Mary Glass

HA v SSHD [2017] EWHC 117 Admin
Mary successfully represented the SSHD in a claim for unlawful detention

HN & SA (Afghanistan) (Lead Cases Associated Non-Lead Cases), R (on the application of) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 12
Mary Glass appeared as Junior Counsel to the Secretary of State before the Court of Appeal concerning the safety of returns to Afghanistan.

Naizir and others v SSHD [2015] UKUT 00437
Mary successfully represented the SSHD in this important judicial review on conditions in Afghanistan before the President of the Upper Tribunal and Judge Allen.

Islam v SSHD [2015] EWCA Civ 312
Mary appeared successfully in the Court of Appeal for the SSHD in a appeal concerning the Article 8 Rules and the SSHD’s policy on removal decisions.

Mohammed R (on the application of) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 1405 (Admin).
Mary successfully represented the SSHD in a judicial review of a so called ‘legacy decision’.

Jones v Jones (Queen’s Proctor intervening) [2013] (unreported)
Mary was instructed on behalf of the Queen’s Proctor acting under the directions of the Attorney-General in a case to set aside an illegally obtained divorce, in circumstances where the Court had been misled.

R (on the application of Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 1294(Admin)
The Administrative Court held that Secretary of State had been entitled to refuse the claimant’s application for British citizenship on the ground that he was not of good character based on a conviction for using a mobile phone while driving. The claimant had also failed in its duty of candour in respect of disclosing a second conviction for the same offence.

R (on the application of Wankuama) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 3526 (Admin)
Mary was led by Lisa Giovannetti QC in this early judicial review to the SSHD’s new Article 8 Immigration Rules (HC 194). The Court declined to make a declaration about the process by which the Tribunal should approach article 8 in light of the HC 194. The new Immigration Rules had not changed the statutory structure of asylum appeals. Appeals could be brought on human rights grounds as well as grounds relying on the Immigration Rules, and the tribunal was bound to determine any matter raised as a ground of appeal.

R (On the application of K) v Entry Clearance Officer, Tashkent [2012] EWHC 2875 (Admin)
The Administrative Court would not hear the judicial review challenge of a national of Uzbekistan after the decision to be reviewed, namely the refusal of entry to the United Kingdom for her and her young child, had already been withdrawn, and the case had thereby become purely academic.

Sher Afzal v SSHD (2012) EWHC 1487
Mary successfully represented the Secretary of State in a judicial review concerning the exercise of discretion for leave outside the Immigration Rules and the duty under section 55 Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 in a non family life context.

• Educated at St Paul’s Girls’ School and Westminster School
• University of Newcastle LLB upper second class honours
• The London School of Economic Human Rights Centre Certificates in International Human Rights Law and Practice; and the Law, War and Human Rights

ILPA; HRLA; ALBA

Mary Glass has carried out voluntary work at BID (Bail for Immigration Detainees) and the British Red Cross.