JAMES EADIE QC

Called to Bar: 1984 Appointed to silk: 2008 Degree: MA: Magdalene College, Cambridge, 1986 Languages: French (working knowledge) Appointments: Historic: Junior Counsel to the Crown, Common Law (“A” Panel) (1997-2008); First Current: Treasury Counsel (“Treasury Devil”) (2009-) Practice areas: Public Law; Human Rights/Civil Liberties; Financial Services Regulation and other Regulatory proceedings; General Commercial litigation

James is recommended as a leading silk in legal directories.

Chambers UK 2011

• Administrative & Public law – “he is a highly persuasive advocate and an exceptional public lawyer” • Financial Services – “personable, sharp and has incredibly in-depth knowledge of financial services” • Human Rights & Civil Liberties – “extremely smart, pragmatic and charming”

Legal 500 2010

• Administrative & Public law – “incredibly good at juggling huge numbers of balls” • Banking & Finance – “charming and incisive” • Human Rights & Civil Liberties

James was named in Law 100 2009 and 2010 listing the most influential lawyers in Britain.

Brief Career History

James Eadie QC was appointed First Treasury Counsel in January 2009, breaking the tradition of appointing Junior Counsel to this role. In the profession, he is called the ‘Treasury Devil’. As such, he is the QC to whom the Government turn first for their major pieces of advice and litigation.

Blackstone Cham bers, Blackstone H ouse, Tem ple, EC4Y 9BW Tel: +44(0)20-7583 1770 Fax: +44(0)20-7822 7350 Em ail: clerks@ blackstonecham bers.com

Page 1/10 Revised January 2011 In the last year he has advised the Government across the range of Government activity from the financial crisis, to terrorism, to the legal fall out of military operations, to the environment. He has acted in major litigation (frequently in the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights), including issues concerning:

• the reach of the ECHR onto the battlefield in Iraq (R (Catherine Smith) v Oxfordshire Coroner [2010] UKSC 29; and Al-Skeini & Al-Jedda v the UK before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights); • whether the transfer of prisoners held by British forces in Afghanistan to the Afghan Security Service was lawful, applying the test set out in Article 3 ECHR (R (Evans) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] EWHC 1445 (Admin); • whether there should be a public inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment of detainees in Iraq by British forces applying the principles in the Article 2 and Article 3 ECHR jurisprudence (R (Mousa) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] EWHC 3304 (Admin); • whether the Security Service can rely on evidence given in closed session in the 7/7 bombings inquest (R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Coroner for Inner West London [2010] EWHC 3098 (Admin)); • whether the Emergency Budget of June 2010 should be quashed for alleged failure adequately to conduct discrimination assessments of the impact on women: Fawcett Society v HM Treasury, decision on permission December 2010; • whether declarations of incompatibility with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR should be made in relation to the right of prisoners to vote (Chester v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWCA Civ 1439); • whether EU law claims for damages can be mounted for judicial error (Cooper v AG [2010] EWCA Civ 464); • whether the system for dealing with costs in environmental cases is ‘prohibitively expensive’ under the Aarhuis Convention and EU law: R (Edwards) v Environment Agency [2010] UKSC 57; • whether the Secretary of State for Health had power without further consultation to reform the NHS (R (Unison) v Secretary of State for Health [2010] EWHC 2655 (Admin); • whether Jon Venables new identity should be revealed to the press following his conviction on child pornography charges: R v Venables, 30 July 2010; • whether a Muslim preacher could be excluded from the UK on the basis of his radical views: Naik v Home Secretary [2010] EWHC 2825 (Admin); • the ECHR compatibility of the IPT’s procedures with Article 6 ECHR: Kennedy v the UK; • whether closed evidence can be used in defence of a discrimination claim arising out of a security vetting of a civil servant compatibly with common law and/or Article 6 ECHR (Tariq v Home Office [2010] EWCA Civ 462; in the Supreme Court in January 2011); • whether Abu Hamza and others can be extradited to the US compatibly with their Article 3 ECHR rights: Ahmad v the United Kingdom; • whether Sharon Shoesmith was treated unlawfully in her removal from office (R (Shoesmith) v Ofsted [2010] EWHC 852 (Admin);

