Media By: Emma-Louise Fenelon


Law Pod UK Episode 79: Causation in Inquests with Christopher Mellor

20 May 2019 by

In Episode 79 Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Christopher Mellor about causation in inquests, and the findings of the Divisional Court in R (Chidlow) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde [2019] EWHC 581 (Admin).

Law Pod UK logo

This episode was recorded shortly before the Court of Appeal decision was handed down in R (Maughan) v HM S Coroner for Oxfordshire [2019] EWCA Civ 809, upholding the civil standard of proof in relation to findings of suicide in inquests.

Dominic Ruck Keene has previously written about Maughan at first instance here and the Court of Appeal decision here.

Jeremy Hyam QC previously covered Maughan on the podcast in Episode 58 here.

The podcast also refers to the following cases (links to WestLaw):

R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for the Mid and North Division of Shropshire [2009] EWCA Civ 1403;

R (Tainton) v R. (on the application of Tainton) v HM Senior Coroner for Preston and West Lancashire [2016] EWHC 1396 (Admin)

R (Khan) v R. (on the application of Khan) v HM Coroner for West Hertfordshire [2002] EWHC 302 (Admin)

R v Sellu [2016] EWCA Crim 1716 CA

Law Pod UK is available on SpotifyiTunes, AudioboomPodbean or wherever you listen to our podcasts. Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.  

Law Pod Ep: 75: The Prevent Guidance in Universities

1 April 2019 by

Law Pod UK logo

In Episode 75, Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Marina Wheeler QC about the recent Court of Appeal decision in Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the operation of the Prevent Guidance generally. 

Listeners can listen to Marina’s August 2017 episode here and find her blog post ​here.

The podcast refers to the following cases: 

– Butt v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 256

– Butt v SSHD [2017] EWHC 1930 (Admin)

Oliver Sanders QC and Amelia Walker acted for the SSHD in the above case.

Law Pod UK is available on AudioboomiTunesSpotifyPodbean or wherever you listen to our podcasts. Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.  

Law Pod UK Latest

25 February 2019 by

Law Pod UK logo

In Episode 70 Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Robert Kellar about consent and causation, discussing the development of the law since Chester v Afshar through to Khan v MNX. 

Listeners can find recent interviews on informed consent with James Badenoch QC here and John Whitting QC here.

The podcast refers to the following cases: 

–      Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11

–      Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41

–      Meiklejohn v. St. George’s Healthcare NHS Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 120

–       Shaw v. Kovac [2017] EWCA Civ 1028

–       Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1307

–      Khan v. MNX [2018] EWCA Civ 2609

–      Hughes-Holland v. BPE Solicitors and Another [2017] UKSC 21

–      South Australian Asset Management Corporation v. York Montague Limited (“SAAMCO”) [1997] 1 AC 19​


Law Pod UK is available on AudioboomiTunesSpotifyPodbean or wherever you listen to our podcasts. Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.  

Law Pod UK Latest: Ruth Bader Ginsberg

14 January 2019 by

At the age of 85, United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has developed an extraordinary legal legacy while becoming an unexpected pop culture icon. With the documentary ‘RBG’, and the movie ‘On the Basis of Sex’ starring Felicity Jones shortly to go on general release in cinemas, Emma-Louise Fenelon speaks to Mrs Justice Philippa Whipple about her exceptional life and career. Listen to Episode 61 of Law Pod UK.

RBG is Directed by Betsy West and Julie Cohen and co-produced by Storyville Films and CNN Films. Details are available here: https://www.rbgmovie.co.uk.

Law Pod UK is available for free on AudioboomiTunesPodBean, The Podcast App or wherever you get your podcasts.

Latest Law Pod UK: the 5 Most Significant Inquest Cases Of 2018

17 December 2018 by

Law Pod UK logo

2018 provided much food for thought for those practising in inquest law, with significant judgments on the burden on proof in suicide, on scope in relation to the Birmingham pub bombings, on causation in relation to medical negligence, on the relevance of non-causative findings to the record of inquest and on costs.   In the most recent episode of Law Pod UK I am joined by Jeremy Hyam QC, who provides a whistlestop tour of this year’s the most significant cases. 

Citations for cases mentioned on the podcast and links to related blog articles written by members of chambers are contained below, as is a brief analysis of R (Paul Worthington) v HM Senior Coroner for the County of Cumbria [2018] EWHC 3386 (Admin), a decision which was unfortunately handed down too late for consideration in the podcast episode. The episode is a available here.


Continue reading →

Maggots, sewage, bats, butterflies and Brexit

24 March 2017 by

Leigh Day and the Human Rights Lawyers Association  hosted a full house on Wednesday 22 March when Claire McGregor and David Hart QC from 1 Crown Office Row joined Sarah Sackman from Francis Taylor Building, Adrienne Copithorne from Richard Buxton LLP and Rebekah Read from Leigh Day to speak about how to become an environmental lawyer.

The audience heard how on her first day working in environmental law, Claire McGregor boarded a plane to the Ivory Coast to work on the Trafigura case involving 30,000 claimants suing oil multinational Trafigura for compensation following a toxic oil spill. The case went on to become the largest group litigation case in the UK.
Continue reading →

Uber, Doublespeak and the ‘Gig’ Economy

1 November 2016 by

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master –  that’s all.”
Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6

Few judicial decisions provoke the frenzy of editorials, newspaper articles, opinion pieces, facebook status updates and dinner table debates as were prompted by that of the Employment Tribunal last Friday in Aslam, Farrar and Others v Uber.  Fewer still can boast references to both Shakespeare and Milton, nor deliver such a joy to read (assuming you are not, in fact, the Respondents’ lawyers).  Volunteering to write about the judgment shortly after its publication on Friday afternoon, it took little time before I realised this piece would be one among a crowded chorus of views.

Among the maelstrom, The Sunday Times (£) was concerned it would herald the end of the end of the ‘gig’ economy, the Guardian argued that avoiding paying benefits was not a fair route to profits,  while the Financial Times (£) approved the forging of a ‘middle way’ for fair treatment of workers and the company. For some the decision was seismic, potentially ground-breaking; for others it could spell tragedy; a lone voice thought it would change very little. Rightsinfo have provided an excellent plain English summary here.

Continue reading →

Down the Rabbit Hole of Genetic Testing

19 April 2016 by

Can our genotype tell us about our behaviour as well as our biology?

Photo credit: Guardian

“ After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill: the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill: you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

– Morpheus, The Matrix

The explosion of genetic testing in the last half century has produced unquantifiable benefits, allowing scientists to understand the constitution of genetic disorders and dramatically improve disease diagnosis, avoidance and treatment. Consider the near-eradication of Tay-Sachs, a fatal neurodegenerative disease, since the introduction of screening in the 1970s; the standardisation of newborn testing; and the introduction of BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing for inherited cancer genes.

These advances have created challenging ethical and legal questions, however: How much information does each of us want to know about our genetic makeup?; Do we have a responsibility to seek such information out? What should we do with the information once we get it? What about the significant risks of stigmatisation and discrimination?; And, where do doctors’ duties begin and end insofar as they are, or ought to be aware of testing outcomes?

In the High Court last week (judgment available here) McKenna J dealt with the latter question, striking out a claim by a patient’s relatives over a missed diagnosis of a genetic disorder and holding that a third party cannot recover damages for a personal injury suffered because of an omission in the treatment of another.
Continue reading →

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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.

%d bloggers like this: