The Weekly Round Up: Jury Trial Reform, Assisted Dying in Crown Dependencies, the Private School VAT scheme, Terrorism Prescription Offence and SEN Reforms
2 March 2026
In the News
Reforms to Jury Trial introduced to Parliament
On Wednesday, David Lammy introduced the Courts and Tribunals Bill in Parliament.
The Bill includes the much-discussed proposal to restrict the availability of jury trial by removing the right to elect trial on indictment for either way offences that are likely to receive a custodial sentence of three years or less. The Bill also introduces judge-only trials for complex fraud or related financial offences, and replaces the automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court from the magistrates’ court with a permission stage. Assuming the reforms are implemented, the Ministry of Justice predicts it will take a decade for the criminal court’s backlog to fall below pre-Covid levels.
Separately, the Bill reforms evidential rules in sexual offence trials. A complainant’s previous false allegations will only be admissible where there is a “proper evidential basis” for concluding the allegation was false. The Bill also provides guidance on when evidence of a complainant’s sexual behaviour is admissible, and raises the threshold for the inclusion of evidence regarding a complainant’s previous compensation claims.
Assisted Dying Bill in Jersey
On Thursday, Jersey became the second part of the British Isles to approve a bill legalising assisted dying for terminally ill adults. Before it can come into force, it must be reviewed by the Ministry of Justice and receive Royal Assent.
The Isle of Man passed similar legislation ten months ago and is currently awaiting Royal Assent. This delay has prompted concern from Manx politicians about their constitutional integrity as a Crown Dependency. The Ministry of Justice denies that royal assent is being withheld on political grounds, maintaining that the delay is the result of its standard process of examining Crown Dependency legislation for compliance with the UK’s international obligations.
In the Courts
Court of Appeal dismisses challenge to private school VAT scheme
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a challenge to the government’s removal of the VAT exemption for all private school fees. The case is R (BYL (by their litigation friend BAU)) v Chancellor of the Exchequer & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 170.
The claimants were children and parents of children at religious private schools, for whom VAT on school fees would render the schools unaffordable. They alleged, inter alia, that failure to exempt low-cost religious schools from the new VAT charges violated their rights under Article 14 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR (“A1P1”) ([2]). The Divisional Court found that any interference with Article 14 was justified and proportionate ([7]), and the A1P1 rights of the claimants were not engaged ([11])). The Court of Appeal upheld these conclusions.
On Article 14, the Court of Appeal found the government had an “objective justification” for any differential treatment resulting from its failure to exempt low-cost schools from VAT ([97]). However, in doing so, it rejected the court below’s placement of “considerable weight” on the Government’s general policy that non-denominational state schools should be capable of providing a pluralistic curriculum ([80]). Instead, the Court of Appeal emphasised practical considerations that militated against such an exemption: the net loss in tax raised, the resultant administrative burdens, and the availability of home schooling for the claimants ([96], [97]). The Court also clarified, despite authorities’ use of phrases such as “margin of appreciation” and “intensity of review”, to defeat an Article 14 challenge, the Government must show “objective and reasonable justification”, as assessed by the Bank Mellat test ([13]).
The Court also affirmed there was no violation of A1P1, since the claim concerned loss of anticipated future income ([105]), which does not constitute a “possession” under A1P1 ([106]). Moreover, even if the anticipated income had been a possession, the VAT did not “interfere” with it as state schooling and home schooling remained viable alternatives to paying private school fees ([108]).
The High Court judgment in this claim was previously discussed on the UKHRB here. In the High Court, Jeremy Hyam KC acted for the Claim 2 claimants, David Manknell KC and Rajkiran Arhestey acted for the Speaker of the House of Commons, and Matthew Donmallacted on the team representing HMRC, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education.
Terrorism Prescription offences confirmed lawful
The Supreme Court has held that the offence of expressing an opinion or belief in support of a proscribed organisation (per s.12(1A) Terrorism Act 2000) does not constitute disproportionate interference with Article 10 ECHR. The case is R v ABJ; R v BDN [2026] UKSC 8.
The appellants have both been charged with, and are currently awaiting trial for, the s.12(1A) offence. They submitted, inter alia, that the offence was too vague and uncertain to be “prescribed by law” under Article 10(2) ECHR, and that it did not adequately balance the need to combat terrorism against the rights of individuals.
The Supreme Court found that s. 12(1A) was sufficiently clear to enable individuals to regulate their conduct and as such, was “prescribed by law” ([96]). The Court also held that s.12(1A) pursued a number of legitimate aims; namely, national security, public safety, and the protection of rights of others ([99]). On this point, the Court rejected what it characterised as the appellants’ “implicit” suggestion that speech supportive of terrorist activities abroad should attract greater protection than speech supporting domestic terrorism ([102]).
Finally, the Court examined a range of Strasbourg authorities, to find that the interference with freedom of expression caused by this offence was “in principle justifiable” ([129]). However, it added two qualifications. First, judges should be “robust” in exercising their power to discontinue a case where it is impossible for the jury to be sure of each of the elements of the crime, given the “importance of freedom of expression” ([131]). Second, judges must ensure that any sentence imposed is a proportionate interference with freedom of expression ([133]).
Letter before claim regarding SEN reform
A letter before claim has been sent to Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, following the Department for Education’s launch of a consultation on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision.
The proposals consulted on include an overhaul of the use of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs). Currently, where a child has or may have special educational needs and may require special educational provision, a local authority must carry out an EHC needs assessment. If that assessment concludes an EHCP is necessary, the local authority is legally required to issue one, and to deliver the special educational provision it specifies.
The government’s proposals confine EHCPs to the most complex cases. Children with additional needs who do not meet that threshold would instead receive individual support plans arranged by their schools. The proposals also remove the power of SEND Tribunals to name a specific educational setting on an EHCP, and shift the legal duty to deliver the educational provision from local authorities to individual schools.
The letter before claim argues that the consultation document failed to invite views on the changes to tribunal powers or the shift in legal liability, and provided insufficient detail on their implications. It requests that the Education Secretary amend the consultation to address these directly.
On the UK HRB
Jasper Gold explores R (EB) v Director of Legal Aid Casework [2026] EWHC 402, in which the High Court found the LAA unlawfully refused legal aid to an anorexic patient seeking Home Office permission for treatment with a controlled drug under s.5 Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.
