Skip to main content

Arthur Blake

Throughout the course of his career, Arthur Blake has been recognised by the Legal 500 as a leading Junior at the Bar in the field of Administration Law.

He has regularly appeared in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.

.    TBG House (1)

Arthur Blake

Arthur Blake

Called in 1988

Public Access Accredited

Barristers in England and Wales are regulated by the Bar Standards Board

BSB logo

Commercial Law

Common law

During his practice, Arthur has developed comprehensive experience in all areas of Common Law with particular emphasis on Judicial review in the field of Immigration and Prison Law. He also has extensive experience in the area of criminal appeals.

International law

Between 2005-2010 Arthur acted exclusively for the former Qatari Secretary of State for Art Culture and Heritage, Sheikh Saud Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Al-Thani. Arthur was responsible for conducting negotiations between the Attorney General of Qatar and the Sheikh in respect of a multi-million-pound dispute. Arthur also advised the Sheikh in respect of satellite litigation arising out of the dispute concerning various individuals and auction houses.

Disciplinary Tribunals  

Arthur has acted in numerous cases before professional body disciplinary tribunals. He recently acted in a case before the disciplinary panel of The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. He successfully argued that the procedure followed engaged both the Rules of Natural Justice and the ECHR. He obtained a stay of the proceedings on the basis of abuse due to delay.


Arthur was appointed as a fee-paid Immigration judge in 1995.

Case Profile

Parole and Prison Law cases include:

R V Home Secretary, ex parte Zulfikar (No1)(1996) COD 256 (QBD) - a locus classicus on the principles of Parole.

R v Ex parte McLeod [2002] EWHC 390 - Principles on disclosure in categorisation of prisoners.

Potter Kavanagh, Vickers and Gorman AVCSSHD (2002) AC27 - concerning incentives and earned privileges for convicted prisoners in denial. Challenging a sentence plan for a whole life tariff prisoner where it includes a requirement that they should complete a Sexual Offenders Treatment Programme despite the fact that such a prisoner is in denial of the index offences and therefore is ineligible to undertake the course. Seeking to argue that such a target is prima facie perverse where the prisoner is ineligible for release at any stage of the sentence and the effect of failure to comply with the sentence plan precludes the prisoner from advancing under the prisons enhanced earnings and privileges scheme. Whether on the peculiar facts of such a case such treatment engages Article 5 or 6 and 8 of ECHR.

R V Secretary of State, ex parte Lockhart and Davies (2003) - Obtained permission to seek Judicial Review of the process of “slopping out” as being in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Shrimpton V the Secretary of State for the Home Department (IAT) - Appeal engaging correct principles to be applied in removal and/or deportation cases involving Articles 8 of the ECHR. In particular, the burden of proof placed on the Secretary of State as Appellant, when appealing a decision from an adjudicator who has allowed an appeal on the basis of evidence that was not before the Secretary of State at the time of his decision. Correct approach with reference to re “M” (Croatia).

Laiji V SHHD - Extent of delay on the part of a decision maker in arriving at a decision when he is considering removal from the UK and the relationship between the delay and Article 8 Proportionality.

Raza V SSHD -  Extent to which delay is relevant when considering an application for leave to remain in the UK outside of the Immigration Rules and with reference to Home Office discretionary policy on Article 8 Cases. The relevance of evidence of rehabilitation in a convicted foreign national when considering the reasonableness of deportation on the grounds that such removal is conductive to the public good.

SSHD V Rehman (2001) UKHL 47 - First Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) case on the meaning of the term National Security.

Richards V National Probation Service - The extent to which the probation service can require compliance with instructions from individuals carrying out community orders/sentences. Court ruling that existing probation service rules and guidance in excess of the law.

Secretary of State & The Governor of HMVP Full Sutton V Cannan - Whether a prisoner serving a whole life tariff should be denied enhanced status under prisons incentives and earned privileges scheme by not undertaking offending work addressed at rehabilitation.

Shrimpton V Secretary of State for Justice - JR concerning the test to be applied in respect of a minister’s duty to provide offending behaviour courses to prisoners to improve their overall prospects of obtaining early release. Judgement considered the extent to which resources are to be considered when undertaking the balancing exercise under Article 8 (2) ECHR.

R (De Vietter) V Chief Constable Thames Valley - Case concerning the duties placed on a Chief Constable to check accuracy and validity of information held on police records regarding a previous allegation of criminal sexual behaviour as opposed to a conviction when and before disclosing the same as being “relevant”, to a prospective employer pursuant to an enhanced criminal record disclosure. Review of test of relevance in context of Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise.

R (Louis) V Ealing Magistrates’ Court - Review of Justice of Procedure of Committal to Prison for Non Payment of Fines imposed by the Crown Court and Activation of Sentence of Imprisonment in Default. Meaning of “wilful refusal” to pay. Further review of Magistrates’ Court practice of allocating part payments towards costs before fine elements of sentence; whether permissible and/or lawful as increases risk of imprisonment and therefore engages the liberty of subject issues.

Djakija V Secretaty of State (2003) EWCA 1394 - Challenge to removal directions of a Kosovan national re: sufficiency of protection and burden of proof.

Caetano & Riordan V Governors of H.M.P. Whitemoor & Secretary of State (2004) - Challenge to retrospective imposition of policy on status of current categorisation.

Noye V Governor of H.M.P. Whitemoor & Secretary of State (2004) - Challenge to conditions in special secure units (SSU) re: Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Permission granted and SSU closed down at HMP Whitemoor.

Noye v Minister for Justice (2017) - Challenge to Ministers refusal to follow advice of Parole Board.

Jonathan King V CCRC - Seeking a review of the CCRC decision, in particular putting forward the argument that a late change in amending dates in an Indictment can prejudice a fair trial within the scope of Article 6 ECHR.


