Monthly News Archives: February 2025
28 February 2025 by Leo Kirby
In Sleeper v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2025] EWHC 151 (KB) Mr Justice Sweeting dismissed an appeal against the decision of HHJ Saggerson to dismiss a claim against the Metropolitan Police by a street preacher arrested for displaying anti-Muslim signs.
The claim was both for the tort of false imprisonment (which involved a challenge to the legality of his arrest) and for a remedy breach of his rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 directly, though the latter was time barred and not resurrected on appeal.
Mr Justice Sweeting’s judgment provides insight into how the courts assess the interplay of Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) and domestic criminal law.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
25 February 2025 by Rosalind English
In Episode 215 Jonathan Sumption, formerly of the Supreme Court and author of five volumes of the Hundred Years War, says, after some reflection that “the ECHR is manifestly not a sensible and democratic way of deciding what the law should be in a democracy.
“The Strasbourg Court is a wholly irresponsible body…in the sense that it is not responsible to anyone”
Listen to Rosalind English in conversation with Lord Sumption about the reasons why this country should prepare for withdrawal from the ECHR; the “mission creep” of Articles 6 and 8; the avid adoption of the “living instrument” doctrine whereby that court extends its jurisdiction beyond its original remit; the “contempt” showed by the Strasbourg Court at the Swiss government’s democratic handling of climate change emissions, and the possible reputational consequences of the UK removing itself from the Council of Europe.
Law Pod UK aims to inform and enlighten our audience on important developments in civil and public law with a range of guests from 1 Crown Office Row and other legal experts. Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
Like this:
Like Loading...
24 February 2025 by Jennifer Zhou
In UK News
The Attorney General, Lord Hermer KC, has said that Axel Rudabakana’s sentence will not be referred to the Court of Appeal for undue lenience. Rudabakana was given a minimum 52-year sentence for murdering three girls in a dance class in July 2024. He would have received a full life order, said the trial judge, had he been an adult at the time of the crime (Rudabakana was 17). As it stands, his sentence is the “second longest…imposed by the courts in English history,” according to Lord Hermer.
The Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, criticised the Prime Minister for comments made about a ruling. Questioned about a legal loophole which allowed a Gazan family to use the Ukraine Scheme, Sir Keir Starmer called the decision “completely wrong.” Baroness Carr said she was “deeply troubled” by the comments. Emphasising the separation of powers, she pointed out that the right route for challenging judicial decisions was through the appellate process and that “it is for the government visibly to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary.”
The UK’s use of predictive policing is “automated racism,” according to a report from Amnesty International. Amnesty found that the use of predictive, profiling and risk assessment systems results in racial profiling and the disproportionate targeting of black people and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The charity said this was contrary to the UK’s obligations under human rights law including the Equality Act 2010, the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the Courts
The President of the Family Division has rebuked two women for an ‘astonishing’ surrogacy which risked leaving their children stateless. In Re Z (Unlawful Foreign Surrogacy: Adoption) [2025] EWHC 339 (Fam), Sir Andrew McFarlane heard that the parents had paid £120,000 to a clinic in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for two children. The children were carried by Ukrainian surrogate mothers and born on the same day “at the direction of the clinic.” One of the adoptive mothers then signed a form wrongly registering her as the mother of both the children. Subsequently, it became clear that: the location of birth did not afford the children Cypriot citizenship; having Ukrainian mothers did not afford them Ukrainian citizenship; and they had no legal connection to either of the adoptive mothers that would be recognised in the UK (the birth certificates having been issued on an incorrect basis). The children were eventually allowed to enter the UK through an application under the European Convention of Human Rights, article 8. Sir Andrew subsequently granted adoption orders for the children.
The judgment, published several months after the adoption orders were granted, was handed down “in order to draw attention… to the circumstances of the case…and to offer some advice for those who may, in future, unwisely seek to follow the path taken by the two applicants.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 February 2025 by Georgia Bowen
In UK News
The Home Office has tightened its ‘good character’ guidance for citizenship applicants who entered the UK illegally or via dangerous routes. From 10 February 2025, those applying who arrived without ‘a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey’ will ‘normally‘ have their citizenship applications refused. This is ‘regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry’. A ‘dangerous journey’ includes, but is not limited to, ‘travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle’. The Home Office has confirmed these new rules would ‘likely not apply’ to children, ‘given illegal entry is normally considered outside of a child’s control’. This policy shift reflects the government’s attempt to deter illegal migration via ‘small boats’, and comes alongside the introduction of the recent Border Security, Asylum an Immigration Bill. The change departs from the policy that illegal entrants could have their citizenship applications considered after ten years. These updates have been criticised as a potential contravention of UK obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention, which prohibits the penalisation of asylum seekers and refugees for illegal entry.
