0121 236 5514

Rob Cowley prosecutes in drug dealing breast enhancement case.

No.8 Chambers barrister Rob Cowley has prosecuted in a trial of a garage mechanic from Birmingham who paid for his wife to have breast enhancement surgery and tummy tuck through drug deal cash.

Ashley Wilkin, who was sent to prison for three years and nine months led a “lavish lifestyle”, a court was told. Rob Cowley, prosecuting, said when police stopped Wilkin on June 4 this year in Erdington their suspicions were raised when the defendant opened a man bag to show officers his licence and they saw £1,400 inside.

Click here to read the report in the Birmingham Mail.

An introduction to Civil Penalties for Employers

The system of civil penalties is designed to encourage employers to comply with their obligations; it places a positive burden on them to checking their employees and monitoring them before and throughout their employment. It is of course in line with the forthcoming changes to duties of landlords, in checking the ID of their tenants, perhaps demonstrating a similar line in Government policy, shifting responsibility and imposing duties and penalties for those who fail.

This paper provides a short introduction to the scheme and looks at how we can react to it for our clients (i.e. objecting to and/or appealing penalties, either quashing them or at least reducing them).

View the paper here

On what grounds can government lawyers' rates be challenged?


Dispute Resolution analysis: Adam Pipe, barrister at No.8 Chambers, considers the decision in R v Bakhtiyar and says it will now be more difficult to challenge government lawyers' chargeable rates by comparison.

Original news

R (on the application of Bakhtiyar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department IJR [2015] UKUT 519 (IAC), [2015] All ER (D) 97 (Sep) The claimant challenged the order that he pay the defendant Secretary of State her costs of £400 for acknowledgement of service (AoS) and summary grounds. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (UT), in dismissing the application, gave guidance on the application of the indemnity principle to the Secretary of State and the Government Legal Department (GLD). It then held that there was 'not the remotest scope' for the argument that £200 per hour was an unreasonably high rate.

View pdf here