Blackstone Cham bers, Blackstone H ouse, Tem ple, London EC4Y 9BW Tel: +44(0)20-7583 1770 Fax: +44(0)20-7822 7350 Em ail: clerks@ blackstonecham bers.com

Page 2/10 Revised January 2011

• whether the names of convicted minors could be maintained on the sex offenders register indefinitely compatibly with Article 8 ECHR (R (F) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 17); • whether judicial review could be mounted, and if so in what circumstances, from the refusal of permission to appeal by the Upper Tribunal under the new Tribunals system (R (C) v Upper Tribunal [2010] 2 WLR 1012, in the Supreme Court in March 2011); • whether the Secretary of State for Local Government could revoke parts of the planning system using powers contained in the current legislation: R (Cala Homes) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWHC 2866 (Admin); • whether the DWP could reclaim benefits overpaid by way of common law restitutionary claim: R (CPAG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2010] UKSC 54; • the compatibility with the ECHR of enhanced criminal record checks (R (L) v Metropolitan Police [2010] 1 AC 410 (HL) • whether the Chief Justice of Gibraltar should be removed from office: [2009] UKPC 43

In early 2011, James will be involved in the challenge by Max Moseley to the English law of privacy before the European Court of Human Rights; challenges in the Supreme Court to the continued retention of DNA and fingerprint data (GC and C v Metropolitan Police); and the appeals to the Supreme Court relating to the new Tribunals structure (R (C)); and closed evidence (Tariq v Home Office).

Prior to his appointment as First Treasury Counsel, he acted for private clients and on numerous occasions for the range of Government departments and a variety of financial and other regulatory authorities. He also advises and acts in public inquiries.

Public & Administrative Law

James has appeared regularly in major judicial review actions many with ECHR issues at their heart. He has acted both for private clients and for the range of Government departments.

For examples of recent reported cases in the last year, see Section A above.

In more detail, and including cases beyond the last year examples of James’ work include the following.

Public/commercial

He has acted both for and against a variety of financial and other regulatory authorities (including in particular the FSA, and a number of foreign financial regulators).

Blackstone Cham bers, Blackstone H ouse, Tem ple, London EC4Y 9BW Tel: +44(0)20-7583 1770 Fax: +44(0)20-7822 7350 Em ail: clerks@ blackstonecham bers.com

Page 3/10 Revised January 2011

• He has provided frequent advice to HM Treasury on different aspects of the financial crisis. • He has acted for the FSA in relation to “Northern Rock”; and in relation to a major mis-selling investigation. • He acted for one of the principal distributors and handlers of cash in the UK in a major investigation conducted by the Bank of England under the Note Circulation Scheme. • He acted as lead UK counsel for Shell in relation to the FSA’s investigation into the reserves reporting misstatements (market abuse). He was also instructed to act for the Group Reserves Auditor personally in the FSA market abuse proceedings which ended in discontinuance before the Regulatory Decisions Committee in November 2005. • He has acted in cases concerning breaches of the listing rules; the financial promotions regime under the FSMA 2000; and market authorisations. • He has acted for an oil company in AIM Disciplinary proceedings relating to alleged late/misleading disclosure to the market of information. • He acted for a director of British Airways in the OFT price-fixing investigation.

He has advised on and appeared in cases involving pharmaceutical and medical regulatory issues.

• He has acted frequently in major litigation involving the NHS, including recently on the Unison challenge to the re-organisation of the NHS and the Mid- Staffordshire public inquiry. • He has frequently acted and advised in relation to various aspects of the medicines regulatory regime, including for the Department of Health and the MHRA. He acted (for the investigated person) in a major MHRA investigation into the effects of anti-depressant drugs on adolescents and children. • He acted for and against the General Medical Council. • Acting for the MHRA he secured the first finding of contempt of court (punished by imprisonment) by an individual and companies for the unauthorised marketing and supply of prescription only medicines (Viagra).

