×
Jonathan Glasson
MEET:

Jonathan Glasson KC

“A first-class performer, who is great on the detail and always thoroughly well prepared. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of inquest and inquiry law, and judges love his common-sense approach. Very much a go-to counsel for a wide range of clients."

Chambers & Partners and Legal 500, 2023
Called: 1996
Silk: 2013

Jonathan Glasson KC practises in an eclectic and broad range of work. His practice includes human rightspublic lawimmigration and asylumInquests and Inquiriesextradition and mutual assistanceinternational lawmedia and information law, product liability and clinical negligence.

Jonathan had been recommended in civil liberties, immigration, Inquests and Inquiries, clinical negligence, product liability, and personal injury by Chambers and Partners and Legal 500. He has acted in a large number of national security cases.  Over the last decade he has been consistently instructed by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in a number of cases raising complex issues under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).  Jonathan was instructed by the Tribunal in the challenge to the “Third Direction”, concerning the use of covert human intelligence sources to engage in criminality. In 2020 he was instructed to act as Counsel in the challenge brought by Liberty and Privacy International to MI5’s handling of data.

Jonathan has been instructed in a significant number of high-profile inquests and inquiries, including the Azelle Rodney Inquiry, the BSE Inquiry, the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, the Mark Duggan Inquest and the In Amenas inquests. He is instructed in the inquest into the death of Kieran Doherty in Northern Ireland.

Jonathan has a broad range of ECHR experience and has a particular expertise in ECHR challenges arising from the Russian Federation and the CIS. He is instructed on a range of cases from the Russian Federation concerning politically motivated criminal prosecutions. He has acted for Mikhail Khodorkovsky the former Chief Executive Officer of Yukos, in Strasbourg proceedings since 2005.

Jonathan has been instructed in asylum claims brought in the UK as well as in Germany and in Cyprus. He has advised on related extradition proceedings in those cases as well as mutual assistance requests in Cyprus and Switzerland. Legal 500 has recommended Jonathan in immigration commenting that he was ‘an expert in high-profile Russian and CIS cases’ and that he ‘has insight, understanding and a speedy ability to suggest innovative approaches’. He has acted in a large number of immigration cases involving national security, most recently the case of Shamima Begum which was heard in the Supreme Court in 2020.

Jonathan has been instructed in many of the leading product liability cases and has a particular expertise in pharmaceutical product liability.

Jonathan is a Contributing Editor to the Butterworth’s Personal Injury Litigation Service (and author of the sections on Product Liability and Psychiatric Injury) and is the co-author of the Blackstone’s Guide to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. In February 2007, Jonathan was appointed to the A Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown which was the earliest date for such an appointment. He was appointed Silk in March 2013, one of the most junior in call to be appointed. In 2017 he was appointed to sit as a Chairman of Disciplinary Panels convened by the Council of the Inns of Court.

Jonathan has particular expertise in ECHR challenges arising from the Russian Federation and the CIS. He is instructed on a range of cases from the Russian Federation concerning politically motivated criminal prosecutions. He has acted for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Chief Executive Officer of Yukos, in Strasbourg proceedings since 2005. Jonathan has a broad range of other ECHR experience. He was instructed by the UK Government in Pritchard v United Kingdom (first Iraqi military case to be considered subsequent to the Al-Skeini judgment).

Jonathan is instructed by the Department of International Trade to defend export licensing decisions to Saudi Arabia for use of arms in the conflict in Yemen: R. (on the application of Campaign Against Arms Trade) v Secretary of State for International [2019] EWCA Civ 1020 20 Jun 2019 and [2023] EWHC1343 (Admin).

He was instructed by the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence in a challenge brought by 3 Afghan nationals claiming to have worked as spies for the UK Government: K, A and B v Secretary of State for Defence; [2016] EWHC 1261 (Admin);  [2017] EWHC 830 (Admin).

Jonathan was instructed by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in relation to the challenge to the “ouster clause” in RIPA and the question as to whether the Tribunal is amendable to judicial review: R. (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal Supreme Court [2019] UKSC 22 15 May 2019.

Jonathan was instructed by the UK Government in the Karadzic case in the ICTY at The Hague. He has also been instructed by the Ministry of Defence in relation to ambit of questioning of a senior UK witness at ICTY.

Jonathan was instructed by the Attorney General to act as Amicus to the Court of Appeal in Mohan v Mohan [2013] Fam Law 959 concerning the interplay of Article 6 and the privilege against self-incrimination in divorce proceedings. He was instructed by the Ministry of Defence in Guardian and Times Newspapers v Soldiers AF [2009] 1 WLR 1015 when the Court of Appeal granted anonymity to five Special Forces personnel in proceedings against them for conspiracy to defraud, as there was a real and immediate risk to the lives of two of the soldiers if any one of the five was identified.

