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.
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 will take all reasonable steps to protect your personal information. I will do all that I reasonably can to ensure I do not 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.
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 and my registration number is Z3104234.
Data Collection
All of the information that I hold about you is provided to me or gathered solely in the course of and for the purposes of your case, proceedings or any related matter.
Lawful Basis For Processing Your Information
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires all organisations that process personal data to have a Lawful Basis for doing so. The Lawful Bases identified in the GDPR are:
Examples Of Legitimate Interests
My Lawful Basis is Legitimate Interest namely the provision of professional services to you and the proper exercise of my professional obligations and responsibilities. My Lawful Bases may also include: consent and/or performance of a contract with you or steps to enter a contract with you and/or compliance with a legal obligation. In so far as I process sensitive personal data that is necessary in relation to legal proceedings and/or obtaining legal advice and/or otherwise for establishing, exercising or defending legal rights and/or for administering justice.
I Use Your Information To
I do not use automated decision-making in the processing of your personal data.
I collect and process both personal data and special categories of personal data as defined in the GDPR. This includes:
I May Share Your Personal Data With:
Transfers To Third Countries & International Organisations
I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.
Retention
I retain your personal data while you remain a client and for as long as in necessary for me to meet my legal and professional obligations. 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.
Your Rights
The General Data Protection Regulation gives you specific rights around your personal data. For example, you have to be informed about the information I hold and what I use it for, you can ask for a copy of the personal information I hold about you, you can ask me to correct any inaccuracies with the personal data I hold, you can ask me to stop sending you direct mail, or emails, or in some circumstances ask me to stop processing your details.
Finally, if I do something irregular or improper with your personal data you can seek compensation for any distress you are caused or loss you have incurred. You can find out more information from the ICO’s website and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with you.
Accessing & Correcting Your Information
You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me in writing at my registered address.
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:
I May Update My Privacy Notice
When I make significant changes, I will publish the updated notice on my website profile.
Updated: 01/11/2022
William Irwin
William mainly practises in public law, representing both Claimants and Defendants. He has particular experience in claims relating to immigration, detention, human trafficking and claims made by prisoners. He also appears in inquests and advises and represents clients in civil claims related to his main practice areas.
William is regularly instructed in judicial review matters. He has particular experience of cases relating to human trafficking, detention powers and challenges to management of prisoners.
R(Pompe) v Secretary of State for Foreign Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] EWHC 1489 (Admin)
Led by Sir James Eadie KC. William was instructed by the Foreign Secretary to resist an application for interim relief which would have prevented the UK from signing a treaty with Mauritius regarding the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. Interim relief was initially granted by Mr Justice Goose at 02.25 on 22 May 2025. However, that order was discharged by Mr Justice Chamberlain later the same day. Mr Justice Chamberlain refused to grant any further interim relief.
R(Neophytou) v Governor of HMP Berwyn and Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWCA Civ 348, [2025] 4 W.L.R. 37
Representing the Respondents as sole counsel in the Court of Appeal. This key issue in this case was whether there were errors in a prison governor’s decision not to refer the Appellant’s application for Early Release on Compassionate Grounds to the SSJ for substantive consideration. The Court held that there were errors in the decision not to refer.
R (Fitzgerald) v Parole Board of England and Wales [2025] EWHC 424 (Admin)
Representing the Parole Board in a challenge by a prisoner to procedural delays in considering his case. The Claimant was a prisoner serving a life sentence. The Board was required to convene a hearing to assess whether he was safe to be released from custody upon expiry of his tariff. The Court (Fordham J) held that the Board had violated the claimant’s ECHR art.5(4) right to a speedy hearing, having regard to his particular circumstances.
R(KM (Nigeria)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKUT 92 (IAC), [2025] 1 W.L.R. 3322
Representing the Home Secretary. The issue in this case was whether the Applicant was entitled to leave to remain in the UK as a victim of trafficking, with reference in particular to Article 14 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT). The Tribunal (UTJ Stephen Smith) held that the fact that the Applicant was being prosecuted for offences arising from their experience of modern slavery did not render his stay in the UK necessary owing to his personal situation. Nor was there any public law obligation on the Home Secretary to refer victims of trafficking to multiple police forces where alleged instances of trafficking had occurred in different parts of the country.
