Filter case studies by:

Share this
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on facebook

Thomas Poole

Read their case study

About the author and department:

Personal webpage:

Law Department:


Relevant research:

On common law and human rights:

‘Back to the Future? Unearthing the Theory of Common Law Constitutionalism’ (2003) 23 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 435-454.

‘Legitimacy, Rights and Judicial Review’ (2005) 25 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 697-725.

On the Human Rights Act and adjudication:

‘Of Headscarves and Heresies: the Denbigh High School case and Public Authority Decision-Making under the Human Rights Act’ [2005] Public Law 685-695. (Cited with approval by the Law Lords in R (Begum) v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15 at [28] & [32])

‘The Reformation of English Administrative Law’ (2009) Cambridge Law Journal 142-168
(Cited with approval by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority [2009] NZCA 488 at [267]; and the High Court of Australia in Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 [text corresponding to footnote 623])

Comparative analysis:

‘Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea: Administrative Law in an Age of Rights’ in Carol Harlow, Linda Pearson and Michael Taggart (eds), Administrative Law in a Changing State (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008), 15-43.

Empirical analysis:

‘The Impact of the Human Rights Act on the House of Lords’ [2009] Public Law 347-371 (with Sangeeta Shah).

‘The Law Lords and Human Rights’ (2011) 74 Modern Law Review 79-105 (with Sangeeta Shah).


Evidence of impact:

Tom Hickman, Public Law after the Human Rights Act (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010), 224-256, esp 245-247

T.R.S. Allan, ‘Deference, Defiance and Doctrine: Defining the Limits of Judicial Review’ (2010) 60 University of Toronto Law Journal 41, 46: ‘Thomas Poole’s objection that the court’s approach was a “recipe for judicialisation on an unprecedented scale,” confusing the proper result-orientated legal test with an erroneous focus on process and procedure, was subsequently endorsed by Lord Bingham in the House of Lords.’

Mohammed Mazher Idriss, ‘The Defeat of Shabina Begum in the House of Lords’ (2006) 17 Liverpool Law Review 417, 428-429: ‘[The House of Lords decided that] Poole was correct in his assertion that the Court of Appeal’s approach introduced “a new formalism” and would be “a recipe for judicialisation on an unprecedented scale”.’

Dominic McGoldrick, Human Rights and Religion: The Islamic Headscarf Debate in Europe (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2006), 192-200, esp 198-200

David Mead, ‘Judicial Miss Behavin’: A Defence of Process-Based Review of Public Authority Decisions under the Human Rights Act’, Norwich Law School Working Paper, July 2, 2008: ‘the House of Lords, Lord Bingham in particular, was heavily influenced by Poole’s rejection of the Court of Appeal decision in Begum’.

Helen Fenwick, Civil Liberties and Human Rights (London: Routledge-Cavendish, 4th ed., 2007), 275

Carol Harlow and Richard Rawlings, Law and Administration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd ed., 2009), 120-126

Read their case study