Administrative, Constitutional & Public

3 Hare Court has a long-standing reputation for excellence in public law, constitutional and administrative litigation, both in the UK and internationally. Our members act for claimants, central and local government, regulators, public authorities, and NGOs in some of the most high-profile and complex cases before the courts.

Several of our barristers are appointed to the Attorney General’s Panels of Counsel and serve as panel counsel for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, reflecting our trusted standing in advising and representing the State in sensitive matters of public importance.

Our practice spans the full range of public and administrative law. Members regularly appear in judicial review claims in the High Court and Upper Tribunal, and in appeals to the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and the European Court of Human Rights.

Our work encompasses challenges to the exercise of executive power, immigration and asylum, electoral law, regulatory matters, and investigations into the State’s obligations under the ECHR.Chambers also has a multi-jurisdictional and constitutional practice, with members appearing frequently in the courts of Commonwealth jurisdictions subject to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Many of these cases raise fundamental issues of constitutional law and human rights, often with wider implications across the common law world. Members also advise and act in matters of public international law, reflecting Chambers’ genuinely international profile

Members are highly recognised by The Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners 2026 UK Bar Guides for their expertise and market recognition in Administrative, Constitutional & Public Law:

Thomas Roe KC – Leading Silk for Administrative Law and Human Rights and Civil Liberties & Human Rights
Robert Strang – Leading Junior for Administrative Law and Human Rights
Adam Riley – Rising Star for Administrative Law and Human Rights

Details of cases in which our members have acted, or are acting, are set out in each barrister’s profile. Notable cases include:

National Bank of Anguilla (Private Banking and Trust) Ltd & Anor v Chief Minister of Anguilla & Ors (Anguilla) (2025) UKPC 14

Should leave to apply for judicial review have been (and should now be) granted? The issues on appeal include:

1. The correct approach to be applied on an appeal from a judge’s refusal to grant leave to apply for judicial review.

2. Whether the Appellants have a sufficiently arguable case for leave to apply for judicial review to be granted.

3. Whether the judge’s refusal to grant leave exceeded the ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible.

4. Whether there is a relevant decision that the Chief Minister of Anguilla (the First Respondent) or the Executive Council of Anguilla could properly have made which would be the subject of the judicial review. Read the full case details here.

Maharaj v The Cabinet of The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago & Anor No 2 (Trinidad and Tobago) (2024) UKPC 41

Is section 75(a) of the Police Service Act 2006 unconstitutional in so far as it is inconsistent with the separation of powers and section 123 of the Constitution? Did the President of Trinidad and Tobago exercise their discretion unlawfully under section 75 of the Police Service Act 2006 in acting on the advice of the Cabinet in deciding whether to extend the years of service of the Commissioner? Read the full case details here.

The Special Tribunal v The Estate Police Association (Trinidad and Tobago) (2024) UKPC 13

1. Whether the Special Tribunal is a superior court of record.2. Whether decisions of the Special Tribunal are amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court; and, if so, on what grounds and in what circumstances they may be reviewed.3. Whether, if the decision of the Special Tribunal in the present case was reviewable, it was a lawful decision; and, if not, whether it ought to be set aside. Read the full case details here.

Mussington & Anor v Development Control Authority and others (Antigua and Barbuda) (2024) UKPC 3

Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Appellants did not have standing to pursue judicial review proceedings against a decision to grant a development permit for the construction of a new airport runway. Read the full case details here.

Henry & Anor v Attorney General of St Lucia (Saint Lucia) (2023) UKPC 41

Did the Court of Appeal err in its assessment of the alleged breaches of the Appellants’ constitutional rights? Read the full case details here.

Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Vijay Maharaj Substituted on behalf of the Estate of Satnarayan Maharaj for Satnarayan Maharaj & Anor (Trinidad and Tobago) (2023) UKPC 36

Whether the law of sedition in Trinidad and Tobago imposes disproportionate and unjustified restrictions on, inter alia, free speech, including freedom of thought and expression and the freedom to express political views, so as to render it unconstitutional – what amounts to “an existing law” in the general savings clause in s.6(1) of
the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. Read the full case details here.

Charles v Attorney General of the Bahamas & Ors (Bahamas) (2022) UKPC 51

Was the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that the Judge should not have determined a constitutional application under Article 28 of the Constitution of The Bahamas (providing for the enforcement of fundamental rights) in all of the circumstances? Read the full case details here..

Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Charles (Trinidad and Tobago) (2022) UKPC 49

(1) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to overturn the High Court Judge’s
decision on the basis that the case against the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (“JLSC”) had not been articulated in the appellant’s pleadings and evidence?

(2) Was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that there was no breach of the appellant’s constitutional right to the protection of the law? Read the full case details here.

Suraj & Ors v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) (2022) UKPC 26

Whether restrictions brought in by the Public Health [2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)] Regulations, 2020 are constitutional? Read the full case details here..

Boodram v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Trinidad and Tobago) (2022) UKPC 20

What is the nature of the exercise engaging the Court when it is asked to grant relief under section 14 of the Constitution in a case such as the present?

In light of previous decisions of the Judicial Committee, including Pratt & Morgan, is it open to a Court exercising its power to grant relief under section 14 of the Constitution to substitute a sentence other than life imprisonment when commuting a death sentence?

If it is, in what circumstances, and how, should the Court exercise the power to impose some other sentence?

Subject to the above, would it be appropriate for a Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 14 of the Constitution, to substitute a sentence other than life imprisonment when commuting a death sentence in a case such as the present? Read the full case details here..

Chandler v The State (No 2) (Trinidad and Tobago) (2022) UKPC 19

Is the mandatory death sentence in Trinidad and Tobago, pursuant to section 4 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1925, unconstitutional? Read the full case details here.