He was instructed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in the Court of Appeal challenge to conferring by police officers following a death involving the police – Duggan and Delezuch v ACPO and Chief Constable of Leicestershire [2014] Inquest L.R. 267. Jonathan was instructed by the claimants in the Vincent Tchenguiz judicial review litigation against the Serious Fraud Office: R (on the application of Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees & Ors) (Claimant) v (1) Central Criminal Court (2) Director of Serious Fraud Office (Defendant) & Vincent Tchenguiz (Interested Party): R (on the application of (1) Robert Tchenguiz (2) R20 Ltd) (Claimant) v (1) Director of Serious Fraud Office (2) Commissioner of City of London Police (3) Central Criminal Court (Defendant) [2013] 1 WLR 1634.

Jonathan also acted in R (U and XC) v SIAC (2009) EWHC 3052 (QB), concerning whether SIAC was entitled to rely on closed evidence when considering bail applications and whether SIAC was amenable to judicial review.

Jonathan has a long-standing practice in acting both for individuals and for the Government in complex and high-profile immigration cases.  He has a particular expertise in national security related immigration cases and has frequently appeared in case in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).  He was instructed by the Home Secretary to defend the challenge brought by Shamima Begum to the Home Secretary’s decision to deprive Begum of her UK citizenship. (Begum v SSHD [2021] UKSC 7) . He has a particular expertise in complex asylum cases from Russia and from the CIS.  Legal 500 recommended Jonathan in this area: ‘He has very good people skills, which clients appreciate.’ and commented that he was ‘an expert in high-profile Russian and CIS cases’ and that he ‘has insight, understanding and a speedy ability to suggest innovative approaches.’

Jonathan has a pre-eminent reputation in inquests and inquiries. He has been recommended as a Leading Silk by Chambers and Partners in Inquests and Public Inquiries and described as having “a tremendous insight into coronial law and first-class judgement in difficult cases” and as being “one of the best at this type of work, he is a very economical in his advocacy. He never says anything he doesn’t need to and this is an approach that works.”  He is similarly recommended by the Legal 500.  Jonathan has regularly advised the Attorney General on high profile inquests, including the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly and the inquests into the deaths arising from the disaster at the Hillsborough Stadium.

Jonathan is instructed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in relation to the forthcoming inquest into the death of the dissident republican Kieran Doherty. He was instructed by the Foreign Secretary in the inquests arising from the deaths at In Amenas in Algeria heard before HHJ Hilliard QC.

Jonathan acted for the Independent Police Complaints Commission at the Inquest into the death of Mark Duggan and in the ensuing judicial review challenge to the inquest. Jonathan was instructed by Ministry of Defence in the Inquest into the shooting down of HERCULES XV179 that led to the largest single loss of life in Iraq.

Jonathan has been instructed by a number of Coroners in relation to judicial review claims. Most recently he acted for the coroner in R. (on the application of Adath Yisroel Burial Society) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner North London  Divisional Court [2018] EWHC 1286 (Admin) 25 Jun 2018 [2018] 4 Costs L.R. 749  [2018] Inquest L.R. 118.

Jonathan has regularly acted for families at inquests, he acted for the family at the inquest into the death of Andrejz Rymarzak where the Jury returned a neglect verdict with 9 separate findings of gross failures by the Metropolitan Police and the London Ambulance Service. Jonathan acted for the family of a diabetic prisoner in a successful challenge to an Inquest verdict of “natural causes” in R v HM Coroner for Lincoln ex p Hay [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Med 264.

He is the coauthor with Julian Knowles QC (now Mr Justice Julian Knowles) of the Blackstone’s Guide to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Jonathan has a long-standing expertise in public inquires. He acted for the families of the victims of v CJD before the BSE Inquiry chaired by Lord Phillips. He acted for witnesses at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Jonathan was instructed by the IPCC at the Inquiry into the death of Azelle Rodney before Sir Christopher Holland. The Legal 500 2017 edition recommends Jonathan as a Leading Silk in Public Inquiries describing him as ‘Immensely diligent and extremely client-friendly.’

Jonathan has also acted in specialist appeals arising from the Animal Scientific Procedures Act.

