Richard Clayton KC
Richard Clayton KC
Called in 1977
Year of Silk 2002

Richard is a highly experienced commercial litigator and arbitrator with extensive expertise in both advisory and litigation work in public law. He regularly acts for and against public bodies, with a particular focus on commercial disputes, judicial reviews, and offshore or international cases involving commercial and public law clients.

Richard has served as a Deputy High Court Judge since 2012, bringing a wealth of judicial insight to his practice.

Instructing Us

Richard Clayton is an experienced judicial review specialist/commercial practitioner and has appeared in many reported cases. He focuses on tax related judicial review work, commercial work arising from failed tax schemes and substantial business rates cases both before the Upper Tribunal and Administrative Court. Richard has sat as a Deputy High Court judge since 2012, was the United Kingdom’s representative to the Venice Commission (the advisory body to the Council of Europe on constitutional law) from 2011-2019 and is a former Chair of the Constitutional and Administrative Bar Association.

  • R(Sensor Solutions) v HMRC (2024) Judicial Review of refusal to refund monies under the Disguised Remuneration Repayments Scheme under s 20 Finance Act 2020 on ground that HMRC failed to consider all the documentation and correspondence relevant to its 2019 settlement including, in particular, Form AAG4. Failure makes decision unlawful unfair, irrational and taking account irrelevant consideration.
  • R(Tap Nav) v HMRC (2024) Successful judicial review of HMRC’s failure or refusal to repay a Research and Development tax credit for £292,820.69 under s 1054 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009.
  • Barklem v HMRC (2024) Client seeks declaration that he is not liable for tax liabilities arising under partnership film and leaseback arrangement.
  • R(Sensor Solutions) v HMRC (2023) Judicial Review of refusal to refund monies under the Disguised Remuneration Repayments Scheme under s 20 Finance Act 2020 on ground that HMRC failed to consider all the documentation and correspondence relevant to its 2019 settlement including, in particular, Form AAG4. Failure makes decision unlawful unfair, irrational and taking account irrelevant consideration.
  • R(Easyway Umbrella) v HMRC (2023) Judicial review to challenge publication of naming and shaming notice under 86 of Finance Act 2022. HMRC’s failure to provide any advance notice of allegations against Claimant is unfair, a failure to take reasonable steps to inform itself of C’s circumstances, irrational, a failure to give lawful reasons, and a breach of the right to property under A1P1 of the Human Rights Act.
  • Total Sprint v Swale Borough Council (2023) Statutory appeal of Magistrates’s decision to award business rates of £511,120.33 against client. Principal ground of appeal whether Magistrates misinterpreted the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement)(Local Lists) Regulations 1989 by applying pre-existing case law on s 97 of General Rates Act 1967 which held that evidential burden on rate payer to satisfy evidential burden that it was not in rateable occupation.
  • R(Nourish Training) v HMRC (2023) Judicial review because HMRC cancelled Claimant’s VAT registration with immediate effect. Nourish appeals to First Tier Tribunal on Kittel grounds under s 83 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. However, FTT refused to grant interim relief although FTT appeal cannot be heard for over one year. Nourish applies for judicial review under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act and an injunction.
  • Ludgate House Ltd v Ricketts (2023) important Court of Appeal business rates decision. . Ludgate House, freehold owner of a large multi-storey office building, vacated it, pending demolition. Ludgate agreed with a security company to secure the building against trespassers by arranging for its occupation by “property guardians” as full-time residents. Upper Tribunal decided that guardians did not amount to “rateable occupation” that Southwark Council could not recover business rates. Court of Appeal reverses UT deciding that guardianship schemes constitute “rateable occupation”, Purpose of guardians in living in the building to facilitate security company’s operation, a direct benefit to ratepayer.
  • R(Hannah) v Chartered Institute of Taxation (2022) Judicial review of decision to refer complaint to Taxation Disciplinary Board. Held that Institute’s function of referring a complaint to Board amenable to judicial review and that the decision was not unlawful.

Richard has experience of all types of complex commercial disputes. He has particular expertise in contractual issues which arise in the public sector including public procurement. Richard undertakes emergency injunction work such as freezing and seizure orders as well as arbitrations. He acts in cases concerning commercial contracts, civil fraud, breaches of directors’ duties, insolvency, restitution, shareholders’ rights, issues of statutory or contractual construction and public international law.

