Immigration

Mark has secured successful outcomes for clients from Albania (trafficking) Afghanistan (age; political opinion), Bangladesh (sexuality), Democratic Republic of Congo (political opinion), Egypt (Coptic Christianity), Ethiopia (political opinion), Iran (sexuality / atheism; Kurdish political opinion), Iraq (Kurdish / humanitarian protection), Jordan (honour violence), Kenya (domestic violence), Pakistan (honour violence) and Vietnam (political opinion). Through this experience, he has become adept at advancing arguments on a range of related legal issues, including trafficking, age-disputes, cessation of refugee status and exclusion from protection.

Mark regularly represents clients in deportation cases, effectively utilising his experience from criminal practice. He has secured successful outcomes for both ‘medium’ and ‘serious’ offenders in the FTT.

Mark represents clients in entry clearance and in-country Article 8 appeals. He also has considerable experience in EEA cases involving issues such as deportation, derivative rights and alleged sham marriages.

Having previously volunteered for the charity Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), Mark has a particular interest in challenging detention through applications for bail. He also acts in related proceedings, including unlawful detention and County Court damages claims.

Mark has secured permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal by drafting grounds arising from his own and other FTT appeals. He is experienced in arguing complex issues in error of law hearings:

SB (vulnerable adult: credibility) Ghana [2019] UKUT 00398    https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2019-ukut-398

Represented client challenging deportation to Ghana in which the Upper Tribunal issued guidance on the assessment of credibility in respect of vulnerable adults.

TN v SSHD https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/pa-04545-2019

Successfully argued error of law based on inadequacy of reasons in support of adverse credibility findings. Subsequently represented client in successful FTT appeal following remittal.

ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan [2019] UKUT 00281    https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2019-ukut-281

Successfully argued error of law in case concerning the question of whether client’s sponsor had ‘genuinely’ exercised treaty rights in another EEA country before returning to UK, applying Citizens’ Rights Directive, EEA Regulations and related case law; the Upper Tribunal clarified that intention and motivation are not directly relevant to the assessment of whether employment is genuine and effective.

AA v SSHD https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/pa-10173-2017

Successfully challenged dismissal of deportation appeal based on inadequate consideration of risk on return to Iraq without CSID and exclusion from humanitarian protection. Appeal allowed following re-hearing on Article 8 grounds not previously argued.

RB v SSHD https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/hu-16261-2016-ors

FTT determination set aside on basis of defective consideration of whether it was reasonable to expect a child to leave the UK where the parents had no independent right to remain (s.117B(6) NIAA). Appeal allowed following Upper Tribunal re-hearing based on submissions regarding application of KO (Nigeria).

SSHD v HW https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/pa-13530-2017

Initially represented client in FTT deportation appeal allowed on basis of Article 8, which arose from six year sentence imposed when client was a young child. Successfully argued no error of law in SSHD appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

KM v SSHD https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/pa-00739-2018

Successfully argued error of law based on failure to properly consider risk on return in event that client continued her political activity as blogger. Subsequently represented client in successful FTT appeal following remittal.

Crime

Mark has extensive experience of magistrates’ court proceedings and has a particular interest in the treatment of vulnerable clients with mental health conditions. He has successfully advanced a defence of temporary insanity after securing an adjournment to obtain supportive psychiatric evidence and has also persuaded a court to re-open mode of trial and send a case to the Crown Court for fitness to plead to be determined.

Mark has represented clients charged with a wide range of offences including s.18 GBH, importation of Class A drugs, being in charge of a dangerous dog causing injury, outraging public decency, money laundering and licensing offences.

Mark undertakes a full range of Crown Court work and has represented clients in trials concerning allegations of possession of a bladed article (acquitted after establishing defence of ‘good reason’) and voyeurism (first jury failed to reach verdict; convicted at re-trial).

Prison law

Mark acts for clients at Parole Board hearings in prisons across London and the south of England. He has experience of representing clients subject to life sentences, indefinite sentences for public protection and determinate sentences following administrative recall.

Previous experience

Prior to completing pupillage at One Pump Court in 2017, Mark practised as an immigration solicitor. He primarily represented clients in the Detained Fast Track (DFT) process, through which he acquired experience of preparing complex asylum appeals within short time frames. He also represented clients in applications for bail and asylum appeals. Mark’s last asylum case resulted in a successful public law challenge to a refusal to remove a client from the DFT process despite evidence of trafficking, thereby contributing to the suspension of the DFT in July 2015 (R (on the application of IK, Y, PU) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, CO/479/201).

Mark qualified as solicitor whilst working as a Legal Adviser at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court where he provided advice to lay magistrates in adult, youth and family courts. Prior to this he worked for several years investigating potential miscarriages of justice at the Criminal Cases Review Commission. One review contributed to the quashing of a 1986 murder conviction, where confession evidence was held to have been wrongly admitted (R v James [2004] EWCA Crim 1433). In another case, Mark’s legal analysis of the implications of an apparently unsigned indictment led to convictions being set aside by the House of Lords (R v Clarke and McDaid [2008] UKHL 8).

See Mark’s Privacy Policy here