for the judgment.

NHS Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Board & JH [2023] EWCOP 2, Hayden J
Instructed by the applicant ICB for a declaration pursuant to section 26(4) MCA 2005 that JH had made a valid advance decision which applied to any invasive test or treatment (including life sustaining treatment), and that those treating JH did not incur liability for the consequences of withholding such tests or treatment from JH. JH was malnourished and would likely die without additional nutrition and hydration, which he was refusing. The court found that the advance decision was valid and as the Suicide Act 1961 decriminalised the act of suicide, JH was entitled to end his own life and should not be forced to engage in treatment against his will. The declarations sought were made. Please see here for the judgment.

Recommendations

Emma has been consistently recommended by the legal directories (Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500) as a leading silk.

Recent editorial includes the following:

• very sharp and able to cut through the most complex of procedures to identify the best solution for the client;
• Emma Sutton KC is in a class of her own;
• highly experienced, knowledgeable, and can deal with the most complex cases;
• a very strong all-rounder: top of the CoPs!;
• her ability to cut through issues is great;
• Emma is an incredibly impressive barrister;
• knowledgeable and approachable;
• pragmatic and direct;
• extremely personable and creative;
• a force to be reckoned with;
• approachable and supportive;
• second to none;
• Emma is an exceptional advocate;
• her knowledge of the legal frameworks used in the COP is encyclopaedic;
• technically brilliant;
• whenever I instruct her I have complete confidence that the case will be handled exceptionally;
• is tenacious, detailed, thorough, confident, an exceptional advocate and argues a point well and, if required, fiercely;
• has the respect of the judges;
• a very robust advocate who misses nothing;
• meticulous and reliable barrister;
• very able, hard-working and bright;
• an immense knowledge of the law;
• is an exceptional advocate;
• she is always extremely well prepared;
• Emma is masterful at case management; 
• a go-to lawyer for thorny issues;
• very responsive and brilliant with clients;
• her popularity as a practitioner is evidenced by the large proportion of work she receives as a result of repeat instruction;
• an excellent manner with all parties in proceedings;
• very practical and tactical advice;
• firm, fair and articulate with extensive knowledge of the law;
• extremely meticulous, knowledgeable, and a fearless advocate;
• a tenacious advocate with highly tuned negotiation skills;
• she leaves no stone unturned;
• an impeccable court manner;
• she has a great ability to cut through complex issues to achieve the best outcome for her clients;
• she is so meticulous and precise;
• her attention to detail is just incredible;
• her workload includes judicial review and advisory work;
• extremely approachable;
• she has the ability to distil issues in cases quickly and effectively;
• her preparation is absolutely meticulous;
• her attention to detail is like no other;
• fierce when she needs to be;
• her preparation and the amount of work she puts in is phenomenal;
• a very knowledgeable and experienced Court of Protection practitioner;
• an excellent advocate;
• her advocacy is excellent;
• clear and helpful advice provided at all times;
• great technical skills in terms of written legal advice and orders;
• very dedicated, so she knows the papers inside out;
• she’s very well organised;
• a tough negotiator;
• she prepares cases to a very high level of detail;
• committed and pragmatic;
• excellent with lay clients;
• user-friendly and supportive;
• very prompt to respond to any questions;
• she has the ability to distil issues in cases quickly and effectively;
• adept in acting for and against local authorities;
• extremely meticulous, knowledgeable, and a fearless advocate; and
• developing a formidable reputation at the Court of Protection.

Publications

• Medical Treatment: Decisions and the Law, Bloomsbury Professional, Fourth Ed., 2022. Emma co-authored chapter six: Procedure – Going to Court and chapter thirteen: Feeding in the fourth edition of the book Medical Treatment: Decisions and the Law, edited by Christopher Johnston KC and Sophia Roper KC and written by 27 members of Serjeants’ Inn.