  • representing the claimant in a $US 150m LICA arbitration arising from dispute in Qatar;
  • defending a strike out application made in a complex high value High Court conspiracy claim;
  • advising on a £7m+ claim against two banks alleged to be jointly liable with financial advisors for fraud;
  • advising various local authorities on procurement issues;
  • advising a former Government Minister in relation to allegedly unlawful cartel arrangements arising in several high value construction contracts in Trinidad;
  • defending a summary judgment application made in a £25m+ fraud claim by HMRC;
  • advising a Cayman Islands lawyer on his defence to a professional negligence claim for £3m+;
  • advising claimants in their fraud claim against a Government Minister in St Kitts for £5m+;
  • advising claimant on private international law issues concerning whether share ownership passed to him on death of German shareholder under their shareholding agreement; and
  • advising defendants in an application to the British Virgin Islands Court of Appeal to set aside a judgment for £3m+.

In addition to his tax work and public law work before the Privy Council and in the Caribbean and Turks & Caicos and Gibraltar, Richard undertakes a wide range of advisory and litigation work (both for and against public bodies) covering community care, data protection, discrimination, environmental, healthcare, human rights, local government (e.g. vires and powers, constitutional issues and governance, elections, finance), public procurement, international work (particularly constitutional work), statutory appeals in disciplinary cases and regulatory/disciplinary work.

Public Law Case Profile

  • Southwark LBC v Ludgate House (2020) (CA – whether “guardianship schemes” exempt from business rates)
  • Hollandwest v HMRC (2019) (injunctions granted to preserve right of access to Court awaiting FTT hearings for wholesalers seeking HMRC approval under s 88C Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 so as to clarify Supreme Court decision, OWD ltd v HMRC)
  • Jones v Teaching Regulation Authority (2019) (whether Secretary of State had power to supplement his statutory procedures by using common law power)
  • R (British Homeopathy Association) v National Health Service England (2018) (consultation challenge to terminating homeopathy treatment)
  • R (Page) v Darlington Borough Council (2018) (closure of library services)
  • R (South Yorkshire County Council) v Sheffield Combined Authority (2017) (local government reorganisation)
  • R (Watch Tower) v Charity Commission (2016) Court of Appeal (judicial review and alternative remedy)
  • R (English Bridge Union) v Sports England (2015) (whether Sports England acted unlawfully in refusing to recognise bridge as a sport)
  • R (Hall) v Leicestershire County Council (2015) (museum closure consultation)
  • Kennedy v Charity Commission (2015) (Supreme Court- Freedom of Information, Article 10 and common law rights)
  • R (T) v Trafford MBC (2015) (consultation challenge to local authority cuts)

 

Human Rights and Civil Liberties Case Profile

  • Hart v Commission of Enquiry (2025) (Fairness, Salmon letters and Maxwellisation- Privy Council)
  • Advising a former Government Minister in relation to allegedly unlawful cartel arrangements arising in several high value construction contracts in Trinidad;
  • Advising defendants in an application to the British Virgin Islands Court of Appeal to set aside a judgment for £3m+.
  • Maharaj v Petroliam Company of Trinidad (2019) (freedom of information – Privy Council)
  • Seepersad v Ayers-Ceasar (2018) (interim constitutional remedies – Privy Council)
  • Central Broadcasting Services v A-G of Trinidad (2018) (damages for breach of freedom of expression – Privy Council)
  • Mohammed v Public Service Commission of Trinidad (2017) (separation of powers – Privy Council)
  • Tayo v Charity Commission (2017) (discrimination)
  • Magyar Helsinki v Hungary (2016) (Art 10 and right of access to official information before Grand Chamber of European Court of Human Rights)
  • Kennedy v Charity Commission (2015) (Supreme Court- Freedom of Information, Art 10 and common law rights)

Richard undertakes constitutional/public law and commercial work, both in the Privy Council and internationally. Sitting as a Deputy High Court judge and as an international arbitrator, he undertakes work in the Caribbean (Anguilla, Bahamas, Belize, Cayman, St Vincent, Trinidad, Turks & Caicos), Canada, US, Channel Islands, Gibraltar, Hong Kong and the Isle of Man.

Instructed in many high-profile cases in Trinidad, Richard is currently instructed to defend a senator defamation proceeding brought by the Prime Minister and in an allegedly unlawful cartel arrangement concerning several construction contracts on behalf of a former Minister.