R(New Hope Care Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 1270 (Admin), [2024] 1 W.L.R. 4504
Representing the Home Secretary. The Claimant challenged a decision by the Home Secretary to cancel its licence to sponsor overseas workers to come to the UK. The Court held that there had been procedural errors in the decision-making and allowed the application for judicial review.
R(VT & Others) v Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT SC 15&16 2023)
William represented the Commissioner of the BIOT in a claim for habeas corpus/unlawful detention, led by John McKendrick KC. The hearing of the claim took place on the island of Diego Garcia. The central issue was whether migrants who had arrived in the BIOT were being detained in a camp where they were accommodated; and if so, whether that detention was lawful. The judge (Margaret Obi) held that the migrants were detained and that that detention was unlawful.
R(CT & Others) v Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT SC 17, 18, 19& 20 2024)
William represented the Commissioner of the BIOT in claims relating to safeguarding arrangements made for children in the BIOT (led by Jonathan Auburn KC). The core legal issue was whether the Children Act 1989 applied in BIOT. The Judge held that the CA 1989 did apply in BIOT.
R(Clarke) v Secretary of State for Justice [2024] EWCA Civ 861
Representing the Secretary of State for Justice (SSJ) as sole counsel in the Court of Appeal. The core issue in this appeal was whether the SSJ erred by failing to hold an oral hearing before deciding not to downgrade the Appellant from a Category A to Category B prisoner.
The Court held that the SSJ’s Category A Review Team had not breached the requirements of the relevant Prison Service Instruction and had not acted unfairly in refusing to hold an oral hearing so that the prisoner could comment on the Local Advisory Panel’s recommendation before the final decision was made. The appeal was dismissed.
R(EOG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 307, [2023] Q.B. 351
Representing the Home Secretary, led by Robin Tam KC. William represented the Home Secretary as sole counsel at first instance.
The Court held that Article 10(2) of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings did not impose on the UK an obligation to grant leave to remain to a potential victim of trafficking while she waited for confirmation of her status as such a victim. All Article 10(2) said was that the potential victim should not be removed during that time.
R(MA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1663, [2023] Imm. A.R. 405
Representing the Home Secretary, led by Deok Joo Rhee KC. The issue in this case was the lawfulness of the Home Secretary’s guidance governing age assessment of migrants arriving in small boats across the Channel. The Court allowed the Home Secretary’s appeal, overturning the first instance judge’s decision that the guidance was unlawful.
R (MN & IXU) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1746; [2021] H.R.L.R. 2
Two linked appeals against decisions of the Administrative Court regarding human trafficking. William Irwin represented the Secretary of State, led by Sir James Eadie QC. William represented the Secretary of State at first instance in both cases, in MN’s case led by Gwion Lewis of Landmark Chambers and in IXU without a leader.
The case principally concerned the standard of proof to be applied by the Secretary of State in cases concerning human trafficking. The process for identifying trafficking victims involves two decisions – the reasonable grounds (RGs) decision and the conclusive grounds (CGs) decision. The RGs decision is made on a low standard of proof; a person is entitled to a positive RGs decision if the Secretary of State suspects but cannot prove that that person is a victim of trafficking. The CGs decision is made on the balance of probabilities.
The Appellants (with whom the Interveners agreed) contended that it was unlawful to apply the civil standard of proof at the CGs stage. The Appellants and Interveners said that relevant international instruments – in particular the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT), the EU Trafficking Directive (2011/36/EU) and Article 4 ECHR.
The Court dismissed the Appellants’ challenge to the lawfulness of the standard of proof.
William is regularly instructed in complex immigration law cases.
AAZA (Yemen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 705
Representing the Home Secretary as sole counsel in the Court of Appeal. The Appellant was a Yemeni national but had spent almost all his life living in China. As part of her decision on the Appellant’s asylum claim, the Home Secretary considered whether it was open to the Appellant to return to China. The Appellant contended that that was an error; the Court dismissed his appeal.
R(Tazeem) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 347
Representing the Home Secretary as sole counsel. The Appellant had been detained for a period of a few hours at Heathrow Airport. That detention followed a decision by border force staff to cancel his leave to enter the UK as a student. The cancellation decision was held to be unlawful; and the Court of Appeal decided that the detention which followed that cancellation of leave was, consequently, unlawful also.
R(Dias) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 913, [2023] Imm. A.R. 1631.