MI5 has admitted providing false information to the courts regarding neo-Nazi agent, ‘X’, accused of attacking his former partner ‘Beth’. Her complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) was heard in her absence in closed sessions, due to MI5’s claim that it could neither confirm nor deny X’s identity for national security reasons. However, it was revealed that a senior MI5 officer had disclosed X’s identity to a BBC journalist, while attempting to dissuade the organisation from naming him in a report. This contradicted the Security Service’s stance in evidence given to multiple courts that national security reasons meant its ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy was strict. The MI5 Director-General has given an ‘unreserved apology to the court’, emphasising the agency’s commitment to accuracy and transparency. This revelation has raised concerns about the reliability of the evidence provided by the security service, which is given deferential treatment in the courts. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced an independent review into the incident.
In International News
Ukraine will not be attending upcoming US-Russia peace talks in Saudi Arabia, with European leaders also excluded. The continent’s most powerful leaders will gather for a crisis summit in Paris to discuss how to safeguard the future of European defence in the event of US disengagement, and how best to support Ukraine’s position. This also comes after JD Vance, US Vice-President, has recently accused European democracies of stifling freedom of speech and religion, criticising the UK’s conviction of Christian Adam Smith-Connor for breaching a safe zone around an abortion clinic in Bournemouth. This reflects the fractures in relations between the US and Europe, and there is increasing uncertainty over what role the US will play in future European security. Former prime minister of the UK, John Major, has warned that global democracy is under threat if the US withdraws from its leading role in the world, and that American ‘isolationism’ risks emboldening Russia and China to step into the vacuum. Crucially, any peace deal concluded without Ukraine’s involvement risks undermining the country’s sovereignty and right to self-determination, which are foundational principles of international law. Without Ukrainian or European presence at the talks, it is also unclear what stance will be taken regarding justice and accountability for human rights violations that are alleged against Russia during the war. Whatever the outcome of the upcoming talks, the balance of the international order appears to be at stake.
In the Courts
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of Joseph El-Khouri against his extradition to the US to answer crimes of alleged insider trading. The decision clarified the definition of an ‘extradition offence’ and the operation of the ‘double criminality’ rule under s.137 of the Extradition Act 2003. This rule provides that the relevant conduct must constitute a crime in both the UK and the requesting country. Section 137 provides separate tests giving effect to the principle, depending on whether the acts took place in the requesting state’s territory (s.137(3)) or outside of it (s.137(4)). The Supreme Court rejected the USA’s arguments that, because the effects of Mr El-Khouri’s conduct were likely to be felt on US markets, they occurred ‘in’ the US . Departing from Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] 2 AC 1, the court held that the conduct occurred in the territory where the physical acts took place, not where their effects were felt. The court held that the statutory test for an extraditable offence was unworkable unless there was a clear distinction between offences taking place ‘in’ and ‘outside’ the requesting territory. The definition of conduct occurring ‘in’ the requesting territory had been too wide in Cando Armas, and this decision has labelled Lord Hope’s obiter comments in that case in particular as ‘mistaken’. In the present case, because almost all the relevant acts occurred in the UK and not in the US, Mr El-Khouri’s conduct had been wrongly classified as subject to the s.137(3) test. Although insider dealing was an offence under both US and UK criminal law, he could not be extradited because there was no provision of UK law which would have permitted a prosecution in equivalent circumstances of an individual in the US.
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 February 2025 by Emma-Louise Fenelon
In Episode 214 Emma-Louise Fenelon speaks to Rachel Marcus of 1, Crown Office Row and Dr Anna Colton, an experienced Clinical Psychologist, about vicarious trauma and trauma-informed lawyering.
Dr Colton’s book How to Talk to Children about Food, is available here:
· UK, audio & kindle
· New Zealand
· Australia
· More information about Dr Colton is available here
The episode mentions:
· Counsel magazine article: “The use of clinical supervision” by Mark Mason available here
· Law Pod Episode 147, Vicarious Trauma in the Legal Profession available here
· Vicarious Trauma in the Legal Profession: a practical guide to trauma, burnout and collective care by Rachel Francis and Joanna Fleck available here
· The Body Keeps the Score, Bessel Van Der Kolk available here
Law Pod UK aims to inform and enlighten our audience on important developments in civil and public law with a range of guests from 1 Crown Office Row and other legal experts. Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 February 2025 by Anogika Souresh
In Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 4, the Court of Appeal considered the High Court’s decision to anonymise the names of several judges who had made decisions in historic care proceedings and private family law proceedings (“the historic proceedings”).
