Juliet has a varied practice, with a particular focus on extradition, public international law, public law and personal injury. She regularly appears before the High Court, both led and unled, and has been instructed as sole counsel in a number of judicial review and Multi-Track claims.

Before coming to the Bar, Juliet held research posts at UCL and Oxford University, specialising in constitutional law and civil procedure. She has recently been appointed as the general editor of Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice (4th Ed. Sweet & Maxwell, forthcoming), and is currently co-authoring a book on the theory and practice of disclosure around the common law world.


  • Inner Temple, Internship Award (2016)
  • BPP Law School, Advocacy Scholarship (2015)
  • Inner Temple, Major Scholarship (2015)
  • Inner Temple, Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Award (2015)
  • University of Oxford, Shearman and Sterling Moot Prize (2014)
  • University of Oxford, Holdsworth Society Moot Prize (2013)


  • Magdalen College, University of Oxford: BA Jurisprudence (2014)
  • BPP Law School, London: BPTC (2016, Outstanding)

Professional Memberships

  • Administrative Law Bar Association
  • Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum
  • Personal Injury Bar Association

Kotsev v Sofia District Public Prosecutor’s Office, Bulgaria [2019] 1 WLR 2353

The case dealt with whether the District Judge was entitled to find that the Appellant had deliberately absented himself from his trial and whether he was entitled to a re-trial upon his return. The High Court held that the District Judge had erred in seeking to interpret foreign law without the assistance of expert evidence. Furthermore, the bare fact that a requesting state was a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights was not of itself sufficient to show that section 20(5) and (8) of the 2003 Act would be satisfied.

TGC Costs Newletter Vol IV

4th June 2019

Please see link below to the latest update from the TGC Costs Team.

View External Link

J. Wells, ‘A commentary on the Irish Supreme Court’s preliminary references in Lisaukas and Dunauskis’, Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum.

4th December 2018

Juliet Wells discusses the Irish Supreme Court’s preliminary references in Minister for Justice and Equality v Lisauskas [2018] IESC 42 and Minister for Justice and Equality v Dunauskis [2018] IESC 43 (now joined Cases C-508/18 and C-509/18 before the CJEU), seeking clarity as to the circumstances in which a public prosecutor can be a “judicial authority” for the purposes of the 2002 Framework Decision.

J. Wells and R. Hazell, ‘Judicial Input into Parliamentary Legislation’ [2018] Public Law Journal 106

2nd February 2018

Juliet Wells discusses the constitutional role played by judges in shaping legislation at the select committee stage in Parliament, in leading academic law journal Public Law.

J. Wells, ‘Reforming Electoral Law: a Comment on the Law Commission’s Joint Consultation Paper’, U.K. Const. L. Blog

25th February 2015

Available at link below.  Cited by the Electoral Commission in its consultation response.

View External Link

ALBA publishes its response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law

19th October 2020

The Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association (ALBA), which represents barristers, judges and academics specialising in public law, has today published its response to the Call for Evidence by the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL). The IRAL was established by the Government in July 2020, to consider whether reform is required in the field of judicial review. It is the latest in a series of exercises undertaken over the past few years with a view to reforming judicial review, with other reviews having taken place in 2012-13, 2014, 2015 and 2017. However, the IRAL differs from previous reviews in that its terms of reference are much broader, purporting to cover almost the whole field of judicial review, including matters of procedure and costs.

Read more

German EAWs: Divisional Court approves local courts as ‘judicial authorities’

11th May 2020

On 6 May 2020 Judgment was handed down in the case of Shirnakhy & Anr v Weiden Local Court & Anr [2020] EWHC 1103, in which Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Mr Justice Lewis considered whether local courts (Amtsgerichte) in Germany were competent judicial authorities within the meaning of Article 6(1) and 6(3) of the Framework Decision, and so able to issue European Arrest Warrants (EAWs).

