Category: Case law

Legal Aid Agency compelled to reconsider application by anorexia patient for legal aid for psilocybin treatment

28 February 2026 by Jasper Gold

How should the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) respond when a person with anorexia, which has had a “severe and debilitating impact on her physical and mental health” for a long time, applies for legal aid to assist her with making an application to the Home Office for permission for her medical team to treat her with psilocybin (the main psychoactive component in various mushrooms commonly referred to as magic mushrooms)?

In R (EB) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2026] EWHC 402, the High Court considered a challenge to the LAA’s refusal of legal aid for exactly that purpose. The Claimant had been a participant in a clinical trial at Imperial College London (a global leader in psychedelic research, and had found the treatment highly effective with no side effects ([4]). Psilocybin, though, is a controlled drug, and cannot be used even medically without authorisation from the Home Secretary under Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (the Regulations), which is far from straightforward.

Divisional Court quashes Palestine Action proscription: an extended look

23 February 2026 by Jonathan Metzer

The Divisional Court in R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin)(Dame Victoria Sharp P and Swift and Steyn JJ) has held that the proscription of Palestine Action should be quashed on the basis that the Home Secretary had failed to follow relevant policy guidance and had not struck a fair balance in respect of relevant rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Home Secretary has indicated that she intends to appeal.

This ‘extended look’ article will examine the grounds on which the claim succeeded and evaluate the Home Secretary’s potential prospects on appeal (permission for which has been granted).

Are tribunals required to consider public law challenges?

13 February 2026 by Guest Contributor

The post below was originally published on the Administrative Court Blog, of which its author, Dr Lewis Graham, is an editor. It is republished here with the Dr Graham’s permission.

The First-tier Tribunal had delivered a ruling in which it has allowed a claimant to challenge the imposition of a liability order on public law grounds, despite the jurisdiction for this not being set out explicitly in the relevant statute. The decision does not set a precedent, and strictly involves a narrow point of construction relating to the Finance Act. However, its reasoning, if approved or adopted on appeal, may have significant ramifications for claimants wishing to rely on public law grounds before tribunal appeals more generally. The case is Hall v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 124 (TC) (13 January 2026).

The claimant, Hall, was issued a Joint and Several Liability Notice (JSLN) and sought to appeal it before the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). He wished to challenge the notice on five grounds. It was undisputed that the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the first two grounds (whether the prerequisite conditions were met, and whether the notice was necessary for the protection of revenue, respectively). However, HMRC disputed the tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider Grounds 3 to 5 (relating to the proportionality of the measure, the rationality of the measure, and a failure to follow relevant guidance) and applied for these grounds to be struck out, under rule 8(2) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The question for the tribunal was, therefore, whether it did have the jurisdiction to consider these – public law – grounds.

The Article 2 Operational Duty and Regulatory Investigations

29 January 2026 by Matthew Leitch

In Suresh & Ors v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 804 (KB), the High Court considered claims brought by the family of a doctor who died by suicide after receiving a letter from the General Medical Council (GMC). That letter stated that his Fitness to Practise was under investigation for allegedly sexually assaulting a 15-year-old patient.

It is important to emphasise that Marcus Pilgerstorfer KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, recorded at the outset of his judgment that identification evidence provided to the police by the complainant was inconsistent with the perpetrator being Dr Suresh. The Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. Dr Suresh has never been found to have committed the offence alleged [4].

Dr Suresh’s family brought claims against the GMC in negligence and under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Defendant successfully applied to have both claims struck out and/or summarily dismissed. This article considers the court’s analysis of the human rights claim.

Scrutiny of judicial safeguards for detention: Cameron v Secretary of State for Justice and Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 1574

23 January 2026 by Guest Contributor

By Josephine Lunnon

INTRODUCTION

The crux of the issue in this appeal is both narrow and, to some degree, exceptionally broad. It is narrow in that the central issue before the Court of Appeal was “whether an application made under s.75(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 by a mental health patient to the First-tier Tribunal  while subject to a conditional discharge is extinguished by the recall to hospital of that patient by the Secretary of State for Justice under s42(3) of the Act” [1]; a pithy, glamorous summary.

However, the appeal has simultaneously broad implications; the Court considered whether certain mechanisms of judicial oversight were effective as judicial safeguards and in providing speedy consideration of a person’s deprivation of liberty as required by Article 5(4) ECHR. In what was ultimately an academic discussion which was somewhat removed from the generative facts, the Court of Appeal examined whether there was indeed a “lacuna” in the FtT’s oversight of offenders who have been conditionally discharged with a restriction order.

Substantially Different? R (Hippolyte) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1493

17 January 2026 by Matthew Leitch

Background

The Applicant, a national of St Lucia, made an application on 2 December 2022 for ILR under Category 4 of the Windrush Scheme. Her father was a member of the Windrush generation and entered the UK in 1956. He was granted British citizenship in 2018 [4]-[19].

To fall within Category 4, an applicant should satisfy the following criteria [7]:

1. A person in the UK,
2. who is a child of a Commonwealth citizen parent,
3. where the child was born in the UK or arrived in the UK before the age of 18,
4. and has been continuously resident in the UK since their birth or arrival,
5. and the parent was settled before 1 January 1973 or has the right of abode (or met these criteria but is now a British citizen).

