Rosalind Burgin accepts nationwide instructions in criminal defence, protest rights and housing law. She is committed to acting for the individual against the state or private bodies. Her day-to-day practice involves defending protestors in the criminal courts and representing tenants in possession proceedings and claims involving anti-social behaviour injunctions. She has a growing practice in public law, namely judicial review proceedings in social security.
Rosalind is regularly instructed in Crown Court and Magistrates Court matters, representing Defendants at all stages through to appeal, including Court of Appeal proceedings. She has dealt with offences ranging from theft and criminal damage to serious assaults, supplying Class A drugs, threats to kill and arson with intent to endanger life. She has successfully worked with defendants with vulnerabilities and complex needs by giving their cases due time, consideration and respect. This has included defendants who are young-adult care leavers, homeless, or victims of domestic violence. She is routinely instructed in cases where defendants require assessment on fitness to plead due to mental illness or impairment, and frequently advises on instructing and handling expert psychiatric evidence.
Rosalind has a successful and expanding Protest Rights practice in the Crown and Magistrates Courts. She has secured numerous acquittals in complex cases involving aggravated trespass, obstructing a highway and criminal damage.
Rosalind has defended protesters aligned with organisations such as Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action. She often appears alongside GCN’s Aarif Abraham and Mira Hammad. Rosalind completed pupillage under the supervision of Anna Morris KC, co-author of the Protest Handbook.
In her housing practice, Rosalind has grown an expertise across the full spectrum of landlord and tenant matters. She advises and represents tenants in possession proceedings, injunction hearings, committals for sentence and matters involving anti-social behaviour. She has experience in disrepair claims, as standalone matters and as counterclaims in possession proceedings. She recently secured damages in excess of £10,000 for a tenant in a standalone disrepair claim at trial.
Rosalind also has a longstanding interest in welfare benefits, discrimination and public law, having worked at the Greater Manchester Law Centre and on human rights claims at Leigh Day solicitors before joining Garden Court North. She worked on community outreach, strategic litigation and case preparation. At Leigh Day solicitors Rosalind’s caseload included human rights actions, welfare benefits cases and class action discrimination claims against large employers.
Rosalind has continued this work within Chambers’ prestigious public law team. Rosalind was junior counsel to Garden Court North’s Tom Royston in the Upper Tribunal and latterly Court of Appeal case of R (Bui) v SSWP [2022] UKUT 189 (AAC). This was a challenge to the lawfulness of the SSWP’s policy that she will not process payments of benefit to Universal Credit claimants without a national insurance number.
Outside the courtroom, Rosalind connects her legal practice with wider societal issues and struggles in our community. She continues to work with the protest support organisation Green and Black Cross, with whom she has volunteered with for over a decade, and remains connected to grassroots campaigns for social justice and against inequality.
Rosalind is a Member of Young Legal Aid Lawyers and the Haldane Society. From 2020 to 2022 she was on the executive committee of Legal Sector Workers United, a branch of the United Voices of the World union, and she remains an active member.
Rosalind is regularly instructed in Crown Court and Magistrates Court matters, representing Defendants at all stages through to appeal, including Court of Appeal proceedings. She has dealt with offences ranging from theft and criminal damage to serious assaults, supplying Class A drugs, threats to kill and arson with intent to endanger life. She has successfully worked with defendants with vulnerabilities and complex needs by giving their cases due time, consideration and respect. This has included defendants who are young-adult care leavers, homeless, or victims of domestic violence. She is routinely instructed in cases where defendants require assessment on fitness to plead due to mental illness or impairment, and frequently advises on instructing and handling expert psychiatric evidence.
Rosalind is regularly instructed in Crown Court and Magistrates Court matters, representing Defendants at all stages through to appeal, including Court of Appeal proceedings. She has dealt with offences ranging from theft and criminal damage to serious assaults, supplying Class A drugs, threats to kill and arson with intent to endanger life. She has successfully worked with defendants with vulnerabilities and complex needs by giving their cases due time, consideration and respect. This has included defendants who are young-adult care leavers, homeless, or victims of domestic violence. She is routinely instructed in cases where defendants require assessment on fitness to plead due to mental illness or impairment, and frequently advises on instructing and handling expert psychiatric evidence.
Rosalind has a successful and expanding Protest Rights practice in the Crown and Magistrates Courts. She has secured numerous acquittals in complex cases involving aggravated trespass, obstructing a highway and criminal damage.
Rosalind has defended protesters aligned with organisations such as Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and Palestine Action. She often appears alongside GCN’s Alexander McColl and Mira Hammad. Rosalind completed pupillage under the supervision of Anna Morris KC, co-author of the Protest Handbook.
The Defendants took part in a protest at a premises which they believed supplied Israel with weaponry. They were “locked on” inside vehicles at the gates. The Defendants were charged with obstructing a highway. Rosalind’s key argument was that the Defendant’s actions were a proportionate and lawful means of protest. The Defendants were acquitted on the basis that conviction would have been a disproportionate interference with Article 10 and 11 ECHR. The acquittal was discussed in Parliament.
The Defendants protested at a premises they believed supplied Israel with weaponry. Rosalind advised two defendants (JB and AT) from an early stage and gave mitigation at sentence. The Defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced for going equipped to cause criminal damage to a value of £30,000. The Defendants had acute vulnerabilities relevant to sentence and both avoided immediate custody.
