William is the Head of the Prison Law Department at ITN Solicitors. He frequently represents inmates before the Parole Board and at adjudications. He has an enviable success rate when it comes to securing the release of his clients and the dismissal of disciplinary proceedings. He is able to advise on the broad spectrum of issues effecting the rights of those in custody. For further information, please see our Prison Law page.
William is an experienced litigator dedicated to securing justice for his clients in both public and private law matters. William specialises in upholding the rights of those who come into contact with the criminal justice system. William’s practice covers judicial review, prison law, actions against the state and inquests. Some of the notable cases that William has been involved in are detailed below.
William recently acted in R (Tiffin) v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (2019), a successful out of hours challenge to a refusal to grant our client accreditation to attend the Labour Party conference (R (Tiffin) v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (2019) – successful challenge to a refusal to grant accreditation to attend the Labour Party conference (Guardian Report).
William is a member of the Association of Prison Lawyers, the Police Action Lawyers Group and the Inquest Lawyers Group.
Prominent Cases
- A v Ministry of Justice (2019) – claim for assault and breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Human Rights Act 1998, on behalf of a client assaulted by an officer and subsequently subject to false entries on his records. Records rectified and damages obtained.
- B v Metropolitan Police (2018) – claim for assault, false imprisonment brought on behalf of a member of the public assaulted by officers.
- C v Metropolitan Police (2018) – claim for false imprisonment and trespass, brought on behalf of an individual malicious accused of a crime.
- D v Home Office (2018) – claim for significant damages arising out of the imposition of discriminatory bail conditions on an individual released on immigration bail.
- E v Ministry of Justice (2017) -
- F v Ministry of Justice (2017) – claim brought on behalf of an inmate who was assaulted by his high risk cell mate. The claim settled for a four figure sum.
- G v Ministry of Justice (2016) – claim brought on behalf of an inmate, alleging racism on the part of prisoners and prison officers in breach of the Equality Act and Human Rights Act. The claim settled at trial for a five figure sum.
- H v Ministry of Justice (2016) – claim brought on behalf of an inmate assaulted by other inmates in the High Security Estate. The claim settled for a five figure sum.
- I v Ministry of Justice (2016) – High Court claim brought on behalf of an inmate who had boiling oil poured over him by a group of inmates in a High Security Prison. The claim settled for a five figure sum.
- J v Ministry of Justice (2015) – claim for false imprisonment after a failure to release an inmate from custody.
- R (Berkley-Matthews) (2019) – successful challenge to a policy on the opening of prisoner’s legal correspondence, Defendant conceded breach of Article 8 ECHR and Prison Rule 39.
- R (K) v Parole Board (2019) –arising out of delay in listing an oral hearing, claim settled for significant damages.
- R (G) v Independent Adjudicator (2019) – the claim overturned a finding of guilt at adjudication before an Independent Adjudicator.
- R (Nduka) v Secretary of State for Justice (2019) - successful challenge to a refusal to grant an oral hearing in the review of the Claimant’s Category A status, securing an oral hearing and a fresh review.
- R (Tiffin) v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (2019) – successful challenge to a refusal to grant accreditation to attend the Labour Party conference (Guardian Report).
- R (Scott Henley-Smith) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 1948 (Admin) - challenge to the release test for inmates sentenced to Imprisonment for Public Protection ("IPP").
- Representation of the families of the deceased at several inquests which concerned the criminal justice system. The inquests involved a detailed analysis of the adequacy of the steps taken by the Prison Service, the police and mental health trusts, and the measures that should have been taken in order to prevent death.