Representing the Home Secretary as sole counsel in the Court of Appeal. The Appellant challenged the Defendant’s refusal to grant a Brazilian national leave to enter the UK because she did not have a visa to work. The Appellant was employed in Brazil as a housekeeper and had come to the UK to look after her employer whilst he recovered from an operation in the UK. Her employer did not intend to remunerate her in the UK, since she would be receiving her ordinary salary from him in Brazil. However the Court held that the Appellant was evidently not working gratuitously or as a friend; and that as such she required a visa to work, which she did not have. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
R(Ozmen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1366
Representing the Home Secretary as sole counsel in the Court of Appeal. The issue in the case was whether the Home Secretary had wrongly rejected a Turkish national’s application for leave to remain in the UK under the terms of the European Community Association Agreement (ECAA). The Court held that there were errors in the Home Secretary’s approach to assessment of evidence and allowed the appeal.
R(Al-Hashemi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 805 (Admin).
Representing the Home Secretary. The Claimants were two ethnic Somali women who had been born in Aden which became a part of Yemen after independence. The issue was whether they were entitled to British Overseas Citizenship. The Court (Foster J) dismissed the Claimants’ claim, holding that on a proper construction of the British
Nationality Act 1948 and the Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands Act 1967 they were not BOCs.
William represents both institutional clients and families at inquests. Illustrative examples of his instructions are as follows.
William also has experience of public inquiries, including advising the Secretary of State for Transport in relation to the Cranston Inquiry.
Inquest into death of Daniel Beckford (Inner West London Coroner’s Court, 2024)
Representing MoJ (HMP Wandsworth) in inquest into death in custody.
The deceased suspended himself in a single cell in the prison. Issues in the inquest included management of the deceased’s ACCT document; information sharing between prison and healthcare staff; the management of access to phone PINs in early days in custody; and resuscitation efforts when Mr Beckford was discovered.
The jury reached a narrative conclusion and the coroner made a PFD report relating to first aid training.
Inquest into death of Leah Croucher (Milton Keynes Coroner’s Court, 2024)
Representing MoJ (Probation Service).
Leah Croucher was a teenager who was abducted and killed in Milton Keynes in 2019. Her remains were discovered in 2022.
The sole suspect in the investigation into her murder was a sex offender, who took his own life prior to the discovery of Leah’s remains. An issue in the inquest was whether the probation service had adequately supervised him and information sharing between the police and probation service, leading to a Preventing Future Deaths report.
Inquest into death of Ann Pearce (West Sussex Coroner’s Court, 2023)
Representing the family of the deceased.
Mrs Pearce was in her sixties and fractured her leg. She was admitted to hospital; the leg was put in plaster; she was immobilized. Despite a recorded family history of blood clots she was not prescribed anticoagulant medication. She was discharged home, a clot developed. She returned to hospital where she died.
The coroner found that anticoagulant medication should have been prescribed. However, based on an independent expert’s evidence she did not find that the failure to do so was causative.
The hospital revised procedures in response to Mrs Pearce’s death. The coroner directed a Preventing Future Deaths report to the hospital, relating to risk assessment for blood clots.
Inquest into death of Joe Pooley (Ipswich Coroner’s Court, 2022)
Representing MoJ (Probation Service) in inquest into death in custody.
Joe Pooley was murdered by three people in 2018. One of the three was subject to probation supervision at the time. LG had been released from custody on an electronic tag; had breached the terms of his release and should have been recalled to prison several months prior to the murder. As a result of administrative error, he was not recalled.
Inquest into the death of Janet Scott
Ms Scott was murdered by her ex-partner Simon Mellors (SM). William Irwin represented the National Probation Service (NPS), part of the Ministry of Justice. At the time he killed Mrs Scott, SM was on life licence after he murdered a previous partner. As a result, SM was subject of supervision by NPS. The inquest found that there were multiple failures by the probation officer charged with supervising SM; and that those failures were causative of Mrs Scott’s death. That probation officer was separately represented at the inquest. The inquest did not accept that any systemic failures by the NPS were causative of Mrs Scott’s death, though the coroner did find that the NPS team responsible for managing SM was overworked at the time of Mrs Scott’s murder.
Inquest into the death of Sean McCann
The deceased was a prisoner being held at a privately-run prison. He hanged himself whilst being held in the prison’s segregation unit.
William Irwin, instructed by Kingsley Napley solicitors, represented a manager at the prison (equivalent to a governor-grade in a public sector prison).
