Raj Desai

Contact Raj: rajdesai@matrixlaw.co.uk | +44 (0)20 7404 3447

Contact Raj's Practice Team (Team X): TeamX@matrixlaw.co.uk

Raj is a senior junior specialising in public and human rights law with a practice spanning judicial review and civil claims. His practice encompasses equality law, data and information law,  civil actions against the police, education law, environmental law, prison law, and inquests and inquiries work (in particular, concerning controversial deaths engaging the State’s responsibilities under Article 2 ECHR). He also undertakes international law work, in particular applications to the European Court of Human Rights.

Raj’s clients are predominantly individuals, but he is also regularly instructed by NGOs, charities, central government and public authorities, regulatory bodies, and companies. Raj believes in the importance of high-quality representation and advice for all regardless of their means, and is pleased to accept instructions from legally aided clients. Where funding is not available, he will accept instructions on a pro bono basis if able to do so.

Raj is on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s A Panel of Preferred Counsel.

Raj is also called to the Bar of Northern Ireland.

Public Law and Human Rights

Raj is recognised as a leader in the fields of public law and human rights and has appeared in landmark cases at all levels, including before the Supreme Court. He is described by the legal directories as “a brilliant public lawyer” and “an accomplished barrister who has experience across a range of civil liberties litigation matters”.

He has taught public law and human rights law at Oxford University and is the editor of the White Book commentary on the Human Rights Act 1998 and co-author of Blackstone’s Guide to the Human Rights Act (8th Ed.,OUP ), ‘Judicial Review: A Practical Guide’ (Jordans) and Criminal Justice and Human Rights (3^rd Ed, Sweet & Maxwell). He is on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s  A Panel of Preferred Counsel.

Raj’s notable cases include:

• R(CKT and ors) v Twyford Academy CofE School and ors [2025] EWHC 2396 (Admin) – judicial review of CofE school faith-based admissions criteria on equality law grounds.
• For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 – judicial review concerning definition of woman and man under the Equality Act 2010.
• R(Pickering Fishery Association) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and anor [2025] EWCA 378 – landmark judicial review of DEFRA and Environment Agency approach to mandatory water quality targets under the Water Framework Directive Regulations.
• R(Black Equity Organisation) v Mayor of London and Secretary of State for Justice – judicial review of flagship knife crime tagging scheme on grounds of breaches of equality law and data law.
• R(Aghlani) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R(Claddag and ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1794 (Admin) – claims for judicial review of Government departure from Grenfell Tower Inquiry urgent public safety recommendations and extant national fire safety guidance on basis of non-provision for disabled residents.
• Grenfell Tower fire civil claim – Raj was instructed in respect of human rights and equality law aspects of this group action by victims of the fire.
• R(SC) v Secretary for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26, [2021] 3 WLR 428 – Article 14 ECHR compatibility of Two-Child cap on payment of child tax credit.
• R(Heathrow Airport Ltd) v HM Treasury[2021] EWCA 783 – judicial review of legality of abolition of VAT-free shopping.
• Somerset County Council v Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 1675 Admin –first successful judicial review of Academy Order.
• R(Plan B) v Secretary of State for Transport[2020] EWCA Civ 214 – Heathrow runway challenge.
• R(Langford) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2019] EWCA Civ 1271- Article 14 ECHR challenge to restriction on pension eligibility for unmarried partners with undissolved moribund marriage to former partner.
• R(DA and DS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2019] UKSC 21, [2019] 1 WLR 3289 – Article 14 ECHR challenge to human rights compatibility of revised benefit cap.
• R (Carmichael and Rourke and ors) (formerly MA and ors)v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2016] UKSC 58, [2016] 1 WLR 4550 –Article 14 ECHR challenge to human rights compatibility of the bedroom tax by persons with disabilities and victims of domestic violence.
• R(Tigere) v Secretary of State for Education [2015] UKSC 57, [2015] 1 WLR 3820 – Article 14 ECHR challenge to exclusion of non-nationals with time-limited leave to remain from eligibility for student loans.
• R(Catt) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis[2015] UKSC 9, [2015] AC 1065 – Article 8 challenge to compatibility of retention of personal data of a peaceful protestor on a domestic extremist police database.
• Daniel v State of Trinidad and Tobago[2014] AC 1290, [2014] 2 WLR 1154 – successful appeal to Privy Council against conviction for murder and death penalty, considering availability of provocation defence to felony murder and constitutionality of application of mandatory death penalty for felony-murder.

