Kate Gallafent KC

Kate acted for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in a challenge against the ‘100 year rule’ policy whereby records of criminal convictions are retained on the Police National Computer until the convicted person turns or is deemed to turn 100. The challenge was brought by a number of women with historic convictions for soliciting, who argued that the rule was not in accordance with the law and / or disproportionate.  The Divisional Court dismissed the claim. 

Kate is acting for Christie Elan-Cane in a claim challenging the legality of the UK Government’s policy refusing to issue non-gender-specific “X” passports to UK nationals. The Administrative court granted permission for the claim to be brought on the 11th October 2017. The case will now proceed to a full judicial review hearing to determine whether the policy of Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO), which requires an applicant for a UK passport to declare their gender as being either male or female, and allows for a passport to be issued only identifying the bearer as either male or female is irrational, breaches the Article 8 ECHR private life rights of transgendered, intersex, non-gendered and non-binary individuals or constitutes unjustified discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR.

Appeared for Sport England and the other Sport Councils in a challenge to their adoption of a policy for the recognition of sports governing bodies which requires a “sport” to consist of a physical activity and therefore excluded so-called “mind sports” such as bridge and chess.

Appeared for Ofcom in a challenge to their decision not to extend a community radio service licence following breaches of licence conditions, in the absence of an oral hearing.  The case raised the important issue of the appropriateness of the court determining a matter for itself rather than remitting it to the statutory decision-maker for reconsideration following the quashing of a decision. 

Kate was part of a team from Blackstone (including Pushpinder Saini QC, Hanif Mussa and Emily Neill) who represented Ofcom in three connected appeals against their determination in relation to British Telecom’s over-charging of other communications providers in respect of Ethernet services.  The appeals from the CAT will be heard in the Court of Appeal in March 2017.

Acted successfully for the GMC in resisting a challenge to its registration procedures brought by a Turkish national based on the ‘standstill’ provision in the Association Agreement between Turkey and the EU.

Kate acted for both the Secretary of State for Justice and for the Home Office in successfully defending a challenge brougt by a terrorist of great notoriety (who had been sentenced to a term of 45 years' imprisonment for attempting to blow up an Israeli arliner using his partner, then pregnant with his child, as an innocent dupe) to the Parole Board’s decision not to direct his release on the basis that, whilst the risk he posed in England could be managed if released here, it could not be so managed in Jordan to where he was due to return in accordance with the deportation order made against him by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.  The situation had never previously been considered by the Parole Board or the Court.

Kate was instructed together with Lord Pannick QC on behalf of Camelot, the current licensee of the National Lottery, in a challenge to the Gambling Commission’s failure to take appropriate regulatory action in relation to The Health Lottery.  The case concerned the proper construction of the Gambling Act 2005 in relation to “society lotteries” and the Commission’s regulatory role.  

Kate was instructed on behalf of the BBC (led by Monica Carss-Frisk QC) in this important case concerning the circumstances in which the BBC falls within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.  The case went to the House of Lords (the first case to do so under that Act) on the issue of whether the Information Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear Mr Sugar’s appeal against the Information Commissioner’s finding that the BBC did not fall within the scope of the Act.  Having held that it did, the matter was remitted to the High Court on the issue of whether the information requested by Mr Sugar fell within the Act (that is, whether it was held for the purposes of journalism, art and literature).  The High Court allowed the BBC’s appeal on the issue, which decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Appeared for the Secretary of State in Court of Appeal in relation to challenge to the lawfulness of the criminal records disclosure regime following the decision of the Supreme Court in R (T), in which the claimant contended that the scheme remained incompatible with Article 8 ECHR despite legislative amendments following R(T).  The case is now due to go to the Supreme Court.

Acted for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in a challenge to the decision to suspend licenses of three clinics for non-compliance. Concurrent proceedings in the Administrative Court and the Appeal Committee. Issues of construction of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act and Appeal Rules, proportionality. 

Acting for the Gangmasters Licencing Authority in the first claim of its kind brought by trafficked persons alleging that the GLA breached its duty of care towards them and violated Arts 4 (anti-slavery) and Art 8 of the ECHR by granting a licence to a gangmaster, and/or failing to revoke that licence sooner in circumstances where they suffered coercive and abusive behaviour at the hands of the gangmaster in the meantime.

Acting for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in a challenge to changes to the “Choose a Fertility Clinic” feature on its website which are alleged to confuse and mislead patients by focusing on single embryo transfer, brought by a clinic with high multiple embryo transfer and birth rates. 

Kate acts for the Catholic Church and the English Benedictine Congregation in case study into child migration (Feb-July 2017 and Nov-Dec 2017), part of the national inquiry into child sexual abuse. 

Kate acted for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in a challenge against the ‘100 year rule’ policy whereby records of criminal convictions are retained on the Police National Computer until the convicted person turns or is deemed to turn 100. The challenge was brought by a number of women with historic convictions for soliciting, who argued that the rule was not in accordance with the law and / or disproportionate.  The Divisional Court dismissed the claim. 