The deceased was the subject of an ACCT plan at the time he died. There were issues about whether there had been adequate monitoring of him and/or communication between officers responsible for his care.
The jury returned a conclusion of accident contributed to by neglect. Their narrative focussed on systemic failings by the prison.
The Court considered whether a Deportation Liability Notice (DLN) issued by the Secretary of State to an EEA national was a “measure” or a “decision” for the purposes of the Citizens’ Directive. Robin Tam KC & William Irwin represented The...
Read more
The Claimant, a senior member of a serious organized criminal gang, was released on licence from a lengthy sentence for GBH. She challenged the management of her licence conditions by her offender manager (probation officer). The Claimant was subject to...
Read more
Inquest into the death of Janet Scott, a woman who was murdered by her ex-partner Simon Mellors (SM). William Irwin represented the National Probation Service (NPS), part of the Ministry of Justice. At the time he killed Mrs Scott, SM...
Read more
Two linked appeals against decisions of the Administrative Court regarding human trafficking. William Irwin represented the Secretary of State, led by Sir James Eadie QC. William represented the Secretary of State at first instance in both cases, in MN’s case...
Read more
William Irwin represented the Secretary of State. The Claimant obtained an interim injunction requiring the Secretary of State to release him from immigration detention within seven days of the order. The Claimant was a foreign national offender (a Ugandan national)...
Read more
The Claimant sought declaratory relief from the Court that she was entitled to a British passport. William Irwin represented the Secretary of State. The Claimant was a child who sought to renew her British passport. HM Passport Office declined to...
Read more
William Irwin has been appointed as an Assistant Coroner for South London. He will undertake this role alongside his full-time practice. William’s coronial practice comprises mostly complex and high-profile inquests, typically cases in which Article 2 ECHR is engaged. He…
The Court of Appeal of the British Indian Ocean Territory (“BIOT”) heard an appeal to the judgment of the BIOT Supreme Court in VT and others and the Commissioner for the BIOT (Case No. 15 and 16) on 10 to 12 September…
TGC are delighted to announce that William Irwin and Emilie Pottle’s application for the Attorney General “A” Panel of counsel has been successful, having previously been on the “B” Panel. We are also pleased to announce that Anthony Lenanton’s application…
William Irwin, led by Sir James Eadie KC, was instructed by the Foreign Secretary to resist an application for interim relief which would have prevented the UK from signing a treaty with Mauritius regarding the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands….
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 will take all reasonable steps to protect your personal information. I will do all that I reasonably can to ensure I do not 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.
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 and my registration number is Z3104234.
Data Collection
All of the information that I hold about you is provided to me or gathered solely in the course of and for the purposes of your case, proceedings or any related matter.
Lawful Basis For Processing Your Information
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires all organisations that process personal data to have a Lawful Basis for doing so. The Lawful Bases identified in the GDPR are:
Examples Of Legitimate Interests
My Lawful Basis is Legitimate Interest namely the provision of professional services to you and the proper exercise of my professional obligations and responsibilities. My Lawful Bases may also include: consent and/or performance of a contract with you or steps to enter a contract with you and/or compliance with a legal obligation. In so far as I process sensitive personal data that is necessary in relation to legal proceedings and/or obtaining legal advice and/or otherwise for establishing, exercising or defending legal rights and/or for administering justice.
I Use Your Information To
I do not use automated decision-making in the processing of your personal data.
I collect and process both personal data and special categories of personal data as defined in the GDPR. This includes:
I May Share Your Personal Data With:
Transfers To Third Countries & International Organisations
I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.
Retention
I retain your personal data while you remain a client and for as long as in necessary for me to meet my legal and professional obligations. 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.
Your Rights
The General Data Protection Regulation gives you specific rights around your personal data. For example, you have to be informed about the information I hold and what I use it for, you can ask for a copy of the personal information I hold about you, you can ask me to correct any inaccuracies with the personal data I hold, you can ask me to stop sending you direct mail, or emails, or in some circumstances ask me to stop processing your details.
Finally, if I do something irregular or improper with your personal data you can seek compensation for any distress you are caused or loss you have incurred. You can find out more information from the ICO’s website and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with you.
Accessing & Correcting Your Information
You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me in writing at my registered address.
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:
I May Update My Privacy Notice
When I make significant changes, I will publish the updated notice on my website profile.
Updated: 01/11/2022