Equality and Discrimination Law

Raj has a particular interest and specialism in discrimination law. The legal directories say he is “… very good on discrimination cases” and “you definitely want him on discrimination claims”. He has been instructed in a number of the leading cases, including before the Supreme Court. Raj’s discrimination law practice spans judicial review, civil actions and Inquest and Inquiries work. His notable cases include:

• For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 – judicial review concerning definition of woman and man under the Equality Act 2010.
• R(CKT and ors) v Twyford Academy CofE School and ors [2025] EWHC 2396 (Admin) – judicial review of CofE school faith-based admissions criteria on equality law grounds.
• R(Aghlani) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R(Claddag and ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1794 (Admin) – claims for judicial review of Government departure from Grenfell Tower Inquiry urgent public safety recommendations and extant national fire safety guidance on basis of non-provision for disabled residents.
• R(Black Equity Organisation) v Mayor of London and Secretary of State for Justice – judicial review of flagship knife crime tagging scheme on grounds of breaches of equality law and data law.
• R(Jengba) v Director of Public Prosecutions– judicial review of lack of CPS monitoring of racial and other disproportionality in joint enterprise prosecutions
• Grenfell Tower fire civil claim – Raj was instructed in respect of claims for breaches of Article 14 ECHR and the Equality Act 2010 in this group action by victims of the fire.
• R(SC) v Secretary for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26, [2021] 3 WLR 428 – Article 14 ECHR compatibility of Two-Child cap on payment of child tax credit.
• R(Jalil) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 1151 Admin and [2020] EWHC 2554 (Admin) – judicial review of re-categorisation and transfer of autistic terrorism-act convicted prisoner from open to closed prison conditions including on basis of breaches of the Equality Act. Subsequently instructed in successful civil damages claim.
• R(Langford) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2019] EWCA Civ 1271- Article 14 ECHR challenge to restriction on pension eligibility for unmarried partners with undissolved moribund marriage to former partner.
• R(DA and DS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2019] UKSC 21, [2019] 1 WLR 3289 – Article 14 ECHR challenge to human rights compatibility of revised benefit cap.
• R (Carmichael and Rourke and ors) (formerly MA and ors)v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions[2016] UKSC 58, [2016] 1 WLR 4550 – Article 14 ECHR challenge to human rights compatibility of the bedroom tax by persons with disabilities and victims of domestic violence.
• R(Tigere) v Secretary of State for Education [2015] UKSC 57, [2015] 1 WLR 3820 – Article 14 ECHR challenge to exclusion of non-nationals with time-limited leave to remain from eligibility for student loans.
• Mohidin and Khan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis[2015] EWHC 2740 QB – High Court civil action for racially motivated assault and false imprisonment of two teenagers by TSG officers in which individual officers joined as Part 20 Defendants.
• Estate and family of Kamil Ahmad and ors v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset and ors– civil claim concerning death of Kamil Ahmad, a vulnerable asylum-seeker, who was murdered by a schizophrenic neighbor living in the same sheltered accommodation unit, following a campaign of racial harassment reported to various authorities including the police.
• Estate and family of Ebrahimi v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset and Bristol City Council – civil claim concerning death of Bijan Ebrahimi an Iranian refugee who was murdered following a campaign of racial harassment which he had repeatedly reported to the police and local authority.
• EHRC inquiry into legal aid for victims of discrimination (2019) – instructed by the Commission to advise and assist in its inquiry.

