Emma’s public law practice encompasses judicial review claims across a range of areas, including prisons, policing, inquests, health and social care, asylum, immigration and education.
Emma regularly advises and is instructed by central government departments, police forces, public bodies and functional public authorities, as well as local authorities.
Notable cases include:
R (Peter and Elizabeth Skelton) v Senior Coroner for West Sussex (Defendant) & (1) Chief Constable of Sussex Police (2) Robert Trigg (Interested Parties)  EWHC 2813 (Admin). Instructed on behalf of the Chief Constable of Sussex Police. Challenge to the Senior Coroner’s decision that there were not arguable breaches of the State’s substantive obligations under article 2, such that the State’s procedural article 2 duty was not engaged in relation to the inquest into the death of the Claimants’ daughter. The Divisional Court provided a definitive answer to the question of what the court’s task is on a judicial review of such decisions and also provided guidance on the legal test formulated in the case of DSD v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  AC 196, in the context of the threshold that operational failures in a police investigation must reach before there will be a breach of the State’s general framework duty under article 2.
R (Scarfe & ors) v (1) Governor of HMP Woodhill (2) Secretary of State for Justice  EWHC 1194 (Admin). Instructed on behalf of the Secretary of State for Justice and the Governor of HMP Woodhill (led by James Strachan QC). Challenge alleging systemic breach of article 2 in the context of suicide and self-harm prevention in prison, dismissed by the Divisional Court.
R (A and B) v (1) Secretary of State for Education (2) Central Bedfordshire Council Local Education Authority (3) Chief Constable of Bedfordshire Police (4) Secretary of State for the Home Department. Instructed on behalf of the LEA in this challenge to the lawfulness of the guidance issued in respect of the “Prevent duty”, conferred on specified authorities by section 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which included claims of breach of the claimants’ article 8, 9, 10 and 14 rights.
R (Luke Griffin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. Instructed on behalf of the Secretary of State in this challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision to depart from a recommendation made by the Parole Board as to the claimant’s categorisation as a prisoner.
R (Muhammad Jawar Abbassi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. Instructed on behalf of the Secretary of State in this challenge to the decision to classify “print and send” immigration applications as applications made by post, as opposed to applications made online, for the purposes of paragraphs 34 of the Immigration Rules.
R (Sherika Sharon Taylor & Abigail Owusu-Akyeaw) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. Instructed on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in this challenge to the Secretary of State’s retrospective application of the Immigration Rules that came into force on 9 July 2012 to the Claimants’ immigration applications.