By: Rebecca Ebner-Landy
2 June 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy
In UK News
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) have dropped their plans to require barristers to “act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion”. The proposed rewrite of Core Duty 8 would have placed barristers under a positive duty – something that had sparked widespread controversy about the BSB imposing its views of “social justice” on practitioners through “social engineering“. Notably, the rewrite was heavily criticised by former chair of the Bar Council who warned against the unintended detrimental consequences of “radical change”. Barbara Mills KC, current chair of the Bar Council has emphasised the continued commitment of the Bar Council to “equality, diversity and inclusion at the Bar”, but explained the concerns the Bar Council had about the positive duty “tak[ing] us backwards” due to the “lack [of] clarity needed for barristers to comply”. Although, director-general of the BSB, Mark Neale had promised that the proposed rewrite was “very genuine”, the BSB have now come out as saying that they will instead adopt a different strategy drawing on “all [their] regulatory tools” to advance equality of opportunity at the Bar.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
6 May 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy
In UK News
The UK’s first transgender judge, Victoria McCloud, is bringing an action against the UK to the European Court of Human Rights over the Supreme Court’s ruling on biological sex in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. Lord Hodge, in this case, determined that the “unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex”. McCloud – one of at least two individuals who had unsuccessfully sought leave to intervene in the proceedings – is bringing the action on grounds that her Article 6 rights, which guarantee the right to a fair trial, have been infringed. She argues that the Supreme Court refused to hear her evidence about the “impact of those trans people affected by the judgement” and failed to “give any reasons” for doing so. Further, in her submission, the court had not considered human rights arguments that “would have been put by trans people” leaving her with the “nonsense” of being “two sexes at once”. In contrast, the court had heard from “protest groups speaking on behalf of women” in the case. McCloud is now seeking a declaration that “the actions of the UK government and the Supreme court judgement violate her fundamental human rights”.
In an amendment to the Border, Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which is being considered by Parliament, the Home Office seeks to ban foreign sex offenders from claiming asylum in the UK. The amendment would affect anyone who qualifies for sex offender status. Under Article 1F of the Refugee Convention 1951 countries are entitled to refuse asylum to terrorists, war criminals and individuals convicted of a particularly serious crime who present a danger to the community. Where a conviction qualifies a foreign national for the sex offenders’ register – regardless of the length of sentence they receive – that will lead to their refugee status being denied, on the basis that they will be presumed to have been convicted of a “particularly serious crime” . The Government has said that they are “toughening [their] approach to border security through stricter enforcement of the rules”, in an attempt to make “Britain’s streets safer”. Specifically, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has argued the amendment would ensure these “appalling crimes are taken seriously”. Steve Valdez-Symonds, at Amnesty International UK, however, has raised concerns that the Government is “rushing through late-stage amendments” to major legislations meaning that “laws are made without the full scrutiny and care they demand”. In his opinion this is an “irresponsible approach” to lawmaking.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
7 April 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy
In UK News
The Sentencing Council has suspended plans for new guidelines which could have led to different sentences depending on someone’s age, sex and ethnicity. The Sentencing Council’s decision to suspend plans comes in the wake of ministers preparing to “disapply” wording in the revised sentencing guidelines on the imposition of community and custodial sentences, through primary legislation. Justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, had aimed to pass a bill through Parliament to halt the guidelines within 24 hours but was informed that it would be impossible before the Easter recess. Given that the revised sentencing guidelines were due to take effect in England and Wales last Tuesday, there would have been a “confusing period” during which time the guidelines would be enforced before being declared illegal.
These guidelines had specified a list of 10 groups for whom pre-sentence reports would “normally be necessary”. The groups in question included “those from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community.” In other words, the guidelines would have required magistrates and judges to consult a pre-sentence report before deciding whether to imprison someone of an ethnic and religious minority, in addition to other groups like young adults, abuse survivors and mothers. In doing so, the system would have “taken into account structural disparities in sentencing outcomes” and would have introduced measures targeted at combating racism in the courts. Senior legal figures, and the Society of Black Lawyers, have emphasised that the guidelines were an attempt to achieve “equal treatment” after “racist two-tier policing for 500 years”, specifically through attempting to address disparities in sentencing between white and non-white offenders.