Actions Against the Police

Raj is recognised as a leader in the field and “junior of choice” for actions against the police. He is also recognised for “unparalleled mastery of the police disciplinary process”. He is regularly instructed by claimants in high profile and sensitive claims, including claims concerning deaths in custody and fatal use of force. Raj also advises the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Many of his cases concern allegations of discriminatory treatment. His practice spans judicial review, civil actions and Inquest and Inquiries work. Raj’s notable claims include:

• N v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police (2025) – successful DPA claim for damages and compliance order relating to issue and maintenance of Public Protection Notice relating to a vulnerable victim of crime.
• R(IOPC) v Police Misconduct Panel [2024] EWHC 2796 Admin – successful judicial review of decision not to dismiss police officer for racist gross misconduct.
• Family of Daniel Morgan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis – high profile civil claims for misfeasance in public office and breaches of the Human Rights Act relating to corruption and failures in successive murder investigations, including at senior leadership level.
• R(Stopwatch) v Secretary of State for the Home Department– judicial review of Home Secretary removal of BUSSS safeguards for s.60 suspicionless stop and search powers.
• Goodenough v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2021] EWCA civ 1422 – civil claim concerning legality of fatal force used by police officers and compatibility of failures to prevent officers conferring with Article 2 ECHR.
• Inquest into the death of Andrew Brown  – Article 2 jury Inquest concerning fatal police collision raising systemic issues concerning regulation of use of police speed exemptions.
• Inquest into the death of Aston McLean Williams – Article 2 jury Inquest concerning death of suspect killed by a police armed response vehicle.
• M v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary – civil claim for breach of DPA, misuse of private information and breach of Article 8 ECHR arising out of police disclosure of Chaplain’s relationship with serving prisoner to employer.
• Estate and family of Kamil Ahmad and ors v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset and ors– civil claim concerning death of Kamil Ahmad, a vulnerable asylum-seeker, who was murdered by a schizophrenic neighbor living in the same sheltered accommodation unit, following a campaign of racial harassment reported to various authorities including the police.
• Mohidin and Khan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 2740 QB – High Court civil action for racially motivated assault and false imprisonment of two teenagers by TSG officers in which individual officers joined as Part 20 Defendants.
• Estate and family of Ebrahimi v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset – civil claim concerning death of Bijan Ebrahimi an Iranian refugee who was murdered following a campaign of racial harassment which he had repeatedly reported to the police.
• R(Catt) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis[2015] UKSC 9, [2015] AC 1065 – challenge to compatibility of retention of personal data of a peaceful protestor on a domestic extremist police database with Article 8.
• R(Miranda) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and ors [2014] EWHC 255 Admin, [2014] WLR 3140 – judicial review of detention (and seizure of Snowden files) of partner of Guardian journalist, Glen Greenwald, under Schedule 7 Terrorism Act 2000.
• Andrea Brown v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis[2019] EWCA civ 1924 –leading authority on correct construction of mixed claims exception to Qualified One Way Cost Shifting provisions

Environmental law

Raj has a particular interest and specialism in public law litigation concerning environmental laws. Raj’s notable cases include:

• R(Pickering Fishery Association) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and anor [2025] EWCA 378 – landmark judicial review of DEFRA and Environment Agency approach to setting and meeting mandatory environmental targets under the Water Framework Directive Regulations with wide implications for the regulatory response to the UK’s degraded waterbodies.
• R(Plan B) v Secretary of State for Transport[2020] EWCA Civ 214 – Raj acted for WWF in the Heathrow runway challenge.
• DEFRA v ICO and Badger Trust [2014] UKUT 526 AAC – Raj acted for the Badger Trust in this Upper Tribunal appeal concerning disclosure of risk and issue logs relating to badger culling to restrict the spread of bovine TB.
• Advice for Environmental NGOs – Raj has provided a range of advice to environmental NGOs, including regarding the response of Ministers and regulators to the climate emergency across a range of public and private sectors.

Inquest and Inquiries work

Raj is recognised as a leader in the field of Inquests and Inquiries. The legal directories have described him as a “star”, “always the best advocate in the room at inquests” and “approachable, clear and kind with clients, and formidable and disarming on his feet“. He has a particular specialism in inquests and inquiries concerning controversial deaths engaging the State’s duties under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Raj was previously a member of the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody (IAPDC) providing independent advice to Ministers and State agencies on reducing deaths in custody.