Although the Applicant satisfied the other criteria, because of her repeated travel to St Lucia since arriving in the UK in August 2000, the Respondent refused her application on the basis that she failed to satisfy criterion (d) above [18]-[19].

R (Bhupinder Iffat Rizvi) v HM Assistant Coroner for South London and others [2025] EWHC 3014 (Admin)

12 December 2025 by Peter Skelton KC

Introduction

In this case, the High Court considered the appropriate legal test for leaving findings of fact to juries in Article 2 inquests. Is it that such findings are arguable? Or is it that there is sufficient evidence to support them? The answer, quite firmly, is the latter.

Family life and extraterritorial jurisdiction: IA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1516 

10 December 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Samuel Talalay

Introduction 

Chief Constable in contempt: Buzzard-Quashie v CC of Northamptonshire Police [2025] EWCA Civ 1397

8 December 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Kian Leong Tan

INTRODUCTION

In Buzzard-Quashie v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police [2025] EWCA Civ 1397, the Court of Appeal has helpfully restated the law on (civil) contempt of court. The decision – arising out of a longstanding refusal by the Northamptonshire police force (“the police force”) to comply with orders from the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) and the courts to release footage from officers’ body-worn cameras (“BWV”) – also affirms the liability of a chief constable for the acts and omissions of their subordinates.

Manifestation of religious belief: Smith v Manchester City Council [2025] EWHC 2987 (KB)

4 December 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Georgina Pein

To what extent does the law afford protection to couples looking to foster children, in circumstances where that couple possesses (and vocalises) strong religious beliefs? This was the issue for consideration before Turner J, who heard this appeal in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. Judgment was handed down on 18 November 2025.

Family Court issues repeat warning in anonymous surrogate case

13 November 2025 by Clare Ciborowska

Re B and C v D and H (Anonymous Surrogacy) [2025] EWFC 366

Put simply, intended parents should avoid embarking on a surrogacy arrangement where they do not meet, have any knowledge of or means of contacting the surrogate who carries their much wanted child. (Mrs Justice Theis DBE)

This case concerned an application by intended parents for a parental order in respect of an 18-month-old child following a surrogacy arrangement with a surrogate in Nigeria whom neither of the intended parents had met and about whom they had no information.

Court of Appeal clarifies judicial duties when making final care and placement orders at an IRH – Re D [2025] EWCA Civ 1362

10 November 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Emily Higlett

Introduction

The Court of Appeal in Re D has overturned final care and placement orders made at an Issues Resolution Hearing (“IRH”), stating that judges must give clear, reasoned findings on the threshold criteria under section 31(2) Children Act 1989 (“CA 1989”), even where proceedings are uncontested or parents are absent.

In delivering the judgment, Cobb LJ, with whom Baker LJ and Miles LJ agreed, criticised the short form reasoning used by the Family Court and stressed the need for transparent judicial decision-making when the State intervenes in family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”).

The scope of advocates’ immunity: CC of Sussex Police and the CPS v XGY

5 November 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Kian Leong Tan

INTRODUCTION

Do advocates retain an absolute immunity for things and said and done in court, or must the invocation of the immunity be scrutinised on a case-by-case basis? A heavyweight panel of the Court of Appeal – including the Lady Chief Justice and the President of the King’s Bench Division – in Chief Constable of Sussex Police and the Crown Prosecution Service v XGY (Bar Council intervening) [2025] EWCA Civ 1230 (“XGY”) has come down decisively in favour of the former proposition, offering some much-needed clarity on this area of law.

Hora v the United Kingdom: Strasbourg’s New Ruling on UK’s Prisoner Voting Ban

1 October 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Lewis Graham

In 2005, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights handed down its landmark decision in Hirst v the United Kingdom, finding that the effect of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, bringing into effect a blanket ban on the ability of prisoners in the UK to vote in elections, constituted a breach of Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the Convention (the right to free elections).

To say the case was controversial is an understatement, with the judgment becoming something of a bête noire for Strasbourg sceptics. Murray suggests that the judgment was pivotal in the “monstering” of the European Court. It is often presented as a case which epitomises Strasbourg overreach, taking the number 1 spot in the Judicial Power Project’s buffet of unfavourable, “problematic” legal cases. David Cameron, of course, famously remarked that the idea of complying with the judgment and giving (some) prisoners the vote made him feel “physically sick”.

Physician and Anaesthesia Associates: Delegation, Informed Consent, and Montgomery in the Administrative Court

26 September 2025 by Guest Contributor

By Kian Leong Tan

INTRODUCTION

In R (Anaesthetists United Ltd and Others) v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 2270 (Admin) (“Anaesthetists United”), Mrs Justice Lambert dismissed a judicial review claim brought by the claimants against the defendant regulator for Physician Associates (“PAs”) and Anaesthesia Associates (“AAs”) – collectively referred to hereafter as “Associates” – in the UK.

The claim is the most recent instalment in a brewing saga over the continued use and regulation of Associates in the UK’s healthcare system:

• In April 2025, Lambert J dismissed the British Medical Association (“BMA”)’s judicial review challenge (R (British Medical Association v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 960 (Admin)) to the GMC’s decisions to (i) apply the same basic professional standards to doctors and Associates, and (ii) refer to all three professions collectively as ‘medical professionals’.
• Just prior to the handing down of Anaesthetists United, Professor Gillian Leng released her final report following the conclusion of her independent review into the Associate professions.