Richard was the United Kingdom representative to the Venice Commission (Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional law) from 2011 to 2019. The Commission comprises independent experts in the field of constitutional law. Richard was a member of its Executive and Chairman of its Sub-Commission on Working Methods. He worked as a Rapporteur in Opinions concerning conscription and freedom of thought (Armenia), freedom of assembly (Russia), freedom of expression and defamation (Azerbaijan, Italy) and judicial independence and mediation (Tajikistan), freedom of association and NGOs (Azerbaijan, Hungary and Romania) and the rule of law crisis in Poland, Malta and Slovakia.

Offshore and International Case Profile

  • Hart v Commission of Enquiry (2025) (Fairness, Salmon letters and Maxwellisation- (Privy Council)
  • Garcia v Commissioners of Inquiry (2025) (Trinidad CA concerning judicial review of Commissioners of inquiry into Las Alturas Towers)
  • Responsible Development to Abaco v Rt Hon Perry Christie (2021) (Privy Council grant permission to appeal to constitutional challenge to Bahamas security for costs orders in environmental cases)
  • Boland v Chairman of Board of Inland Revenue (2022) (Privy Council- challenge to promotion system for Field Auditors)
  • Seepeersad v AG of Trinidad (2021) (Privy Council decide important case on right to protection of law, holding that it is breached by detaining juveniles in adult prison)
  • Hapgood v AG of Anguilla (2021) (AG successfully persuades Privy Council to refuse permission to appeal to alleged contempt is a “criminal cause”)
  • AG of Anguilla v Lake (2021) (Privy Council) (compulsory purchase compensation acting for AG)
  • Cassaglia v Stanetto v Gibraltar Heath Authority (2021) (Gibraltar CA considers important issues arising out of first case on Gibraltar’s Bullying at Work Act 2014)
  • Allen and Wood v Panorma (2021) (Gibraltar CA decides there is a constitutional right to a jury trial in defamation cases to be heard in 2022)
  • Garcia v Commissioners of Inquiry (2021) (Court of Appeal defending Commisson against judicial review of its inquiry into Las Alturas Towers in Trinidad)
  • Hart v v Commissioners of Inquiry (2020) (successfully defend Commission against judicial review of its inquiry into Las Alturas Towers in Trinidad)
  • Garcia v Commissioners of Inquiry (2020) (Trinidad judicial review of Commissioners of inquiry into Las Alturas Towers)
  • R v Misick (2014) (8-day hearing before CA in Turks and Caicos)
  • Maharaj v Petrotrin Company of Trinidad (2019) (freedom of information- Privy Council)
  • Commissioner of Police for Trinidad v Singh (2019) (discrimination- Privy Council)
  • Garcia v Commissioners of Inquiry (2020) (Trinidad judicial review of Commissioners of inquiry into Las Alturas Towers)
  • Gopeesingh v Al Rawi (2019) (Trinidad CA- election bias application against Chief Justice)
  • A-G of Trinidad v Maharaj (2018) (judicial appointments of Supreme Court judges – Privy Council)
  • Central Broadcasting Services v A-G of Trinidad (2018) (damages for breach of freedom of expression – Privy Council)
  • Mohammed v Public Service Commission of Trinidad (2017) (separation of powers – Privy Council)
  • R v Misick (2014) (8-day hearing before CA in Turks and Caicos)
  • Deputy High Court Judge (2012)
  • United Kingdom’s representative to Venice Commission (Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional law) (2011- 2019); Member of Executive and Chairman of Working Methods Sub-Commission
  • Recorder (Crown Court) (2006)
  • Bencher, Middle Temple (2009)
  • Visiting Professor, University College, London (2015-2020)
  • Supreme Court User Group since 2009
  • Chairman, Constitutional and Administrative Bar Association (2008-2010)
  • Associate Fellow, Centre for Public Law, University of Cambridge since 2001
  • Chairman, Bar Council Committee on Civil Legal Aid 2005-2012
  • Vice Chairman Bar Council Remuneration Committee 2006-2008
  • Bar Council Remuneration Committee 2005 to 2010
  • Bar Council Public Affairs Committee 2006-2007
  • Bar Council International Affairs Committee 2008-2010
  • Bar Council 2004-2007
  • Responsible Development to Abaco v Rt Hon Perry Christie (2021) (PCl grant permission to appeal to constitutional challenge to Bahamas security for costs orders in environmental cases)
  • Boland v Chairman of Board of Inland Revenue (2022) (PC- challenge to promotion system for Field Auditors)
  • Seepeersad v AG of Trinidad (2021) (PC decide important case on right to protection of law, holding that it is breached by detaining juveniles in adult prison)
  • Hapgood v AG of Anguilla (2021) (AG successfully persuades PC to refuse permission to appeal to alleged contempt is a “criminal cause”)
  • AG of Anguilla v Lake (2021) (PC) (compulsory purchase compensation acting for AG)
  • Seepersad v Ayers-Ceasar (2020) (PC) (whether detaining juveniles in adult prison breaches constitutional rights)
  • Maharaj v Petroleum Company of Trinidad (2019) (PC) (freedom of information)
  • Commissioner of Police for Trinidad v Singh (2019) (PC) (discrimination)
  • A-G of Trinidad v Petrotrin (2019) (PC) (freedom of information)
  • The Commissioner of Police for Trinidad v Singh (2019) (discrimination)
  • A-G of Trinidad v Maharaj (2018) (PC) (judicial appointments of Supreme Court judges);
  • Seepersad v Ayers-Ceasar (2018) (PC) (interim constitutional remedies)
  • Central Broadcasting Services v A-G of Trinidad (2018) (PC) (damages for breach of freedom of expression)
  • Mohammed v Public Service Commission of Trinidad (2017) (PC) (separation of powers)
  • Kennedy v Charity Commission (2014) (SC) (Freedom of Information, Art 10 and common law rights)
  • Suratt v A-G of Trinidad (No 2) (2009) PC) (damages for breaching constitutional right to protection of the law)
  • Panday v Virgil (2008) (PC) (representing former Prime Minister of Trinidad in abuse of process complaint following successful bias appeal before Trinidad Court of Appeal)
  • Suratt v A-G of Trinidad (2008) (PC) (anti-discrimination legislation constitutional, reversing Trinidad CA)
  • R (Huang) v SSHD (2007) (HL) (important case on proportionality principles)
  • Toussaint v A-G of St Vincent (2007) (PC) (right of access to the court and parliamentary privilege)
  • R (Greenfield) v SSHD (2005) (HL) (Human Rights Act damages)
  • R (Smith) v Parole Board (2005) (HL) (common law fairness, not Articles 5 and 6 ECHR requires oral hearing)
  • BACONGO v Department of Environment No 2 (2004) (PC) (adequacy of environmental impact assessment)
  • BACONGO v Department of Environment (2003) (PC) (jurisdiction of PC to grant interim injunction in pending appeal)
  • A-G v Blake (2001) (HL) (confiscation of advance of royalties on autobiography- common law human rights, restitutionary damages, account);
  • R v Chief Constable West Midlands Police (1994) (HL) (public interest immunity)

