Select an area of expertise to find out more about our experience.
Find out more about our barristers and business support teams here.
Select an area of expertise to find out more about our experience.
Find out more about our barristers and business support teams here.
Robert Cohen is a leading practitioner whose practice encompasses public and administrative law, police law, inquests and inquiries, human rights and information law.
He is a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel of Counsel and is regularly instructed by central government departments and other public authorities in difficult and sensitive litigation. His recent work includes appearances in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, complex judicial reviews, major public inquiries and high-profile inquests.
Robert is ranked by Chambers UK as a leading junior in Administrative & Public Law, Police Law, and Inquests & Public Inquiries, and by The Legal 500 as a leading junior in Police Law and Inquests & Inquiries.
His practice is particularly suited to cases which cross conventional boundaries between public law, human rights, information law and the law governing the police and other public authorities. He has considerable experience of cases involving sensitive information, national security or operational matters, deaths involving public authorities, prisons and prisoners, and challenges to the exercise of public powers.
Robert has appeared in a number of significant appellate cases, including R (O’Brien) v HM Assistant Coroner for Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens [2026] EWCA Civ 499, R (Murcott) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EWCA Civ 436, FXJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1357; [2024] KB 371, and R (Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct [2023] UKSC 24; [2023] 1 WLR 230.
He has also been instructed in major public inquiries and inquests, including the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, the Orgreave Inquiry, the Birmingham Pub Bombings inquests and the inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichny.
Robert is known for combining detailed command of complex material with concise and pragmatic advocacy. Recent comments in Chambers UK include:
“Robert Cohen is helpful, responsive and a very good advocate.”
“Robert Cohen is responsive and shows common sense in his submissions. He has good judgement and faces issues head on.”
“Robert is often instructed by the government on difficult cases.”
“Robert is appropriately concise and gets to the heart of the issue quickly. His submissions are well made.”
“Rob is a very comprehensive advocate and he provides an excellent service.”
Robert accepts instructions in Direct Access cases.
Robert is ranked by both Chambers UK and The Legal 500 as a leading junior in police law.
He has extensive experience acting for Chief Constables and other policing bodies in the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and County Court. His work encompasses judicial review, civil claims against the police, inquests, misconduct and disciplinary proceedings, information law and the disclosure of sensitive material.
Robert has particular expertise in cases in which police law intersects with public law and human rights. He regularly advises on the lawfulness of operational decisions; arrest and detention; the use of police powers; the management and disclosure of sensitive information; criminal records and vetting; Public Interest Immunity; and claims arising from alleged failures to protect or investigate.
He has appeared in a number of important appellate cases concerning policing. In R (Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct [2023] UKSC 24; [2023] 1 WLR 230 he acted for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in the litigation concerning the proper test to be applied to an officer’s use of force in police misconduct proceedings.
In R (O’Brien) v HM Assistant Coroner for Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens [2026] EWCA Civ 499 Robert represented the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police in an appeal concerning the proper scope of an inquest and the approach to causation where it was alleged that earlier police omissions might have prevented a subsequent death.
His other reported police cases include Gray v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 1360 and Murray v Chief Constable of Lancashire [2015] EWCA Civ 1174.
R (O’Brien) v HM Assistant Coroner for Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens [2026] EWCA Civ 499
Acted for the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police in the Court of Appeal in a challenge concerning the scope of an inquest into the death of a woman following a history of domestic abuse. The appeal raised important questions concerning coronial causation and the circumstances in which alleged earlier police failures should fall within the scope of an inquest.
R (Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct [2023] UKSC 24; [2023] 1 WLR 230
Acted for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in this important Supreme Court case concerning the test to be applied when assessing a police officer’s use of force in misconduct proceedings.
Khan v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police [2017] EWHC 2185 (QB)
Acted for both Chief Constables in claims for false imprisonment, trespass, assault and defamation arising from the claimant’s arrest on suspicion of terrorism offences. The claims were dismissed in their entirety.
Gray v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2016] EWCA Civ 1360
Successfully represented the Commissioner in a second appeal concerning the seizure of a vehicle pursuant to section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Murray v Chief Constable of Lancashire [2015] EWCA Civ 1174
Appeared in this important Court of Appeal case concerning interim injunctions to prevent gang-related violence.
Robert is ranked by Chambers UK and The Legal 500 as a leading junior in inquests and inquiries.