After a meeting on Monday, the Sentencing Council confirmed it would not be introducing the guidelines when “there is a draft bill due for imminent introduction that would make it unlawful”. This follows the Sentencing Council having previously rejected a request from Mahmood to remove the ten specified groups as she said they would “single out specific cohorts for differential treatment”. In making this request, Mahmood had sought to demonstrate to the public that “Parliament is sovereign” and “everyone is treated equally by the criminal justice system”.
This matter has created tension between the executive and the judiciary, who make up the majority of the Sentencing Council. Mahmood has told MPs that the Sentencing Council’s role will be subject to review. In the Commons on Tuesday, Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary called for Lord Justice Davis, the head of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales to be sacked over the row. Lord Hermer KC, Attorney General, speaking to Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, has since emphasised that political attacks on judges are a “huge threat to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary”.
In International News
Hungary is due to leave the International Criminal Court on grounds that it has become “political”. This was announced during a visit to Hungary by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister, who is the subject of an ICC arrest warrant which was issued on 21st November 2024. Prior to this visit, Human Rights Watch had urged Hungary to deny entry to Netanyahu or to arrest him upon entry, in light of the arrest warrant. Specifically, Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch outlined how Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s invitation to Netanyahu was an “affront to victims of serious crimes” and urged Hungary to “comply with its legal obligations as a party to the ICC.”
As a member of the ICC, Hungary was in theory obliged to arrest Netanyahu in line with the ICC warrant. However, Orbán had previously said the ruling would have no effect in Hungary. Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó had notably criticised the warrants as “shameful and absurd” and “unacceptable”. Hungary has aligned itself with other European countries including France, Italy, Poland, Romania and Germany who have emphasised their non-committal to enforcement of the ICC’s warrant to arrest Netanyahu.
In announcing Hungary’s decision to leave the ICC this week, Orbán proclaimed that the ICC had “diminished into a political forum”, something that had “become the clearest in light of its decisions on Israel”. Netanyahu has thanked Orbán for taking a “bold and principled” position against the ICC.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
17 March 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy
In UK News
Keir Starmer announced plans to cut billions of pounds from the welfare system, specifically working-age health and disability benefits. This week, Starmer called Britain’s benefits system the “worst of all worlds” and has said that the Government could not just “shrug its shoulders and look away” given that the number of people who are out of work or training is “indefensible and unfair”. Ahead of the Spring Statement, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has earmarked several billion pounds in draft spending cuts to welfare and other government departments. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has been getting ready to announce changes to the welfare system and reduce the benefits bill. Changes would likely include restrictions on eligibility for the Personal Independent Payment (“PIP”) and cuts to incapacity benefits for those unable to work and receiving Universal Credit.
The Government’s core rationale for making these cuts is that welfare spending has increased dramatically in recent years. Total welfare spending is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) to reach almost £378bn by the end of the decade because of the ageing and increasingly unwell population, the Government’s triple lock, and rising caseloads for health and disability benefits.
As a result of the proposed cuts, Starmer is facing the most significant rebellion among Labour MPs to date. Rachel Maskell, who previously called on her party to reverse its decision to end universal winter fuel payments, has expressed concern about “draconian cuts”, whilst Neil Duncan-Jordan expressed fear that the move signals a “re-run of austerity”. Reports suggest that dozens of other MPs have expressed concerns in private that Rachel Reeves could make even deeper cuts to working-age benefits than Conservative Chancellor George Osborne. As would be expected, the Government is also facing backlash from charities and campaigners who argue that benefit cuts would affect the poorest and most vulnerable people in British society the hardest. In contrast, the Get Britain Working group of 36 Labour MPs has come out in support of the cuts. They believe the Government has a “moral duty” to help long-term sick and disabled people through making “hard choices” to overcome the “crisis of economic activity”.