Jonathan is regularly instructed as Counsel to the Tribunal in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal on a number of cases raising complex issues under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).  Jonathan was instructed by the Tribunal in the challenge to the “Third Direction”, concerning the use of covert human intelligence sources to engage in criminality. In 2020 he was instructed to act as Counsel in the challenge brought by Liberty and Privacy International to MI5’s handling of data. He is instructed by the Tribunal in the challenge by Christine Lee to the issuing of a parliamentary alert stating that she was “an individual knowingly engaged in political interference activities on behalf of the United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)”.   He is also instructed by the Tribunal in the forthcoming challenge by the journalists Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney.   He acted as Counsel to the Tribunal in the challenge by Privacy International concerning Bulk Personal Datasets and Bulk Communications Data and was instructed in the challenge concerning Computer Network Exploitation (“malware” and “hacking”).  In 2014-2015, he was instructed as Counsel to the Tribunal in the cases brought by Belhaj and Amnesty International challenging the interception and use of LPP material.

Legal 500 2020 describes Jonathan as “an expert national security litigator, with particular experience in handling complex and highly sensitive cases.” Chambers and Partners recommended him as “very thorough, and certainly a trusted pair of hands for matters concerning the Official Secrets Act.”

Jonathan is instructed by the Government to defend the claim brought by Abu Zubaydah, a detainee at Guantanamo Bay.   Jonathan has been instructed in numerous SIAC appeals and Administrative Court proceedings under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and Terrorism Prevention Investigation Measures Act.  He was lead counsel for the Government in L1 v Secretary of State for Home Department (no 1) and (no.2) where the Court of Appeal considered whether the decision to wait until the appellant was outside the country to deprive him of his citizenship was an abuse of process.  He was also lead counsel in L2 v Secretary of State (deprivation of citizenship) and D2 v SSHD (refusal of entry clearance to Chechen implicated in the plot to kill Israilov and alleged to present a risk to the live of Zakayev, the Chechen Prime Minister in exile).  Jonathan also led in Zatuliveter v SSHD (parliamentary aide and lover of Mike Hancock MP accused of being an agent of the Russian Intelligence Services).

Jonathan has been frequently instructed by a number of other government departments on national security issues.

Jonathan has been instructed in a number of high-profile cases, including acting for the Secretary of State in R (Mallya) v Government of India and Another (1) [2019] EWHC 1849 (Admin). He acted for the Ministry of Justice in Stopyra v District Court of Lublin, Poland [2012] EWHC 1787 (Admin). Jonathan also acted for the Secretary of State in Patel v State of India and SSHD [2013] EWHC 819 (Admin) and in Mallya v State of India

Jonathan has advised on extradition proceedings in Cyprus and Germany as well as mutual assistance requests in Cyprus and Switzerland.

Jonathan has a long-standing expertise in clinical negligence and medical law. He was briefed for the claimant in Christopher Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority [1998] 1 WLR 1093 where the claimant sought damages arising from his own act in killing another whilst in community care.

He was also briefed for claimant in Briody v St Helen’s & Knowsley AHA [2002] QB 856 (whether damages for costs of surrogacy recoverable). He also acted for the family in Simms and PA v Another [2003] 1 All ER 669 where the court ruled that it was in the best interests of two young people to receive highly experimental treatment for their otherwise terminal illness.

He is author of “psychiatric injury” section in Butterworths’ Personal Injury Litigation Service.

Jonathan has been instructed in many of the leading product liability cases and has a particular expertise in pharmaceutical product liability. He is recommended as a Leading Silk in this area by Chambers and Partners 2016 where he is described as “A very clever man” and as “a bright spark who is very good and engaged.”

The origin of the expertise was his heavy involvement in in the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease/Human Growth Hormone Litigation where he was led by Robert Owen QC (subsequently Owen J) and Stephen Irwin QC (now Irwin LJ) Jonathan was generic first junior counsel in the litigation brought on behalf of recipients of growth hormone which contained the agent which causes CJD as well as those who have suffered psychiatric injury as a consequence of being told that they may develop CJD in the future. He was subsequently instructed in the BSE litigation and the BSE Inquiry.

Jonathan advised on the Roaccutane, Minocin and Seroxat pharmaceutical groups action He was also instructed on the Northwick Park Clinical Trials Litigation. He has advised the Medical Research Council on a no-fault compensation scheme.

Jonathan was instructed for the claimants on ASR Dupuy defective hip replacements litigation. He was also instructed by claimants suing Shell for the oil spill in Bodo in Nigeria:  the Bomu-Bonny Oil Pipeline Litigation (Bodo Community) v Shell SPDC (TCC, 2014).