Kate is acting for Christie Elan-Cane in a claim challenging the legality of the UK Government’s policy refusing to issue non-gender-specific “X” passports to UK nationals. The Administrative court granted permission for the claim to be brought on the 11th October 2017. The case will now proceed to a full judicial review hearing to determine whether the policy of Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO), which requires an applicant for a UK passport to declare their gender as being either male or female, and allows for a passport to be issued only identifying the bearer as either male or female is irrational, breaches the Article 8 ECHR private life rights of transgendered, intersex, non-gendered and non-binary individuals or constitutes unjustified discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR.

Acting for the Gangmasters Licencing Authority in the first claim of its kind brought by trafficked persons alleging that the GLA breached its duty of care towards them and violated Arts 4 (anti-slavery) and Art 8 of the ECHR by granting a licence to a gangmaster, and/or failing to revoke that licence sooner in circumstances where they suffered coercive and abusive behaviour at the hands of the gangmaster in the meantime.

Kate appeared for the Secretaries of State for Justice and the Home Department in the Divisional Court in a challenge to the lawfulness of the criminal records disclosure regime based on the meaning of the requirement that an interference under Article 8 must be “in accordance with the law”.  The Divisional Court’s decision that it requires a mechanism where by the proportionality of the interference may be tested is currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal, together with R (G) v Chief Constable of Surrey & Ors [2016] EWHC 295 (Admin) in which the same issue arose.

Appeared successfully for the Secretary of State in a challenge to the lawfulness of the criminal records disclosure regime following the decision of the Supreme Court in R (T), in which the claimant contended that the scheme remained incompatible with Article 8 despite legislative amendments following R(T) on the grounds of proportionality.

Appeared for the Football Association in an arbitration concerning the issue of whether abusive and discriminatory text messages sent by the Chief Executive of Blackpool FC to a fan had been sent with a legitimate expectation of privacy such that the charge brought against him was in breach of the FA’s policy.  The case raised the issue of the application of the Human Rights Act and European Convention to the FA and the scope of the right to privacy under Article 8.

Appeared on behalf of the Children’s Commissioner as intervenor in an important case concerning the scope of the obligation to have regard to the welfare of the child under s.55 of the Borders Act 2009, which reflects Article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in the context of an asylum and human rights claim in which the child is a dependent.

Acted for the Secretary of State for Justice in a challenge to his decision that it was safe to enter into contracts for the sale of the probation service, on grounds that the decision gave rise to unacceptable risks under Articles 2 and 3 both to probation staff and to the wider public as a result of inadequacies in the new structure and operation of the service.

Appeared successfully for the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority on an application to set aside an interim injunction permitting a hospital to extract gametes from a man in a persistent vegetative state.  The case raised issues as to the scope of the HFEA’s powers in such circumstances and the role of the Official Solicitor.

Appeared for the Secretary of State for Justice in two cases in which prisoners in homosexual partnerships with other male prisoners alleged breaches of their Article 8 rights based on the lack of a policy specific to such prisoners.

Kate appeared successfully for the Secretary of State in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in a challenge brought by a prisoner with learning difficulties who challenged the adequacy of a prison investigation into a sexual assault on him.  The case raised several wide-ranging issues including disability discrimination, the scope of Article 3 of the Convention and the proper interpretation and application of a number of Prison Service Orders.

Kate is instructed for the Gangmaster’s Licensing Authority in proceedings brought by workers who were trafficked and allegedly abused by a gangmaster licensed at that time by it.  The case raises complex issues as to alleged liability of the GLA under Article 4, and the availability of HRA damages in circumstances where civil claims have been brought against the gangmaster itself, as well as the existence of a duty of care by a regulator to the employees of an entity regulated by it.

Appeared for the Secretary of State in Court of Appeal in relation to challenge to the lawfulness of the criminal records disclosure regime following the decision of the Supreme Court in R (T), in which the claimant contended that the scheme remained incompatible with Article 8 ECHR despite legislative amendments following R(T).  The case is now due to go to the Supreme Court.

Kate acts for the Catholic Church and the English Benedictine Congregation in case study into child migration (Feb-July 2017 and Nov-Dec 2017), part of the national inquiry into child sexual abuse. 

Kate is instructed for a law firm in a claim for age discrimination arising out of the decision not to offer the individual partnership.

Kate was instructed for a law firm in a claim for sex, race and maternity discrimination, and equal pay arising out of the decision not to offer the individual partnership.

Kate was instructed for the claimant in an unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim concerning allegations of LIBOR-fixing. 

Kate was instructed for a claimant who had been suspended pending an FCA investigation into FX-fixing. 

Appeared pro bono in the Employment Appeal Tribunal for a claimant in a long-running race discrimination claim that raised issues of the proper approach to permitting amendment where multiple allegations are sought to be raised, and the effect of an application to vary an order made without the parties first having had the opportunity to make representations.

Kate acted successfully for an individual charged with misconduct and/or lack of competence by the Health Care Professionals Council, which charges were held not to be well founded.

Kate was instructed by a solicitor in relation to threatened intervention by the SRA.

