Public Law & Civil Liberties
Overview
Defending rights, challenging power, and shaping legal standards.
Sultana is regularly instructed in public law and human rights matters engaging the limits of state power, particularly where national security, extremism, protest and post-sentence control intersect with civil liberties and Convention rights. This work frequently arises from the same terrorism and national-security cases described above, approached through a public law and constitutional lens, and involves scrutiny of the legality, proportionality and fairness of executive decision-making.
Her practice in this area includes challenges to decisions affecting liberty, expression, belief and procedural fairness; regulatory and disciplinary proceedings arising from alleged extremist or protest-related expression; and post-sentence and preventive measures subject to public law review. She is frequently instructed in cases where public authorities rely on national-security assessments, intelligence material or risk-based reasoning, requiring careful judicial scrutiny.
Sultana’s experience encompasses professional and university disciplinary proceedings, Parole Board and TPIM litigation, inquests, and family proceedings involving allegations of extremism or radicalisation, including matters engaging closed material and sensitive intelligence. In these contexts, she is regularly instructed to address proportionality, disclosure, procedural fairness, and the compatibility of executive action with Articles 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 ECHR.
Her domestic public law practice is closely integrated with her international human rights work, enabling her to engage authoritatively with cases that raise cross-border, comparative or international legal issues alongside domestic public law challenges, and to situate national-security decision-making within its broader international legal context.
SULTANA’S EXPERTISE
Our experience of ground-breaking and high profile cases has given us a unique insight into achieving extraordinary results for clients in:
Counter Terrorism & National SecurityHuman Rights & International LawCriminal Justice & AppellatePublic Law & Civil LibertiesStrategic Case ConsultingStrategic Litigation & Justice ReformSultana Tafadar KC’s expertise lies in public law and human rights cases concerning the limits of state power, particularly where national security, extremism, protest and post-sentence controls engage fundamental rights. She is regularly instructed in complex and sensitive matters requiring authoritative analysis of legality, proportionality, procedural fairness and compliance with Convention rights.
Her skill set includes forensic scrutiny of executive decision-making, intelligence-led assessments, closed material, sensitive evidence and risk-based reasoning. She has particular experience in Parole Board and TPIM litigation, professional and university disciplinary proceedings, inquests, and family cases involving allegations of extremism or radicalisation. She is highly skilled in identifying disclosure failures, evidential weaknesses, procedural unfairness and disproportionate restrictions on liberty, expression and belief.
Sultana combines detailed knowledge of Articles 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 ECHR with strong strategic judgment, persuasive advocacy and the ability to present complex public law arguments with clarity and precision. Her wider experience in national security, criminal law and international human rights enables her to anticipate the broader consequences of public-body decisions and develop effective challenges in the most demanding cases.
Expertise
Notable Public Law, Civil Liberties & Human Rights Cases
M & Others (2024)
Advised on protest-related matters, specifically on when expressions of support could cross the threshold to constitute an offence under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This advisory work required detailed analysis of the statutory provisions, the application of counter-terrorism legislation in the context of protest activity, and the balance between freedom of expression and public order considerations.
GM (2024)
Acted for a professional in disciplinary proceedings arising from social media posts alleged to contravene sections 12(1) and 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, on the basis that they amounted to, or could be perceived as amounting to, support for a proscribed organisation. Following written submissions, the allegations were dismissed without proceeding to a full hearing.
NS (2024)
Represented a professional before a regulatory body in proceedings brought under sections 12(1) and 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, where social media posts were alleged to amount to support for a proscribed organisation. The case was successfully disposed of at the submissions stage, with the allegations dismissed in their entirety.
GY (2024 - ongoing)
Currently instructed in regulatory proceedings concerning social media posts alleged to contravene sections 12(1) and 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act 2000, and further alleged to constitute malicious communications. The tribunal is presently considering submissions and the matter remains ongoing.
MH (2024)
Represented a student before a university disciplinary panel in proceedings arising from social media posts alleged to amount to religiously-sensitive misconduct. The case engaged complex issues of freedom of religion and freedom of expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Following submissions before the panel, the allegations were dismissed.
SN (2025)
Advised in a professional regulatory complaint concerning an individual alleged to have expressed support for acts amounting to genocide. The matter raised issues of professional conduct, the boundaries of free expression, and the responsibilities of legal professionals in relation to statements touching upon international crimes.
PT (2025)
Advised in a regulatory complaint against an individual alleged to have made public statements supportive of genocide. The case engaged questions of whether such expressions could be considered contrary to professional standards and required careful consideration of the balance between freedom of expression and the integrity of the profession.
