The Weekly Round-Up: Justice spending, assisted dying, rough sleeping, the Madleen yacht, and private schools VAT
16 June 2025
In UK News
A modest rise in justice spending was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Spending Review. The courts system will receive up to £450m extra a year by 2028-29, helping to increase Crown Court sitting days and implement the recommendations of the forthcoming Leveson review. The probation service will receive up to £700m extra funding by 2028-9. Funding will also be awarded to prison building and the Law Officers’ departments. The average real terms increase in Ministry of Justice funding is of 3.1%.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill returned to the House of Commons for debate on Friday 13 June. Among the amendments discussed was a prohibition on registered medical practitioners or other health practitioners raising assisted dying with a person under 18. Despite opposition by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, the Bill’s proposer, it was approved by a vote of 259 to 216. It was the first time Leadbeater had been defeated on the Bill in a Commons vote.
The government announced that rough sleeping will be decriminalised after more than 200 years. The Vagrancy Act 1824, introduced in response to increased homelessness after the Napoleonic Wars and Industrial Revolution, will be scrapped by spring 2026.
In Intl News
A British-flagged yacht, carrying 12 people and a small quantity of aid, was intercepted by Israel on its way from Sicily to Gaza. The Madleen was operated by the pro-Palestinian Freedom Flotilla Coalition and counted the activist Greta Thunberg among its passengers; the Israel foreign ministry called it a ‘selfie yacht’ for ‘celebrities’. The passengers were taken to Israel and most have now been deported.
In the Courts
The High Court dismissed a challenge against adding VAT to private school fees. The claimants in ALR and others v Chancellor of the Exchequer [2025] EWHC 1467 (Admin) were a group of students, parents, and schools. Some of the students required specific schooling because of (inter alia) special educational needs and religious convictions; all claimants sought a declaration that the VAT addition was incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. Specifically, they argued that imposing VAT was incompatible with Articles 2 of Protocol 1 (right to education) and 14 (protection from discrimination). The court held that ECHR did not create a right to pay school fees at a particular level and that ECHR jurisprudence implied no ‘common moral view’ against VAT or a similar tax. It was acknowledged that the challenged provisions interfered with Convention rights and made private school unaffordable to some parents. However, the court found that the government was entitled to balance this detriment against benefits (such as the revenue raised by the tax rise) and that the law fell within its broad margin of discretion. Jeremy Hyam KC, David Manknell KC, Matthew Donmall, Rajkiran Arhestey of 1 Crown Office Row acted in the case. A post covering the piece in full will be published shortly.