The historic proceedings related to Sara Sharif, who was murdered by her father and stepmother in August 2023. On 18 August 2023, the Local Authority made an application for a wardship in respect of Sara Sharif’s five siblings. On 8 September 2023, the journalists requested disclosure of documents relating to the historic proceedings.
Mr Justice Williams made the following order, which was appealed by the claimant journalists:
… no person may publish any information arising from the disclosure of the documents from these proceedings to the public, or a section of it, which includes: …
g. The name of any third parties referred to in the historic proceedings for the avoidance of doubt including social worker, guardian other named professionals and experts instructed in the proceedings and any Judge who heard the historic proceedings (save for Mr Justice Williams). …
including not repeating such information by reference to the disclosed documents even if it is already in the public domain
[emphasis added]
Notably, when Mr Justice Williams pronounced the Order in court, no party had asked for the names of the three circuit judges who had been involved in the historic proceedings (“the historic judges”) to be anonymised. The judge had heard no submissions on the point. He had not mentioned to the parties that he had in mind to make the order he did [5].
The grounds of appeal were as follows:
i) It was a serious procedural irregularity for the judge not to have given reasons before anonymising the historic judges.
ii) The judge adopted an unfair, biased and inappropriate approach to the journalists and the media generally (including relying on his own erroneous analysis of alleged media irresponsibility), thereby unacceptably encroaching on their rights under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This ground was added by amendment and permission has not yet been granted to allow it to be pursued.
iii) The judge ought to have held that the demands of open justice meant that anonymity for a judge could not be justified within the framework of balancing article 8 and article 10 of the ECHR.
iv) The part of the Order anonymising the historic judges could not be justified in the absence of any specific application or evidential foundation, and was inimical to the proper administration of justice.
The Judgment
The Court of Appeal considered that there were three main issues to determine:
i) Whether the court had jurisdiction to prohibit the publication of the names of judges, and if so how and in what circumstances.
ii) Whether the part of the Order anonymising the historic judges was irregular for lack of submissions, evidence or reasons.
iii) Whether the judge’s comments in his judgment demonstrated inappropriate bias against or unfairness towards the media.
The Court of Appeal considered that the statutory limitations contained in section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and section 97 of the Children Act 1989 do not displace the open justice principle or create any separate “shielded justice” environment. They provide a degree of privacy for certain proceedings relating to children according to their terms [45]. Further, section 12 of the Administration of Justice 1960 makes clear that its provisions do not apply to judges hearing the case: “Court orders always name the judge, so, in that way, section 12 of the AJA 1960 expressly excludes anonymity for the judge” [51].
The Court of Appeal notably stated that:
In accepting office, all judges will or should be aware that that is the expectation, because public scrutiny of judges and the justice process is essential to the rule of law [55].
Issue 1: Was there jurisdiction to prohibit the publication of the names of judges?
The Court of Appeal considered whether Mr Justice Williams had jurisdiction to order the anonymity of the historic judges. In resolving this question, the Court of Appeal considered that, notionally, the names of the historic judges had been in the public domain as (a) the name of the judges appeared on public documents and on each of the orders that they made and (b) the names of the judges would have appeared in the public listings as sitting on the days in question at the courts in question.
The Court of Appeal considered the relevant rights under Articles 2, 3, and 8, which apply as much to judges as to any other person. However, there was no evidential basis on which the threshold for the application of Articles 2, 3, or 8 had been reached [64]. There was no need to undertake any balancing exercise between Articles 8 and 10 as there was no evidence about the risks to the historic judges [69].
The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no jurisdictional foundation for making the anonymity order.
The following comment from the Court of Appeal (at [66] will have wider application beyond the facts of this case:
The authorities that I have cited demonstrate that judges are in a special position as regards open justice. The integrity of the justice system depends on the judge sitting in public and being named, even if they sit in private. The justice system cannot otherwise be fully transparent and open to appropriate scrutiny.
Issue 2: Was there irregularity for lack of submissions, evidence or reasons?