Raj’s notable cases include:

• Inquest into the death of Robert Gracey (on-going) – Article 2 jury Inquest concerning death of man suffering from state of Acute Behavioural Disturbance following extended police restraint.
• Inquest into death on Bibby Stockholm barge – Raj was instructed by the family of Leonard Farruku who took his own life on the barge in December 2023 against a background of unaddressed serious mental health concerns.
• Inquest into the death of Wayne Bayley – Inquest into the death of a Black man of sickle cell diseased related complications following a restraint at HMP Pentonville. The jury returned a conclusion of neglect and Senior Coroner made preventing future death reports.
• Grenfell Tower public inquiry – Raj was instructed by over 300 bereaved, survivor and residents in Phase 1 and multiple modules of Phase 2 of this  largescale public inquiry.
• Inquest into the death of Andrew Brown  – Article 2 jury Inquest concerning fatal police collision raising systemic issues concerning regulation of use of police speed exemptions. The jury returned a critical verdict of causative failure and the Coroner made a preventing future death report.
• Inquest into the death of Anthony Clacher – Article 2 Inquest into death of serving prisoner following consumption of psychoactive substance. The Inquest jury returned a finding of neglect and a series of critical narrative conclusions and Senior Coroner made various preventing future death reports.
• EHRC inquiry into legal aid for victims of discrimination– instructed by EHRC to advise and assist in its inquiry.
• Inquest into death of Darren Williams –Article 2 jury Inquest into death by hanging of vulnerable prisoner subject to repeated debt-related threats. Jury returned extensive narrative criticisms relating to HMP Woodhill’s self-harm and anti-bullying processes and PFD reports made by Senior Coroner. Previously instructed in earlier Inquests into deaths at Woodhill in which extensive failings were identified.
• Inquest into the death of Aston McLean Williams – Article 2 jury Inquest concerning death of suspect killed by a police armed response vehicle.
• Inquest into the death of Jagdip Randhawa – Article 2 jury Inquest into the death of a student seriously assaulted by a professional boxer at large in breach of bail conditions who was then subject to serious failings in the care provided by the hospital –critical narrative conclusions regarding both the police and hospital staff’s actions and a conclusion of neglect in respect of the medical care.
• Inquest into the death of Amy El-Keria (2016)- Article 2 jury inquest into the death by hanging of an informally detained child with serious mental health issues at hospital run by the Priory Group– highly critical narrative conclusions and a conclusion of neglect and wide-ranging preventing future death report. The Inquest led to a record fine being imposed in the subsequent HSE prosecution.
• Dame Janet Smith (and Linda Dobbs) review into the activities of Jimmy Savile (and Stuart Hall) during their time at the BBC (2015) – instructed by BBC Trust.
• Azelle Rodney Inquiry (2013) – instructed by IPCC in this inquiry set up under the Inquiries Act 2005 to circumvent difficulties with the disclosure of sensitive intelligence.

Education Law

Raj is recognised as a leader in the field of education law. The legal directories describe him as having “a wealth of experience in education law” and “adept at turning his hand to new and innovative issues, particularly those concerning the interface of education law with other relevant areas, like public law, charity law and equality law“. His practice spans claims for judicial review, Tribunal appeals, and broader advisory work. Many of his cases concern allegations of discriminatory treatment. Raj acts for individuals, schools, local authorities and regulatory bodies. Raj is a local authority Governor of a primary school in his local area.

Raj’s notable cases include:

• R(CKT and ors) v Twyford Academy CofE School and ors [2025] EWHC 2396 (Admin) – judicial review of CofE school faith-based admissions criteria on equality law grounds.
• Somerset County Council v Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 1675 Admin –first successful judicial review of Academy Order in context of academisation of key school cutting across on-going local review process to reform unviable three-tier school system.
• R(Tigere) v Secretary of State for Education[2015] UKSC 57, [2015] 1 WLR 3820 – successful Article 14 challenge to exclusion of non-nationals with time-limited leave to remain from eligibility for student loans. Raj has been instructed in a number of subsequent challenges to student loan eligibility criteria.
• R(London Borough of Lewisham and ors v Assessment and Qualifications Alliance and ors[2013] EWHC 211 Admin, [2013] PTSR D18 – acted for Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulations in challenge to English GCSE marks.
• Freedom of Speech: Raj regularly advises a range of clients on issues relating to free speech in the higher and further education sectors, including following the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. He is a joint author (with a charity law King’s Counsel) of an authoritative opinion for the National Union of Students on the intersection of the numerous applicable legal regimes.

Raj is regularly instructed in the SEND Tribunal/Upper Tribunal both in SEN and Equality Act 2010 claims.

