Who? Joanna Ludlam, disputes partner and London head of Baker McKenzie’s regulatory, public and media law team. 

Joanna Ludlam

Why is she in the news? Baker McKenzie, led by Ludlam, is acting for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in the case relating to the transfer of asylum-seekers from the UK to Rwanda.

Thoughts on the case: ‘The UNHCR has a mandate to supervise the application of the 1951 Refugee Convention worldwide and participates as an intervener in the case in that capacity. Last December, the High Court concluded that, while the decisions relating to the individual claimants were inadequate and will need to be remade, the government’s Rwanda plan is lawful. Yet, the judgment sets out evidence of serious problems in Home Office decision-making. The court accepted that Rwanda does not have asylum processing capacity but concluded that the scheme is lawful, in part because the numbers of affected refugees will be limited and the government will provide additional funding to Rwanda. Despite the judgment, UNHCR’s longstanding concerns about the “externalisation” of asylum obligations remain. UNHCR considers that the UK-Rwanda arrangement contravenes the UK’s international obligations and fails to meet the standards relating to the legality and appropriateness of transfers of asylum-seekers. UNHCR urges the government to instead pursue other measures, including cooperation with European neighbours and fair and fast asylum procedures. We expect the claimants will appeal.

Dealing with the media: ‘A startling feature has been the consistent public attacks on the lawyers involved. The day after the High Court judgment, Priti Patel repeated an earlier attack on “the usual left-wing activists, lawyers and MPs”. She claimed that their action in delaying the scheme had “put more lives at risk” and that they had given “succour” to people-smuggling gangs. This inflammatory rhetoric puts lawyers’ safety at risk and undermines the rule of law, which provides rights to individuals, including access to justice, whether or not we approve of them or their causes. I am very concerned about some of the language and the potentially chilling effect of the constant pressure to decline to take cases where there is a divergence of views.’

Why become a lawyer? ‘By default. My school’s career advice was pretty binary: those good at sciences were advised to become doctors or vets; pupils good at art subjects to do law. But it turned out well.

Career high: ‘Probably the most gratifying was when my teenagers told me how proud they were of me for taking this case.’

Career low: ‘There are difficult days and it can be a tough profession.  Possibly the most upsetting has been the misogynistic treatment and attitudes I have faced. But you have to persevere through the challenging times to experience the rewarding moments.’

Topics