Read more

Rodney Dixon QC and Juliet Wells address an event at the 42nd Regular Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva

16th September 2019

On 12th September 2019, Rodney Dixon QC and Juliet Wells addressed an event at the 42nd Regular Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, hosted by the Death Penalty Project. The event concerned the illegal and excessive use of capital punishment by the Saudi government, following Baroness Helena Kennedy QC’s July 2019 report into recent executions in Saudi Arabia. The report identified systematic and widespread human rights abuses by the Saudi regime in imposing the death penalty on human rights defenders, protestors, critics of the government, and children, following grossly unfair investigative and trial processes.

Read more

View External Link

Rodney Dixon QC and Juliet Wells make complaint to FIFA on behalf of client tortured in the UAE

15th July 2019

On 8 July 2019, Rodney Dixon QC and Juliet Wells submitted a complaint to FIFA on behalf of their client, Ali Issa Ahmad. Mr Ahmad is a British national who was assaulted and racially abused by UAE state security officials in January 2019, whilst attending the AFC Asian Cup football tournament as a fan of the Qatar national team. He was ultimately detained for a period of three weeks, during which time he was accused of being a Qatari spy and tortured.

Read more

View External Link

Rodney Dixon QC and Juliet Wells attend the 41st Regular Session of the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva on behalf of clients detained in Saudi Arabia

25th June 2019

Rodney Dixon QC and Juliet Wells represented their clients Yumna Desai and Huda Mohammad at an event at the 41st Regular Session of the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva, at the invitation of human rights NGO No Peace Without Justice and the Government of Canada. Ms Desai and Ms Mohammad were arbitrarily detained by the Saudi Arabian authorities and held in conditions amounting to torture for three years and one year respectively.

On 25 June 2019, Rodney and Juliet also submitted a complaint on their clients’ behalf to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection of Fundamental Rights Whilst Combatting Terrorism, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers.

Read more

View External Link

TGC Costs Newsletter

4th June 2019

Please see link below for the 4th edition of the the TGC Costs Newsletter.

View External Link

Aidan Ellis, Juliet Wells and others brief the press on the death of Alia Abdulnoor

30th May 2019

On 30 May 2019, Juliet Wells joined a panel of human rights lawyers and experts chaired by Aidan Ellis, to brief members of the press including the BBC, Al Jazeera and Middle East Eye on the legal and political implications of the death of Alia Abdulnoor. Ms Abdulnoor was diagnosed with breast cancer whilst detained in the United Arab Emirates, and subsequently died in inhumane conditions on 4 May 2019 having been refused medical treatment.

View External Link

Breakfast Costs Conference

22nd February 2019

TGC will be holding a Breakfast Costs Conference on 27 March 2019 from 8.15am-10.45am at Arundel House, 13-15 Arundel Street, London WC2R 3DX.

Read more

Appeal against extradition to Bulgaria

4th December 2018

Myles Grandison and Juliet Wells represented Mr Kotsev in his appeal against extradition to Bulgaria. In a judgment, dated 16th November 2018, Mr Justice Julian Knowles held that the District Judge had erred in finding, on the evidence before her, that Mr Kotsev would be entitled to a re-trial which complied with section 20(5) and (8) of the Extradition Act 2003. Mr Justice Julian Knowles held that Tous v Czech Republic [2010] EWHC 1556 (Admin), which had been relied upon by the District Judge, could no longer be viewed as accurately stating the law.

Read more

TGC Welcomes New Junior Tenants

3rd October 2018

Temple Garden Chambers is delighted to announce that Juliet Wells and Harriet Wakeman  have accepted invitations to join chambers after successfully completing pupillage.

Privacy Notice

Thank you for choosing to instruct me in your case. I will need to collect and hold your personal information in order to represent you. I might also need to collect and hold personal information of third parties.

I will take all possible steps to protect your personal information. I am determined to do nothing that would infringe your rights or undermine your trust.