Richard Clayton KC is an independent self-employed barrister registered with the Bar Standards Board of England (20194) whose practice is governed by the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales which code can be found at www.barstandardsboard.org.uk; has full professional liability insurance provided by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited (ref BM C1021902) (details of the world-wide cover are provided at www.barmutual.co.uk); and is registered for VAT (397004445).
.
About my work as a barrister
My main area of practice is in public law, commercial and international work.

Contact
The following individuals, are invited to contact me directly for a quote for legal services.

  • Solicitors or other practising lawyers;
  • Licensed Access clients, who may either hold a licence issued by the Bar Standards
    Board, or be a member of a professional body which has been recognised by the Bar
    Standards Board; and
  • Members of the public who wish to instruct a barrister under the Public Access
    scheme.

I or my clerk (clerks@burnellchambers.co.uk) will provide you with a quote as soon as possible. I always aim to set out quotes clearly, but if you receive your quote and there is something you do not understand, please contact me.

Fees
My pricing model is an hourly rate and in some circumstances, I can agree a fixed fee. My fees are calculated by reference to the amount of time reasonably required to supply the services and a reasonable hourly rate, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. For the purposes of determining the reasonable hourly rate, the circumstances of the case include: the complexity of the issues; the speed at which the services must be supplied; the expertise or specialist knowledge that the services require; and the value of the property, dispute or subject matter involved; liability level or the volume of work involved in a matter. In this regard, my fee range is £500 +VAT per hour to £750+VAT. It may be possible to agree a fixed fee; however, this decision will be taken on a case-by-case basis and will involve an assessment of the above-mentioned factors.