He deals with cases in the telecommunications and utilities fields.

• He has advised Sky in relation to the regulatory issues arising out of a recent purchase of a stake in another broadcaster; and on a series of telecommunications issues in the Bahamas. • He has acted for a major water company in relation to fine proceedings brought by Ofwat.

Public inquiries and inquests

He has advised and acted in a number of public inquiries and high profile inquests. • He is acting for the Security Service in the 7/7 inquests. • He acted as counsel for the Government of Gibraltar in the Tribunal hearings into whether the Chief Justice of Gibraltar should be removed from office. • He was counsel to the inquiry headed by Lord Woolf into BAe in the wake of the

Blackstone Cham bers, Blackstone H ouse, Tem ple, London EC4Y 9BW Tel: +44(0)20-7583 1770 Fax: +44(0)20-7822 7350 Em ail: clerks@ blackstonecham bers.com

Page 4/10 Revised January 2011

Saudi arms investigation by the SFO. • He was counsel to the Bichard Inquiry into the police handling of the Ian Huntley/Soham murder investigation, and the related issues surrounding employment vetting. That Inquiry reported in June 2004. • He was counsel to the E.coli inquiry into the death of a child in South Wales. • He was the public law counsel to the Inquiry into the shooting of Rosemary Nelson in Northern Ireland; and, as such, defended the Inquiry in two sets of judicial review proceedings in Northern Ireland (brought by the MOD and the PSNI). • He acted for the HSE in the challenge to the refusal to hold a public inquiry into the Potters Bar railcrash: R (Lin) v SS Transport. • He acted (briefly) for Mohammed Al-Fayed in the judicial review challenge to the decision of the Coroner in the inquest into the death of Princess Diana not to allow a jury and to continue to sit as Coroner of the Queen’s Household. • He gave advice to the Neale Inquiry (into allegations of misconduct by a doctor) and the Butterfield Review (advice on public interest immunity in relation to collapsed London bonded warehouse prosecutions).

He has acted in a number of judicial reviews in which claimants seek public inquiries under the 2005 Inquiries Act in reliance on ECHR rights (A2 and A3): see eg K v SSHD [2008] EWHC 1598 (Admin); R (JL) v SSHD [2006] EWHC 2558: R (Lin) v SS for Transport [2006] EWHC 2575 (Admin); R (Mullane) v SSHD [2006] EWHC 2499 (Admin); R (AM) v Harmondsworth detention centre [2009] EWCA Civ 219; R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Coroner for Inner West London [2010] EWHC 3098 (Admin).

Media

He has represented a number of clients before Ofcom, including representing the BBC in the Blue Peter case and the numerous subsequent cases involving competitions and misleading audiences.

• He acted for the BBC in proceedings to permit publication of the name of a person subject to a control order (Collins J ordering publication). • He acted for the Government in proceedings brought by the Times for the same purpose ([2008] EWHC 2455 (Admin)). • He acted for a journalist seeking to resist a production order under the Terrorism Act 2005 on grounds of self-incrimination: Shiv Malik v Manchester Crown Court [2008] EWHC 1362 (Admin). • He acted for the Attorney General in 2010 in resisting media applications for disclosure of the identity of Jon Venables following his conviction on child pornography charges.

Freedom of Information

He frequently advises of Freedom of Information Act issues, and is on the panel of specialists who are regularly instructed to advise government departments of FOIA issues and to appear before the Freedom of Information Tribunal.

Blackstone Cham bers, Blackstone H ouse, Tem ple, London EC4Y 9BW Tel: +44(0)20-7583 1770 Fax: +44(0)20-7822 7350 Em ail: clerks@ blackstonecham bers.com

Page 5/10 Revised January 2011

He has appeared before the Information Tribunal in a large number of cases.