He is author of Product Liability Section in Butterworths’ Personal Injury Litigation Service.

Jonathan was instructed by Treasury Solicitors in the PTSD Litigation (The Times, 29 May 2003). The Litigation comprised two groups of actions brought by soldiers from the Falklands, Northern Ireland, the Gulf and Bosnia who unsuccessfully claimed negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence in failing to detect and treat their psychological problems following battle.

Jonathan was a Special Advocate in SIAC in Loutchansky and in a Parole Board case heard after Roberts. He has regularly been instructed as Counsel to the Tribunal in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal where part of his function is similar to that of a Special Advocate.

2023: Vice-Chair Inns of Court Conduct Committee

2021: Deputy High Court Judge (assigned to the King’s Bench Division, the Administrative Court and the Family Division)

2017: Chair of Disciplinary Tribunals, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service and Council of the Inns of Court.

2013: Queen’s Counsel

2007: Junior Counsel to the Crown, A Panel

1991 – 1993 College of Law Lancaster Gate (Solicitor (Hons))

1984 – 1987 New College Oxford MA Hons English Language and Literature

Contributing editor, Butterworths Personal lnjury Litigation Service

Blackstone’s Guide to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

1993 – 1995 Trainee Solicitor, Taylor Joynson Garrett

1995 – 2007 Doughty Street Chambers

Jonathan is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. In order to provide legal services to his clients, including advice and representation services, Jonathan 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 view Jonathan’s privacy notice in full, please see here.

Jonathan is regulated by the Bar Standards Board and accepts instructions under Standard Contractual Terms. To find out more information on this and the way we work at Matrix, including our fee transparency statement, please see our see our service standards

DIRECTORY RECOMMENDATIONS

"A silk with high-quality strategic judgement and a great client manner."

Legal 500, 2024, Administrative Law and Human Rights

"Jonathan consistently provides clear and digestible advice on complex and precedent-setting matters. Jonathan also takes time to understand our business drivers and ensures this informs how he approaches his advice and shapes our litigation strategy."

Chambers & Partners, 2024, Civil Liberties & Human Rights

"He has super judgement and is really well respected. He has particular expertise in national security work. He calls it right all the time on these cases."

Chambers & Partners, 2024, Immigration

"Jonathan is very much a leader of the team and he is able to direct everybody." "Jonathan has an acute understanding of client needs. He is a very considerate advocate."

Chambers & Partners, 2024, Inquests and Inquiries

"His command of relevant law and facts, and the quality of his strategic judgement, are both particularly impressive." "A super clever individual who covers an enormous amount of cases concerning national security."

Chambers & Partners, 2023, Civil Liberties & Human Rights

"He's very personable, super prepared and has an excellent mind. I rate him very highly." "I am very impressed by his command of all the relevant law and facts."

Chambers & Partners, 2023, Immigration

"Jonathan is always thoroughly prepared and on top of his brief. He has a masterful knowledge of ECHR and asylum law."

Legal 500, 2023, Immigration

"A first-class performer, who is great on the detail and always thoroughly well prepared. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of inquest and inquiry law, and judges love his common-sense approach. He is very well-respected by opponents and brings an air of calm over any case in which he is instructed. Very much a go-to counsel for a wide range of clients."

Legal 500, 2023, Inquests and Inquiries

"A very accomplished public law barrister who is very high-profile, and handles complex work for the government."

Chambers & Partners, 2022, Immigration

"His calm considered manner, and knowledge of the law and practice, make him extremely effective."

Legal 500, 2022, Inquests and Inquiries

"Jon is one of the most experienced Special Advocates in the country and a leading choice for work on cases involving the intelligence services."

Legal 500, 2022, Civil liberties and human rights (including actions against the police)

"Jonathan is an extremely thorough and imaginative lawyer, with in-depth knowledge of asylum and human rights law." "A great communicator who is dedicated to his clients." "Good judgment, excellent knowledge of the law with huge experience in national security work."

Legal 500 2021

"An expert national security litigator, with particular experience in handling complex and highly sensitive cases." "Painstaking and thorough preparation as well as deep knowledge of the relevant law and practice."

LEGAL 500 2021
Matrix Chambers
24 HOUR ASSISTANCE
+44 (0)20 7404 3447
Jonathan Glasson
Called: 1996
|
Silk: 2013

“A first-class performer, who is great on the detail and always thoroughly well prepared. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of inquest and inquiry law, and judges love his common-sense approach. Very much a go-to counsel for a wide range of clients."