Inquest Kate Peyton (2005) - Acted for the family of BBC journalist Kate Peyton who was shot dead on news assignment in Mogadishu. Coroners verdict led to advice to BBC on contracts concerning assignment of journalists to world danger areas.

Privacy Policy

1. This is a privacy notice that describes how, why and for how long I will process or keep your personal data in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’).
2. The GDPR governs how an individual’s personal data is used, and your rights in relation to that data.
3.  I, Arthur Blake, have been instructed by you or your litigation friend (usually a parent), through your solicitor or agent, or via the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
4.  It is necessary for me to process your personal data in order for me to provide you with legal services, for example:

  • Advise on the prospects of litigation;
  • Advise on the value of your claim;
  • Representation at a court hearing;
  • Representation at trial;
  • Advise, review or comment on legal issues or evidence.

5. Processing means anything done to data such as: recording, organising, adapting, altering, copying, consulting, transmitting, combining, erasing or storing it.

6.The processing for the purposes listed above will take place in accordance with either Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, depending on how you instructed me.

7. If you have instructed me on a direct access basis, or engaged a solicitor (or legal agent), to assist you in bringing or defending a claim then the processing is necessary to perform a contract to which you are a party (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR). To give effect to that contract (i.e. to bring a claim) it is necessary for me to process your personal data for litigation purposes.

8. If I am assisting you on a pro bono basis, it will be necessary for me to seek your consent to be able to represent you (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR). In this scenario, you will be sent a consent form.

Recipients of your data

9.  I may also be required to share your data with others, depending on the nature of your case. This may include:

(i)  Courts and other tribunals to whom documents are presented;

(ii) Your solicitors, or agent representing you, through whom I have been instructed;

(iii) Potential witnesses, experts and other persons involved in the case;

(iv) Solicitors, barristers, or other legal representatives;

(v) Ombudsman and regulatory authorities;

(vi) Education and examining bodies; and

(vii) Current, past or prospective employers.

Special Categories of Data

10.  In some cases I will have been given your personal data that is within the ‘special categories’ of data described in GDPR Article 9(1). For example, personal data that reveals your race, ethnicity, sexual preferences, political or religious beliefs, trade union membership or health. There are also restrictions for processing information regarding criminal convictions.

11. This type of personal data will only be processed where it is necessary in order to represent you in your legal claim, or advise on the prospects of a legal claim.


12. I will retain your personal data for no longer than is necessary, and where it is possible, I will anonymise your data.

13. How long your personal data is kept will depend on a number of factors. The retention period will be reviewed when the service I am providing you with is complete. However in general, I am obliged by the Bar Code of Conduct to retain records of my cases, and by HM Revenue and Customs to retain records for 6 years.

14. Once your case has concluded and fees have been paid, I shall retain only the personal data necessary for the following purposes:

(i) The legal and professional obligation to retain information relating to my cases;

(ii) To check for any potential conflict of interests that may arise in the future when I am instructed on other cases;

(iii) For use in the defence of potential complaints, legal proceedings or fee disputes;

(iv) To refer back to in future cases which raise similar legal, factual, or procedural issues.

15. The processing for the purposes listed in paragraph 14 (ii), (iii), and (iv) above, will take place in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. That is, for the purposes of legitimate interests that are not outweighed by your interests or fundamental rights and freedoms.

16. The processing for the purposes listed in paragraph 14(i) above, will take place in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. That is, the processing is necessary for me to comply with a legal obligation. 

Your Rights

17. Where processing of your personal data was based on your consent (see paragraphs 6 and 8) you have the right to withdraw that consent at any time. This does not affect the lawfulness of the processing based on consent before its withdrawal.

18. Withdrawal of your consent to process such data will most likely mean that I am no longer able to provide you with the legal services you seek.

19. You may request confirmation that your personal data is being processed by me and details about the personal data, the source, the processing, the purposes of the processing, the recipients and the retention period.

20. You may request a copy of your personal data that is being processed by me. You may also request rectification (i.e. correction) where there are inaccuracies in the personal data.

21. You have the right to object, on grounds relating to your particular situation, at any time, to processing of your personal data in paragraph 14 of this privacy notice. Should you object, the processing will only continue where there are compelling legitimate grounds for the processing which override your fundamental rights, freedoms and interests. 

22. Where the processing or retention of your data is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims, it will not be possible to object. 

23. You have the right to request that your personal data is erased where any of the following apply:

(i) The personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed;

(ii) You withdraw your consent where the basis of processing was based on consent and where there is no other ground for the processing;

(iii) Where your fundamental rights, freedoms and interests override the legitimate interests of processing in paragraph 14;

(iv) The personal data has been unlawfully processed; or

(v) The personal data have to be erased to comply with a legal obligation.

24. You have the right to request that your personal data is restricted from processing, so that it is simply stored, for the following reasons: as an alternative to deletion; so that it can be corrected; for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims; to verify if a legitimate ground exists (paragraph 14).

25. Where it is necessary to correct your personal data, or you have requested the restriction or erasure of your personal data, I shall endeavour to contact the recipients of the personal data, unless this involves disproportionate effort. 


26. I take appropriate physical and technical procedures to safeguard your personal data to prevent it from being accidentally lost, used or accessed in an unauthorised way. 

Complaints or Queries

27. If you have any questions regarding this privacy notice, or how I use your personal data please email me: mailto:, or my clerks: telephone 01823 247 247.

28. I shall aim to respond as soon as possible, and within 30 days.

29. You have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) if you believe I have not handled your request in an appropriate manner. For information on contacting the ICO please go to:



Family Law Barristers (3)


Contact us about working with Arthur

If you’d like to work with Arthur Blake or any of our other TBG House barristers, send us your details and we’ll get back to you.