He has extensive experience representing police forces, government departments, healthcare bodies and other public authorities at complex and sensitive inquests. His cases frequently concern Article 2 ECHR, deaths in custody, alleged failures by public authorities to protect individuals from harm, police use of force, domestic abuse, healthcare and questions concerning the proper scope of a coronial investigation.
Robert is also an Assistant Coroner and therefore brings to his advocacy a detailed practical understanding of coronial law and procedure.
He has acted in a number of particularly high-profile inquests, including the renewed inquests into the Birmingham Pub Bombings and the inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichny.
Robert also has substantial experience of judicial review arising from coronial proceedings. He appeared for the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police in Coroner for the Birmingham Inquests (1974) v Hambleton [2018] EWCA Civ 2081; [2019] 1 WLR 3417, an important Court of Appeal authority concerning the requirements of Article 2 and the proper scope of an inquest. More recently, he appeared for Merseyside Police in R (O’Brien) v HM Assistant Coroner for Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens [2026] EWCA Civ 499.
Inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichny
Acted for the Chief Constable of Surrey in the lengthy and high-profile inquest into the death of the Russian businessman Alexander Perepilichny.
Birmingham Pub Bombings Inquests
Acted for the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police in the renewed inquests into the deaths of the 21 people killed in the Birmingham Pub Bombings.
Coroner for the Birmingham Inquests (1974) v Hambleton [2018] EWCA Civ 2081; [2019] 1 WLR 3417
Acted for the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police in the Court of Appeal. The case concerned whether Article 2 ECHR required an inquest to investigate and determine the identity of those responsible for a death.
Inquests into the deaths of former patients of Paul Miller
Acted for Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust in a series of inquests concerning the treatment provided by the former consultant urologist Paul Miller.
Re Darryl Sharples
Acted in an inquest into a death following repeated contact with the police. The case raised difficult questions concerning the lawful sharing of information between public authorities.
Robert is a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel of Counsel and has a substantial public and administrative law practice.
He is regularly instructed by government departments, police forces and other public bodies in complex judicial reviews and appellate litigation. His work has particular emphasis on prisons and prisoners, policing, national security and the armed forces, information sharing, coronial law and human rights.
Robert frequently appears unled in substantial Administrative Court and appellate cases. Recent examples include R (Murcott) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EWCA Civ 436, concerning procedural fairness and the categorisation of a Category A prisoner; R (O’Brien) v HM Assistant Coroner [2026] EWCA Civ 499; and R (Bidar) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 3122 (Admin).
He appeared in R (EPX) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 108 (Admin); [2026] HRLR 7, a challenge concerning the application of Ministry of Defence policies to members of the Armed Forces, and in R (L) v Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces [2024] EWHC 1094 (Admin).
His appellate work also includes FXJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1357; [2024] KB 371; [2024] 2 WLR 843.
Before coming to the Bar, Robert worked as a Legal Assistant at the House of Commons, where his work included advising in relation to Parliamentary privilege and assisting with interventions in judicial review proceedings. That experience continues to inform his particular interest in constitutional and public law questions.
R (O’Brien) v HM Assistant Coroner for Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens [2026] EWCA Civ 499
Represented the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police in the Court of Appeal in a challenge to a coroner’s decision concerning the scope of an inquest.
R (Murcott) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EWCA Civ 436
Successfully represented the Secretary of State for Justice in the Court of Appeal in a case concerning procedural fairness and the review of a prisoner’s Category A status.
R (EPX) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 108 (Admin); [2026] HRLR 7
Acted for the Secretary of State for Defence in judicial review proceedings concerning the application of Ministry of Defence policies governing communications by serving personnel.
R (Bidar) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 3122 (Admin)
Acted for the Secretary of State for Justice in judicial review proceedings concerning the management and categorisation of a prisoner.
R (L) v Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces [2024] EWHC 1094 (Admin)
Acted in judicial review proceedings concerning the Armed Forces service complaints system.
FXJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1357; [2024] KB 371; [2024] 2 WLR 843
Acted for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Court of Appeal in an important case concerning the circumstances in which a public authority may owe a common-law duty of care.
E v E [2017] EWHC 2165 (Fam); [2018] Fam 24; [2018] 2 WLR 200
Acted for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in proceedings concerning the interaction between the Hague Convention on international child abduction and the Refugee Convention.
Robert has considerable experience acting in major public inquiries and other large-scale investigations.
