Megan Smith
Megan Smith
Solicitor
“Quite simply, Meg is one of the most talented public law solicitors I work with. She is not only highly intelligent, tenacious, and extremely hard working, but on a personal level she is a pleasure to work with and displays great empathy and kindness towards her clients. She often goes above and beyond in ensuring that no stone is left uncovered in pursuit of a positive outcome.”
Barrister
"Megan's kindness, dedication, and tireless efforts in handling my children’s ARAP case have brought immense relief to my entire family… Her work has made a lasting and profound impact on our lives, for which we are forever grateful."
Client
Background
Megan is a solicitor in Ahmed Aydeed’s team, specialising in judicial reviews and strategic litigation. Her work focuses on both securing remedies for individuals and achieving wide-reaching changes in law and policy. She has many years of experience supporting individuals, NGOs and campaigners with complex public law challenges, particularly against the Home Office, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Defence, and local authorities.
Megan has particular expertise in migrants’ rights and the provision of support and accommodation to asylum-seekers. In April 2025, she gave expert evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee as part of its inquiry into the asylum accommodation estate. She also has a particular interest in holding the UK government accountable for its foreign policy decisions and actions overseas.
Megan was a finalist in the Public Law Category of the Legal Aid Lawyers of the Year Awards in 2026. She is also a supervisor for the firms’ PAP Project which helps NGOs to challenge government decisions.
Before joining DPG, Megan trained and qualified as a solicitor in the Public Law and Policy team at an international law firm. Prior to joining DPG, Megan also worked at the Good Law Practice and led REDRESS’ legal and policy work on the UK’s human rights sanctions regime.
Expertise
Megan helps individuals to challenge decisions that violate their rights and seek redress. She has experience in complex judicial review litigation, acting for individuals in exceptionally vulnerable situations, including those who are seeking asylum in the UK, survivors of trafficking, modern slavery, torture and other ill-treatment, unaccompanied minors, children in care, and individuals with disabilities.
In recent years, Megan has also represented former high-ranking officials in the Afghan intelligence and security forces who face serious threats from the Taliban as a result of their work with the UK government. She has secured the reversal of the government’s refusals to relocate such individuals to the UK, and successfully challenged delays in the government’s decision-making.
Sample Cases
R (Freedom from Torture and the Helen Bamber Foundation) v SSHD [2026] EWHC 1278 (Admin): a strategic challenge to the Home Office’s change in policy which removed longstanding protections for their clients and other survivors of torture, including the presumption that they should be accommodated in single rooms and excluded from ex-military sites/vessels. Our clients were successful on all grounds, with the Court finding that the Home Office was under a duty to consult them before making fundamental policy changes that impacted their clients. As a result, the Home Office’s Allocation of Asylum Accommodation policy has been amended, restoring vital protections for both survivors of torture and individuals with serious mental health concerns. See reports here and here.
R (Solomon & Others) v SSHD: strategic litigation challenging the Home Office's policy of terminating asylum support 28 days after a grant of leave. The claim argued that the policy left many newly recognised refugees at imminent risk of street homelessness before they were able to access mainstream benefits and housing support. The proceedings resulted in significant concessions from the Home Office, including changes to policy and operational guidance and, ultimately, the extension of the refugee "move-on" period from 28 to 42 days, providing newly recognised refugees with additional time to secure accommodation and financial support following a grant of status. See reports here and here, and the High Court Order here.
R (X1-X4) v SSFCDA: a challenge to the FCDO’s unlawful refusal of our client’s application under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) to relocate his family, who were in immense danger due to this work with the UK government in Afghanistan. The government proposed to evict his children from secure accommodation in Pakistan, exposing them to the risk of deportation to Afghanistan. The litigation resulted in the safe relocation of the family to the UK.
R (MYM) v SSFCDA and SSD: a further successful challenge to the FCDO and Ministry of Defence’s significant delay in progressing our client’s ARAP application to relocate his family to the UK from Afghanistan where they were in hiding from the Taliban.
R (CLI) v SSHD: a challenge against the Home Office’s failure to provide safe and secure accommodation pursuant to section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to a survivor of trafficking and serious violence, and to comply with its duties under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Our client was relocated, and the Home Office accepted that accommodation provided under section 4(2) must be adequate for an individual’s needs.
R (BKG) v SSHD: a successful challenge to the Home Office’s failure to provide our client and her young daughter, who had serious, life-threatening health concerns, accommodation near to the hospital providing essential urgent care.
R (ANL) and ors v SSHD: a successful challenge to the Home Office’s failure to provide subsistence support to newly arrived asylum seekers leaving them without sufficient food and clothing for days in winter.
R (MME) v SSHD: a successful judicial review challenge in which interim relief was granted securing our client’s urgent release from immigration detention.