Category: In the news
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...
12 March 2025 by Lucy McCann
Law Pod UK is marking International Women’s Day by bringing you the final episode of its three-part series exploring gender at the Bar.
In this episode Lucy and Kiran explore the themes of belonging and community at the Bar. How does imposter syndrome manifest itself? Why are role models important? How can we strengthen networks to encourage other women?
Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.
Like this:
Like Loading...
10 March 2025 by Jennifer Zhou
In UK News:
The Sentencing Council caused controversy with its new guidance on imposing community and custodial sentences. Previously, magistrates and judges were told they ‘should request’ a pre-sentence report (PSR) ‘whenever the court reaches the provisional view that a community order may be appropriate’ unless the court considers it unnecessary. The new guidance strengths the obligation so that courts ‘must request and consider’ a PSR ‘before forming an opinion of the sentence’ unless it considers this unnecessary. It also adds a list of offenders for whom a PSR ‘will normally be considered necessary,’ including female and transgender offenders and those from an ethnic, cultural, and/or faith minority. The guidelines’ stated aim is to give sentencers ‘the most comprehensive information available about the circumstances of the offender and the offence.’ They take effect from 1 April 2025.
The government’s Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme will be broadened to postmasters who have had their convictions overturned by the courts. From 3 June 2025, these postmasters—who are currently covered by the Post Office’s Overturned Convictions scheme—can apply for redress from the government. £1.8 billion has been pledged to compensate the victims of the Post Office scandal.
Convicted female minors will no longer be placed in Young Offender Institutions, the government has announced. This adopts a recommendation in an independent review of girls in custody, undertaken by Susannah Hancock and published earlier this month. Girls will instead be placed in settings such as Secure Children’s Homes and Secure Schools.
In International News:
A death row inmate in Louisana is challenging his method of execution in court. Jessie Hoffman Jr., who was to become the first man in the state executed by nitrogen gas, is arguing for a more ‘humane’ means of death before a Baton Rouge federal court. His legal team has argued that death by nitrogen hypoxia is a cruel and unusual punishment under the US Constitution. Additionally, they say that it infringes on his freedom to practice his religion, namely Buddhist breathing and meditation exercises.
In the Courts:
16 Just Stop Oil activists appealed against their sentences (R v Hallam and Others [2025] EWCA Crim 199). They had been variously convicted of: occupying roads leading to the Navigator oil terminal in Thurrock; throwing soup on Vincent van Gogh’s ‘Sunflowers’; climbing or attempting to climb gantries on the M25; and conspiracy in relation to the M25 protest. The Sunflowers offenders were convicted of criminal damage; the others were convicted of, or pled guilty to, public nuisance offences.
The court stated that the leading authority on sentencing-related issues in cases of nonviolent protests—such as conscientious motivation and deterrence—was R v Trowland [2023] EWCA Crim 919. They emphasised that conscientious motivation could be factored into the assessment of culpability, but does not prevent a finding of high culpability, and that a judge is not obliged to specify the amount by which they have reduced a custodial term to reflect conscientious motivation. They also discussed the relevance of Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (peaceful assembly). It was held that the common law and the ECHR are in step, and the fact that the appellants’ actions constituted criminal conduct significantly weakened the protections afforded by the ECHR.
After considering the specific facts of each appellant’s case, the court quashed the sentences of 6 appellants and substituted lower ones. Roger Hallam, Just Stop Oil’s co-founder, had his 5-year sentence substituted for a 4-year one. Both ‘Sunflowers’ offenders had their appeals dismissed.
Like this:
Like Loading...
3 March 2025 by Benjamin Savill
In the news
Friedrich Merz, the presumed incoming chancellor of Germany, has declared that he will invite Benjamin Netanyahu to the country, despite the arrest warrant issued for the latter by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Merz, whose Christian Democratic Union won the largest share of votes in Germany’s general election on 23 February, announced shortly after his victory that he had already spoken with the Israeli Prime Minister, and pledged to find “ways and means” of arranging his visit to the state. The ICC issued its warrant in November last year, after its Pre-Trial Chamber found “reasonable grounds to believe” that Netanyahu and his then defence minister Yoav Gallant “bear criminal responsibility for… the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts.” As a signatory of the Rome Statute, Germany is obliged under domestic and international law to detain ICC suspects facing arrest warrants should they enter its territory. A spokesperson for Netanyahu praised Germany’s “overt defiance of the scandalous International Criminal Court decision”.
The UN Human Rights Office has publicised further details of the rapidly deteriorating human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Speaking in Geneva on 24 February, DRC Prime Minister Judith Suminwa Tuluka claimed that around 7,000 people had died since the renewal of the country’s internal conflict at the beginning of the year, with 3,000 killed in the eastern city of Goma alone. Around half a million people are understood to be without shelter after the destruction of almost 100 displacement camps, while over 40,000 refugees have entered neighbouring Burundi over the past month. The conflict centres around the 8,000-strong rebel militia M23, who are seeking to advance to the DRC capital of Kinshasa and seize power. The UN Human Rights Council last month adopted a resolution to establish a fact-finding mission into the ongoing conflict, “to investigate… the alleged violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, including those affecting women and children, and which include sexual or gender-based violence committed against internally displaced persons or refugees, and of potential international crimes.” The Council has condemned Rwanda’s support for the rebels.