Security

He has regularly advised and acted for the Government in relation to a variety of legal issues and challenges related to terrorism: see eg R (A and others) v SS Home Dept (HL)(the ‘Belmarsh’ cases); IHRC v Civil Aviation Authority (judicial review challenges to the US planes using UK bases en route to arms delivery in Israel); R (Hasan) v Secretary of State of Trade [2009] 3 All E.R. 539; R (AH) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2008] EWHC 1018 (Admin); AF, AE & AN v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (no 3) [2009] UKHL 28.

He has also advised and acted for the Government in relation to the military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan: see e.g.

• R (Mousa) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] EWHC 3304 (Admin) (whether there should be a public inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment of detainees in Iraq by British forces); • R (Catherine Smith) v Oxfordshire Coroner [2010] UKSC 29 (the reach of the ECHR onto the battlefield in Iraq); • Al-Skeini & Al-Jedda v the UK before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR; • R (Evans) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] EWHC 1445 (Admin) (whether the transfer of prisoners held by British forces in Afghanistan to the Afghan Security Service was lawful). • He acted in the ECtHR for the Government in the Gibraltar shootings litigation (three members of the IRA were shot by the SAS in Gibraltar).

Assets Recovery

He did the first full trial of an assets recovery order under the Proceeds of Crime Act: Director of Assets Recovery Agency v Olupitan [2007] EWHC 162 (QB); and has frequently advised SOCA

Sports law

He has advised on various aspects of sports law including • representing a prominent Indian test cricketer in a case against the ICC and • acting for the Football Premier League in the claim brought against it by Sam Chisolm in relation to the deal with Sky TV. • He has advised and acted in connection with horse racing and its levy.

Discrimination

He has acted in a number of high profile discrimination cases (e.g. R(Carson) v SS for Work and Pensions (HL), concerning the uprating of pensions abroad; Unison v First Secretary [2006] EWHC 2373 (Admin) (the first challenge to the age discrimination regulations)). He advised in relation to the Sexual Orientation regulations including on the issues surrounding exemptions for religious organizations from some aspects

Blackstone Cham bers, Blackstone H ouse, Tem ple, London EC4Y 9BW Tel: +44(0)20-7583 1770 Fax: +44(0)20-7822 7350 Em ail: clerks@ blackstonecham bers.com

Page 6/10 Revised January 2011 of the new regime.

Health

He has been involved in a succession of judicial review cases in the regulation of health field (aside from the medicines regulation issues above), including challenges to the morning after pill (R (Smeaton) v SS for Health (Admin Ct), the legality of cloning for research purposes (R (Quintivalle) v SS for Health (HL)) and the legality of tissue typing (R (Quintivalle) v SS for Health (HL)); R (Unison) v Secretary of State for Health [2010] EWHC 2655 (Admin).

Environmental law

He has advised and acted in numerous environmental law cases, including advising DEFRA on a range of issues. • He acted for the Government in the challenges to night noise from Heathrow before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Hatton v the UK). • He acted for Alton Towers in relation to proceedings brought against them alleging noise nuisance: Roper v Tussauds Ltd [2007] EWHC 624 (Admin). • He acted for DEFRA before the Aarhuis Sanctions Committee, and in the Supreme Court on the issue whether the system for dealing with costs in environmental cases is ‘prohibitively expensive’ under the Aarhuis Convention and EU law: R (Edwards) v Environment Agency [2010] UKSC 57

Local government law

He acted in the recent challenge to the power of the Secretary of State to take steps towards reorganizing local government in England and Wales: Shrewsbury District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2007] EWHC 2279 (Admin); [2008] EWCA Civ 148. He has acted and is currently acting in relation to further challenges to decisions taken as part of the reorganization: see eg R (Bedfordshire CC) v DCLG [2008] EWHC 628 (Admin).

