Miranda Butler

Public and Administrative

Miranda is a leading public law junior specialising in unlawful detention, migrants’ rights, healthcare, trafficking, and immigration. Much of her work involves strategic claims and policy challenges. She is regularly instructed in complex judicial review claims at all levels. She was shortlisted as Legal Aid Junior of the Year in 2024, Immigration Junior of the Year in 2023 and is ranked in Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 for both Administrative Law and Immigration.

Miranda has particular expertise in policy challenges and cases with a strategic element. In 2024 she appeared in a strategic challenge to the Home Office’s policy regarding the provision of emergency accommodation to immigration detainees, which led to that policy being amended. She was recently led by Alex Goodman KC in SPM v SSHD, a Court of Appeal challenge to the lack of in-person legal advice for immigration detainees and currently led by him on a strategic challenge to the placement of asylum seekers at Wethersfield accommodation centre by the Home Office (MJ and ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AC-2024-LON-000189). In 2023 she successfully represented victims of trafficking in PM v SSHD, a challenge to the cessation of support for victims of trafficking during the pandemic, led by Samantha Knights KC.

Miranda has substantial experience in public inquiries. She has worked on the Covid Inquiry, led by Fiona Scolding KC. She previously represented a large number of infected and affected individuals in the Infected Blood Inquiry, working with Fiona Scolding KC and Hannah Gibbs. Miranda has a particular interest in medical law and for several years taught medical law at LSE University. She has written extensively on healthcare claims in the immigration context.

Noteworthy cases include:

• Twala v SSHD: successful judicial review challenge to a father’s exclusion from the UK, separating him from his son. Led by Tim Buley KC.
• R (FH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: challenge to the delays in decision-making for victims of trafficking. Led by Nicola Braganza KC.
• PRCBC and ors v SSHD: a Supreme Court challenge to the significant profit made by the Home Secretary on fees charged to children seeking to register or naturalise as British Citizens. Miranda was led by Richard Drabble KC.
• SPM v SSHD: Court of Appeal challenge to the detention of women in a remote location preventing access to in-person legal representation. Miranda was led by Alex Goodman KC.
• PM v SSHD: Successful challenge to the cessation of support for victims of trafficking during the pandemic, led by Samantha Knights KC
• R (LM) v SSHD: Court of Appeal challenge concerning the identification of victims of trafficking.
• EOG v SSHD: a Court of Appeal challenge to the Home Office policy prohibiting victims of trafficking from working or holding leave to remain whilst within the National Referral Mechanism. Miranda was led by Amanda Weston KC.

Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Miranda works on a broad range of human rights claims, including issues of false imprisonment, discrimination, and systemic human rights breaches litigation.

Miranda works on human rights matters at all levels and has experience in litigation before the European Court of Human Rights, having acted for individuals and institutions in the Court. She has particular expertise in challenges on behalf of survivors of modern slavery and is currently instructed by a victim of trafficking challenging the UK’s failure to protect her in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.

Miranda acted for JCWI in its 2021 intervention in Otite v UK, challenging the application of s. 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and its impact on the private and family life rights of those facing deportation.

Miranda represented several freedom of expression NGOs intervening in the case of Khadija Ismayilova v Azerbaijan, led by Can Yeginsu. In its 2019 decision, the Strasbourg Court agreed with the interveners’ submissions that the state of Azerbaijan had failed in its obligations not only under Article 8 ECHR, but also under Article 10, in that it had failed to protect the privacy of Ms Ismayilova, a journalist, which had a potential ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of expression.

In 2020, Miranda, led by Ben Douglas-Jones KC, represented an appellant to the ECtHR challenging his conviction on the grounds that he had been deprived of a fair trial.

She also worked for the interveners on Big Brother Watch v UK, a successful challenge to the bulk interception and processing of metadata by the UK and its data sharing with foreign states.

She was awarded the 2017 Pegasus Scholarship and spent three months working as a stagiaire in the UK division of the Court.

Miranda has a particular interest in prisoners’ rights, having previously worked with Reprieve and the Howard League for Penal Reform. She regularly handles both public and private law challenges on behalf of prisoners.

Some noteworthy cases include:

• Otite v UK: counsel for the intervener (JCWI), challenging the operation of the UK’s statutory framework for considering Article 8 in the context of deportation.
• Roy Phillips v UK: counsel for the applicant, challenging his conviction under Article 6 ECHR.
• Khadija Ismayilova v Azerbaijan: counsel for various freedom of expression NGOs supporting a successful claim by a jailed journalist challenging mistreatment and covert surveillance by the state. The European Court of Human Rights found violations of Article 8 and 10 ECHR.
• Big Brother Watch v UK: a successful challenge to the bulk interception and processing of metadata by the UK and its data sharing with foreign states in the European Court of Human Rights. Miranda acted for several interveners specialising on freedom of expression in the US

Immigration

Miranda is a highly experienced immigration junior, with particular expertise in asylum and human rights claims. She is regularly instructed in matters before the High Court, Upper Tribunal and First Tier Tribunal, including judicial reviews and urgent applications for interim relief. She is ranked in Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 as a leading immigration junior.