Prison Law and Counter-Terrorism

Raj specialises in prison law and claims concerning use of counter-terrorism powers. His practice spans judicial review, civil actions for damages and appearances before the Parole Board. He is a contributing author of Prison Law (5^th Ed., OUP). Raj’s notable cases include:

• Advice and public law litigation concerning Prevent duty – Raj has particular expertise and experience on the application of the Prevent counter-terrorism duty across a range of sectors and has advised on and litigated associated equality, human rights and data protection issues.
• R (Jalil) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 1151 Admin and [2020] EWHC 2554 (Admin) – judicial review of re-categorisation and transfer of autistic terrorism-act convicted prisoner from open to closed prison conditions and refusals to return him alleging improper purpose and breaches of the Equality Act 2010. Subsequently instructed in civil damages claim for misfeasance in public office, breaches of the Equality Act and Human Rights Act.
• Begg v HMT [2017] EWHC 3329 Admin – challenge to asset freezing order imposed under anti-terrorism powers against Mr Begg– a former Guantanamo detainee – on the basis of support provided to Syrian opposition.
• R (Khatib) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 606 Admin – judicial review of the review procedure for assignment to High Escape risk status of a Category A terrorist prisoner.
• R (Miranda) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and ors [2014] EWHC 255 Admin, [2014] WLR 3140 – judicial review of detention (and seizure of Snowden files) of partner of Guardian journalist, Glen Greenwald, under Schedule 7 Terrorism Act 2000.  Raj maintains a particular interest in Schedule 7 challenges.
• R (Botmeh and Alami) v Health Professions Council [2013] EWHC 1895 Admin – judicial review of the health profession’s regulator’s summary rejection of complaint regarding registrant’s use of un-validated psychological risk assessment tools to assess risk of terrorist reoffending during Parole Board process.
• Mastafa v HMT [2012] EWHC 3578 Admin, [2013] 1 WLR 1621 – application of Article 6 and common law fairness requirements of disclosure to special advocate appellate regime to challenge terrorist asset freezing orders.

Pro Bono

Raj regularly accepts instructions on a pro bono basis. This work has ranged from representing clients before the First Tier Tribunal in SEN and immigration matters, to applications for judicial review in the High Court, applications to the European Court of Human Rights, and appeals to the Privy Council.

Raj supervises student volunteers representing pupils permanently excluded from school who are seeking a review of their permanent exclusion via the City/Matrix Exclusions Project.

Previous Career and Academic Work

Raj holds a first class undergraduate law degree and postgraduate law degree from Oxford University. Before joining the Bar, Raj qualified as a solicitor at Sharpe Pritchard solicitors (2007). He subsequently worked as judicial assistant to the then Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice (then Lord) Carnwath at the Court of Appeal. He has also worked for the Human Rights Department of the Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office in Melbourne, Australia.

Raj has taught public law and human rights law on both undergraduate and postgraduate courses at Oxford University. He is the editor of the White Book commentary on the Human Rights Act 1998 and a co-author of the Blackstone’s Guide to the Human Rights Act (8^th Ed) and ‘Judicial Review: A Practical Guide’ (Jordans). He is also a contributing author to Criminal Justice and Human Rights (3rd Ed, Sweet & Maxwell) and Prison Law (5th Ed., OUP).

Raj accepts instructions under the Bar Council Standard Contractual Terms, details of which can be found here.

Articles and Downloads

• Article 14 ECHR discrimination challenges to social welfare measures: the second benefit cap case in the Supreme Court (ALBA Summer Conference Paper 2019)
• ‘Miller and the Flexibility of the UK Constitution’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (17th Jan 2016)
• ‘The Evolution of Fundamental Rights Charters and Case Law: A Comparison of the United Nations, Council of Europe and European Union systems of human rights protection‘, Study for the European Parliament Policy Department: Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament, February 2011.
• ‘The relationship between rights and responsibilities’, Ministry of Justice Research series, December 2009

Raj is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. In order to provide legal services to his clients, including advice and representation services, Raj needs to collect and hold personal data. This includes his client’s personal data and the personal data of others who feature in the matter upon which he is instructed. To read Raj’s privacy notice in full, please see here.

DIRECTORY RECOMMENDATIONS