Asylum and immigration

He has appeared in cases in the immigration and asylum field (see e.g. (R(T) v SS Home Dept; AM (Serbia) v SS Home Dept [2007] EWCA Civ 16; LE (Congo) v SS Home Dept [2007] EWCA Civ 193; Hussain v Home Secretary [2009] EWHC 2492 (Admin); Naik v Home Secretary [2010] EWHC 2825 (Admin).

Prison and parole board

He has also appeared in numerous cases involving prison and parole board law.

• He has been involved in the Parole Board hearings and challenges to them by Harry Roberts, who murdered three policemen in the 1960’s and is the longest serving UK prisoner. He argued Harry Roberts v Parole Board in the – a case raising the issue whether special advocates were permissible in Parole Board hearings: [2005] UKHL 45.

Blackstone Cham bers, Blackstone H ouse, Tem ple, London EC4Y 9BW Tel: +44(0)20-7583 1770 Fax: +44(0)20-7822 7350 Em ail: clerks@ blackstonecham bers.com

Page 7/10 Revised January 2011

• He has been involved in a series of cases concerning the procedural requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR (e.g. D v SS Home Dept). • He has successfully challenged under the ECHR the conditions in which a severely disabled remand prisoner is held at Belmarsh. • He acted for the SSHD in relation to changes to the Secure Training Centre Rules permitting greater use of controversial restraint techniques: R (C) v SSHD [2008] EWHC 171 (Admin) • He acted for the Parole Board in challenges to delays in listing cases before it

Extradition, mutual legal assistance

His practice also covers extradition and appellate crime (raising ECHR issues).

• He resisted the extradition request by Russia for Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s (of Yukos) chief accountant. • He has appeared in a number of other high profile extradition cases including the first extradition to Hong Kong following handover to the Chinese (ex parte Launder (HL)); fraud extraditions to the United States (Warren); and a number of challenges to decisions by the Home Secretary to return people accused of terrorism to France (Ramda and Labsi). • He is currently acting for individuals involved in the running of the Russian shipping industry who are resisting extradition to Russia. • He acted for the Government in Asmat and Ahmed v Home Secretary [2008] EWHC 1357 (Admin) (currently before the ECtHR). • He was counsel for the Serious Fraud Office in the attempts by the Guinness appellants to re-open their convictions (rejected by the Court of Appeal and House of Lords); and has acted for the Government throughout those cases in the Strasbourg challenge. • He has argued a series of cases in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) concerning the privilege against self-incrimination and the reverse onus offences in the Insolvency Act 1986. • He defended the secrecy of jury deliberations for the Department of Constitutional Affairs in the House of Lords case R v Mirza.

Civil Liberties & Human Rights

For examples of recent reported cases in the last 12 months: see Section A above

In the human rights/civil liberties arena, and in addition to the domestic cases in the UK courts, he has appeared on over 50 occasions before the European Court and Commission in Strasbourg; and in a series of important domestic ECHR/HRA challenges.

In the last 12 months he has acted in the following example cases:

• Al-Skeini & Al-Jedda v the UK – a challenge before the Grand Chamber in effect on appeal from the separate judgments of the House of Lords in those cases. The

Blackstone Cham bers, Blackstone H ouse, Tem ple, London EC4Y 9BW Tel: +44(0)20-7583 1770 Fax: +44(0)20-7822 7350 Em ail: clerks@ blackstonecham bers.com

Page 8/10 Revised January 2011

issues raised in particular focussed on the meaning of ‘within the jurisidiction’ in Article 1 (and whether it extended to the battlefield in Iraq); whether, when acting under a UN mandate, British forces were acting qua the UN; if not, whether the ECHR was to be read subject to UN Security Council Resolutions. • Ahmad v the UK – a challenge to the extradition of a number of terrorist suspects to the US to face trial, possible very long sentences, and detention in Supermax US prisons • Toner v UK – challenge to disenfranchisement of prisoners • S & Marper follow up cases – challenge to continuing retention of DNA and fingerprints of non-convicted suspects • Kennedy v the UK – a challenge to the compatibility with Article 8 of the interception of communications regime and to the compatibility with Article 6 of the IPT’s procedures (much of which are in secret) for dealing with complaints