Chambers & Partners and Legal 500, 2023

MAIN AREAS OF PRACTICE

  • Civil Liberties and Human Rights
  • Crime
  • Commercial Law
  • Commercial Public Law
  • Extradition and Mutual Assistance
  • Health and Safety
  • Immigration, Asylum and Free Movement
  • Investigations
  • Investigatory Powers
  • Local Government Law
  • Media and Information Law
  • Police, Inquests and Prison
  • Public Law: Information, Data and Privacy
  • Public International Law
  • Public Law
  • Sanctions
  • Private International Law

Jonathan Glasson KC

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

Contact Jonathan's Practice Team (Team T): TeamT@matrixlaw.co.uk


Jonathan Glasson KC practises in an eclectic and broad range of work. His practice includes human rightspublic lawimmigration and asylumInquests and Inquiriesextradition and mutual assistanceinternational lawmedia and information law, product liability and clinical negligence.

Jonathan had been recommended in civil liberties, immigration, Inquests and Inquiries, clinical negligence, product liability, and personal injury by Chambers and Partners and Legal 500. He has acted in a large number of national security cases.  Over the last decade he has been consistently instructed by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in a number of cases raising complex issues under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).  Jonathan was instructed by the Tribunal in the challenge to the “Third Direction”, concerning the use of covert human intelligence sources to engage in criminality. In 2020 he was instructed to act as Counsel in the challenge brought by Liberty and Privacy International to MI5’s handling of data.

Jonathan has been instructed in a significant number of high-profile inquests and inquiries, including the Azelle Rodney Inquiry, the BSE Inquiry, the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, the Mark Duggan Inquest and the In Amenas inquests. He is instructed in the inquest into the death of Kieran Doherty in Northern Ireland.

Jonathan has a broad range of ECHR experience and has a particular expertise in ECHR challenges arising from the Russian Federation and the CIS. He is instructed on a range of cases from the Russian Federation concerning politically motivated criminal prosecutions. He has acted for Mikhail Khodorkovsky the former Chief Executive Officer of Yukos, in Strasbourg proceedings since 2005.

Jonathan has been instructed in asylum claims brought in the UK as well as in Germany and in Cyprus. He has advised on related extradition proceedings in those cases as well as mutual assistance requests in Cyprus and Switzerland. Legal 500 has recommended Jonathan in immigration commenting that he was ‘an expert in high-profile Russian and CIS cases’ and that he ‘has insight, understanding and a speedy ability to suggest innovative approaches’. He has acted in a large number of immigration cases involving national security, most recently the case of Shamima Begum which was heard in the Supreme Court in 2020.

Jonathan has been instructed in many of the leading product liability cases and has a particular expertise in pharmaceutical product liability.

Jonathan is a Contributing Editor to the Butterworth’s Personal Injury Litigation Service (and author of the sections on Product Liability and Psychiatric Injury) and is the co-author of the Blackstone’s Guide to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. In February 2007, Jonathan was appointed to the A Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown which was the earliest date for such an appointment. He was appointed Silk in March 2013, one of the most junior in call to be appointed. In 2017 he was appointed to sit as a Chairman of Disciplinary Panels convened by the Council of the Inns of Court.

Human Rights and Public Law

Jonathan has particular expertise in ECHR challenges arising from the Russian Federation and the CIS. He is instructed on a range of cases from the Russian Federation concerning politically motivated criminal prosecutions. He has acted for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Chief Executive Officer of Yukos, in Strasbourg proceedings since 2005. Jonathan has a broad range of other ECHR experience. He was instructed by the UK Government in Pritchard v United Kingdom (first Iraqi military case to be considered subsequent to the Al-Skeini judgment).

Jonathan is instructed by the Department of International Trade to defend export licensing decisions to Saudi Arabia for use of arms in the conflict in Yemen: R. (on the application of Campaign Against Arms Trade) v Secretary of State for International [2019] EWCA Civ 1020 20 Jun 2019 and [2023] EWHC1343 (Admin).

He was instructed by the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence in a challenge brought by 3 Afghan nationals claiming to have worked as spies for the UK Government: K, A and B v Secretary of State for Defence; [2016] EWHC 1261 (Admin);  [2017] EWHC 830 (Admin).

Jonathan was instructed by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in relation to the challenge to the “ouster clause” in RIPA and the question as to whether the Tribunal is amendable to judicial review: R. (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal Supreme Court [2019] UKSC 22 15 May 2019.

Jonathan was instructed by the UK Government in the Karadzic case in the ICTY at The Hague. He has also been instructed by the Ministry of Defence in relation to ambit of questioning of a senior UK witness at ICTY.

