Jasvir Jutla & Co Solicitors - Human Rights
Jasvir Jutla & Co was established just under 30 years ago as a niche progressive practice in the field of human rights, immigration and nationality law.
Over the course of those years, a reputation has been built for delivering a quality service with emphasis on client care.
The firm’s groundbreaking work has been recognised at national level by the Law Society in their Excellence Awards:
In 2013 the firm received a Highly Commended award for Pro Bono work.
In 2014 the principal, Jasvir Jutla was finalist for the National UK Solicitor of the Year – Private Practice award.
In an inherently progressive outlook, the firm have sought to achieve change by pursuing cases of significant public interest to shape nationality, immigration and human rights law. They pride theirselves on their record of pioneering and cutting edge work.
Over the years several dozen cases handled by this practice have been deemed significant and are now leading High Court and Court of Appeal authorities featured in the Law Reports of England and Wales.
The firm’s significant work has, on occasion, led the government to amend primary legislation to correct objectionable laws. Not least is the ground breaking work in reversing the controversial Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 and Special Quota Voucher scheme removing the rights of those British passport holders with no ancestral connection to the UK. The government corrected what was deemed a ‘historical wrong’ by revoking the earlier legislation and amending the Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 effectively, allowing 50,000 plus British Overseas Citizens and British Protected Persons UK entry through a registration scheme. Further pioneering challenges were also successful in seeking entry for ‘over age’ children of potential voucher applicants with a legitimate expectation of entry.
This firm has always shown a tenacity representing the vulnerable and under privileged. Many court challenges have been undertaken pro bono for those without means in issues of wider public importance.
The most celebrated is the landmark case of GS (Article 3: Health Cases: India) handled, in part, on a pro bono basis. The Secretary of State had refused to grant leave where to remove, would result in the Appellant’s death owing to critical health reasons. The issue became of particular public significance as all health cases awaited the view of the judiciary. The President Mr Justice Blake indicated the matter must go all the way and may involve a possible revision of the Article 3 ECHR position. The matter was considered by the Court of Appeal as well as the Supreme Court where the appeals were rejected. In a mark of true tenacity as all health cases rested on the decision, the matter was referred to the European Court. The hope was that if ultimately successful, it would redefine the law as it relates to Article 3 ECHR health cases given the prohibitive threshold for invoking the article.
In establishing fundamental principles, the firm also championed the cause of homeless and destitute foreign nationals seeking local authority assistance, but penalised by their immigration status. In Regina v Leicester City Council Ex Parte Bhikha the firm’s client was refused assistance from his local authority on the basis he was deemed an over stayer. In a landmark judgement Lord Justice Simon Brown of the Court of Appeal, agreed where circumstances of need arose over and above needs arising from lack of accommodation and funds, illegality was no bar to assistance. That status was a matter to be assessed by the Secretary of State, and not by local authorities. The judgement has been of widespread implication and assisted countless cases of destitution.