We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies. If you want to find out more, please view our cookie policy. Accept and Hide [x]
Join me and co-presenter and barrister Lucy McCann with public law specialist Jonathan Metzer as we take you on a journey over most significant cases that have been decided over the course of the year. This is Episode 232. Below are the citations of all the cases referred to in our discussion:
IA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWCA Civ 1516
R (Al‑Haq) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade EWHC 173 (Admin); R (Al‑Haq) v Secretary of State for Business and Trade EWCA Civ 1433
R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWHC 1920 (Admin).
Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd EWHC 2183 (KB); Somani Hotels Ltd v Epping Forest District Council & Anor EWCA Civ 113
TG and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWHC 596 (Admin)
Getty Images (US), Inc and others v Stability AI Ltd EWHC 2863 (Ch)
R (Bhupinder Iffat Rizvi) v HM Assistant Coroner for South London [2025] EWHC 3014 (Admin)
Georgia Barter: Prevention of Future Deaths Report (Ref: 2025‑0491), Dr Shirley Radcliffe, East London Coroner’s Court, 2 October 2025
PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v A Local Health Board EWCA Civ 1126
The Guardian and Liberty Investigates have conducted an investigation into the Metropolitan police’s use of “cumulative disruption” as a justification to impost restrictions on protests. Liberty Investigates is an editorially independent investigative journalism group based in the civil liberties organization, Liberty.
According to the research and review of evidence obtained under freedom of information laws, the Met has used “cumulative disruption” against at least protests despite their power to do so being quashed in a May 2025 ruling.
However, the Met has used the cumulative disruption to ban or impose conditions on two pro-Palestinian groups since that ruling. On May 7, 2025, the Met banned the Jewish pro-Palestine group, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN), from holding its weekly meeting in North London citing “cumulative impact on the local Jewish community”. That ban has been renewed weekly since May 2025. In November 2025, the Palestine Coalition was forced to change the route of their march by the Met due to the “cumulative impact on businesses” in the area.
Both the Met and the Home Office assert that officers still have the authority to take cumulative disruption into account when imposing restrictions on protests. The Met argues that their consideration of cumulative disruption is lawful in efforts to balance the right to protest and ensuring that “serious disorder or serious disruption” does not result from protests. The Home Office stated that the Public Order Act 1986 implies the discretionary use of cumulative disruption, but future amendments will make its use explicit.
In Evans v Care Quality Commission [2025] EWCA Civ 1556, the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Lewis) refused to grant permission to appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of a judicial review challenging two decisions by the Care Quality Commission (“CQC”). The Appellants, Ms Evans and a mother who wished to remain anonymous, contested (1) the CQC’s January 2024 decision to register Gender Plus Healthcare Ltd (“GPH”) pursuant to section 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”), and (2) the December 2024 review of GPH’s services under section 46 of the same Act.
The case has attracted substantial public interest, engaging broader debates over the regulation of cross-sex hormone treatment for minors. The widely-reported Cass Review, led by the British paediatrician Hilary Cass, together with concerns over the prevalence of ideological influences in this medical field, were raised.
Background
In the High Court, acknowledging the “strongly held views about this treatment”, Mrs Justice Eady observed (R (OAO Evans and another) v Care Quality Commission [2025] EWHC 2015 (Admin) at [2]):
“The hormone treatment in issue involves the prescription of masculinising or feminising hormones (oestrogen; testosterone), introducing irreversible changes to the patient’s body. There are strongly held views about this treatment and an expert panel is due to report to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on its use for those under 18. At present, however, the treatment provided by [GPH] to 16 and 17 year olds is permitted by law, and the issue I am required to determine is not whether that is correct, but whether specific decisions made by the CQC are irrational and/or unlawful.”
Despite agreeing with the Claimants (at [97]), who contended a higher standard of review applies to the irrationality challenge in this case since “hormone treatment is often sought by vulnerable and emotionally distressed individuals” and “can have significant, irreversible, long-term physical and psychological consequences,” the claim was dismissed at first instance.
In Episode 231 of Law Pod UK Jim Duffy is joined by David D. Cole, Professor of Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University and former National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. They discuss the US President’s invocation of emergency powers to deport, to attack vessels on the high seas, and to impose sweeping international trade tariffs.
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.
In its judgment in the case of IA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1516, handed down on 26 November 2025, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the correct test for establishing the existence of family life between non-core family members under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human rights (“ECHR”). It also clarified the proper conceptual framework for considering the subtle interaction between the rights of non-claimant family members and the UK’s Convention obligations to individuals outside its territory. Finally, it emphasised the centrality of the Government’s immigration policy to any exercise considering the proportionality of an interference with an individual’s Article 8 rights in the immigration context.
Is law up to the problem of discrimination on grounds of (old) age? To discuss this question, Rosalind English is joined in today’s episode by regular Law Pod guest Alasdair Henderson of One Crown Office Row and Nina Georgantzi, a human rights lawyer and academic who serves as head of human rights advocacy at Age Platform Europe. We discuss the “soft law” Recommendation of the Council of Europe passed in 2024, and the proposed UN convention against ageism. Alasdair brings his considerable experience as Equality Commissioner to bear on the discussion, with his experience of litigation in this field under the Equality Act 2010 and other anti-discrimination laws.
Here are the full citations of the cases referred to in this episode:
Seldon (Appellant) v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership) (Respondent) [2012] UKSC 16
Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109 (relevant paras are [171] – [172]
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust v Matar [2023] EAT 1
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.
The UK Home Office has begun a ten-week public consultation into the use of facial recognition and biometrics technologies by the police, with the view to expanding the rollout of live facial recognition policing (currently limited to ten forces) across the entire UK. Among the Government’s proposals is the creation of a regulator overseeing police implementation of the technology; any new legislation arising from the consultation is unlikely to be in force for at least another two years. The Government has invested over £15 million into facial recognition policing since 2024. Its currently unregulated use has drawn sharp criticism from human rights and civil liberties groups, and in August the Equality and Human Rights Commission warned that its present implementation was disproportionate in its infringement of human rights. Liberty director Akiko Hart responded positively to this week’s announcement of a consultation, but stressed that the Government “must halt the rapid rollout” of facial recognition and ensure that rights-prioritising safeguards are in place. Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo called the “consultation necessary but long overdue”, adding that police facial recognition should be paused immediately, pending the consultation’s outcome. Strong tendencies towards racial discrimination in the use of the technology have raised particular concerns, as the Home Office conceded this week: whereas white people are only wrongly identified by the technology at a rate of 0.04%, this occurs at a rate of 5.5% for black people and 4% for Asian people. Earlier this year the Metropolitan Police declined to adopt live facial recognition at September’s far-right ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally, despite deploying it weeks earlier at the Notting Hill Carnival.
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.
In the introduction, this Guidance note announces that “It updates and replaces the guidance document issued in April 2025”, which shows the speed at which AI is developing. It “sets out key risks and issues associated with using AI and some suggestions for minimising them”. And there have indeed been problems facing the judiciary lately arising particularly out of “AI hallucinations”. These are incorrect or misleading results that AI models generate.
This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.
Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.
Recent comments