Contact clerking team

Download Jenni's CV

Choose the Expertise to be included in the CV download:

Select all

Add to shortlist

Choose the Expertise to be included in the shortlist profile:

Select All

Privacy notice

Jenni Richards KC

"She is absolutely outstanding in all aspects of her career. Her ability to get on top of huge amounts of complex material in pressured circumstances is quite incredible. Her legal analysis and judgement are second to none, and her advocacy is outstanding." The Legal 500, 2022

Jenni has an extensive public law, human rights and regulatory practice acting for claimants, defendants and interested parties in all areas affected by public law and public decision-making. Her expertise is wide-ranging and includes healthcare, local government, civil liberties, equalities, professional and financial regulation, community care and mental health, education, welfare benefits and prison law. She appears before courts of all levels, in particular the Administrative Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. She often advises public bodies (including local authorities, NHS bodies and regulators) on a broad range of issues relating to their powers, responsibilities and duties. Jenni is Counsel to the Infected Blood Inquiry, in which role she has been responsible for questioning government ministers, senior civil servants, clinicians and academics about aspects of political, governmental, clinical and ethical decision-making from the 1970s to the present day. Jenni is also an experienced mediator, with a particular focus on the mediation of judicial review claims and Court of Protection disputes.

PL Silk of the year 2023

Areas of expertise

Administrative and Public

“High quality written work, but the magic is done on her feet. An excellent orator – persuasive and clearly has the ear and respect of the court.” (The Legal 500, 2022)

Jenni acts for claimants, public bodies and public interest groups across a wide range of areas, including all aspects of healthcare and community care, mental health, regulation, local and central government, education, prisons and welfare benefits. She is often involved in advising public bodies, including NHS bodies, local authorities and regulators, as to the scope and meaning of their powers and duties.

Cases of note:

  • R (Timson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] EWHC 2393 (Admin) - Judicial review claim concerning the legality of the scheme for making involuntary deductions from welfare benefits to pay fuel and water debts
    Judgment
  • R (Article 39) v Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWCA Civ 1757 - Challenge to regulations introduced in response to the pandemic and which had the effect of removing or weakening safeguards for vulnerable children
    Judgment
  • Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Johnson [2022] EWCA Civ 778 - Challenge to the operation of the Universal Credit Scheme, successful on grounds of irrationality
    Judgment - check
  • R (Hutchinson) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2018] EWHC 1698 - Case concerning the powers of the Secretary of State and NHS England to introduce a new model for the provision of health and social care in England
    Judgment
  • R (Miller) v Health Service Commissioner for England [2018] EWCA Civ 144 - Judicial review concerning the requirements of procedural fairness in the course of the ombudsman’s investigation into complaints against doctors
    Judgment
  • R (Justice for Health Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health [2016] EWHC 2338 - Junior doctors’ contract:  challenge to the decision-making of the Secretary of State
    Judgment

Civil Liberties and Human Rights

Much of Jenni’s work is focused on the Human Rights Act, both as it affects individuals and as it public bodies. Her cases have included consideration of the application of Article 1 of the First Protocol in the welfare benefits context, the interpretation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act so as to give effect to Article 8 rights; and the extent of application of the manifestly without reasonable foundation test with respect to Article 14 and special educational needs funding. She has appeared in the leading cases regarding the procedural and substantive obligations imposed by Article 2 in the healthcare context, namely Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust.

Cases of note:

  • Jennings v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2022] EWHC 1619 (Fam) - Case concerning the lawfulness of the posthumous storage of embryos; interpretation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act by reference to Article 8
    Judgment
  • R (Drexler) v Leicestershire County Council [2020] EWCA Civ 502 - Case concerning a new school transport policy for children with special educational needs and whether it breached Article 14
    Judgment
  • Simone v Chancellor of the Exchequer [2019] EWHC 2609 (Admin) - Challenge to the ongoing failure to allocate sufficient resources for the provision of special educational needs, raising arguments about the public sector equality duty and Article 14, read with Article 2 of the First Protocol
    Judgment- no link 
  • R (AR) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2018] UKSC 47 - Case challenging on Article 8 grounds the inclusion of information regarding allegations of rape and acquittal in an enhanced criminal record certificate 
    Judgment
  • R (Dennehy) v Secretary of State for Justice and Sodexo Ltd [2016] EWHC 1219 - Whether the segregation of a prisoner serving a whole life sentence amounted to a breach of Article 3
    Judgment
  • Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 19 - Leading Supreme Court decision on the scope and application of the operational obligation under Article 2, and in particular whether it was owed to a voluntary mental health patient
    Judgment
  • Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWHC 865 (QB) - Whether there had been a breach of Article 2 arising out of the suicide of a patient.
    Judgment

Inquests and Inquiries

“Her work on the Infected Blood Inquiry is absolutely awe-inspiring” (Chambers and Partners, 2022)

Jenni is Counsel to the Infected Blood Inquiry, which since 2018 has been examining the circumstances in which thousands of individuals were infected with HIV/hepatitis through blood and blood products. In this role she has questioned government ministers (past and present), civil servants, leading clinicians and expert witnesses across a range of fields.  It has also been her responsibility to help those infected and affected to tell their stories. 