TN (2025)
Acted in a professional regulatory complaint concerning commentary alleged to amount to support for genocide. The matter involved complex issues at the intersection of international criminal law, human rights, and the regulatory duties of legal professionals.
CD (2023)
Acted in providing an advisory opinion to a charity on the parameters of section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, concerning the scope of the offence of inviting or expressing support for a proscribed organisation. The opinion addressed the boundaries between legitimate charitable activity, freedom of expression, and potential criminal liability under counter-terrorism legislation.
R v ZK (2023 – Ongoing)
Parole Board hearing in relation to terrorism convictions.
R v MAS (2024)
Parole granted for offender convicted of 3 counts of possession of items likely to be useful for the purposes of terrorism. Released on licence following a successful parole hearing. Cross examination of Prison Offender Manager, ERG+22 report writer, Community Offender Manager. Expert evidence called on rehabilitative work and reintegration. Parole granted.
Uddin [2021] PBRA 58
Successful application for reconsideration of a Parole Board decision in relation to terrorism convictions on the basis of irrationality and/or procedural unfairness. Applicant had not been informed of a parole hearing, was not given the opportunity to make representations and/or to challenge any submissions/evidence considered by the Board in opposition to his release. Application granted.
SSHD v KG (2020-21)
National Security case before the High Court involving the imposition of a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure (TPIM), including subsequent breaches of the measures. Further details of the case cannot be disclosed.
London Bridge Inquests (2019)
Inquest into the London Bridge/ Fishmonger Hall attack examined the events of the June 2017, where three attackers drove into pedestrians and then stabbed people in Borough Market, killing eight and injuring many more. The inquest concluded that all victims were unlawfully killed and highlighted critical failings in MI5 and police responses. The attackers were shot dead by police. Represented ex-wife of one of the attackers.
TC v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2019)
Advice on civil claim arising out of unlawful and discriminatory application of counter terrorism Prevent policy.
R v Ali [2018] EWCA Crim 547; [2018] 1 WLR 6105
The Appellant was convicted of multiple terrorism offences, including dissemination of terrorist publications under section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006. The central issues on appeal involved the trial judge’s directions to the jury regarding the definition of a “terrorist publication” and the protection of the defendant’s rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which safeguards freedom of expression. Attracted national press. Significant case.
R v C (2017)
Parole granted in a case relating to allegations of extremism and/or terrorism. Involved complex factual and legal issues surrounding breaches of license conditions and subsequent recall. Gave rise to a civil action against the police. Parole granted.
Re (C) 2017
High Court Proceedings, Family Division involving allegations of extremism. Consideration of evidence related to acquittal of terrorism allegations in criminal proceedings; evidence of ‘associations’ and other conduct; and evidence related to radicalisation. Unusually, secret evidence was heard in this case. No findings of extremism were made.
R v Choudhary & Rahman [2017] EWCA Crim 1606; [2017] 4 W.L.R. 204
Appeal against convictions and sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for inviting support for a proscribed organisation (ISIS), contrary to s.12(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000. It was argued that the Appellant’s statements were protected by freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. The case clarified the legal threshold for “inviting support”. Attracted national press. Landmark Case.
EB v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 1970
1970 Landmark case contesting TPIM imposed by the Home Secretary. Involved consideration of highly sensitive national security evidence. SSHD created a new category of ‘in-camera’ evidence and the hearing was almost exclusively held in closed proceedings. Landmark case.
EB v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 137 (Admin)
Application in relation to Section 16 appeal of Terrorism Prevention & Investigation Measures and disclosure in a case involving in-camera material.
R v C (2016)
Seizure of cash under POCA in relation to suspicion of terrorism. Issues relating to illegality of seizure and admissibility of evidence.
R v Choudhary & Rahman [2016] EWCA Crim 61
Interlocutory appeal on the legal ingredients of section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 as to what amounts to ‘inviting support for a proscribed organisation’, in this case, ISIS. It clarified the scope of Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, particularly concerning the balance between freedom of expression and national security. It establishes that individuals can be convicted for inviting support for a terrorist organization even without direct incitement to violence, provided the invitation is made knowingly. The case has been cited in subsequent legal discussions and judgments concerning the limits of lawful expression and the definition of support for proscribed organizations. Attracted national press. Landmark case.
R v K (2015)
Extradition of Defendant from Hungary for breach of notification requirements post terrorism convictions. They were deported from Hungary after being found on a train headed for Bucharest, Romania, in November 2015.
R v Brian Haw
Was standing Counsel for the renowned Parliament Square protestor for several years for Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005 and public order offences.