He has been instructed in the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, the Thirlwall Inquiry, the Lampard Inquiry and in the Orgreave Inquiry. His inquiry work draws particularly upon his wider expertise in public law, policing, inquests, information law and the handling of extensive and sensitive documentary evidence.
Robert is comfortable working as part of large legal teams but also has extensive experience of taking responsibility for discrete witnesses, evidential topics and substantial areas of an inquiry without a leader. He is particularly experienced in preparing senior public officials and other witnesses to give evidence and in dealing with complex factual and statistical material.
His wider experience of high-profile investigations includes the renewed Birmingham Pub Bombings inquests and the inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichny.
Robert has substantial experience of information law and regularly acts in Freedom of Information Act and data protection cases.
He has appeared in a series of recent appeals before the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, including Foster v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1237 (GRC), Hopkins v Information Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 979 (GRC), Department for Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 334 (GRC), and SS v Disclosure and Barring Service [2024] UKUT 442 (AAC).
His information law practice is particularly informed by his experience acting for police forces and government departments. He is frequently instructed in cases involving the intersection between information rights, law enforcement, national security, confidentiality and Public Interest Immunity.
Robert has extensive experience advising public bodies on the handling and disclosure of sensitive personal information and has appeared in a large number of applications concerning sensitive disclosure and PII.
Before coming to the Bar, Robert worked at the House of Commons and was involved in matters relating to the disclosure of MPs’ expenses under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Foster v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1237 (GRC)
Appeared in an appeal before the First-tier Tribunal concerning the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Hopkins v Information Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 979 (GRC)
Appeared in an information rights appeal before the First-tier Tribunal.
Department for Work and Pensions v Information Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 334 (GRC)
Acted in an appeal by the Department for Work and Pensions against a decision of the Information Commissioner.
SS v Disclosure and Barring Service [2024] UKUT 442 (AAC)
Appeared in the Upper Tribunal in proceedings concerning the Disclosure and Barring Service.
Robert has extensive experience of Human Rights Act litigation, particularly in cases concerning Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
As a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel, he regularly acts for government departments in cases raising human rights issues. His work frequently concerns prisons and other forms of state detention, the Armed Forces, policing and investigations into deaths.
Robert’s combined expertise in public law, police law and inquests makes him particularly well suited to cases concerning the positive and procedural obligations imposed upon the state by Articles 2 and 3.
Recent work includes R (EPX) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 108 (Admin); [2026] HRLR 7. His previous appellate cases include Coroner for the Birmingham Inquests (1974) v Hambleton [2018] EWCA Civ 2081; [2019] 1 WLR 3417, concerning the investigative obligation under Article 2.
R (EPX) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 108 (Admin); [2026] HRLR 7
Acted for the Secretary of State for Defence in proceedings raising questions concerning Convention rights and restrictions applying to members of the Armed Forces.
Coroner for the Birmingham Inquests (1974) v Hambleton [2018] EWCA Civ 2081; [2019] 1 WLR 3417
Acted for the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police in this important Court of Appeal authority concerning the investigative obligation under Article 2 ECHR.
Chief Constable of Lancashire v Wilson and others [2015] EWHC 2763 (QB)
Appeared for the Chief Constable in proceedings in which it was alleged that provisions governing gang injunctions were incompatible with Article 6 ECHR.
Robert has extensive experience of police misconduct and other professional disciplinary proceedings.
His practice in this area is closely connected with his wider police and public law work. He has acted in cases involving serious allegations against police officers, the proper legal test governing use of force, dishonesty and failures in criminal investigations.
Robert was instructed on behalf of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in the litigation culminating in R (Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct [2023] UKSC 24; [2023] 1 WLR 230, one of the leading modern authorities on police misconduct and the assessment of an officer’s use of force.
He is regularly asked to advise police forces and other public bodies on disciplinary and regulatory issues, including cases which involve parallel criminal, coronial or civil proceedings.
R (Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct [2023] UKSC 24; [2023] 1 WLR 230
Acted for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in proceedings culminating in the Supreme Court concerning the appropriate test when considering an officer’s use of force in police misconduct proceedings.
Robert has substantial experience of civil claims involving public authorities, including claims in negligence, false imprisonment, assault and claims arising from death or serious injury.
His work increasingly involves difficult questions concerning the existence and scope of duties owed by public authorities. He appeared for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in FXJ v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1357; [2024] KB 371; [2024] 2 WLR 843, an important Court of Appeal decision concerning the circumstances in which a public authority assumes responsibility so as to owe a common-law duty of care.