Her practice encompasses asylum and human rights appeals with substantial experience of international protection, deportation, trafficking cases, and claims related to children. Miranda is regularly instructed in challenges to removal, including urgent injunctions. She has been involved in strategic and individual challenges to numerous charter flights.

Miranda is also highly experienced in claims on behalf of sponsors, sponsored workers, and student visa holders. Miranda has extensive experience of naturalisation and citizenship issues, having appeared in a Supreme Court challenge to the fee charged to children applying for citizenship.

Miranda sits as a Deputy Judge in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on a part-time basis and is one of the youngest people ever appointed to this role.

Miranda is a contributor to Macdonald’s Immigration Law & Practice and co-authored Healthcare and medical cases in immigration law: a practical guide for practitioners.

Miranda is regularly instructed on strategic litigation, often including challenges to Home Office policy. She regularly appears in successful policy challenges.

Some noteworthy cases include:

• Twala v SSHD: successful judicial review challenge to a father’s exclusion from the UK, separating him from his son.
• R (FH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: challenge to the delays in decision-making for victims of trafficking. Led by Nicola Braganza KC.
• PRCBC and ors v SSHD: Supreme Court challenge to the over 60% profit made by the Home Secretary on fees charged to children seeking to register or naturalise as British Citizens. Miranda was led by Richard Drabble KC.
• EOG v SSHD: a Court of Appeal challenge to the Home Office policy prohibiting victims of trafficking from working or holding leave to remain whilst within the National Referral Mechanism.

NHS, Health and Community Care

Miranda practices in community care law and regularly acts in judicial review claims concerning community care provision, including support under the Children Act, Care Act, age assessment challenges and provision of accommodation and support to asylum seekers and victims of trafficking. She is highly experienced in handling urgent applications for interim relief.

Miranda is a contributor to NHS Law and Practice (2^nd Edition) and is currently co-editing a forthcoming practitioner text regarding the human rights with David Blundell KC and Alistair Mills.

Miranda has particular expertise in claims related to support and protection for victims of trafficking.

In 2021, Miranda appeared, led by Simon Cox, in a number of linked challenges to the Home Office’s failure to provide accommodation for failed asylum seekers during the pandemic, QBB et al v SSHD.

In 2020, Miranda appeared with Amanda Weston KC in EOG v SSHD [2020] EWHC 3310 (Admin), a successful challenge to the prohibition on working and lack of support for certain victims of trafficking. The High Court declared that the Home Office’s policy, which failed to provide any route to leave to remain or right to work for potential victims of trafficking, was unlawful.

Miranda has acted in a number of challenges that have led to beneficial changes in Home Office policy regarding the support given to victims of trafficking. She was instructed in NN & LP v SSHD, a successful challenge to the 45-day limit to support for recognised victims of trafficking. As a result of this litigation, the Home Secretary agreed to withdraw this challenge and remove the time limit which had previously been imposed on victims of trafficking seeking to access support. Miranda also acted in PM v SSHD, a successful challenge to the cessation of support given to victims of trafficking, led by Samantha Knights KC.

Miranda acted with Alex Goodman in YPG v SSHD, a challenge to the reduced levels of support available for victims of trafficking who are pregnant or have young children. The Home Office amended their policy as a result of this litigation, leading to higher rates of support for victims of trafficking.

Cross-practice

Landmark's barristers often work at the intersection of our core practice areas; bringing a wide range of skills, knowledge and experience to bear on a particular dispute or issue facing a client.

Our focus is always on achieving the best possible outcome for our client. By viewing the client's objectives in a holistic way - and not purely through the lens of one rigidly-defined legal area - we deliver the best possible advice and representation in complex matters that engage multiple specialist areas of law. 

Whether it's providing support as an individual cross-practice barrister or a cross-disciplinary team of Landmark counsel, we are able to draw on an outstanding array of complementary skillsets and knowledge bases. This often achieves a better result than instructing multiple barristers from different specialist sets. This also improves the quality of client care through increased levels of communication, quicker response times, and a coordinated approach to clerking and fees, made possible by our team-based cross-practice approach.

Please contact our practice management team for more information.

Public Interest Litigation

EU Law post-Brexit

Local Government