She represented the Yorkshire Ambulance Service in the inquest into the deaths of spectators at the Hillsborough Stadium disaster from 2014-2016, and the North West Ambulance Service in the early stages of the Manchester Arena Bombing Public Inquiry.

Jenni has conducted a standards investigation into the conduct of a councillor and council leader, and has advised local authorities on the conduct of standards investigations.

Regulatory and Disciplinary

“Jenni is an outstanding lawyer and advocate. She makes complex legal issues seem simple. She comes up with creative ways to pursue cases.” (The Legal 500, 2022)

Jenni’s regulatory and disciplinary work covers a wide range of areas, including financial services, but with a particular emphasis on the regulation of healthcare professionals by the GMC, HCPC and others, the regulation of fertility services by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the regulation of hospitals and care homes and the regulation of teachers. She acts for regulators and for individual professionals facing fitness to practise or disciplinary allegations.

Cases of note:

  • General Medical Council v Bramhall [2021] EWHC 2109 (Admin) - Appeal under s.40A of the Medical Act 1983 challenging the decision of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal to suspend rather than strike off a surgeon who had marked patients’ livers with his initials.
    Judgment
  • Haris v General Medical Council [2021] EWCA Civ 763 - Appeal under s. 40A of the Medical Act 1983 in a case concerning the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s decision that a doctor’s conduct had not been sexually motivated.
    Judgment
  • Sanusi v General Medical Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1172  - Appeal under s40 of the Medical Act regarding the requirements of fairness where the doctor was not present before the tribunal.
    Judgment
  • Bawa-Garba v General Medical Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1879 - Jenni acted for the British Medical Association as an intervenor in this appeal regarding the approach to be taken by the court in section 40A Medical Act appeals.
    Judgment
  • Lovett v Health and Care Professions Council [2018] EWHC 1024 (Admin) - Appeal under the Health and Social Work Professions Order by a clinical psychologist. The case examined issues of fairness in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and the approach to evaluating dishonesty allegations
    Judgment
  • Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council & Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 - Case examined the significance of indicative sanctions guidance and the approach to insight where a professional disciplinary panel had decided to impose a cautions order.
    Judgment - no link

Local Government

“The go-to silk for anything that requires thinking outside the box and imaginative legal argument” (The Legal 500, 2022)

Jenni’s local government practice is wide-ranging. She frequently advises local authorities on a wide range of issues relating to their powers and duties, and regularly acts for and against local authorities. She has, for example, carried out an independent standards investigation into allegations of misconduct on the part of the leader of a county council, advised about commissioning responsibilities in relation to assistance with medication and about obligations under the Care Act, advised about applications under the new burdens doctrine, and represented a local authority in relation to qualifying criteria for exempt accommodation. 

Cases of note:

  • R (British Medical Association) v Northamptonshire County Council [2020] EWHC 1664 (Admin) - Judicial review regarding the compliance of a Local Safeguarding Arrangements Plan with the requirements of the Children Act 2004
    Judgment 
  • R (AA) v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council [2019] EWHC 3529 (Admin) - Challenge to the decision of a local authority to close a day centre for adults with learning difficulties
    Judgment
  • R (RD) v Worcestershire County Council [2019] EWHC 449 (Admin) - Judicial review regarding withdrawal of portage services in breach of parents’ legitimate expectation
    Judgment
  • R (KE) v Bristol City Council [2018] EWHC 2103 (Admin) - Challenge to a local authority’s budget allocation for special educational needs
    Judgment
  • R (Wolverhampton City Council) v South Worcestershire CCG [2018] EWHC 1136 (Admin) - Dispute between a local authority and two clinical commissioning groups as to responsibility for an adult with continuing health care needs
    Judgment- no link
  • R (National Aids Trust) v NHS England (Local Government Association intervening) [2016] EWCA Civ 1100 - Case concerning the public health responsibilities of local authorities and, in particular, whether local authorities or NHS England bears responsibility for commissioning pre-exposure prophylaxis designed to prevent the transmission of HIV.
    Judgment

Healthcare

Jenni has particular expertise in relation to all aspects of healthcare, community care and mental health. She acts for individuals and their families, NHS bodies, private healthcare providers and health regulatory bodies. Her work as Counsel to the Infected Blood Inquiry has involved the detailed exploration of medical ethics in treatment and research and the medical, psychosocial and financial impacts where medical treatment causes harm.