His cases have included a number of the major decisions involving the United Kingdom in the last 15 years. He acted in the case brought by the Fayed brothers following the publication of the adverse DTI report (Fayed v the UK); in the major A2 case Osman v the UK (right to life/police immunity); in the challenges brought by the Guinness defendants (Saunders v the UK; and IJL and others v the United Kingdom); in Ahmed v the UK (political restrictions on local government officers); in the SAS Gibraltar shootings (McCann, Savage & Farrell v the UK); in the challenge to the Security Service Act (Esbester v the UK); in the first challenge to the provisions entitling inferences to be drawn from the silence of a defendant (John Murray v the UK); in a number of cases concerning telephone tapping including the claim brought by Alison Halford (Alison Halford v the UK); in the claims by servicemen for compensation arising out of the Christmas Island nuclear tests (McGinley & Egan v the UK); in the claim brought by Earl and the then Countess Spencer challenging the absence of a right to privacy under English law (Earl and Countess Spencer v the UK); and in the challenge to the ban on homosexuality in the armed forces (Lustig-Prean v the UK).

He acted in Davis, Rowe & Jasper v the UK (PII in criminal proceedings) 30 EHRR 441; Lilian Green v the UK (barristers’ immunity); Marshall v the UK (derogation under Article 5 and emergency in Northern Ireland); in the challenge to the legality of the bombing by NATO of the Belgrade TV station in Yugoslavia (Bankovic v the UK and other NATO states); in the claims brought by the widow of the Northern Irish solicitor Patrick Finucane (Finucane v the UK), in the Strasbourg proceedings resulting from the Stalker “Shoot to kill” Inquiry (Kelly v the UK); and in the airport noise case (Hatton v the UK); and in the challenge before the Grand Chamber to crown immunity in the context of the tests on servicemen at Porton Down in the 1960’s (Roche v the UK); and in the claims brought by George Blake, the Russian spy, following the decision of the House of Lords to require him to account for the profits of his book.

He has advised and acted for domestic and foreign private clients:

• He has advised the widow of Mr Litvinenko (who was killed by polonium radiation in London in 2006) in relation to claims both in the UK and in

Blackstone Cham bers, Blackstone H ouse, Tem ple, London EC4Y 9BW Tel: +44(0)20-7583 1770 Fax: +44(0)20-7822 7350 Em ail: clerks@ blackstonecham bers.com

Page 9/10 Revised January 2011

Strasbourg. • He is acting in challenges before the ECtHR to the extradition to the US of suspected terrorists who claim that they risk being subjected to the extrajudicial military regime and/or extraordinary rendition. • He represented the pension fund of T&N in relation to the issue whether future claimants in negligence arising out of exposure to asbestos could be excluded from proving in the liquidation of T&N compatibly with the ECHR: see In re T&N [2005] EWHC 2870 (Ch). • He has advised in relation to claims relating to the railway network in Estonia and relating to the aluminium industry in the Ukraine (instructed direct by foreign lawyers).

Financial Services

James has advised the Government on a variety of different aspects of the financial and banking crisis including in relation to powers under the Banking Act 2009, the change from RPI to CPI as the inflation/uprating yardstick.

He acted for HM Treasury in relation to claims in the Administrative Court (both dismissed after permission hearings) that • the Government should compel Lloyds TSB to adopt ‘greener’ policies; • the Emergency Budget of 2010 should be quashed because of alleged failures to conduct gender impact assessments: Fawcett Society v HM Treasury.

He acted for the FSA in a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal to strike out references to it by individuals no longer deemed to be fit and proper: Sharma v FSA (decision of Sir Stephen Oliver of December 2010).

Blackstone Cham bers, Blackstone H ouse, Tem ple, London EC4Y 9BW Tel: +44(0)20-7583 1770 Fax: +44(0)20-7822 7350 Em ail: clerks@ blackstonecham bers.com

Page 10/10 Revised January 2011