Background
Sasha joined Deighton Pierce Glynn in 2008 and qualified as a solicitor in 2012. She has been a partner since 2020 and is Head of the Migrant Rights Department. Prior to joining Deighton Pierce Glynn she worked at a law centre, the Citizens Advice Bureau and a refugee mental health advice centre.
Expertise
Sasha specialises in public law and human rights. She is expert in migrants’ rights, women’s rights, consultations, procurements, discrimination and equality law. Sasha has conducted many high-profile judicial review test cases, covering a wide range of subject areas.
Sasha has been described in the Chambers Directory as “a power house … very bright and dedicated – she goes far beyond the call of duty to support her clients. Sasha goes out of her way to make sure clients fully understand every step of the process and is always on hand to explain issues”.
Notable Cases
Women’s rights
Forcing local authorities to rethink strip club licensing decisions. R (CDE) v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council [2023] EWHC 14 (Admin) – The council adopted a policy of permitting an unlimited number of licences to strip clubs to be granted. Many women objected to this proposal because they were concerned about the impact strip clubs have on attitudes towards, and the treatment by men of, women and girls by contributing towards a culture in which women and girls are objectified, commodified, exploited, harassed, discriminated against and subject to sex-based violence. The council treated these sex equality-based concerns as “moral concerns” and ignored them. The decision was quashed for failing to carry out a lawful consultation and failing to comply with the public sector equality duty.
Successfully challenging the National Police Chief’s Council Sex Work Guidance. The NPCC amended the Guidance to remove reference to Sex Work not being a form of violence against women and to consult with organisations who support women to exit the sex trade on the Guidance.
Challenging the Home Secretary’s failure to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty when deciding policy on women and girls exploited in the sex trade.
Overturning the Home Office’s refusal to make additional weekly payments to pregnant women living in hotels. R (HA and Others) v SSHD [2023] EWHC 1876 (Admin) – The Home Office had acted unlawfully in withholding additional weekly payments to pregnant women and young children living in Home Office hotels. This claim resulted thousands of pregnant women and mothers receiving the payments.
Successfully challenging the Home Office’s failure to increase additional weekly payments to pregnant women and young children for over 20 years.
Partnering with Women’s Aid to provide advice and assistance to its member organisations on procurement and funding decisions which negatively impact their specialist services, who provide support to women and children experiencing domestic abuse.
Migrants’ rights
Preventing the Home Office from removing trafficking victims to Rwanda.
Ensuring a large local authority made subsistence payments under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to all the families it supported who have no recourse to public funds, for all members of the family, and at no less than asylum support rates.
Forcing the Home Office to introduce policies to protect people experiencing abuse in shared asylum support accommodation. R (XN) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 2117 (Admin) – The Home Office agreed to amend its policy and pay the victim damages.
Prohibiting the Home Office from evicting thousands of people from asylum support accommodation during the pandemic. R (KMI) v SSHD [2021] EWHC 477 – The Court also created a bespoke streamline procedure for interim relief for destitute people who had appealed the Home Office’s refusal to provide them with s.4 accommodation.
Obtaining declarations from the High Court that the Home Office breached equality laws for failing to have a lawful system to accommodate disabled people seeking asylum. R (DMA) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 3416 (Admin) – This test case established a duty to monitor the data of people with a protected characteristic, so that a public body can know their needs and meet them. The High Court also found a breach of duty to make reasonable adjustments and unlawful discrimination under sections 15 and 29(6) of the Equality Act 2010.
Getting a London local authority to amend its leaving care policies to confirm that 25 year old care leavers may still be eligible for support if they have education needs.
Ensuring the Home Office amended the Immigration Bail policy to make clear that destitute people should not be refused Schedule 10 accommodation just because they do not have a residence bail condition when they apply for support.
Test case at the Court of Appeal on the application of Article 20 on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision in Zambrano on eligibility for housing and social welfare. Pryce v LB Southwark.
RELATED NEWS