Liz Kendall was expected to set out plans in more detail in the House of Commons early next week. However, as of Saturday, Downing Street may now be considering a U-turn on the cuts to benefits in light of the backlash from within the party and following a tense cabinet meeting.
In International News
In the wake of a turbulent Tuesday on Wall Street, Donald Trump’s tariffs came into effect on Wednesday. The United States introduced a 25% tariff on global steel and aluminium imports. These tariffs will cover household goods like tin foil, stainless steel cooking ware, electrical appliances, window frames, among other products. This follows the 25% tariffs that have already been imposed on other imports from Mexico and Canada (with exceptions) and a 20% levy on Chinese goods. Trump, on Tuesday, threatened to double tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium after Canada threatened to increase electricity prices for US customers, but subsequently backed down later that day. Germany, Ireland and Italy – countries which operate a good trade surplus with the US – are likely to be worst hit by the tariffs.
The European Union has said that it will be imposing counter measures on €26bn (£21.9bn, $28.3bn) worth of US goods in response to Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminium. The tariffs, which will be brought in gradually between 1st – 13th April to leave time for negotiations with Washington, have been described by President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen as “strong but proportionate”. The US has threatened a 200% tariff on wine and champagne from European Union countries in response. Canada, meanwhile, has announced it will be placing retaliatory tariffs on more than $20bn of goods imported from the US. Keir Starmer, in turn, has said that he is “disappointed” about the imposition of US tariffs on British steel and aluminium imports without announcing retaliatory measures.
Turning to the ongoing negotiations around the war in Ukraine, which have been taking place in Saudi Arabia, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has agreed to a 30-day ceasefire, whilst Donald Trump announced the US would lift its restrictions on military aid and intelligence. At the same time, Zelenskyy has emphasised that support from other countries would be needed to monitor the ceasefire along the frontline. Russia has not committed to the ceasefire proposal in its current form, saying that the proposal would give Ukrainian forces a reprieve. The Kremlin has said there are “reasons to be cautiously optimistic” but that there is “still much to be done”. In a virtual meeting with world leaders held on Saturday, Keir Starmer said that Putin’s response to the ceasefire is “not good enough”, and agreed for military planners to meet in the UK on Thursday to “progress practical plans for how our militaries can support Ukraine’s future security”. Meanwhile, in recent days Russia has intensified efforts to push Ukrainian forces out of the Russian region of Kursk, making major advances, including the recapture of Sudzha, the largest town held by Ukrainian forces.
In the Courts
The Court of Appeal has handed down judgement in Prestwick Care Limited, R (on the application of) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 184. This case relates to the circumstances in which the Home Office can revoke a care home’s sponsor licence. The main question in the two joined appeals was whether the Secretary of State is required to assess how revoking a sponsor licence would affect the sponsor, its employees, service users, and wider community care needs before making a decision. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Secretary of State, finding no legal basis in statute or guidance for the additional requirements proposed by the two care homes. The Court held that sponsors should not assume they will receive special consideration solely because revoking their licence could disrupt social care services. It determined that imposing these requirements would be “contrary to the principles established in case law” and would undermine “the regime contained in the Guidance”. Baker LJ emphasised that obtaining a sponsor licence is a choice made by providers for their own benefit but comes with strict conditions set out in the guidance. In applying for a licence, sponsors “know that, if they fail to meet the requirements of the Guidance, the consequences provided for in the Guidance will apply”.
The appeal by Prestwick Care was dismissed on this basis. In the Supporting Care Limited case, the Court ruled that the Secretary of State had succeeded in establishing that the judge at first instance was wrong to allow Supporting Care Limited’s claim for judicial review to succeed on the ground that the Secretary of State had failed to conduct an “adequately reasoned” global assessment of the impact of revocation. However, the Court upheld the first-instance order quashing the revocation on different grounds, namely that the Secretary of State had shown procedural unfairness on the facts in concluding that Supporting Care Limited had “deliberately exaggerated” an employee’s role to facilitate her stay in the UK.
Like this:
Like Loading...