Articles

• Emma has drafted commentaries for the Medical Law Reports for a number of years; most recently reporting upon the case of St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Or v LV [2025] EWCOP 9 (T3)
• Emma was featured in the 20^th Anniversary Commemorative of the Human Rights Lawyers Association (2023) which provided “insights from distinguished lawyers and human rights advocates”
• Emma has written articles for The Lawyer, Local Government Lawyer, Public Law Today and has provided practical guidance which has been used in practitioner training sessions, including 360 Degrees Training Ltd (for example, regarding who can consent to a deprivation of liberty for children and young persons)
• Emma has reported on a number of Court of Protection authorities which have been published by Community Care Inform

Seminars

• Emma regularly provides bespoke training to solicitors and professional clients; particularly in relation to NHS and Local Authority duties, with a focus on mental health, mental capacity, education and commissioning. Emma is also regularly invited to speak at larger conferences in her specialist areas.

Appointments

• Welsh Government Panel of King’s Counsel (2026)
• Fee-paid Judge of the Court of Protection (South West region) (2023 to date)
• Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) (2021 to date)
• Fee-paid Employment Judge of the Employment Tribunals (England & Wales) (2021-2024)
• Sport Resolutions Pro Bono Service Member (2024)
• Welsh Government A Panel of Junior Counsel (2021)
• Attorney General Panel of Special Advocates (2017)
• LexisNexis expert panel (2017) to provide advice in the areas of Public Law, Adult Social Services/Community Care and the Court of Protection
• Panel of Legislative Draftsmen to the National Assembly for Wales (2008)
• Welsh Government Junior Barrister (Public Law Scheme) (2008)
• Gray’s Inn Advocacy Trainer (2021)
• Gray’s Inn Mentor (2021)

Awards

• Bedingfield Scholar (Gray’s Inn)

Qualifications

• MPhil in Law, Balliol College, Oxford University (currently studying). Thesis includes public law, medical law and human rights issues
• LL.B (Hons) Law and Sociology, 2.1, Cardiff University
• LL.M Commercial Law, Distinction, Cardiff University. First class grades in all subjects studied (Intellectual Property, Industrial Property, Insurance Law and International Contract Law)
• BVC (Very Competent), Cardiff University. Outstanding in Advocacy, Drafting and Legal Research modules

Memberships

• Court of Protection Barristers Association. Chair: 2025 to date (Vice Chair: 2024-2025, Secretary: 2021-2024)
• Court of Protection Practitioners Association (CoPPA) Cymru Chair: 2021 to date
• Human Rights Lawyers’ Association (Executive Committee: 2019-2022)
• Constitutional & Administrative Law Bar Association
• Public Law Wales Association
• CoPPA (National)

Reflections

There are lessons to learn from every case and I strive to continually develop new skills. To reflect and improve as a barrister is essential for both individual growth and client satisfaction. A very wise Judge (now retired from the Supreme Court) once told me that they continued to learn something new each day which is a constant reminder that despite what I think I have grasped, there is always room for improvement.

The ‘rule of 3’: irrespective of the particular intricacies of a case, I always strive to breakdown the legal arguments into clear parts, and in so doing, remind myself of the principle that the reader (whether a client or a Judge) is more likely to absorb and be persuaded by information if set out in a short and succinct manner and without legal jargon.

“it is essential not to neglect the human story behind the case and to remain compassionate in what are often very sensitive cases.”

Being a good lawyer is often about seeing the bigger picture outside of a particular set of facts and being able to advise upon wider strategies. I am most proud of the cases in which practice and procedures have been amended as a consequence of advice given and which has brought about positive change beyond the facts of an individual case.

It’s essential to work as part of a team right from the outset of a case in order to maximise the skills of all involved. This is applicable for all cases, but particularly when representing professional clients who I regard as the specialists, and in which I see my role as weaving the legal framework around the issues to present the best possible case – having regard to what the client actually wants to achieve.

The human side of a case must never be overlooked and whilst there is an obvious need to focus on the applicability of rules and legislative provisions in public law challenges, it is essential not to neglect the human story behind the case and to remain compassionate in what are often very sensitive cases. This is critical whether acting for or against a public body as all parties involved in such cases are, ordinarily, well-intended.

I’m excited about the continual development in the areas of law in which I am fortunate enough to practice and how new and creative arguments can be developed and presented. It is the cases where there is no clear right or wrong answer that I most enjoy as original ideas can be advanced and the cross over between the evolving areas of law in which I practice often allows me to identify broader arguments.