Arthur Blake

Date of Call 1988

 

 

RANGE OF EXPERIENCE          

Arthur has more than 21 years' experience, covering all aspects of criminal and public law, including Immigration, Prison Law, and Criminal Appeal.

QUALIFICATIONS

LLB London

Bar Vocational Course 1986

 

CAREER PATH

He joined the Chambers of Peter Crawford QC, now Julian Baughan QC, at 13 King’s Bench Walk. 

He was called to the Bar in 1988.  

 

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXPERIENCE

His varied professional practice has covered: 

• Comprehensive experience in all areas of common law.
• Extensive experience in the areas of Judicial review, Immigration and Prison law, and Criminal appeals.                                                              

Arthur has been recognised by the Legal 500 2008 as a leader at the Bar under Administration Law.

OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

Part time Immigration Judge

Member of the Administrative Law Bar Association

 

LEADING CASES

Parole and Prison law cases include: 

R v Home Secretary, ex parte Zulfikar (No.1) [1996] COD 256 (QBD) (a locus classicus on the principles of Parole); Potter v Kavanagh, Vickers and Gorman (2002) ACD 27 (concerning incentives and earned privileges for convicted prisoners in denial); Ex parte McLeod (2002) EWHC 390 (principles of disclosure in categorisation of prisoners)

Judicial Review cases include R v Secretary of State, ex parte Lockhart and Davies (2003); recently obtained permission to seek Judicial Review of the process of ‘slopping out’ as being in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Djakija v Secretary of State [2003] EWCA 1394 (Admin): challenge to removal directions of a Kosovan national re: sufficiency of protection and burden of proof.

Caetano & Riordan v Governors of H.M.P. Coldingley & Elmley: challenge to retrospectively impose policy on status of current categorization.

Noye v Governor of H.M.P. Whitemoor & Secretary of State: challenge to conditions in special secure units re: Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Jonathan King
Seeking a review of the CCRC decision, in particular putting forward the argument that a late change in amending dates in an Indictment can prejudice a fair trial within the scope of Article 6 ECHR

Shrimpton v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department (IAT)
Appeal engaging correct principles to be applied in removal and/or deportation cases involving Article 8 of the ECHR.  In particular, the burden and standard of proof placed on the Secretary of State as Appellant, when appealing a decision from an adjudicator who has allowed an appeal on the basis of evidence that was not before the Secretary of State at the time of his decision.  Correct approach with reference to re “M” (Croatia).

Laiji v SHHD
Extent of reliance of delay on the part of a decision maker in arriving at a decision when he is considering removal from the UK and the relationship between the delay and Article 8 proportionality.

Raza v SSHD
The extent to which delay is relevant when considering an application for leave to remain in the UK outside of the immigration Rules and with reference to Home Office discretionary policy on Article 8 cases.   

The relevance of evidence of rehabilitation in a convicted foreign national when considering the reasonableness of deportation on the grounds that such removal is conductive to the public good. 

Challenging a sentence plan for a whole life tariff prisoner where it includes a requirement that they should complete a Sexual Offenders Treatment Programme despite the fact that such a prisoner is in denial of the index offences and therefore is ineligible to undertake the course.  Seeking to argue that such a target is prima facie perverse where the prisoner is ineligible for release at any stage  of the sentence and the effect of failure to comply with the sentence plan precludes the prisoner from advancing under the prisons enhanced earnings and privileges scheme.  Whether on the peculiar facts of such a case such treatment engages Articles 6 or 5 of ECHR. 

Challenging the decision of a District Judge sitting in prison jurisdiction and the degree of application of rules of evidence and procedural propriety in the grant of representation. 

Richards v National Probation Service
The extent to which the probation service can require compliance with instructions from individuals carrying out community orders/sentences. Court ruling that existing probation service rules and guidance in excess of the Law. 

Cannan v Secretary of State & The Governor of HMP Full Sutton
Whether a prisoner serving a whole life tariff should be denied enhanced status under prisons incentives and earned privileges scheme by not undertaking offending work addressed at rehabilitation. 

Shrimpton v Secretary of State
The extent to which the question of rehabilitation of an offender is relevant to the test of proportionality under Article 8 (2) ECHR in a deportation removal case on the grounds of it being conducive to the public good. 

R (Lynch) v Secretary of State for Justice
JR concerning the test to be applied in respect of a minister’s duty to provide offending behaviour courses to prisoners to improve their overall prospects of obtaining early release.  Judgment considered the extent to which resources are to be considered when undertaking the balancing exercise under Article 8(2) ECHR. 

R (De Vletter) v Chief Constable Thames Valley
Case concerning the duties placed on a Chief Constable to check accuracy and validity of information held on police records regarding a previous allegation of criminal sexual behaviour as opposed to a conviction when and before disclosing the same as being ‘relevant’, to a prospective employer pursuant to an enhanced criminal record disclosure review of test of relevance in context of Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise. 

R (Louis) v Ealing Magistrates’ Court
Review of Justice I Procedure of Committal to Prison for Non Payment of Fines imposed by the Crown Court and Activation of Sentence of Imprisonment in Default.  Meaning of “wilful refusal” to pay.  Further review of Magistrates’ Court practice of allocating part payments towards costs before fine elements of sentence whether practice permissible and/or lawful as increases risk of imprisonment and therefore engages the liberty of subject issues.