Appeared for the GMC on a doctor’s appeal against erasure based on allegations of sexual misconduct and, following its remittal on the grounds of the inadequacy of reasons in the exceptional circumstances of the case, on his application to set aside the interim orders imposed upon his registration pending a further hearing before a panel of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.

Kate is currently instructed for a national governing body in disciplinary proceedings against a coach for alleged poor practice and breaches of safeguarding policies, involving allegations of sexual abuse.

Kate appeared for a school in proceedings concerning the proposed disclosure to another educational establishment of information concerning criminal charges for child abuse which had been brought against a former pupil.

Acted for the Lawn Tennis Association in a case that turned upon the differences between safeguarding legislation in England and Scotland.

Kate was instructed by the Lawn Tennis Association in a substantial and complex case concerning historic allegations of sexual abuse against a coach.

Successfully acted for the FA against Kieran Tripper in relation to charges of misconduct for alleged breaches of the FA’s betting rules. 

An independent Panel of the IAAF Ethics Board partially upheld charges against the President of the UAE Athletics Federation and former World Athletics (previously IAAF) Council member, Ahmad Al Kamali. The Panel imposed a sanction upon Mr Al Kamali of a ban from the sport for 6 months, fined him €5,000 and ordered him to pay €15,000 in costs. Kate acted as prosecutor in the subsequent adjudicatory proceedings before a Panel of the IAAF Ethics Board.

Kate acted for the RFU in relation to the charges brought against 13 players within the Barbarians camp for breaches of the Covid Code of Conduct, as well as charges arising from the players having deliberately mislead the RFU’s investigation into those breaches.  

Successfully represented the FA before an independent Regulatory Commission, which resulted in the suspension of Peter Beardsley from all football and football-related activity for a period of 32 weeks until 29 April 2020. It was held that Mr Beardsley had committed three breaches of FA Rule E3, relating to the use of abusive and/or insulting words and constituted an “Aggravated Breach” under FA Rule E3(2) due to reference of ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race and/or nationality, while employed as a coach of the club’s Under-23s team.

Acted as the prosecutor for the IAAF Ethics Board, which banned the former Athletics Kenya vice president, David Okeyo, from the sport for life, fined him $50,000 and ordered him to pay $100,000 in costs. Mr Okeyo was found to have diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars of Nike sponsorship monies for his own personal use over many years.  The Panel found that this constituted conduct likely to bring the sport of athletics into disrepute.  

Appeared for the RFU in an appeal which considered for the first time the scope and effect of the new provision in the 2015 WADA for “plea bargains” between a national governing body and an athlete.

Appeared for the BHA in a civil claim in negligence brought by a bookmaker for alleged losses said to have been incurred as a result of the announcement of “Weighed In” before a Stewards’ Inquiry had been concluded.

Appeared for the Lawn Tennis Association in an appeal concerning whether service could properly be effected by the court in circumstances where upon issuing the claim the claimant had expressly instructed that claim form should be returned to his solicitor for service.  The underlying discrimination claim was remitted to the county court and resolved on the third day of a six week trial.

Acted for the Lawn Tennis Association in a case that turned upon the differences between safeguarding legislation in England and Scotland.

Appeared for the Football Association in an arbitration concerning the issue of whether abusive and discriminatory text messages sent by the Chief Executive of Blackpool FC to a fan had been sent with a legitimate expectation of privacy such that the charge brought against him was in breach of the FA’s policy.  The case raised the issue of the application of the Human Rights Act and European Convention to the FA and the scope of the right to privacy under Article 8.

Acted for the RFU in anti-doping proceedings against Jonathan Spelman (a) before an Anti-Doping Tribunal which imposed a fifteen month ban on him (b) before an Anti-Doping Tribunal which considered a further anti-doping charge of failing to provide a sample shortly before the expiry of the ban and the effect of his failure to provide whereabouts information in the meantime and (c) before an Appeal Tribunal considering UK Anti-Doping’s appeal against the dismissal of the anti-doping charge based on his deemed retirement at the relevant time. 

Acted for the RFU in an anti-doping case about the trafficking of prohibited substances by a rugby coach.

On behalf of the FA Kate successfully resisted an application for a Norwich Pharmacal order in relation to information about the transfer of Andy Carroll from Newcastle to Liverpool.

Appeared successfully for the BBC defending its decision not to release information held about “Test Match Sofa”, which offered an ‘alternative’ style of commentary to Test Match Special.

Appeared successfully for the BBC defending its decision not to release information about a training event for journalists about climate change held under the ‘Chatham House’ rule.

Kate was instructed on behalf of the BBC (led by Monica Carss-Frisk QC) in this important case concerning the circumstances in which the BBC falls within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.  The case went to the House of Lords (the first case to do so under that Act) on the issue of whether the Information Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear Mr Sugar’s appeal against the Information Commissioner’s finding that the BBC did not fall within the scope of the Act.  Having held that it did, the matter was remitted to the High Court on the issue of whether the information requested by Mr Sugar fell within the Act (that is, whether it was held for the purposes of journalism, art and literature).  The High Court allowed the BBC’s appeal on the issue, which decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.