Helen Baron

Helen Baron

Solicitor

Helen is a public law solicitor who specialises in migrant rights judicial review litigation.

Background

Helen is a solicitor who joined Deighton Pierce Glynn in September 2021. Previously Helen worked at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, where she worked as a caseworker, trainee solicitor and qualified as a solicitor in March 2021.

Prior to her legal career, Helen worked in the aid sector, assisting humanitarian responses to refugee flows, displaced people, conflict and natural disasters around the world.

Expertise

Helen represents clients in judicial review claims, focusing on migrant support challenges. She acts for disabled, deaf and blind asylum seekers who are facing discrimination and barriers to equal access and service from the Home Office and local authorities. She also represents Afghan individuals who worked with the British forces and authorities and are now at risk from the Taliban, and who urgently need to relocate to the UK for protection.

She routinely represents asylum seekers and care leavers seeking adequate accommodation and support from the Home Office or Local Authorities. Her recent cases have focused on helping people to secure accommodation that will allow them continue accessing mental health treatment or vital support networks, securing adequate accommodation for pregnant women prior to the birth of their children, and challenging long delays in moving families with children from temporary to longer term accommodation.

She also represents asylum seeking care leavers whose local authority support has been terminated, children whose age is being disputed and people with disabilities who require support and accommodation from their local authority. She has particular experience assisting clients who are Deaf and in inadequate asylum accommodation.

Since the return of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in August 2021, Helen has assisted former interpreters for the British Army and other at risk individuals who worked for the UK authorities in Afghanistan to challenge delays and refusal decisions of the Ministry of Defence, and refusals of visa applications by the Home Office. She also assisted individuals who were issued with notices of intent to remove them to Rwanda, by challenging the Home Office’s refusal to process their claims in the UK.

Sample Cases

Significant cases in which Helen has acted include:

R (BUU1) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 816: Our client successfully challenged the decision of the Secretary of State for Defence to refuse his Additional Family Members (AFM) application under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Program (ARAP). The judgment clarifies the meaning of the relevant test for ‘elevated threat’. The decision was quashed as it did not consider (i) whether the AFMs’ risks from their own previous roles in the Afghan government and military gave rise to vulnerabilities such that they required relocation; and (ii) whether our client held a ‘high profile’ role for the purposes of the Afghan Response Route put in place following the SSD’s February 2022 data breach, such that his family should be relocated on that basis. The SSD has agreed to reconsider and make a new decision on the AFM application.

R (FZW) v Bristol City Council [2026] EWHC 1956 (Admin): Our client successfully challenged the local authority’s decision to refuse to provide her with ‘care leaver’ support under s23C Children Act 1989. The local authority’s position was that they supported our client under s17 Children Act 1989 prior to her turning 18, and not under s20 of the same Act, because she was accommodated with her elder sister as a ‘family unit’. The Court found that in substance, the local authority provided our client with support as a Looked After Child under s20 (making her therefore eligible for care leaver support under s23C on turning 18), as there was no one with parental authority for her and her elder sister was unable to provide her with adequate care and accommodation. The Court found it highly pertinent that the local authority did not adequately ascertain our client’s wishes and feelings as to the pathway of support being provided to her.

R (Parkes) v Dorset Council [2024] EWHC 1253 (Admin). This claim challenged the decision of Dorset Council that they did not have jurisdiction to exercise planning control over the Bibby Stockholm, a barge being used to accommodate asylum seekers.

CVN, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Croydon [2023] EWHC 464 (Admin). A care leaver successfully challenged the local authority’s decision to terminate his support (including accommodation and financial support) under the ‘leaving care’ provisions of the Children Act 1989. The Court found that terminating the Claimant’s support would breach his rights under Article 3 ECHR. The Court also found that the termination was a disproportionate interference with the Claimant’s right to education under Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR.

SB & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough Of Newham [2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin). A disabled man and his mother, his full time carer, successfully challenged the local authority’s decision to terminate their support under the Care Act 2014. The Court re-affirmed the position that an individual’s eligibility for asylum accommodation is not relevant to the question of eligibility for local authority accommodation under the Care Act, and there is no requirement for ‘specialist’ or ‘residential’ accommodation in order to be eligible. The correct legal test is whether an individual has ‘accommodation-related’ care needs, i.e. needs for care and support ‘of a sort which is normally provided in the home’ and would be ‘effectively useless if he had no home’.