Matrix Chambers is a group of independent and specialist barristers, academics and foreign lawyers who work across a wide range of areas of law. With offices in London, Geneva and Brussels, our members have extensive experience internationally having worked in over 100 countries across 19 different practice areas. Owing to Matrix’s multi-disciplinary practice and standard of excellence, we are uniquely positioned to deal with complex legal issues, particularly where they overlap multiple areas of law.
Our clients include multinational corporations, law firms, banks, directors, regulators, professional bodies, foreign Governments, newspapers and media outlets, in the UK and internationally.
- Matrix members are experts in their field and their services include:
- Advising on legal strategy to guide your actions in legal disputes.
- Legal advice on the issues in your case, or advice as to the strength of your case as a whole.
- Representing you in a dispute resolution forum, whether in an arbitration (either acting for you
or acting as an arbitrator), a tribunal, a mediation or in court.
- Carrying out investigations, inquiries and audits of company policies, particularly in regard to
corporate social responsibility and checking compliance with human rights obligations.
What is the difference between a solicitor and a barrister?
In the UK the legal profession is split into barristers and solicitors. Whilst there are many other services that they can provide, barristers are known for appearing in court. They are independent practitioners who are self-employed and provide their services personally. Barristers work in offices, known as chambers, in order to share support staff and facilities.
Barristers cannot generally be instructed by members of the public unless they are public access trained. Usually you would go to a solicitor about your case and then the solicitor will instruct a barrister when it is appropriate. For more information about instructing a barrister as a member of the public, please see here.
United States Of America v Assange  EW Misc 1 (MagC)
A UK judge has ruled that the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, cannot be extradited to the United States of America to face charges of espionage, following concerns over his mental health and risk of suicide. Prosecutors in the USA accused Assange of helping US defence analyst Chelsea Manning breach the US Espionage Act, and of […]
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (No. 2) (Application no. 14305/17)
This case in the European Court of Human Rights concerned the arrest and pre-trial detention of Mr Selahattin Demirtaş, who at the time of the events was one of the co-chairs of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), a left-wing pro-Kurdish political party, and member of the Turkish National Assembly. In its judgment, the Grand Chamber […]
YD (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1683
This is an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dated 21 November 2017, dismissing an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal. That tribunal had dismissed the appellant’s appeal against a decision of the respondent of 13 October 2015 refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom. […]
Karaqi v Public Prosecutor's Office Of The Athens' Court Of Appeal, Greece  EWHC 2650 (Admin)
This was an appeal brought by the Appellant against an order for his extradition to Greece. The Appellant was convicted of armed robberies in Greece in 1995 and sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. In 1996, the Appellant escaped from prison in Greece. He came to the UK in 1997 and used his own name to […]
Home Department permitted to provide material relating to alleged terrorist to US Government, under Mutual Legal Assistance
R (on the application of Elgizouli) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2516 (Admin)
The Divisional Court has handed down a judgment in a case involving a challenge to a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to provide material to the US Government, pursuant to a request for Mutual Legal Assistance (‘MLA’).
MLA is a method of cooperation between states for obtaining assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences. In this case, the requested material related to the alleged terrorist activities of the claimant’s son, Shafee El Sheikh.
The principal issues for determination were whether the decision to provide MLA was compatible with the Data Protection Act 2018 and whether the decision was irrational. In particular, the issue was whether it was strictly necessary and proportionate to transfer personal data to a third country in support of a foreign prosecution in circumstances in which the Crown Prosecution Service had decided that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr El Sheikh in this jurisdiction.
Held: the Divisional Court refused permission to apply for judicial review. The Court considered that the prospect of a domestic prosecution was not relevant to the question of whether it was necessary and proportionate to transfer data to a third country, and that it was not arguably irrational for the Secretary of State to fail to have regard to such a prospect in deciding to provide MLA.