This Privacy Notice describes the information I collect about you, how it is used and shared, and your rights regarding it. If you have any queries about how I collect and hold your personal information, please do not hesitate to contact me by email or through my clerks.

Data Controller

I am registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office [“ICO”] as a Data Controller for the personal data that I hold and process as a barrister. My registered address is Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple, London EC4Y 9DA [“Chambers”] and my registration number is ZA321323.

Data Collection

The information that I hold about you is provided to or gathered by me in the course of your case, most often by your solicitor. Your solicitor will tell you why I need the information and how I will use it.

The data I collect and process comprises both personal data and special categories of personal data as defined in the General Data Protection Regulation [“GDPR”], which may include but are not limited to:

  • Name;
  • Email and telephone number;
  • Address;
  • Bank details or financial information;
  • Date of birth;
  • Employment records;
  • Social services involvement;
  • Medical records;
  • Criminal records;
  • Allegations made against the data subject;
  • Racial or ethnic origin;
  • Political opinions;
  • Religious or philosophical beliefs;
  • Trade Union membership;
  • Data concerning sex life and sexual orientation;
  • Genetic data or biometric data.

The “Lawful Bases” for processing information under the GDPR

The GDPR requires all organisations that process personal data to have a “Lawful Basis” for doing so. The Lawful Bases identified in the GDPR are:

  • Consent of the data subject
  • Performance of a contract with the data subject or to take steps to enter into a contract
  • Compliance with a legal obligation
  • To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another person
  • Performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller
  • The legitimate interests of my business as a barrister, or a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests, rights or freedoms of the data subject

Examples of legitimate interests include:

  • Where the data subject is a client or in the service of the controller;
  • Transmission within a group of undertakings for internal administrative purposes;
  • Processing necessary to ensure network and information security, including preventing unauthorised access;
  • Processing for direct marketing purposes, or to prevent fraud; and
  • Reporting possible criminal acts or threats to public security.

My Lawful Bases for processing the personal data of my clients include the following:

  • The data subject, as my client, has consented;
  • To perform a contract with the data subject, namely a contract for the provision of legal services, or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into such a contract;
  • Compliance with a legal obligation; and/or
  • The legitimate interests of my business as a barrister, or a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests, rights or freedoms of the data subject.

As regards the latter, the “legitimate interests” include:

  • The internal administration of my business (for example, the receipt of personal information by my clerks in order to manage my diary);
  •  Keeping records in relation to the services I provide (for example, in order to provide information to you, your legal team, a professional body, my professional indemnity insurer, or the ICO, in the event of a problem with the services I provide);
  • Ensuring network and information security, including 
preventing unauthorised access;
  • Preventing fraud and reporting possible criminal acts or threats to public security;
  • Providing training (see further below).

In addition, I process the personal data of third parties, including the other parties to my clients’ disputes and witnesses. Where I do so, my lawful basis for processing any third party’s information provided to me in relation to a client’s case is that the processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which I am subject, namely the obligation to provide legal services under the contract with the client.

I therefore use personal information to:

  • Provide legal advice and representation;
  • Investigate and address any concerns you as the data subject and/or my client may have;
  • Comply with my legal obligations; and
  • Assist in training pupils and mini-pupils.

I do not use automated decision-making in the processing of your personal data.


I may share your personal data with:

  • Instructing solicitors;
  • Pupils or mini pupils, under my training (see further below);
  • Opposing Counsel, for the purposes of resolving the case;
  • My Chambers management and staff who provide administrative services;
  • My regulator, legal advisors, professional indemnity insurer, or ICO, in the event of a dispute or other legal matter;
  • Law enforcement officials, government authorities, or other third parties as required to meet my legal obligations;
  • Judges and court staff;
  • Witnesses and expert witnesses;
  • Anyone ancillary to actual or potential proceedings;
  • Any other party where I ask you and you consent to the sharing.

