Rosie practises public and human rights law in its broadest sense, with a particular interest in Court of Protection, health and social care, education and judicial review work. She is a robust and thorough advocate, meticulous in preparation.
Rosie graduated at the top of her year from Magdalen College, Oxford in Ancient and Modern History. She then converted to law, with a “Distinction” on the GDL and “Outstanding” on the BPTC from City Law School.
Since commencing practice in September 2016, Rosie has appeared as sole counsel in the High Court, Court of Protection, County Courts, Crown and Magistrates’ Courts, and before the First-Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), Mental Health Tribunals and Planning Inspectorate for England (PINS) Inspectors.
Areas of expertise
Court of Protection - Welfare
Rosie is a skilled and experienced Court of Protection advocate, with a thorough and careful approach. She has an extensive health and welfare practice appearing for the full range of clients, including “P”, local authorities, health bodies, private providers, and P’s family and friends. She has acted and advised on the gamut of health and welfare issues (residence and care, community access, contact, hoarding, sexual relations, education, telephone and internet usage).
Rosie’s creative, flexible negotiation skills have contributed to practical solutions acceptable to all parties, and her efficient chairing of round-table meetings facilitates progress on the thorniest of problems.
Cases of note:
- SE (2020-2022) - Rosie appeared on behalf of an ICB in 12 hearings across two years in a lengthy matter centred on a young person with autism and learning disability. Issues included P’s care during the Covid-19 lockdowns, residence (eventually resulting in a successful transition to a new property), diet and weight, the sustainability of the care package, and contact with family members.
With Rosie’s representation, the ICB succeeded on its applications for P to have his main and booster Covid-19 vaccinations and in relation to other strenuously contested health issues for P.
She also successfully advised and represented the ICB in its fact-finding application, arising from allegations of a family member’s inappropriate sexual conduct and repeated breaches of court orders.
On her final appearance for the ICB, the judge thanked Rosie for her “helpful submissions and advice and absolutely professional behaviour in the course of these proceedings”.
- TM (2022) - Acting for P through the Official Solicitor, as Litigation Friend, Rosie persuaded the judge to authorise in principle a trial of residence and care at home as being in P’s best interests, contrary to the local authority’s case.
Rosie’s cross-examination of the local authority’s social worker on whether residence at home had been properly considered was sufficiently effective for the judge to halt the evidence part-heard. The judge determined that she did not need further oral evidence from the social worker or P’s family: she was satisfied that she could not make the best interests decisions sought by the local authority and required the parties to consider practical arrangements for a trial at home.
- NT (2022) - On behalf of the CCG, Rosie assisted the court to conclude that a highly vulnerable P, with multiple interlocking diagnoses, should remain subject to a highly restrictive residential regime to manage those diagnoses and facilitate work seeking to address them and reduce restrictions, rather than live with a family member who did not accept that P had the relevant conditions.
- CW v (1) NW (by her LF, the OS) (2) G CCG (3) G County Council (2021) (unreported) - HHJ Tindal was persuaded by Rosie, acting for the CCG, to find that it was in P’s best interests to remain at a highly specialised care home and not return to her mother’s care (which was the case of the Official Solicitor and P’s mother). The judge adopted passages from her position statement for the CCG in his final judgment, in relation to the progress made by P, the benefits she enjoyed at the home, and the analysis of what was in P’s best interests.
- MT (2021) - Rosie represented P through the Official Solicitor, ensuring that P remained at home in the final months of her life with appropriate care and a nuanced and detailed contact schedule to facilitate contact with each of her adult children in the face of poor relationships between the children. The judge commented that she had been assisted by the Official Solicitor’s robust and careful presentation of the case.
- NN (2021-2022) - In a long-running and complex matter, Rosie has represented P in challenging the public bodies’ failures to investigate fully or consider a return home for P, or to evidence sufficiently assertions that P could not manage at home. Rosie’s robust presentation of the failings in the public bodies’ analysis persuaded the judge to refuse their applications to tackle P’s alleged hoarding, attend all P’s medical appointments with her and open her correspondence.
- Schedule A1 challenges - Rosie has acted in numerous s.21A challenges, assisting P to move to a more suitable residential placement, to return home on a permanent or trial basis, or to have a richer and improved care package at their current suitable placement.
During round-table meetings she has negotiated enhanced care packages and support for individuals in care homes, including greater community access, more appropriate and interesting activities tailored to P’s interests, greater one-to-one support, improved family visiting conditions, and assisted families with understanding and engaging in the decision-making and litigation process.
- Rosie has effectively assisted local authorities to make urgent applications to move P into residential care from the community, which then continue as s.21A challenges.
Court of Protection - Property and Affairs
Rosie also advises and acts on Property & Affairs matters, including issues arising from making and revoking Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) and Deputyships.
Rosie advised and acted for the local authority, already deputy for P, in an application to appoint two trustees under TOLATA 1996 to enable the sale of P’s property, held in common with the elder of P’s two estranged daughters. Rosie identified and sensitively addressed the concerns of P’s younger daughter about how P’s right to her share of the proceeds would be protected during and after the property’s sale, bringing about agreement and resolution to a long-standing impasse between the daughters and local authority.
Appearing on behalf of a local authority, Rosie succeeded in obtaining a Deputyship order to manage P’s property, and defeated P’s son’s application, where P no longer had any relationship with her son and in the context of long-standing concerns of financial abuse.
Rosie has advised a local authority acting as Deputy for P in relation to rectifying a Land Registry entry for a property fraudulently transferred out of P’s name by a relative.