Cases of note:

  • Jennings v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2022] EWHC 1619 (Fam) - Case concerning the lawfulness of the posthumous storage of embryos; interpretation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act by reference to Article 8
    Judgment
  • Re AB [2020] EWHC 692 (Fam) - Application regarding the statutory right of a personal representative to access a deceased patient’s records under the Access to Health Records Act
    Judgment- no link
  • R (KK) v Tavistock & Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 3565 - Judicial review challenge to the NHS Trust’s protocol regarding referral of transgender prisoners for gender reassignment surgery
    Judgment- no link 
  • Welsh Ministers v PJ [2018] UKSC 66  - Mental Health Act case considering whether a responsible clinician could impose conditions on a community treatment order amounting to a deprivation of liberty
    Judgment
  • Tinsley v Manchester City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1704 - Whether a patient entitled to aftercare services under the Mental Health Act is required to fund such services from an award of damages
    Judgment
  • Jefferies v BMI Healthcare [2016] EWHC 2493 (Fam) - Consent to the posthumous storage of embryos under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act
    Judgment
  • R (M) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2016] EWCA Civ 611 - Judicial review of a refusal of the HFEA to issue a special direction for the export of gametes
    Judgment

Inquests

Jenni has considerable expertise in coronial law and extensive experience in difficult and sensitive inquests and inquiries, in particular those in which there is a public component such as the responsibility of the state in relation to the cause of death. She has advised and represented coroners in relation to the conduct of inquests, judicial review claims and applications under section 13 of the Coroners Act.

She has represented local authorities, NHS bodies, central government and families at inquests ranging in subject matter from asbestos exposure to deaths in custody. She has been involved in leading cases concerning the investigative and substantive obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Jenni represented the Yorkshire Ambulance Service at the Hillsborough Inquests.

Cases of note:

  • R (TR) v HM Senior Coroner for West Yorkshire [2017] EWCA Civ 318 - Case concerning the extent of a coroner’s powers to conduct an investigation and inquest into the question of whether a child was still-born or survived her birth and died later 
    Judgment- no link 
  • R (Ferreira) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London [2017] EWCA Civ 31 - Whether a jury inquest was required in relation to the death of an adult in hospital who may have been deprived of her liberty.
    Judgment
  • R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for Shropshire [2009] EWCA Civ 1403 - Power of coroner to allow jury to consider possible as well as probable causative factors
    Judgment

Court of Protection and Medical Treatment

“She is very personable, knowledgeable and has a problem-solving approach” (The Legal 500, 2022)

Jenni is known for her expertise in complex or novel cases in the Court of Protection and under the Mental Capacity Act involving difficult decisions as to capacity, medical treatment and deprivation of liberty.

Cases of note:

  • A Local Authority v P (Sexual Relations and Contraception) [2018] EWCOP 10 - Case involving capacity to consent to sexual relations and covert insertion of a contraceptive device.
    Judgment
  • R (P) v Cheshire West and Chester Council [2014] UKSC 19 - Leading Supreme Court authority of deprivation of liberty
    Judgment
  • IM v LM [2014] EWCA Civ 37 - Assessment of capacity to consent to sexual relations
    Judgment
  • A Local Authority v H [2012] EWCOP 49 - Test for capacity to consent to sexual relations.
    Judgment

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Jenni is an experienced mediator who trained with CEDR. She focuses on judicial review disputes (of all kinds) and Court of Protection cases. She has acted as a mediator in a range of cases involving disputes between individuals and public bodies, including disputes over the provision of services to individuals, as well as disputes between different public bodies as to their respective responsibilities.

 

Recommendations

  • “An extremely compelling advocate and a first rate silk” (Chambers and Partners, 2022)
  • “Her drafting and attention to detail are excellent. On her feet she is able to work quickly and has near encyclopedic knowledge” (Chambers and Partners, 2022)
  • “She can be incredibly compassionate but also ruthless in getting witnesses to discuss facts they don’t want to” (Chambers and Partners, 2022)
  • “Always very pleasant to work with, makes herself available at short notice and is very good with clients.  Extremely clever but makes things accessible to lay people.  She’s also a brilliant advocate.” (Chambers and Partners, 2022)
  • “Extremely steeped in regulatory work and very good” (Chambers and Partners, 2022)
  • “Jenni’s ability to devour huge amounts of information is phenomenal. She gives every case everything she has. She always has the ear of the court and brings a real clarity to the issues in her submissions. Her written work is also cogent and to the point and presented in a way that clients understand and are able to properly consider and digest.” (The Legal 500, 2022)