In the News
Youth Justice White Paper Published
On Wednesday May 20, the Ministry of Justice published a white paper regarding the reform of the youth justice system. It states the government will “carefully consider” whether the age of criminal responsibility (10) remains appropriate, and promises more effective early intervention in children’s lives. In particular, the government plans to reform the “youth out-of-court resolution framework”, including potentially changes to the requirement of admission of guilt for various outcomes (i.e., youth cautions). The government also plans to pilot Youth Intervention Courts, which will focus on child rehabilitation (likely through community-based sentences).
Anti-SLAPP Legislation to be brought forward
On Tuesday 19 May, Lord Chancellor David Lammy announced the government’s intention to “bring forward” anti-SLAPP legislation, after being pressed about its omission from the King’s Speech the previous week. Concerns over the absence of anti-SLAPP measures intensified following a report by Democracy for Sale on Friday 15 May, which alleged that the Society of Media Lawyers had persuaded the government not to proceed with the proposed legislation. The Society denied the allegations, stating that none of its committee members had met with ministers or MPs to discuss anti-SLAPP proposals. It also reiterated its position that any legislative reform should be preceded by a review by the Law Commission and, where necessary, followed by the development of workable proposals.
In the Courts
Sanctions Designation Challenge dismissed
The High Court has dismissed a challenge to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and a designation decision under those Regulations. The case is R (Ismailov) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (No 2) [2026] EWHC 1188 (Admin). For a detailed analysis and commentary on this case see an earlier post by David Hart KC: What does the principle of “legality” mean in public law?.
Reporting Restrictions in Palestine Action case
The Court of Appeal has declined an application to make a reporting restriction order in the Court of Appeal judicial review proceedings regarding the designation of Palestine Action as a proscribed organisation under s.1 Terrorism Act 2000. The case is The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Ammori, R (on the application of) [2026] EWCA Civ 659 (22 May 2026).
This application was made by prosecuting counsel in criminal proceedings against 24 Palestine Action protestors, arising out of their protest at the premises of Elbit Systems UK ([6], [14]). The proposed order sought, inter alia, to prevent the reporting of information concerning that protest, as well as any conclusion reached by Ministers, advisers, or officials that this protest satisfied the statutory definition of “terrorism”, until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings ([14]).
The Court declined to grant this order, finding that information about the incident had already been disclosed in the judgment of the court below, and that no application was made to postpone publication of that information to the first instance court ([23]). Moreover, with regard to the Secretary of State’s conclusion that this incident (and other protests by Palestine Action) satisfied the definition of terrorism, the Court found that this conclusion was “apparent from [the Secretary’s] statement to Parliament” and the Divisional Court’s judgment ([24]).
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the proposed order would not eliminate any risk of prejudice. Instead, the ordinary safeguards inherent in the criminal process should be relied upon to protect the fairness of the proceedings ([25]).
On the UKHRB
Samuel Talalay examines the contribution of R (on the application of Martin) v the Chancellor of the Exchequer [2026] EWHC 1123 (Admin) to the case law on the proper constitutional limits on the jurisdiction of the courts vis-a-vis the two other branches of the state.
Rosalind English analyses the Advertising Standards Authority decision in favour of Chris Packham against the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board’s “Let’s Eat Balanced” campaign.
David Hart KC provides further analysis of the Judge’s comments regarding the principle of legality and the Carltona doctrine in R (Ismailov) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (No 2) [2026] EWHC 1188 (Admin).
On Law Pod UK
Beyond yes and no: the concept of consent in law. Lucy McCann is joined by Jasper Gold and Paula Kelly
Expert Witnesses: what to expect at trial. Emma-Louise Fenelon speaks to John Whitting KC