Medical Treatment Cases
Rosie has appeared in the Court of Protection and the High Court in relation to medical treatment cases for adults and children, on behalf of family members, local authorities, health bodies and P.
Cases of note:
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust v M and F and Z (A child, by his Guardian)  EWHC 2613 (Fam) - Rosie appeared on behalf of Z’s mother before Mr Justice Peel, opposing the Trust’s application to place a ceiling on the treatment that would be given to Z in the event of further deterioration in his chronic condition.
The judge granted the application, but praised the compromise treatment framework developed and advanced by Rosie on Z’s mother’s behalf as “well-intentioned and thoughtful”. During her cross-examination of the highly-experienced independent expert and two treating clinicians, she extracted concessions as to the chances of success of further invasive treatment and clinicians’ inability to predict with certainty how much longer Z would live following further treatment.
The judge also acknowledged that “I am grateful to counsel for their focussed and helpful written and oral submissions. I particularly acknowledge the assistance of those who act pro bono on behalf of the parents, Ms Scott and Ms Kelly”, both of 39 Essex Chambers (paragraph 18).
- Isle of Wight Council v (1) JH (by his Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) (2) JHA (unreported, July 2021) - Rosie appeared on behalf of P in support of the local authority’s successful application that he receive his Covid-19 vaccines. Rosie advised the Official Solicitor in relation to appropriate evidence and drafted a thorough position statement addressing the mother’s multiple concerns about the vaccine and the legal framework, which was heavily relied upon in the judge’s judgment.
- Covid-19 vaccination cases (2021-22) - Rosie has successfully acted for the applicant in four separate vaccination applications, seeking declarations that it is in P’s best interests to have the vaccine. She is very familiar with the growing body of case law on vaccines, and with issues arising from developing appropriate and sensitive care plans for vaccination and contingency scenarios.
Administrative and Public
Rosie has a broad and growing public and administrative law practice, ranging across local government, education, community care and mental health, immigration and rights of way.
She has advised local authorities and individuals on challenges to care packages under the Care Act 2014 in a variety of situations.
Rosie’s written advocacy has assisted local authorities in successfully defeating premature challenges to care packages under review at the permission stage, and assisted individual claims at the pre-action stage to persuade local authorities to remake decisions to reduce care packages.
Rosie has also successfully applied for urgent interim relief for homeless children under the Children Act 1989, where the local authority had wrongly failed to consider them and their mother to have a “priority need” for accommodation.
Rosie’s experience of mental health work includes representing applicant patients and respondent hospital trusts before Mental Health Tribunal at appeals against detention under s.2 and s.3 MHA 1983. Rosie recently assisted a First Tier Mental Health Tribunal panel with a “very skilfully drafted” skeleton argument on the impact of Secretary of State for Justice v MM  EWCA CIV 194 on a Mental Health Tribunal’s power to conditionally discharge a patient under s.73 MHA 1983. She has also advised on the potential for damages following the High Court’s decision Devon Partnership NHS Trust v SSHSC  EWHC 101 (Admin) on the interpretation of ss.11 and 12 MHA 1983.
Cases of note:
- East Bergholt Parish Council v Babergh District Council & Ors  EWHC 3400 (Admin) - Rosie appeared successfully with Richard Wald KC on behalf of an Interested Party in the judicial review of a grant of planning permission. The challenge involved complex issues relating to the calculation of 5YHLS, the proper interpretation of the St Modwen test and its practical application to identifying “deliverable sites”, and whether challenging the 5YHLS calculations amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the Annual Monitoring Report.
Rosie has conducted numerous hearings before the First-Tier Tribunal in relation to s.51 CFA 2014 appeals regarding Education Health and Care Plans for children and young people with Special Educational Needs, including National Trial cases involving health and social care needs and provision for the child.
She has considerable experience in both working with and cross-examining Educational Psychologists, Speech and Language Therapists, Occupational Therapists, and teaching staff.
Rosie is a skilled negotiator on the Working Document, and has frequently been able to reduce the number of issues considerably through clear, firm and sensitive explanations and discussions with professionals and parents.
Rosie is instructed on a regular basis by local education authorities to draft statements of case and consent orders, advise in the run-up to Tribunal hearings and conduct conferences with clients and education providers.
Cases of note:
- VS and RS v Hampshire County Council and National Autistic Society  UKUT 187 (AAC) - Rosie assisted Steve Broach pro bono to prepare and appear on behalf of the National Autistic Society, before the Upper Tribunal, examining the operation and effect of the First Tier Tribunal’s powers to make recommendations in relation to EHCPs’ health and social care sections. The NAS was concerned to highlight the relative deficiencies of the Tribunal’s powers in relation to the health and social care sections of EHCPs, compared with the education aspects.
In its judgment the Upper Tribunal provides important new guidance on the appropriate approach to recommendations and the need for specification of health and social care recommendations under the National Trial.
The Judge also noted the difficulties identified by the NAS on obtaining social care evidence from local authorities and in ensuring appropriate argument before the First Tier Tribunal, and directed that his judgment should be sent to the Deparment for Education so that it could be considered ahead of the evaluation of the National Trial.
- RL (unreported, June 2022) - Rosie appeared on behalf of the local authority in relation to a long-running and highly-complex matter involving a boy with significant and undiagnosed mental health and cognitive issues. Her collaborative approach to discussing and refining the working document with R’s mother and professionals enabled the parties to agree on the vast majority of issues, and to focus on the key areas of disagreement. The tribunal praised her flexible and consensus-focused attitude in the hearing.