Herbert was called to the Bar of England & Wales in 1996 at Lincoln’s Inn, having previously been called to the Nigerian Bar in 1991. He transferred to be a solicitor in England and Wales in 1998 and practised extensively as a solicitor for more than 15 years before returning to the Bar in 2017.
He is approved by the Bar Council to accept direct public access instructions, and is happy to speak with solicitors and potential direct access clients at no initial cost, to diagnose their queries and how he can assist.
.png?width=200&height=200&name=TBG%20House%20(1).png)
Barristers in England and Wales are regulated by the Bar Standards Board
With a focus on identifying and challenging unlawful decisions/acts and omissions of public bodies by way of judicial review and appeals to the Court of Appeal, Herbert practises in the following areas:
SE -v- CE [2020] EWHC 1839 (Fam) High Court Family Division: International child abduction; removal of three young children from England to Nigeria by the Respondent Father without Applicant Mother’s consent. Successfully persuaded the court to find that the children remain habitually resident in England and that there is no ground for the proceedings to be stayed on grounds of forum non conveniens.
CJ -v- Baia Mare Court, Romania (2020) Administrative Court: Extradition appeal against order of City of Westminster Magistrates Court.
British Transport Police -v- CD & Ors (2020) Inner London Crown Court: Representing one of twelve defendants in a multi-handed criminal prosecution involving production and distribution of counterfeit Travel Cards with estimated revenue loss to Transport for London in excess of £20 million.
R -v- IM (2019) Court of Appeal Criminal Division: Successful appeal against sentence for rape. 7 years sentence reduced to 5 years.
JK, R (on the application of) -v- Sec. of State for Home Dept. (2019) Upper Tribunal IAC: Judicial Review, successful challenge against refusal of entry clearance for a 7 months old child to be brought to the UK for pre-paid private medical treatment for urgent eye surgery. Matter settled by consent; entry clearance issued forthwith, following grant of permission with directions for expedited hearing.
AA -v- The Solicitors Regulation Authority [2019] EWHC 707 (Admin) (26 March 2019). Extension of time granted for late appeal against judgment of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/707.html
Antoniak, R (on the application of) -v- Westminster City Council [2019] EWHC 3465 (Admin) (18 Dec. 2019). Successful challenge against unlawful care assessment carried out by the council. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/3465.html
Solicitors Regulation Authority -v- AA & Ors (2018) Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal: Challenge against allegation of dishonesty on the basis that a solicitor was reckless, but not dishonest.
YN, R (on the application of) -v- Sec. of State for Home Dept. (2019) Upper Tribunal IAC: Judicial Review, injunction granted to stay the removal of EEA National to Sweden, pending determination of appeal against deportation.
Law Society -v- OA (2018) High Court, Business & Property Court: Adequacy of undertaking as to damages; Law Society’s application for an order to be made against the defendant pursuant to paragraphs 9(4), 9(5A) and 10(1) of Sch. 1 to the Solicitors Act 1974 following intervention. Financial undertaking offered by the Law Society doubled by the court.
Sec. of State for Home Dept. -v- TY & Dependants (2018) Upper Tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber; determination of the First Tier Tribunal allowing appeal of a family with a child over 7 years old affirmed.
R -v- ME (2018) Bexley Magistrates Court: Successful challenge for lack of proper identification carried out by the police before charge. Prosecution discontinued.
R -v- AF (2017) Bromley Magistrates Court: Acquittal of defendant charged with theft of goods valued at £5k with successful submission of no case to answer based on the second limb of Galbraith Test.
R -v- MW (2017) Camberwell Magistrates Court: Securing acquittal at trial for defendant charged with common assault and obstructing a constable.
SAMPLE OF CASES CONDUCTED AS SOLICITOR
Community Care / Welfare Rights
R -v- Greenwich London Borough Council Ex parte Moult [1998] EWCA Civ. 1048, Court of Appeal, Judicial Review, challenging decision of the Housing Benefit Review Board.
R -v- The Benefits Agency Ex parte JR (1999): Judicial Review, Administrative Court: challenging refusal of Disability Living Allowance.
R (on the application of GS) -v- LB Merton and National Asylum Support Service (2002) Administrative Court: Judicial Review, obtaining emergency injunction to prevent the council from terminating support for subsistence and accommodation for a single parent with two young children who was diagnosed as HIV positive.
R (on the application of VL) -v- LB Lambeth (2002) Administrative Court: Judicial Review, challenging refusal of the council to carry out community care assessment for a single parent / mother with no recourse to the public funds, whereas the child is a British citizen. Compelling the council to provide interim support pending assessment.
R (on the application of HF) -v- LB Wandsworth (2003) Administrative Court: Judicial Review, challenging refusal of the council to carry out community care assessment for an asylum seeker with mental disability and compelling the council to provide interim support pending assessment.
R (on the application of EK) -v- LB Croydon & National Asylum Support Service (2003) Administrative Court: Judicial Review; obtaining emergency injunction to compel the council to provide emergency accommodation for a 16 year old female unaccompanied minor asylum seeker after she was asked to leave her hostel accommodation on the basis that NASS had stopped payments.
