David Jones

Overview

Over more than two decades David has developed an extraordinary level of expertise as a practitioner barrister in all areas of immigration, human rights, EU Free Movement, and nationality law. David also enjoys an expanding practice in managed and business migration.

David is an accomplished litigator in the appeal courts – from the First Tier of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber through to the Court of Appeal, in the sphere of judicial review both in the Upper Tribunal and Administrative Court, and the realm of civil litigation in relation to unlawful detention cases, regularly trying or settling high-value claims. David has in particular over time been at the vanguard of proceedings seeking to attain equality of treatment for Foreign National offenders, particularly with regard to accessing to early release programs and resisting enforcement action.

David also enjoys a vibrant direct access practice, enjoying the opportunities and challenges afforded by the extension of rights of access, and endeavouring to provide the best service possible to his clients by securing the litigation extension which enables him to issue proceedings, conduct negotiation and instruct expert witnesses.

Notable Cases

Victory in false imprisonment action challenging the lawfulness of Home Office Iraqi removal exercise 
QA v SSHD (D03CL294) in the Central London County Court
David acted for the Applicant, QA, instructed by Tori Sicher of Sutovic & Hartigan Solicitors, whose claim for damages for unlawful detention concluded mid-trial with an offer of settlement. The case challenged in particular the lawfulness of the enforcement exercise initiated by the Home Office in 2017, which operated contrary to the Iraqi Government’s prevailing and approved removal processes and the Home Office’s published Guidance which allowed only for documentation and return of persons prepared to leave voluntarily.

False imprisonment and personal injury claim made by Zimbabwean national lawfully present in the U.K
Tapiwa Matukutire settled at pre-action stage
False imprisonment and personal injury claim made by Zimbabwean national lawfully present in the U.K. who was falsely accused of being present irregularly and was subject to humiliating attempts to detain and restrain by more than 6 immigration officers in his own home owing to a failure to properly check his status before pursuing enforcement action. The case revealed the human cost of the information sharing created by the “hostile environment” policy which required banks, landlords, and the DVLA report on people they suspected were  in the U.K. illegally, through access to an immigration database. It disclosed too the weakness in the system due to the poor quality of data sharing — and then the poor interrogation of tip-offs by the Home Office. This case has also received media coverage from ITV News and Sky News.  

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finds torture victims detention unlawful
S.M.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 77450/12).
The ECtHR found the U.K. had violated Article 5 § 1 was found, concluding more decisive steps should have been taken to bring the decision making process swiftly to a close given his acknowledged vulnerability of the Zimbabwean national.

Restoration of currency of Iraqi country guidance
QA v SSHD C4/2017/2737 on appeal from the Admin Court R (on the application of Amin) [2017] EWHC 2417 (Admin)
Acted for the Appellant. Obtained leave to appeal to appeal against the decision of the Administrative Court in which he had overrode the Country Guidance decision of the Upper Tribunal in AA(Article 15C) Iraq [2015] which had found Kirkuk to be a contested territory. The Home Office subsequently conceded the appeal, paying the Appellant’s costs. The decision of Admin Court had been extensively relied upon by the Home Office and the Lower court’s in order to deny a protection entitlement to Iraqi asylum seekers. Quashing the decision restored AA’s status as a binding precedent and obliged decision makers distinguish the findings in the same by reference to prevailing country evidence, and where they could not, required they acknowledge a protection entitlement.

Country Guidance properly construed entitling Iraqi asylum seeker to a fresh claim
R (on the application of H) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (application of AA (Iraq CG)) IJR [2017] UKUT 00119 (IAC)
The Upper Tribunal revisited its own decision in the country guidance case of AA (Article 15(c)) Iraq CG [2015] UKUT 00544 (IAC) in this judicial review, emphasising that a proper reading of that determination did not enable decisions makers to suspend their assessment of an applicant’s entitlement tointernational protection merely because they could not currently be returned, owing to a lack of particular travel documentation. Rather, it obliged a thorough and particular review of the individual circumstances of that applicant in order to determine whether a claim to international protection could be made out by reference to other factors apart from documentation, such as ethnicity, gender, age and strength of attachments.

Nigerian National defeats Home Office decision refusing to revoke deport order and obtains damages for unlawful detention
OA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 486 (Admin) (15 March 2017)
The Court concluded that the decision maker had erred in the law when rejecting the application to revoke an outstanding deportation order noting the fact of the birth of a child following the adverse disposal of an earlier appeal by the Tribunal and expressly rejecting the Home Office’s submission that the interests of that child could be extrapolated from, and so rejected, in reliance upon the assessment previously carried out by the Tribunal in respect of the claimant’s other children. The Court also found the claimant had been unlawfully detained, highlighting when so doing a Memorandum of Understanding between the Nigeria and British Governments the terms of which it recognised operated in this case as a substantial bar to documentation and so removal.

Albanian Domestic violence victims claim secures a right of appeal
FR & Anor (Albania), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 605 (23 June 2016)
The Court of Appeal gave an important ruling in this case as to the approach that needed to be followed by the Home Office when certifying asylum and human rights claims as “clearly unfounded” emphasising the need to give separate consideration to a claim for asylum, where she decides whether the claim should be refused, and the decision on the issue of certification, and stressing that Certification was only possible where the claim admitted of only one answer before the tribunal.

Protection claims for homosexual men held to enjoy substance
R on the application of SE v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKUT JR-13730-2015 This judicial review concerned the denial of access to an in-country right of appeal to an Albanian homosexual, with the threshold of harm necessary to establish persecution and the necessity exhaust domestic avenues of protection also being in issue being contentious issues in the case. The Upper Tribunal ruled authoritatively in favour of the Applicant to the effect that there was facility even on the latest country information for the establishment of a protection need by homosexuals.