Karl Rowley KC

• Karl represents local authorities, parents and extended families, and children (whether directly or by their Guardians) in the public law arena. He has appeared at all levels up to and including the Supreme Court and regularly represents parties in the Court of Appeal.He has a particular interest in cases involving complex medical evidence, including NAHI; alleged bone disease; child death; and purported poisonings. His experience covers applications such as for contact by former parents after the death of adopters; those involving foreign adoption; care cases with international elements; inherent jurisdiction cases concerning proposed medical treatment of minors; and applications to restrict publicity.In private law proceedings Karl’s practice has included multifaceted residence applications involving sexual abuse or homicide, protracted contact cases, international relocation, and cases concerning children with special needs.His public authority work has seen him advise and represent clients in the care standards tribunal. He was successful in resisting the first ever appeal to be heard in the Upper Tribunal, Administrative Appeals Chamber. He has advised various local authorities in respect of OFSTED assessments and reports.He has been instructed on behalf of nurseries and individual childcare professionals. He has conducted cases for applicants and defendants in judicial review proceedings. His theological background gives him a particular understanding of religious issues as they arise in family proceedings.

Notable Public Law Children cases

The Court of Appeal has outlined guidance on placement timings, after finding that a local authority’s decision to proceed with a farewell visit while a father’s application for permission to appeal was pending was “plainly wrong” and “contrary to the children’s interests”.

Led James Cleary for the lead respondent in the Court of Appeal against findings of fact that the appellant sexually abused a small child. The appeal against the recorder’s findings was dismissed whilst the lower court’s reasons were delivered with economy, they were sufficient as to substance.

Judgment by the President of the Family Division to highlight the unsatisfactory delays in the provision of post-mortem reports in suspected child homicide cases, and to describe possible alternative ways for the Family Court to proceed.

Represented a local authority where two NHS Trusts were refusing to admit a 15-year-old girl who had been twice assessed as urgently requiring admission in a secure mental health unit.

Seminal case as to court’s approach to the question of whether to hold a fact-finding hearing.

Appeared for the children and successfully defended the Judge’s decision on appeal.

Succeeded for appellant father in a case which gave guidance as to the approach of courts hearing cases during the viral pandemic.

Successfully argued that a person could not retain habitual residence in a country which they had left under a deportation order and to which they could not lawfully return.

Karl led 2 counsel for the lead local authority in the largest public law family case that has been litigated.

Appeared for the appellant in the Court of Appeal and was successful in arguing that the first instance decision should be overturned.

Appeared for father accused of holding radical views; local authority withdrew proceedings part way into hearing.

Appeal in high-profile case representing a mother seeking the admission of fresh evidence not sanctioned by the court.

Appeared for the mother in reopened proceedings where an infant had suffered 26 fractures.

Represented child in finely-balanced adoption/SGO case where different orders had been made in respect of siblings in the same placement.

Rehearing of case following Court of Appeal overturning findings against client. Local authority failed to establish case at retrial of smothering and other alleged injury against him.

Represented child fostered abroad and brought to UK. Carer applied to adopt here; Egypt sought child’s return. Child adopted.

Representing a mother accused of support for ISIS: local authority withdrew its application for care orders as no evidence of radicalisation of children.

Appeared for a mother accused of attempting to take her children to Syria; President of Family Division did not make the finding sought by the local authority and the applications were dismissed.

Acted for the appellants in the Court of Appeal. The Court overturned a finding of fact that a person caused a child’s death and went on to give guidance as to the use of a finding of a lie in family cases.

A fact finding hearing in respect of the death of a baby who had been shaken.