Practice Overview
Christian Howells is a busy Civil Liberties, Crime and Personal Injury practitioner. Upon completion of his studies (LL.B (Hons) Bristol) Christian joined 30 Park Place as a pupil and became a tenant in September 2008.
Actions Against the Police
Christian undertakes a wide variety of claims against the Police, including claims where a suspect has been subjected to the unlawful use of a TASER, assault, unlawful search of property, unlawful imprisonment and breaches of human rights.
Immigration
In recent times, Christian has developed a specialist practice in Gurkha immigration law, where the appeals are concerned with obtaining leave to enter under Home Office policies and the right to respect for one's family life. He has appeared on behalf of over 100 Gurkha veterans, regularly appearing in the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal.
Christian is currently instructed in a Judicial Review of Home Office policy. His practice is not limited to that, but encompasses all aspects of immigration, nationality, asylum, deportation and human rights.
Crime
Christian has a busy Crown Court practice. He undertakes all levels of crime, including sexual assault on children under the age of 13, assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, robbery, violent disorder etc. He is regularly instructed in public interest immunity applications.
Christian has particular experience in representing nurses and carers facing allegations of neglect and ill-treatment.
Personal Injury
In terms of his PI practice, he acts for both claimants and defendants in personal injury claims up to fast-track level, and is part of the specialist vehicle credit hire team at Thirty Park Place. He also has a developing practice in clinical negligence work.
Appointments
- Wales Circuit representative, Young Barristers' Committee to the Bar Council, 2009-2010
Education
- LL.B (Hons) University of Bristol
- BVC - UWE - Very Competent
Lecture Notes
Confederation of South Wales Law Societies 2011 'The Bribery Act 2010'
Notable and Reported Cases
- UG (Nepal) (2012) EWCA Civ 48
This case concerned two issues. Firstly, UG (Christian Howells led by Richard Drabble QC) successfully appealed the Upper Tribunal determination that a gurkha’s adult dependent daughter who applied seven months after her father had settled in the UK was no longer part of the family unit, solely by reference to the seven month separation, especially when the policy pre-supposed that separation.
Secondly, in all three appeals of UG, NT & RM, YP (Christian Howells and Rebecca Stickler led by Richard Drabble QC) the Court of Appeal concluded that the policy set out in the Diplomatic Service Procedures, Entry Clearance, Vol 1, General Instructions para.29.14 was discretionary and it was not the case that entry clearance would be granted simply upon satisfaction of the first, plus one other, of the factors enumerated in the bullet points in that paragraph.
- AR (Nepal) [2011] EWCA Civ 1439, 18th of Ocotber 2011, before Rix LJ, Sullivan LJ and Lewison LJ.
This was an appeal from the decision of DIJ A A Wilson sitting in the Upper Tribunal (IAC) that an appellant could not rely upon the decision of AS (Afghanistan) [2009] EWCA CIV 1076 to raise an additional ground in response to a ‘one-stop notice’, where that additional ground relied on circumstances that arose after the date of decision. The particular additional ground relied upon was that the Appellants had accrued 10 years lawful residence for the purpose of paragraph 276B of the Immigration Rules, a couple of months after the date of the decision that was being appealed against. That post-decision evidence was adduced pursuant to s85(4) of the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002. DIJ A A Wilson placed reliance, in error, on the decision of EA (Section 85(4) explained) Nigeria [2007] UKAIT 00013 at paragraph 7, for the proposition that the Appellant can only succeed by showing that the original application would be successful at the date of the hearing. That was clearly wrong in light of the Court’s decision in AS (Afghanistan).
The Court ordered that the Appellants were to be granted Indefinite Leave to Remain pursuant to paragraph 276B, unless the Respondent raised a legitimate objection to that grant within 28 days. The reason for this was that it seemed that there was only one rational outcome on the application, and to date, the Respondent had not provided any evidence that any of the exclusions applied. The Respondent did not raise an objection and the Appellants have been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain.
- KG (Gurkhas – overage dependants – policy) Nepal [2011] UKUT 00117 (IAC)
An appeal in the Upper Tribunal where the SIJ allowed the appeal under A8 ECHR as the historical wrong caused to Gurkhas and their dependants as a result of the operation of an unlawful policy that applied to those Gurkha veterans who retied before the 1st of July 1997 was relevant to the assessment of proportionality and was likely to outweigh the Home Secretary’s stated aim of effective immigration control.
- CT (Gurkhas: policy) Nepal [2011] UKUT 53 (IAC)
Deputy President of the Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal to the extent the decision of the Respondent was quashed where the Respondent had improperly applied the policy that exists for the adult children of Gurkha veterans.
- R v Aaron Chalmers (2009) EWCA Crim 1814: Archbold Criminal Practice 2012, 5-584, Appendix K
The activation of a suspended sentence of six months in full was successfully reduced to half on appeal to reflect the good progress made by the Appellant on the supervision element, particularly the Enhanced Thinking Skills course. Further, that the Appellant spend 7 weeks in custody prior to the imposition of the suspended sentence on appeal to the Crown Court was relevant.