Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
Temple Garden Chambers has long been renowned for its work in public, administrative and regulatory law, and its members regularly appear in the most important, high-profile and cutting-edge cases in the field.
The set is almost unique in its ability to offer expertise across the range of public law issues in tandem with complementary expertise in inquests and inquiries extradition, professional discipline, and international law. This enables us to provide our clients with big picture strategic advice and a one-stop service across a range of jurisdictions.
We are particularly well known for our work in cases that have a human rights, criminal justice, immigration and asylum or national security dimension, though our expertise runs far wider than this. In recent times our members have acted in cases involving issues as diverse as the Covid-19 hospitality curfew, the military evacuation of Afghanistan, the fees charged for British citizenship applications, extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation during the ‘War on Terror’, the release of murderers on parole, the Novichok poisonings, the admissibility of marine safety reports in shipping arbitrations, and the campaign to save Geronimo the alpaca. Our members have appeared in many of the leading cases across the gamut of public law issues, at all levels from the First-tier Tribunal to the Supreme Court and internationally. We have appeared in a huge number of reported cases.
We have a broad client base, including individuals and businesses, Government departments and agencies, local government bodies, the Security and Intelligence services, HMRC, the SFO, regulators, national sports bodies, and Magic Circle and other leading firms of solicitors. Our barristers include members of the Attorney-General’s Panel of Counsel at all levels of seniority.
Sian Reeves represented the Secretary of State for the Home Department in an immigration statutory appeal before the Court of Appeal (Newey LJ, Snowden LJ and Whipple LJ). The appeal concerned a narrow issue about the application of the “very significant...
The Court of Appeal (Bean, Thirlwall and Peter Jackson LJJ) held that rule 53A of the Prison Rules did not impose a requirement for a Governor to give reasons in every case in which they determine that the “so serious”...
The High Court has handed down judgment allowing a claim for judicial review challenging the Home Office’s policy to stop and detain all passengers owing debts to the NHS when seeking entry at the border. The policy – which was...
Kathryn Howarth led by Edward Brown KC successfully represented the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) in this case, which concerned a judicial review of an award of compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme. The Clamant, Mr Vanriel...
The Supreme Court held that whilst it is preferable that findings of fact are made by the Parole Board, where it is not able to do so, either because there is insufficient material before it, or such a finding may...
High profile judicial review claim concerning the Secretary of State for Justice’s decision to amend the Parole Board Rules and to issue guidance about the effect of the amendment. The rule change, which was made without consultation, purported to...