David Chirico > One Pump Court > London, England > Lawyer Profile

One Pump Court
One Pump Court
ELM COURT
LONDON
EC4Y 7AH
England
David Chirico photo

Work Department

Civil and public law group (immigration team).

Position

David works for claimants in all areas of immigration and asylum law, with a particular commitment to providing vigorous representation for clients who are vulnerable in the face of increasingly restrictive rules and legislation, and an administrative culture of exclusion and disbelief. In recent months, he has worked particularly with clients whose asylum claims raised issues relating to sexual/gender identity (gay/lesbian/transgender clients, clients whose cases are rejected on the basis that they can be ‘discreet’), with clients whose cases are based on religious identity, with unaccompanied minor asylum-seekers, with clients whose entry clearance applications raise questions of mandatory/discretionary refusal under the amended paragraph 320 of the Immigration Rules, with family reunion cases, with cases challenging the Tier 1 Guidance, and with clients faced with conducive deportation decisions under either the old, or the new ‘automatic’, provisions. The majority of his clients are publicly funded, and, with the rest of the Immigration Team at 1 Pump Court, he is committed to the provision of high-quality representation to people who do not have the means to pay for it themselves. Alongside his work in (and on appeal from) the AIT, he has a large and varied judicial review practice, covering all areas of immigration law, including challenges to fresh claim and certification decisions, third-country cases, policy and implementation challenges, and challenges to unlawful detention.

Career

Year of call: 2002 

David previously worked in the Czech Republic for the European Roma Rights Center, doing both casework and strategic litigation on discrimination in the criminal justice system, access to education, and access to housing. On return to the UK, he taught in Central European Studies at University College, London, and was regularly called upon to act as an expert on the situation of Czech and Slovak Roma at all levels of the immigration appellate system in the UK (see eg R (ZL and VL) v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 25. He has been at 1 Pump Court since 2002. Recent cases: R (PK (DRC)) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 302 (approach to fresh claim based on Country Guidance); R (A) v SSHD [2008] EWHC 2844 (Admin) (discriminatory effect of 7-year policy); GM (Eritrea) and others v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 833 (standard of proof in cases where claimant’s subjective account is held to be incredible); R (B (Algeria)) v SSHD [2007] EWHC 2528 (Admin): fresh claim based on openly gay identity in the UK; FS (Pakistan) v SSHD [2006] UKAIT 00023 (risk to victims of domestic violence in Pakistan); AH (Sudan) v SSHD [2006] UKAIT 00038 (nature and scope of reconsideration proceedings); SP (Kosovo) v SSHD [2005] EWCA Civ 518 (approach to expert evidence in asylum cases). David has trained in the past 12 months for ILPA and for UK Lesbian and Gay Immigration Group (UKLGIG). He volunteers regularly for Camden Community Law Centre and for UKLGIG.

Languages

Fluent in Czech, French, Italian, Portuguese.

Education

Cambridge University (BA in Modern and Medieval Languages (Czech and French) – First Class; PhD in Czech Literature).

Lawyer Rankings

London Bar > Immigration (including business immigration)

(Leading Juniors) Ranked: Tier 2

David ChiricoOne Pump CourtHis expertise with immigration and nationality cases involving criminality is second to none.

Considered a ‘strong set with good availability of juniors in particular‘, the advocates of One Pump Court ‘are knowledgeable and fearless in their commitment‘. One source notes that ‘no matter who is instructed you are guaranteed that they will work closely with instructing solicitors to achieve the best possible results for the clients‘. In one case of note, David Chirico acted for a claimant in a statutory appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the correct approach to a revocation of a deportation order; in the case in question ten years had passed since the deportation order was made, and the deportee has complied with the terms of that order.