R (on the application of EO) -v- LB Croydon (2004) Administrative Court: Judicial Review; obtaining emergency injunction against the council to provide accommodation and subsistence for a single parent who is a returning British citizen with no recourse to public funds because she did not satisfy the Habitual Residence test.
LB Croydon -v- JT (2004) Croydon County Court: successful challenge against decision of the council to evict a mentally disabled client from her home following complaints of nuisance by her neighbours.
R (on the application of CB) -v- LB Croydon (2005) Administrative Court: Judicial Review claim against the council for refusing to carry out any (or adequate) community care assessment for a severely disabled client confined to a wheelchair threatened with eviction from temporary accommodation. Secured compliance with terms of agreed consent order by service of Penal Notice on the Chief Executive and Director of Social Services.
R (on the application of BS) -v- LB Croydon (2006) Administrative Court: Judicial Review claim; challenging refusal of the council to carry out community care assessment for a single mother who faced imminent homelessness; compelling the council to provide interim support pending assessment.
R (on the application of ‘H’ Solicitors) -v- Legal Services Commission (2010) – Administrative Court: Judicial Review claim; challenging disputed Peer Review result. Settled by consent for another Peer Review to be carried out.
R (on the application of HA) -v- LB Croydon (2012) Administrative Court: Judicial Review; challenging refusal of the council to withdraw liability order for business rates billed to the wrong party. Matter was settled by consent after the council agreed to withdraw the bills for business rates.
Immigration / Asylum
R -v- SSHD, Ex parte MA (1999) Administrative Court: Judicial Review claim resulting in recognition of the claimant as a refugee on grounds of being a Somalian of the Bravanese minority ethnic group. Settled by consent with payment of compensation to the claimant for being detained in prison from date of arrival in the UK.
SSHD -v- Z, A & M (2002) EWCA Civ.952 (represented “A” in a conjoined appeal); Court of Appeal allowed appeal by “A”, a Zimbabwean homosexual asylum seeker on the grounds that his removal from the UK will separate him from his partner; therefore expulsion of “A” will interfere with his Article 8(1) rights under the ECHR.
R (on the application of AD) -v- SSHD (2002) Administrative Court: Judicial Review; obtained emergency injunction to stay scheduled removal of an Albanian asylum seeker on the basis that only the refugee convention (but not the human rights) aspects of the claim was considered.
MO -v- SSHD (2002) Court of Appeal Civil Div. appeal against refusal of asylum on grounds of imputed political opinion in Nigeria.
R (on the application of SG and dependant) -v- Sec. of State for Home Dept (2003) Administrative Court: Judicial Review; challenging refusal of asylum for a Ugandan single parent / father and dependent child.
MM -v- SSHD (2003) Court of Appeal Civil Div. Appeal against refusal of asylum / leave to remain on humanitarian grounds for a Ugandan national on the basis that removal will disrupt her ongoing psychiatric treatment in the UK.
BK -v- SSHD (2004) Court of Appeal Civil Div. Appeal against refusal of asylum for Zimbabwean national in receipt of medical treatment following diagnosis of HIV.
R (on the application of SG) -v- SSHD (2004) Administrative Court: Judicial Review claim; obtaining emergency injunction to stay removal of a South African national whose wife was lawfully in the UK as a work permit holder.
R (on the application of EL) -v- SSHD (2005) Administrative Court: Judicial Review claim against removal directions for a failed asylum seeker from Uganda on grounds of Article 8 rights. Settled by consent with offer of limited leave to remain.
R (on the application of EM) -v-SSHD (2005) Administrative Court: Judicial Review; obtained emergency injunction to stay the removal of the claimant to Jamaica on grounds of disputed identity / nationality.
R (on the application of RM) -v- SSHD (2006) Administrative Court: Judicial Review; obtained emergency injunction to stay removal of a Ghanaian national with a child who is a British citizen. Settled by consent.
SSHD -v- BM (Nigeria) (2006) Court of Appeal Civil Div; Appeal against decision of the Upper Tribunal to set aside the First Tier Tribunal’s determination which allowed the appellant’s appeal against refusal of leave to remain / settlement as a pensioner who had lost her indefinite leave to remain.
FG (Liberia)-v- SSHD (2008) Court of Appeal Civil Div. Appeal against refusal of leave to remain for a mentally ill / failed asylum seeker married to a British citizen with children who are British citizens. Matter was settled by consent.
R (on the application of EA) -v- SSHD (2008) Administrative Court: Judicial Review claim to compel the secretary of state to implement determination of the Upper Tribunal following inexplicable delay. Matter was settled by consent.
R (on the application of FQ) -v- Sec. of State for Home Dept. (2009) Administrative Court: Judicial Review claim to compel the Secretary of State to implement the determination of the First Tier Tribunal. Matter was settled by consent.
DC -v- Sec. of State for Home Dept. (2010) Court of Appeal: Challenging deportation order on grounds of criminal conviction for French national who had lived continuously in the UK since age of 10.
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, Herbert Anyiam, 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:
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.
Retention
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.
Security
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: herbert.anyiam@tbgbarrister.co.uk, or my clerks: clerking@thebarristergroup.co.uk 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: https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
.png?width=500&height=500&name=Family%20Law%20Barristers%20(3).png)
If you’d like to work with Herbert Anyiam or any of our other TBG House barristers, send us your details and we’ll get back to you.
