Bobby regularly appears in the Administrative Court and accepts instructions in all areas of public law. He has particular experience in claims around data retention and disclosure by public authorities, challenges to investigative decisions and decisions on whether to prosecute, and in defending judicial reviews of cautions administered by the police. Bobby also has significant experience dealing with vexatious litigants. His recent cases include:
R (QSA) v National Police Chiefs’ Council & Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 272 (Admin) – Junior Counsel for the NPCC (led by Jason Beer QC) in the Divisional Court. The case concerned the art.8 ECHR compatibility of the NPCC’s policy that all convictions of recordable offences be retained on the Police National Computer until the person reached 100 years of age. The Divisional Court held that it was lawful and proportionate for the NPCC to have drawn a bright line given the importance of retaining a comprehensive register of criminal convictions for policing, criminal justice and public safety purposes.
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v (1) Information Commissioner & (2) Rosenbaum (GIA/2230/2019) – Counsel for the appellant police force in the Upper Tribunal. The case concerned whether the MPS could neither confirm nor deny whether or not it held information on whether the National Front had been investigated by Special Branch. The appeal revolved around the ambit of the exception in s.23(5) FOIA 2000, where there is no requirement to confirm or deny possession of information where doing so would involve the disclosure of information that ‘relates to’ a listed body dealing with national security matters. The case is highly significant in the area of information law as defining the scope of s.23(5) – see the detailed analysis on the Panopticon information law blog.
R (RD) v Secretary of State for Justice & The National Police Chiefs’ Council  EWCA Civ 1346 – Junior Counsel for the NPCC (led by Jason Beer QC) in the Court of Appeal. The case concerned the compatibility of the Rehabilitation from Offenders (Exceptions) Order 1975 with art.8 ECHR and specifically whether it was lawful, necessary and proportionate for the legislation to require applicants to the office of constable (and other offices and professions of the utmost integrity) to disclose all cautions and convictions, including those spent or protected or given when the applicant was a child. The Court of Appeal held that it was lawful and proportionate for the legislation to have drawn a bright line (and to draw it where it did) given the nature of the offices in question, the quality of the legal framework, and the need to ensure the applicants’ utmost integrity.
R (II) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  EWHC 2528 (Admin) – Counsel for the Commissioner in judicial review proceedings concerning the retention of data of a child referred to the police under the Prevent duty and whether continued retention breached the child’s art.8 ECHR rights and/or was a breach of the DPA or the public sector equality duty.
Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset v Gray  EWCA Civ 1675– Counsel for the Chief Constable in the Court of Appeal. The case concerning the correct interpretation of the fees regime in the Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 for those subject to a civil restraint order seeking permission to issue a claim and the appropriate restrictions on vexatious litigants’ right to access to justice.
R (Ryle) v Secretary of State for Justice  EWHC 3031 (Admin) – Counsel for the Secretary of State for Justice in a claim concerning the factors that a prison governor could properly consider as part of a decision to re-categorise a prisoner upwards, and particularly the relevance of pending confiscation proceedings.
R (R) v The National Police Chiefs’ Council & Anor  EWHC 2586 (Admin) – Junior counsel (led by Jason Beer QC) for the NPCC in a challenge under art.8 to both the NPCC’s policy on retention of criminal record data and the legislation on disclosure of criminal records. The case also concerned national vetting policy. The appeal is listed in October 2020.
R (P & G) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  2 Cr. App. R. 12 – Junior counsel for the Chief Constable of Surrey (led by Anne Studd QC) in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal concerning a challenge to the administering of a reprimand for sexual offending and the legality of the scheme of retention and disclosure under the relevant guidance, the Police Act 1997 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 obliging the Chief Constable to disclose the reprimand.
Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset v Gray  EWHC 2998 (QB) – Counsel for the Chief Constable in this leading case on applications to extend General Civil Restraint Orders.
R (Manser) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  EWHC 3642 (Admin) – Counsel for the Commissioner in resisting a claim for judicial review of a caution. The claim concerned the amount of evidence the police are required to provide and whether a caution can be offered for a lesser offence than that for which a person is arrested.