The Defendants protested outside an abattoir. Protestors were “locked on” inside makeshift “coffins” outside and one gained access inside. Rosalind represented one protestor inside (SP) and one outside (BM), both charged with aggravated trespass. Rosalind successfully argued that the Crown hadn’t shown that the defendant outside the premises was on private land. He was duly acquitted. In complex submissions, Rosalind used evidence of breaches of animal welfare regulations at the premises and argued that the protestor inside acted to prevent crime. After lengthy discussion of case law on sentencing protestors, she was given a conditional discharge.
The Defendants protested at a factory which they believed manufactured parts for weapons used against Palestinians. The prosecution case was that they used angle grinders, drills and hammers to cause over one million pounds of damage. Rosalind drafted the 20-page legal argument ultimately used by all four defendants at trial, which was successful in convincing the Court that the defence of consent under s5(2)(a) should be available and left to the jury. This is a topical area of law in flux, which is expected to be subject to an Attorney-General’s reference in February 2024.
The Appellant appealed conviction and sentence for obstruction of a highway. The Defendant positioned herself in a road outside a premises which she believed manufactured components for weaponry used by Israel. The appeal was heard at the Crown Court over four days. Rosalind drafted legal argument on the Judge’s request: exercising the right to protest will amount to lawful excuse unless the prosecution prove that interference with an appellant’s rights under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR is necessary and proportionate (DPP v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23). This analysis of the law was accepted but the appeal refused on the facts.
In her housing practice, Rosalind has grown an expertise across the full spectrum of landlord and tenant matters. She advises and represents tenants in possession proceedings, injunction hearings, committals for sentence and matters involving anti-social behaviour. She has experience in disrepair claims, as standalone matters and as counterclaims in possession proceedings. She recently secured damages in excess of £10,000 for a tenant in a standalone disrepair claim at trial.
The Council applied to commit the Respondent to prison for breach of an injunction. The Respondent was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, and this was found relevant to his breaches of the injunction. In highly unusual circumstances, the Respondent was forbidden from entering an exclusion zone which included the location of his secure tenancy, following serious allegations which included threats of arson. Breaches were largely admitted; the issue for the Court was penalty.
The social landlord sought possession for rent arrears (s8, Ground 10). Rosalind represented the Defendant and drafted all pleadings. The Defendant had been ordered bankrupt. The Defendant agreed that there were arrears, but argued that this was in part caused by welfare benefit errors arising out of the landlord’s own communications with the DWP. The Defendant also argued discrimination and a public law defence, because all correspondence had been in English without offer of translation/interpreting. A further public law argument was raised as regards the landlord’s policy on bankrupt tenants. The matter settled at Court. Possession was not ordered.
The social landlord sought possession for antisocial behaviour (s8, Grounds 12, 14). Rosalind represented the Defendant. Many of the allegations were admitted. The claim was defended on the basis that (i) breaches that were not admitted needed to be proven subject to disputed issues around the hearsay admissibility, (ii) it would not be reasonable to order possession, (iii) it would not be lawful to order possession under the Equality Act. The Defendant was schizophrenic, and it was accepted that she is a victim of anti-social behaviour and exploitation herself. The matter settled at Court after a day of negotiation.
The social landlord sought possession on grounds of antisocial behaviour (s8, Grounds 12, 13, 14). Rosalind represented the Defendant. The Defendant argued that allegations were malicious. Unusually, the case engaged two different arguments under the Equality Act: that the Claimant is breaching the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in respect of the Defendant’s disabled daughter; and in respect of the Defendant being targeted because of her perceived sexuality. It was argued by Rosalind that the comments made by her neighbours are discriminatory based on common offensive stereotypes of bisexual women.
Unusually, a private landlord made a committal application for breach of undertaking. Rosalind acted for the Respondent. The undertaking was “not to cause noise… except on special occasions.” The Applicant sought an injunction that the Respondent is “to cease unnecessary noise.” Rosalind made successful applications in the face of the Court to refuse the Claimant’s injunction application, and to strike out the committal application. The injunction application was too broad, and both applications were improperly brought, as there was no Part 8 claim to which they related, nor was it made via Part 1 ASBCPA 2014.
Rosalind also has a longstanding interest in welfare benefits, discrimination and public law, having worked at the Greater Manchester Law Centre and on human rights claims at Leigh Day solicitors before joining Garden Court North. She worked on community outreach, strategic litigation and case preparation. At Leigh Day solicitors Rosalind’s caseload included human rights actions, welfare benefits cases and class action discrimination claims against large employers.
Rosalind has continued this work within Chambers’ prestigious public law team. Rosalind was junior counsel to Garden Court North’s Tom Royston in the Upper Tribunal and latterly Court of Appeal case of R (Bui) v SSWP [2022] UKUT 189 (AAC). This was a challenge to the lawfulness of the SSWP’s policy that she will not process payments of benefit to Universal Credit claimants without a national insurance number.
Rosalind also has a longstanding interest in welfare benefits, discrimination and public law, having worked at the Greater Manchester Law Centre and on human rights claims at Leigh Day solicitors before joining Garden Court North. She worked on community outreach, strategic litigation and case preparation. At Leigh Day solicitors Rosalind’s caseload included human rights actions, welfare benefits cases and class action discrimination claims against large employers.
Rosalind has continued this work within Chambers’ prestigious public law team. Rosalind was junior counsel to Garden Court North’s Tom Royston in the Upper Tribunal and latterly Court of Appeal case of R (Bui) v SSWP [2022] UKUT 189 (AAC). This was a challenge to the lawfulness of the SSWP’s policy that she will not process payments of benefit to Universal Credit claimants without a national insurance number.
Rosalind’s Privacy Notice can be viewed by clicking here
Our mailing list is dedicated to professionals with an interest in our work.