Jonathan was instructed by the Attorney General to act as Amicus to the Court of Appeal in Mohan v Mohan [2013] Fam Law 959 concerning the interplay of Article 6 and the privilege against self-incrimination in divorce proceedings. He was instructed by the Ministry of Defence in Guardian and Times Newspapers v Soldiers AF [2009] 1 WLR 1015 when the Court of Appeal granted anonymity to five Special Forces personnel in proceedings against them for conspiracy to defraud, as there was a real and immediate risk to the lives of two of the soldiers if any one of the five was identified.

He was instructed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in the Court of Appeal challenge to conferring by police officers following a death involving the police – Duggan and Delezuch v ACPO and Chief Constable of Leicestershire [2014] Inquest L.R. 267. Jonathan was instructed by the claimants in the Vincent Tchenguiz judicial review litigation against the Serious Fraud Office: R (on the application of Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees & Ors) (Claimant) v (1) Central Criminal Court (2) Director of Serious Fraud Office (Defendant) & Vincent Tchenguiz (Interested Party): R (on the application of (1) Robert Tchenguiz (2) R20 Ltd) (Claimant) v (1) Director of Serious Fraud Office (2) Commissioner of City of London Police (3) Central Criminal Court (Defendant) [2013] 1 WLR 1634.

Jonathan also acted in R (U and XC) v SIAC (2009) EWHC 3052 (QB), concerning whether SIAC was entitled to rely on closed evidence when considering bail applications and whether SIAC was amenable to judicial review.

Immigration

Jonathan has a long-standing practice in acting both for individuals and for the Government in complex and high-profile immigration cases.  He has a particular expertise in national security related immigration cases and has frequently appeared in case in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).  He was instructed by the Home Secretary to defend the challenge brought by Shamima Begum to the Home Secretary’s decision to deprive Begum of her UK citizenship. (Begum v SSHD [2021] UKSC 7) . He has a particular expertise in complex asylum cases from Russia and from the CIS.  Legal 500 recommended Jonathan in this area: ‘He has very good people skills, which clients appreciate.’ and commented that he was ‘an expert in high-profile Russian and CIS cases’ and that he ‘has insight, understanding and a speedy ability to suggest innovative approaches.’

Inquests and Inquiries

Jonathan has a pre-eminent reputation in inquests and inquiries. He has been recommended as a Leading Silk by Chambers and Partners in Inquests and Public Inquiries and described as having “a tremendous insight into coronial law and first-class judgement in difficult cases” and as being “one of the best at this type of work, he is a very economical in his advocacy. He never says anything he doesn’t need to and this is an approach that works.”  He is similarly recommended by the Legal 500.  Jonathan has regularly advised the Attorney General on high profile inquests, including the inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly and the inquests into the deaths arising from the disaster at the Hillsborough Stadium.

Jonathan is instructed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in relation to the forthcoming inquest into the death of the dissident republican Kieran Doherty. He was instructed by the Foreign Secretary in the inquests arising from the deaths at In Amenas in Algeria heard before HHJ Hilliard QC.

Jonathan acted for the Independent Police Complaints Commission at the Inquest into the death of Mark Duggan and in the ensuing judicial review challenge to the inquest. Jonathan was instructed by Ministry of Defence in the Inquest into the shooting down of HERCULES XV179 that led to the largest single loss of life in Iraq.

Jonathan has been instructed by a number of Coroners in relation to judicial review claims. Most recently he acted for the coroner in R. (on the application of Adath Yisroel Burial Society) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner North London  Divisional Court [2018] EWHC 1286 (Admin) 25 Jun 2018 [2018] 4 Costs L.R. 749  [2018] Inquest L.R. 118.

Jonathan has regularly acted for families at inquests, he acted for the family at the inquest into the death of Andrejz Rymarzak where the Jury returned a neglect verdict with 9 separate findings of gross failures by the Metropolitan Police and the London Ambulance Service. Jonathan acted for the family of a diabetic prisoner in a successful challenge to an Inquest verdict of “natural causes” in R v HM Coroner for Lincoln ex p Hay [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Med 264.

He is the coauthor with Julian Knowles QC (now Mr Justice Julian Knowles) of the Blackstone’s Guide to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

Jonathan has a long-standing expertise in public inquires. He acted for the families of the victims of v CJD before the BSE Inquiry chaired by Lord Phillips. He acted for witnesses at the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Jonathan was instructed by the IPCC at the Inquiry into the death of Azelle Rodney before Sir Christopher Holland. The Legal 500 2017 edition recommends Jonathan as a Leading Silk in Public Inquiries describing him as ‘Immensely diligent and extremely client-friendly.’