Pupil barristers and mini pupils are made aware that they are under a strict duty of confidentiality in relation to any information they come across in the course of their training. I will always do my utmost to ensure the confidentiality of your personal information and will share with the pupil or mini pupil only the minimum amount of information necessary to provide training. Please inform me by email or post if you would prefer your case not to be used by me for training purposes and I will of course not use it in that way.

Transfers to third countries and international organisations

I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.

Retention and disposal

I retain clients’ and third parties’ personal data whilst proceedings are ongoing unless the data subject asks me to delete it. My Retention and Disposal Policy (copy available on request) details how long I hold data for and how I dispose of it when it no longer needs to be held. I will delete or anonymise your information at the data subject’s request unless:

  • There is an unresolved issue, such as claim or dispute;
  • I am legally required to retain it; or
  • There are overriding legitimate business interests, including but not limited to fraud prevention and protecting customers’ safety and security.

The rights of the data subject

The GDPR gives the data subject specific rights in relation to their personal data. For example, they have to be informed about the information I hold and what I use it for, can ask for a copy of the personal information I hold about them, can ask me to correct any inaccuracies in the personal data I hold, can ask me or Chambers to stop sending you direct mail or emails, or in some circumstances may ask me to stop processing their details. Finally, if I do something irregular or improper with the personal data the data subject can seek compensation for any distress caused or loss incurred. You can find out more information on the ICO’s website http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/personal_information and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with your information.

Accessing and correcting information

Data subjects may request access to, correction of, or a copy of their personal information by contacting me in writing:

  • By email (available from my clerks);
  • By post (Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple,
London EC4Y 9DA).

Marketing Opt-Outs

You may opt out of receiving emails and other messages from my Chambers by following the instructions in those messages.


Cookies are small text files that are stored on your browser or device by websites, apps, online media, and advertisements. The Chambers website use cookies to, for example, determine how often users access our content; analyse site visits and trends; and remember preferences and settings.

I will occasionally update my Privacy Notice; as and when I do so, I will publish the updated Privacy Notice on my website profile.

Close X

Coronavirus Update

TGC continues proactively to safeguard against the risks posed by the spread of Coronavirus. We have a Covid-19 Committee who continue to monitor the situation and follow advice issued by the Government and Public Health England. We will be updating this page as and when new information becomes available. As of 6 July 2020, our London premises, 1 Harcourt Buildings, will be operating with a reduced clerking team in attendance. The remaining staff members and barristers will continue working remotely. We wish to reassure everyone that our contingency plans enable us to continue to provide our services.

Telephoning us

When calling our switchboard number, it will be diverted to a member of the clerking team who will be able to assist in the usual way. All direct dials in Chambers are diverted to be answered remotely.

Emailing us & Sending Instructions

Please send all instructions via email directly to clerks@tgchambers.com. We would be grateful if this could be sent in an orderly fashion to enable working from a screen manageable. We are able to receive hard copy instructions via DX or Post, if necessary. However, we have a preference for electronic documents wherever possible.

Please continue to communicate with barristers directly via phone or email.

Conferences, Joint Settlement Meetings & Mediations

Conferences, meetings and mediations will take place remotely, either by telephone or video until further notice. Group Telephone calls and video calls can be easily arranged. If an in-person meeting is felt necessary please see our Covid-19 Information page for full criteria.

Court Hearings

We are following the Government’s advice closely, which is changing daily. In keeping with that advice, we will continue to service hearings remotely, where possible and as instructed by the hosting Court. In-Person hearings will be accommodated by members of TGC. We will continue to monitor this situation.

Making a payment

If you do not already pay us by BACS, going forward please make arrangements to do so. Please contact the clerks who can supply you with the relevant BACS details.

If you wish to discuss our policy and procedure relating to coronavirus, please do not hesitate to contact our senior clerk Dean Norton on 07535 753098 or dnorton@tgchambers.com.

To learn more visit our Covid-19 Information page.