The appeal was allowed on this ground, on the basis that the Mr Justice Williams ought to have asked for submissions and evidence prior to making his decision.
In the absence of specific evidence about risks or threats to the ECHR rights of the historic judges, Mr Justice Williams ought not to have taken any steps to anonymise the names of the historic judges.
Issue 3: Was there inappropriate bias against or unfairness towards the media?
The Court of Appeal noted Mr Justice Williams’s language when discussing media reporting as well as his decision to adjourn the journalists’ application for permission to appeal being akin to dismissing the application.
The appeal was also allowed on this ground.
Comment
This decision will have wider application beyond the facts of this case, and beyond family law. The Court of Appeal reiterated the necessity for open justice, and confirmed that transparency requires judges to be named, even if they sit in private.
The Court of Appeal did caveat the decision by clarifying that judges are not obliged to tolerate any form of abuse or threats. The requirements to consider in such cases are:
- Evidence about the risks to the judges;
- The court being satisfied that those risks could not be adequately addressed by other security measures;
- The court concluding that the risks were so grave that they provided a justification for overriding the fundamental principle of open justice.
The historic judges were given 7 days before their names are published, to allow HMCTS to put in place measures to protect them.
Anogika Souresh is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row, Brighton
Like this:
Like Loading...
10 February 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy
In UK News
Medical experts have claimed that Lucy Letby did not murder any babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, concluding that the infants died of natural causes and negligent medical care. Having reviewed the medical evidence, a panel of 14 world-leading neonatologists have concluded that they “did not find any murders”. The case has been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in light of what Letby’s legal team described as overwhelming evidence of a miscarriage of justice. Letby is currently serving 15 whole-life prison terms having been convicted of murdering seven babies. Two previous attempts to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal have been dismissed. The CCRC is expected to review the panel’s full report in the coming weeks. If it is decided that there is a real chance of quashing the convictions, the CCRC can send the case back to the Court of Appeal.
Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,has urged lawyers and judges to embrace generative artificial intelligence at the LawtechUK Generative AI event for three reasons. First, the industrial, financial and consumer sectors, which lawyers serve, will be using it “at every level”. Second, lawyers are going to be “at the forefront of AI liability disputes” in the coming years with regard to the negligent or inappropriate use of AI, and if lawyers do not master the capabilities and weaknesses of AI they will not be able to advise clients properly. Finally, it will save time and money and engender greater efficiency. Vos expressed irritation towards those who use “silly examples of bad practice as a reason to shun the entirety of a new technology” and stressed that there is nothing “inherently problematic with AI”. Rather, it is a question of understanding what AI is doing and using it appropriately. Ultimately, for Vos, it is “uncontroversial” that lawyers should be using AI to “promote and improve access to justice and the quality of decision-making”.
In International News
China has unveiled tariffs on the United States in response to the 10% levies that President Trump recently imposed on China. China has justified its retaliatory tariffs by arguing the United States’ levies violated WTO rules, damaging economic and trade cooperation between the two countries. Trump contended that the imposition of Chinese tariffs is a response to trade deficits, and the flow of fentanyl into the US. Whilst Trump postponed the 25% levies imposed on Canada and Mexico for one month, no such postponement measures were enacted in the case of China. The levies have caused significant volatility in the global financial markets. Trump has suggested that he would pursue similar action against the EU but that a deal could be “worked out” with the UK. The UK now needs to decide if it aligns itself with the EU or the US, or neither. If the UK aligns itself more closely on trade with the EU, this will likely entail accepting the EU’s regulations on agriculture and food safety. However, the United States’ standards in such areas differ significantly from those of the EU. If the UK were to adopt EU agricultural standards, this may make a UK-US trade deal much harder given that the US would likely not want an agreement that excludes agriculture. This is at the same as the EU are wrangling with the UK over a closer relationship going forward. Key issues pertain to the youth mobility scheme (a priority for Germany) and an extension to current fishing rights arrangements (a priority for France). In the next few weeks, we may get clarity as to how the UK chooses to position itself between major global trading blocs.