Jonathan has also acted in specialist appeals arising from the Animal Scientific Procedures Act.

National Security and Surveillance

Jonathan is regularly instructed as Counsel to the Tribunal in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal on a number of cases raising complex issues under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).  Jonathan was instructed by the Tribunal in the challenge to the “Third Direction”, concerning the use of covert human intelligence sources to engage in criminality. In 2020 he was instructed to act as Counsel in the challenge brought by Liberty and Privacy International to MI5’s handling of data. He is instructed by the Tribunal in the challenge by Christine Lee to the issuing of a parliamentary alert stating that she was “an individual knowingly engaged in political interference activities on behalf of the United Front Work Department (UFWD) of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)”.   He is also instructed by the Tribunal in the forthcoming challenge by the journalists Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney.   He acted as Counsel to the Tribunal in the challenge by Privacy International concerning Bulk Personal Datasets and Bulk Communications Data and was instructed in the challenge concerning Computer Network Exploitation (“malware” and “hacking”).  In 2014-2015, he was instructed as Counsel to the Tribunal in the cases brought by Belhaj and Amnesty International challenging the interception and use of LPP material.

Legal 500 2020 describes Jonathan as “an expert national security litigator, with particular experience in handling complex and highly sensitive cases.” Chambers and Partners recommended him as “very thorough, and certainly a trusted pair of hands for matters concerning the Official Secrets Act.”

Jonathan is instructed by the Government to defend the claim brought by Abu Zubaydah, a detainee at Guantanamo Bay.   Jonathan has been instructed in numerous SIAC appeals and Administrative Court proceedings under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and Terrorism Prevention Investigation Measures Act.  He was lead counsel for the Government in L1 v Secretary of State for Home Department (no 1) and (no.2) where the Court of Appeal considered whether the decision to wait until the appellant was outside the country to deprive him of his citizenship was an abuse of process.  He was also lead counsel in L2 v Secretary of State (deprivation of citizenship) and D2 v SSHD (refusal of entry clearance to Chechen implicated in the plot to kill Israilov and alleged to present a risk to the live of Zakayev, the Chechen Prime Minister in exile).  Jonathan also led in Zatuliveter v SSHD (parliamentary aide and lover of Mike Hancock MP accused of being an agent of the Russian Intelligence Services).

Jonathan has been frequently instructed by a number of other government departments on national security issues.

Extradition

Jonathan has been instructed in a number of high-profile cases, including acting for the Secretary of State in R (Mallya) v Government of India and Another (1) [2019] EWHC 1849 (Admin). He acted for the Ministry of Justice in Stopyra v District Court of Lublin, Poland [2012] EWHC 1787 (Admin). Jonathan also acted for the Secretary of State in Patel v State of India and SSHD [2013] EWHC 819 (Admin) and in Mallya v State of India

Jonathan has advised on extradition proceedings in Cyprus and Germany as well as mutual assistance requests in Cyprus and Switzerland.

Clinical Negligence / Medical Law

Jonathan has a long-standing expertise in clinical negligence and medical law. He was briefed for the claimant in Christopher Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority [1998] 1 WLR 1093 where the claimant sought damages arising from his own act in killing another whilst in community care.

He was also briefed for claimant in Briody v St Helen’s & Knowsley AHA [2002] QB 856 (whether damages for costs of surrogacy recoverable). He also acted for the family in Simms and PA v Another [2003] 1 All ER 669 where the court ruled that it was in the best interests of two young people to receive highly experimental treatment for their otherwise terminal illness.

He is author of “psychiatric injury” section in Butterworths’ Personal Injury Litigation Service.

Product Liability

Jonathan has been instructed in many of the leading product liability cases and has a particular expertise in pharmaceutical product liability. He is recommended as a Leading Silk in this area by Chambers and Partners 2016 where he is described as “A very clever man” and as “a bright spark who is very good and engaged.”

The origin of the expertise was his heavy involvement in in the Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease/Human Growth Hormone Litigation where he was led by Robert Owen QC (subsequently Owen J) and Stephen Irwin QC (now Irwin LJ) Jonathan was generic first junior counsel in the litigation brought on behalf of recipients of growth hormone which contained the agent which causes CJD as well as those who have suffered psychiatric injury as a consequence of being told that they may develop CJD in the future. He was subsequently instructed in the BSE litigation and the BSE Inquiry.