His experience of inquests, human rights and public law enables him to deal particularly effectively with civil claims arising from the actions or alleged omissions of police forces, prisons and other public authorities.
Robert has considerable experience of inquests and litigation in which the acts or omissions of healthcare professionals are scrutinised.
He has represented healthcare bodies in complex inquests and civil claims, including the series of inquests concerning former patients of consultant urologist Paul Miller.
His healthcare work benefits from his broader experience of coronial law, Article 2 ECHR and public authority liability. He has acted in cases concerning the treatment of mental illness, cancer, serious obesity and other complex medical conditions.
Robert is an Associate Member of the Royal Society of Medicine.
Robert has experience of Court of Protection proceedings involving:
His wider experience of public law, human rights and healthcare is particularly valuable in cases involving the interface between capacity, deprivation of liberty and the obligations of public bodies.
22 July 2026
We are delighted to announce that Robert Cohen, Alex Ustych, Robert Talalay, Alice Meredith, Lissy Verrall-Withers, Paige Jones, Jack Palmer and…
Discover more14 April 2026
Having defended the Defendant’s decision in the High Court, Robert Cohen successfully acted for the…
Discover moreCharlotte Ventham KC and Robert Cohen appeared for the Secretary of State…
The Thirlwall Inquiry begins today with opening statements from Counsel to the…
Instructing Robert
Please contact Dan Waple if you have any questions or wish to instruct us.
Administrative & Public Law:
“Robert is appropriately concise and gets to the heart of the issue quickly. His submissions are well made.”
“Robert is often instructed by the government on difficult cases.”
Inquests and Public Inquiries:
“Rob is a very comprehensive advocate and he provides an excellent service.”
Police Law:
“Robert Cohen is responsive and shows common sense in his submissions. He has good judgement and faces issues head on.”
“Robert Cohen is helpful, responsive and a very good advocate.”
“Robert’s advocacy is polished, concise and persuasive.”
Police Law:
‘Robert has a particular aptitude for difficult and complex claims relating to GDPR and the Data Protection Act.’
Administrative and Public Law:
“Robert Cohen is a hard fighter for his clients. He is innovative, an excellent advocate and very collaborative.”
“He presents his clients’ cases extremely well. His written and oral advocacy are really good. I find them persuasive because he is very good at strategic choices on how to present the case.”
Police Law:
“Robert Cohen had a good handle on the issues of law but also on how to manage his client’s case in the best way possible.”
“Robert is an excellent advocate. He is very approachable and puts witnesses at ease when discussing cases in conference. He always provides clear advice and is very well liked by many of our clients in this area.” (Police Law)
“His written pleadings were very effective and hard-hitting and he has been extremely charming and collaborative.” (Administrative and Public Law)
“Technically excellent, strong advocate and very approachable and responsive. Calm under pressure.” (Police Law)
“He runs clients’ cases very effectively, succeeding each time.”
‘Robert is adept at analysing a case, knowing the points he has to make, and focusing on those points in writing, in questioning and in closing.’
“Very knowledgeable and approachable, and very well organised.” (Police Law)
“He has a good understanding of the workings of prison and draws upon this for his inquest work – very pleasant to work with and the witnesses like him.” (Inquest and Inquiries)
“Robert demonstrates a highly impressive command of the evidence in a case with a fine ability to grasp and then focus on the key issues.” (Police Law – Defendant)
“He is good with officers and very solid on the paperwork as well.” (Police Law)
“He presents very well in front of tribunals and the High Court. He is very good at fighting his client’s corner.” (Police Law)
“Intelligent, ambitious and very calm under pressure. He has shown himself to be tireless and self-motivated in long and complex cases.”
“A very impressive junior. His attention to detail is second to none, as is his recall in even the most document-heavy cases. His manner is charming, and he always makes time to discuss a case whether in or out of hours. One gets the impression that there is not a lot he does not know about police defence work.” (Police Law)
“He is very experienced in dealing with civil actions against the police. He is good at handling witnesses and the client and managing their expectations. He is very effective in court.” (Police Law)
“He is extremely bright – the type of barrister who is invariably able to give an articulate answer to a judge’s questions. He is always very well prepared and you can rest in the knowledge that he knows the paperwork from back to front.” (Police Law)
“He is very approachable and has a good manner with clients.” (Police Law)
‘Tenaciously brilliant, combined with sound practical advice.’ (Police Law – Defendant)
Click here to view