Timescales
Timescales for a case may vary depending on factors such as my availability, the type and complexity of the case, the number of papers needing to be reviewed, the approach taken by the other side and the need for additional information or documents. The timescale will be discussed with a client at the outset and should anything happen to affect the timescale this will be communicated as soon as possible to the client.

Public Access
If you are a member of the public, the Bar Standards Board’s Public Access Guidance for Lay Clients can be downloaded from the following link:
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/resources/public-access-guidance-for-lay-
clients.html.

This will help you to understand how the Public Access scheme works and explains how you can use it to instruct me directly.

Regulatory and Complaints Information
The BSB
Self-employed barristers are regulated by the Bar Standards Board. You can search the Barristers’ Register on the Bar Standards Board’s website:

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/search-a-barristers-record/the-barristers-register.html.

The BSB’s Barristers’ Register shows:

  • Whether a barrister has a current practising certificate; and
  • Whether a barrister has any disciplinary findings, which are published on the Bar Standards Board’s website in accordance with their policy.

Alternatively, you can contact the Bar Standards Board on 020 7611 1444 to ask about this (or e-mail: ContactUs@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk).
This procedure sets out any right you may have to complain to the Legal Ombudsman (“LeO” – the independent body which can help you if you have complained to your lawyer and are not happy with their response); How to complain to the LeO; and any time limits for making a complaint.

Here is the link to the decision data on the Legal Ombudsman
website: https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/#ombudsman-decision-data

This data demonstrates that providers which received an ombudsman decision in the previous 12 months and in each case the data shows whether or not the provider was required to give the consumer a remedy: https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-
public/search-a-barristers-record/the-barristers-register; and https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/search-a-barristers-record/the-barristers-register

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, Richard Clayton, have been instructed by you or your litigation friend (usually a parent), through your solicitor or agent, or via the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
4. It is necessary for me to process your personal data in order for me to provide you with legal services, for example:

Advise on the prospects of litigation;
Advise on the value of your claim;
Representation at a court hearing;
Representation at trial;
Advise, review or comment on legal issues or evidence.
5. Processing means anything done to data such as: recording, organising, adapting, altering, copying, consulting, transmitting, combining, erasing or storing it.

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

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

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

Recipients of your data

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

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

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

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

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

(v) Ombudsman and regulatory authorities;

(vi) Education and examining bodies; and

(vii) Current, past or prospective employers.

Special Categories of Data

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

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

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 contact me.

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/

Richard sits as a Deputy High Court Judge and a Crown Court Recorder and has never been reversed on appeal.. His appointments and memberships include:

  • Deputy High Court Judge (2012)
  • Recorder (Crown Court) (2006)
  • Kings Counsel (2002)
  • United Kingdom’s representative to Venice Commission (Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional law) (2011- 2019); Member of Executive and Chairman of Working Methods Sub-Commission
  • Bencher, Middle Temple (2009)
  • Visiting Professor, University College, London (2015 to date)
  • Chairman, Constitutional and Administrative Bar Association (2008-2010)
  • Associate Fellow, Centre for Public Law, University of Cambridge since 2001
  • Chairman, Bar Council Committee on Civil Legal Aid 2005-2012
  • Vice Chairman Bar Council Remuneration Committee 2006-2008
  • Bar Council Remuneration Committee 2005 to 2010
  • Bar Council Public Affairs Committee 2006-2007
  • Bar Council International Affairs Committee 2008-2010
  • Bar Council 2004-2007

What the Directories say about Richard

Chambers & Partners UK2023
He is fantastically clever and quick at thinking on his feet. There are few problems he has not been able to solve within ten minutes.
Chambers & Partners UK Bar2022
Richard is very thorough and well versed with judicial review applications. He is bright, creative and wonderful to work with.
Legal 500 Bar2021
An internationally respected advocate, Richard is easily one of the most brilliant minds in this area. He has a charming style of advocacy and is extremely witty and is an effective and skilled advocate.
Chambers Directory2019
One of the finest minds at the Bar… an intellectual giant who is an asset to the Bar.
Chambers Directory2018
Very sharp when it comes to tactics. He is very good at guiding you on what the judge is likely to be thinking, his command of the subject is almost second to none. He’s thoughtful, approachable, and very client-focused, affable and has a mature approach. He is calm, reliable and consistent and has a very wide knowledge of the law.