In the Courts
The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal over whether a local authority which has ‘corporate’ parental responsibility for a child under the age of 16 can consent to the deprivation of their liberty. The case concerns a 14 year old disabled boy known as ‘J’ who is ‘looked after’ under S.20 of the Children Act 1989 and who resides in a specialist children’s home. In J: Local Authority consent to Deprivation of Liberty, Re [2024] EWHC 1690 (Fam), Lieven J held that a local authority could deprive J of his liberty and did not need the court’s approval to do so. This was because the decision the local authority was being asked to make under S.33(3)(b) of the Children Act 1989 was not of “such magnitude” that the Court would need to make it instead. For Lieven J, depriving J of his liberty was “essential to ensuring his best interests” so necessarily fell “within the LA’s statutory powers” under S.33 of the Children Act [34]. All parties in the case felt that the local authority should not deprive J of his liberty without the court’s approval. The interveners (Article 39 and Mind, the Secretary of State for Education and the Children’s Commissioner) also supported court oversight. With a panel comprising the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, Lady Justice and Lord Justice Singh, the Court of Appeal confirmed the appeal was successful and made a deprivation of liberty order, with full reasons due to be provided at a later date. Consequently, Lieven J’s ruling should not now be followed.
Like this:
Like Loading...
3 February 2025 by Benjamin Savill
In UK news
The UK Government introduced its Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to Parliament on 30 January. The Law Society welcomed the Bill’s repeal of the controversial Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 – described by Society president Richard Atkinson as ‘one of the most damaging pieces of legislation in recent history’ – and certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. However, a number of charities have expressed concern that the Bill’s proposed anti-people-smuggling measures – including the creation of what Home Secretary Yvette Cooper calls ‘counter-terror-style powers’ – will adversely affect legitimate asylum seekers. ‘We are very concerned that by creating new offences, many refugees themselves could also be prosecuted’, wrote the Refugee Council. ‘This would be a gross miscarriage of justice… The most effective way to break the smuggling gangs’ grip is to stop refugees from getting into the boats in the first place, which means giving them a legal way to apply for asylum in the UK.’
This week also saw the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill undergo the scrutiny of the Commons General Committee. Lord Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court, told the Committee that the Bill’s requirement that those applying for assisted dying would need the approval of a High Court judge as well as two doctors was ‘unnecessary and in some respects undesirable… It is not entirely clear what the judge is supposed to do … Is he there to ensure that the two doctors have done their job… or is he there to form his own view on these matters, completely independently of all those who have given certificates? If the latter, one is talking about quite a time-consuming process, involving a lot of additional evidence. It seems to me this is a protection which no other country, so far that I am aware of among those who have authorised assisted dying, have included.’ The Committee sits again on 11 February.
In international news
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is under investigation by her country’s prosecutors for releasing and repatriating Osama al-Masri, a Libyan warlord wanted by the International Criminal Court. The Court issued its arrest warrant for Al-Masri on 18 January, citing his alleged command over a network of prisons in Tripoli, and ‘crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, torture, rape and sexual violence, allegedly committed in Libya from February 2015 onwards.’ Al-Masri was arrested by the Italian authorities at a football game in Turin only a day after the warrant’s issue, before his release on 21 January ‘without prior notice or consultation of the Court.’ Meloni’s Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi, who is now also under investigation, had told the Italian Senate that al-Masri’s deportation was ‘for urgent security reasons, with my expulsion order, in view of the danger posed by the subject.’ It has since been claimed that al-Masri was released on a technicality, following bureaucratic errors made in the course of the suspect’s arrest. These are said to have compelled the Italian court of appeal to refuse to validate his further detention. Al-Masri was then boarded onto a military plane and safely returned to Libya.
In the courts
The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal brought by two freelance journalists, permitting the disclosure of the names of two family court judges behind historic care proceedings relating to the murdered schoolgirl Sara Sharif. In Louise Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 42, Sir Geoffrey Vos MR ruled that Mr Justice Williams had ‘no jurisdiction’ to make a Reporting Restrictions Order anonymising the judges in December last year – save a possible obligation to do so under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, had it been necessary to avoid an infringement of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
Sir Geoffrey found that there was ‘no evidential basis’ on which to believe that the threshold for the application of ECHR Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) or 8 (respect for family and private life) was reached. ‘For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that judges are obliged to tolerate any form of abuse or threats… Nor am I saying that it would never be possible for section 6 of the HRA to allow, or even require, a court to consider… an anonymisation order in relation to judges. In my judgment, however, it is very hard to imagine how such a situation could occur.’ It would require: (1) ‘compelling evidence… as to the risks’; (2) the court to be ‘satisfied that those risks could not be adequately addressed by other security measures’; and (3) the court ‘to conclude that the risks were so grave that, exceptionally, they provided a justification for overriding the fundamental principle of open justice.’
Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments