Juliet Wells

Year of Call: 2016

Practice Areas

Juliet Wells

Year of Call: 2016

Practice Areas

Experience

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.

Extradition
Juliet frequently represents requested persons in extradition proceedings before Westminster Magistrates’ Court and the High Court, both led and as sole counsel. She is experienced in dealing with the full range of issues arising in EAW cases, and regularly handles cases well beyond her level of call. She has also acted in cases under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, and is well-versed in human rights issues arising out of detention in the Gulf states.

Notable recent cases in this area include:

Hosseinali v Germany CO/3559/2019, led by David Perry QC (the joint lead case on whether EAWs issued ultra vires are invalid as a matter of EU law).
Diaconu v France CO/945/2019, led by Alison Macdonald QC (the joint lead case on the competence of French public prosecutors to issue EAWs).
Kotsev v The Soﬁa District Public Prosecutor’s Oﬃce, Bulgaria [2019] 1 WLR 2353, led by Myles Grandison.
The application to certify a point of general public importance in Duarte v The Comarca De Lisboa [2018] EWHC 2995 (Admin), led by Robin Tam QC and Myles Grandison.
Lis, Lange and Chmielewski v Poland [2018] EWHC 2848 (Admin) (assisting Myles Grandison).

Public International Law
Juliet is also building a busy practice in public international law, with a particular emphasis on representing persons who have been detained and mistreated overseas. Her work in this field has included representing individuals in proceedings before the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council, prosecutions under universal jurisdiction, and related civil claims. She is currently appointed international counsel for a British national who was detained and tortured in the United Arab Emirates, and for a number of former and current detainees in Saudi Arabia, led by Rodney Dixon QC.

She is also representing two former members of the International Criminal Court’s Oﬃce of the Prosecutor in international disciplinary proceedings before the UN International Labour Organisation, led by Rodney Dixon QC.

Juliet is regularly invited to speak at conferences on public international law issues. Most recently, she has spoken at an interdisciplinary conference on international human rights issues in the Middle East, and addressed the 42nd Regular Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Public Law, Inquests and Inquiries
Juliet advises and acts in a wide range of public law challenges, typically concerning civil liberties and human rights.

She regularly represents claimants in judicial review proceedings. Recent instructions in this area have included challenges to prosecution decisions, and actions challenging the lawfulness of police data retention policies.

She has a particular interest in cases concerning the tort liability of public authorities and Human Rights Act damages. She has represented claimants in Multi-Track claims arising out of substandard detention conditions and inter-prisoner violence, raising complex issues of liability and causation. In addition, she has recently acted in a number of claims concerning wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

She is also alive to the utility of supervisory and regulatory authorities in this field, and has often assisted her clients in bringing parallel complaints before such bodies as the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Alongside her contentious work, Juliet acts in inquests and inquiries. She is currently instructed by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government as a junior junior in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

Private Law
Juliet has a diverse private law practice, covering personal injury, civil fraud, costs and civil procedure. She has been instructed as trial counsel in a number of Multi-Track personal injury cases, and recently acted pro bono in an appeal concerning solicitors’ liability to pay the fees of expert witnesses, which raised complex issues of agency law, costs law, and professional regulation.

Juliet also undertakes pro bono work in the ﬁelds of employment and education law, and is very happy to accept instructions in these areas.

Prior to joining Chambers, for the legal year 2016-2017, Juliet was Judicial Assistant to Lord Justices Tomlinson, Flaux and Jackson. During this time, she undertook research and advised on the merits of appeals. High-profile cases in which she advised included Kamoka & Others v The Security Services & Others [2017] EWCA Civ 1665, Purcell & Others v Public Prosecutor of Antwerp, Belgium & Others [2017] All ER (D) 113, Turley v London Borough of Wandsworth [2017] EWCA Civ 189, Qader v Esure Services Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1109, and McBride v UK Insurance Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 144. She also worked closely with Lord Justice Jackson on his latest review of civil litigation costs.

Awards

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)

Education

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.

Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice (4th edition) Out Today

28th January 2021

Published by Sweet & Maxwell, Juliet Wells is the General Editor of the 4th edition.

First published in 2003 in the wake of the Woolf Reforms, Zuckerman on Civil Procedure has for many years been the leading academic and practitioners’ text on civil procedure. It presents a clear and thematic analysis of litigation under the Civil Procedure Rules, explaining how the court interprets and applies the Rules, how judges exercise their extensive case management powers, and how this impacts the conduct of litigation. Throughout, the emphasis is on bringing out the principles that govern the exercise of judicial discretion in order to help judges and practitioners to understand the relationship between individual Rules and general principles, and to deal with difficult problems that arise in the course of litigation. Its analysis is authoritative – the previous editions have been regularly cited by the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and Privy Council, and by the highest courts in other common law jurisdictions.

The 4th edition is available in print at the link below, or as an add-on to a Westlaw subscription.

View External Link

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

Chief Magistrate discharges Hungarian EAW

9th July 2021

On 9 July 2021, the Chief Magistrate gave judgment in Lakatos v Hungary, discharging the requested person.

Requested person discharged on s.20 grounds

16th April 2021

On 8 April 2021, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court handed down judgment in Skorzak v Poland, discharging the Requested Person under s.20 of the Extradition Act 2003. Poland had failed to show that she had been deliberately absent from two hearings, and that they would be reheard if she was extradited.

Zuckerman on Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice (4th edition) Out Today.

26th January 2021

Published by Sweet & Maxwell, Juliet Wells is the General Editor of the 4th edition.

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.

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).

Juliet Wells obtains permission to appeal in landmark extradition case on the status of French public prosecutors

4th December 2019

On 3 December 2019, a Divisional Court consisting of Hamblen LJ and William Davies J granted permission to appeal in a case concerning the status of French public prosecutors, who under French law enjoy sole competence to issue European Arrest Warrants (‘EAWs’).

Juliet Wells addresses an interdisciplinary conference on human rights issues in the Arabian Gulf

18th November 2019

On 16 November 2019, Juliet Wells was invited by the UK Foreign Policy Centre, ALQST and others to speak at a conference on the future of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. The conference brought together leading academics and activists from the fields of politics, security, history and international law.

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.

View External Link

Juliet Wells appears live on Al Jazeera evening news to comment on the legality of executions in Saudi Arabia

16th September 2019

On 12 September 2019, Juliet was asked to comment on the legality of the Saudi government’s recent use of the death penalty, and to analyse Baroness Helena Kennedy QC’s July 2019 report on recent executions in Saudi Arabia.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SHARING 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

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.