Jonathan advised on the Roaccutane, Minocin and Seroxat pharmaceutical groups action He was also instructed on the Northwick Park Clinical Trials Litigation. He has advised the Medical Research Council on a no-fault compensation scheme.

Jonathan was instructed for the claimants on ASR Dupuy defective hip replacements litigation. He was also instructed by claimants suing Shell for the oil spill in Bodo in Nigeria:  the Bomu-Bonny Oil Pipeline Litigation (Bodo Community) v Shell SPDC (TCC, 2014).

He is author of Product Liability Section in Butterworths’ Personal Injury Litigation Service.

Personal Injury

Jonathan was instructed by Treasury Solicitors in the PTSD Litigation (The Times, 29 May 2003). The Litigation comprised two groups of actions brought by soldiers from the Falklands, Northern Ireland, the Gulf and Bosnia who unsuccessfully claimed negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence in failing to detect and treat their psychological problems following battle.

Special Advocate

Jonathan was a Special Advocate in SIAC in Loutchansky and in a Parole Board case heard after Roberts. He has regularly been instructed as Counsel to the Tribunal in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal where part of his function is similar to that of a Special Advocate.

Appointments

2023: Vice-Chair Inns of Court Conduct Committee

2021: Deputy High Court Judge (assigned to the King’s Bench Division, the Administrative Court and the Family Division)

2017: Chair of Disciplinary Tribunals, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service and Council of the Inns of Court.

2013: Queen’s Counsel

2007: Junior Counsel to the Crown, A Panel

Education

1991 – 1993 College of Law Lancaster Gate (Solicitor (Hons))

1984 – 1987 New College Oxford MA Hons English Language and Literature

Publications

Contributing editor, Butterworths Personal lnjury Litigation Service

Blackstone’s Guide to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Career

1993 – 1995 Trainee Solicitor, Taylor Joynson Garrett

1995 – 2007 Doughty Street Chambers


Jonathan's Privacy Notice

Jonathan is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. In order to provide legal services to his clients, including advice and representation services, Jonathan 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 view Jonathan’s privacy notice in full, please see here.


DIRECTORY RECOMMENDATIONS

"A silk with high-quality strategic judgement and a great client manner."

Legal 500, 2024, Administrative Law and Human Rights

"Jonathan consistently provides clear and digestible advice on complex and precedent-setting matters. Jonathan also takes time to understand our business drivers and ensures this informs how he approaches his advice and shapes our litigation strategy."

Chambers & Partners, 2024, Civil Liberties & Human Rights

"He has super judgement and is really well respected. He has particular expertise in national security work. He calls it right all the time on these cases."

Chambers & Partners, 2024, Immigration

"Jonathan is very much a leader of the team and he is able to direct everybody." "Jonathan has an acute understanding of client needs. He is a very considerate advocate."

Chambers & Partners, 2024, Inquests and Inquiries

"His command of relevant law and facts, and the quality of his strategic judgement, are both particularly impressive." "A super clever individual who covers an enormous amount of cases concerning national security."

Chambers & Partners, 2023, Civil Liberties & Human Rights

"He's very personable, super prepared and has an excellent mind. I rate him very highly." "I am very impressed by his command of all the relevant law and facts."

Chambers & Partners, 2023, Immigration

"Jonathan is always thoroughly prepared and on top of his brief. He has a masterful knowledge of ECHR and asylum law."

Legal 500, 2023, Immigration

"A first-class performer, who is great on the detail and always thoroughly well prepared. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of inquest and inquiry law, and judges love his common-sense approach. He is very well-respected by opponents and brings an air of calm over any case in which he is instructed. Very much a go-to counsel for a wide range of clients."

Legal 500, 2023, Inquests and Inquiries

"A very accomplished public law barrister who is very high-profile, and handles complex work for the government."

Chambers & Partners, 2022, Immigration

"His calm considered manner, and knowledge of the law and practice, make him extremely effective."

Legal 500, 2022, Inquests and Inquiries

"Jon is one of the most experienced Special Advocates in the country and a leading choice for work on cases involving the intelligence services."

Legal 500, 2022, Civil liberties and human rights (including actions against the police)

"Jonathan is an extremely thorough and imaginative lawyer, with in-depth knowledge of asylum and human rights law." "A great communicator who is dedicated to his clients." "Good judgment, excellent knowledge of the law with huge experience in national security work."

Legal 500 2021

"An expert national security litigator, with particular experience in handling complex and highly sensitive cases." "Painstaking and thorough preparation as well as deep knowledge of the relevant law and practice."

LEGAL 500 2021