10 February 2025 by Rebecca Ebner-Landy
In UK News
Medical experts have claimed that Lucy Letby did not murder any babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, concluding that the infants died of natural causes and negligent medical care. Having reviewed the medical evidence, a panel of 14 world-leading neonatologists have concluded that they “did not find any murders”. The case has been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in light of what Letby’s legal team described as overwhelming evidence of a miscarriage of justice. Letby is currently serving 15 whole-life prison terms having been convicted of murdering seven babies. Two previous attempts to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal have been dismissed. The CCRC is expected to review the panel’s full report in the coming weeks. If it is decided that there is a real chance of quashing the convictions, the CCRC can send the case back to the Court of Appeal.
Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,has urged lawyers and judges to embrace generative artificial intelligence at the LawtechUK Generative AI event for three reasons. First, the industrial, financial and consumer sectors, which lawyers serve, will be using it “at every level”. Second, lawyers are going to be “at the forefront of AI liability disputes” in the coming years with regard to the negligent or inappropriate use of AI, and if lawyers do not master the capabilities and weaknesses of AI they will not be able to advise clients properly. Finally, it will save time and money and engender greater efficiency. Vos expressed irritation towards those who use “silly examples of bad practice as a reason to shun the entirety of a new technology” and stressed that there is nothing “inherently problematic with AI”. Rather, it is a question of understanding what AI is doing and using it appropriately. Ultimately, for Vos, it is “uncontroversial” that lawyers should be using AI to “promote and improve access to justice and the quality of decision-making”.
In International News
China has unveiled tariffs on the United States in response to the 10% levies that President Trump recently imposed on China. China has justified its retaliatory tariffs by arguing the United States’ levies violated WTO rules, damaging economic and trade cooperation between the two countries. Trump contended that the imposition of Chinese tariffs is a response to trade deficits, and the flow of fentanyl into the US. Whilst Trump postponed the 25% levies imposed on Canada and Mexico for one month, no such postponement measures were enacted in the case of China. The levies have caused significant volatility in the global financial markets. Trump has suggested that he would pursue similar action against the EU but that a deal could be “worked out” with the UK. The UK now needs to decide if it aligns itself with the EU or the US, or neither. If the UK aligns itself more closely on trade with the EU, this will likely entail accepting the EU’s regulations on agriculture and food safety. However, the United States’ standards in such areas differ significantly from those of the EU. If the UK were to adopt EU agricultural standards, this may make a UK-US trade deal much harder given that the US would likely not want an agreement that excludes agriculture. This is at the same as the EU are wrangling with the UK over a closer relationship going forward. Key issues pertain to the youth mobility scheme (a priority for Germany) and an extension to current fishing rights arrangements (a priority for France). In the next few weeks, we may get clarity as to how the UK chooses to position itself between major global trading blocs.
In the Courts
The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal over whether a local authority which has ‘corporate’ parental responsibility for a child under the age of 16 can consent to the deprivation of their liberty. The case concerns a 14 year old disabled boy known as ‘J’ who is ‘looked after’ under S.20 of the Children Act 1989 and who resides in a specialist children’s home. In J: Local Authority consent to Deprivation of Liberty, Re [2024] EWHC 1690 (Fam), Lieven J held that a local authority could deprive J of his liberty and did not need the court’s approval to do so. This was because the decision the local authority was being asked to make under S.33(3)(b) of the Children Act 1989 was not of “such magnitude” that the Court would need to make it instead. For Lieven J, depriving J of his liberty was “essential to ensuring his best interests” so necessarily fell “within the LA’s statutory powers” under S.33 of the Children Act [34]. All parties in the case felt that the local authority should not deprive J of his liberty without the court’s approval. The interveners (Article 39 and Mind, the Secretary of State for Education and the Children’s Commissioner) also supported court oversight. With a panel comprising the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, Lady Justice and Lord Justice Singh, the Court of Appeal confirmed the appeal was successful and made a deprivation of liberty order, with full reasons due to be provided at a later date. Consequently, Lieven J’s ruling should not now be followed.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments