Public Law Solicitor
Sarah joined Simpson Millar in 2017 and has more than seven years’ experience in the legal profession.
As a member of our Public Law team, she works across a number of areas including Human Rights, Claims Against Public Authorities, Community Care, Court of Protection and Deprivation of Liberty cases.
She specialises in bringing judicial review challenges to central and local government on behalf of vulnerable individuals.
Sarah has a particular interest in representing children and victims of trafficking, and she regularly acts for individuals exploited by county lines gangs. She is experienced in bringing judicial reviews challenging NRM decisions, unlawful detention, child refugee family reunion refusals, and local authority decisions to deny support or accommodation to children in need and care leavers.
In addition to public law challenges, Sarah advises in private law actions against public bodies for false imprisonment and Human Rights Act damages claims. She is also regularly instructed by the Official Solicitor on behalf of protected parties in decisions involving their accommodation and support.
Sarah received a BA degree in Philosophy and Theology from Oxford University in 2010, following which she studied Law at the University of Law, earning the LLB qualification in 2013. She then completed her training contract at Linklaters LLP, qualifying into their Litigation department. Before joining the Public Law team at Simpson Millar, she worked in the Housing department of the Mary Ward Legal Centre, mainly representing vulnerable clients in housing possession cases.
Sarah has carried out pro bono work for several organisations including Bail for Immigration Detainees, the Centre for Criminal Appeals, Amicus, and the Centre for Reproductive Rights.
HN & MN v SSHD; JR/4719/2019
Sarah acted for the Applicants HN and MN on a successful judicial review challenge against SSHD. The Applicants were unaccompanied minors seeking to join family member in the UK under the family reunification provisions of EU Regulation 604/2013 (Dublin III). The judicial review was allowed and the court found that there was a breach of the Applicants’ human rights under Article 8 ECHR.