In the courts
The European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg has held Cyprus to have been in violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention (ECHR) for its handling of a rape complaint by a British national in 2019. X v Cyprus (application no. 40733/22) concerned a resident of Derbyshire who, then aged nineteen, had reported a gang-rape in Ayia Napa to the Cypriot police. Following ten days of intensive questioning – without access to a lawyer, psychologist, or welfare officer – the claimant retracted her statement, only to be prosecuted for public mischief, for which she was found guilty at first instance (she was later acquitted on appeal by Cyprus’ Supreme Court). In its judgment handed down on 27 February, the Strasbourg court held unanimously that the authorities’ treatment of the claimant “fell short of the State’s positive obligation to apply the relevant criminal provisions in practice through effective investigation and prosecution”, thus violating ECHR Articles 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment or punishment) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life). The court has ordered Cyprus to pay the applicant €25,000 in damages and costs. Its judgment did not address the alleged rape itself, which remains unprosecuted.
In the UK, the Upper Tribunal has overturned a decision by the Home Office to deport an NHS doctor it accused of having “supported an act of terrorism” on social media. In R (on the application of Elwan) v Secretary of State for Home Department, the Tribunal undertook judicial review of the Home Secretary’s decision in November 2023 to refuse an application for indefinite leave to remain, and cancel the existing leave to remain, of Dr Menatalla Elwan, an Egyptian national working in Liverpool. Dr Elwan had published three anti-Israeli posts on her Twitter/X account within hours of the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023. While the Home Secretary “was rationally entitled to reach the conclusion that the posts were likely to cause community tensions within the UK and foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence” and were “capable of crossing the line into conduct which was not conducive to the public good”, the Tribunal considered the Home Office’s exercise of powers disproportionate, taking into account Dr Elwan’s ECHR rights under Articles 8 (respect for private and family life – she had lived outside Egypt for nine years) and 10 (freedom of expression). Judge Stephen Davies held that Dr Elwan’s claim for judicial review of her refused application for indefinite leave to remain failed, but the review of the cancellation of her temporary leave to remain was successful. The latter decision was quashed, with the Home Secretary instructed to consider Dr Elwan’s case afresh.
An appeal to Article 8 rights has meanwhile failed in the case of S v F and M [2025] EWHC 439 (Fam). In its judgment handed down on 27 February, the High Court dismissed the application of S – a fourteen-year-old UK national whose parents had sent him to a boarding school in Ghana against his will – to be returned to the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Mr Justice Hayden held that, while “the Family Court, in its domestic case law, has long emphasised the obligation to comply with both Article 12 [of the United Nations Convention of Rights of the Child: “the views of the child [must be] given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”] and Article 8 [ECHR]”, the views of the parents, that S was at high risk of gang “grooming” in London, were of persuasive force. “The decision falls within what I regard as the generous ambit of parental decision making, in which the State has no dominion… I share their view of where their son’s best interests lie.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
25 February 2025 by Rosalind English
In Episode 215 Jonathan Sumption, formerly of the Supreme Court and author of five volumes of the Hundred Years War, says, after some reflection that “the ECHR is manifestly not a sensible and democratic way of deciding what the law should be in a democracy.
“The Strasbourg Court is a wholly irresponsible body…in the sense that it is not responsible to anyone”
Listen to Rosalind English in conversation with Lord Sumption about the reasons why this country should prepare for withdrawal from the ECHR; the “mission creep” of Articles 6 and 8; the avid adoption of the “living instrument” doctrine whereby that court extends its jurisdiction beyond its original remit; the “contempt” showed by the Strasbourg Court at the Swiss government’s democratic handling of climate change emissions, and the possible reputational consequences of the UK removing itself from the Council of Europe.
Law Pod UK aims to inform and enlighten our audience on important developments in civil and public law with a range of guests from 1 Crown Office Row and other legal experts. Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
Like this:
Like Loading...
24 February 2025 by Jennifer Zhou
In UK News
The Attorney General, Lord Hermer KC, has said that Axel Rudabakana’s sentence will not be referred to the Court of Appeal for undue lenience. Rudabakana was given a minimum 52-year sentence for murdering three girls in a dance class in July 2024. He would have received a full life order, said the trial judge, had he been an adult at the time of the crime (Rudabakana was 17). As it stands, his sentence is the “second longest…imposed by the courts in English history,” according to Lord Hermer.
The Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, criticised the Prime Minister for comments made about a ruling. Questioned about a legal loophole which allowed a Gazan family to use the Ukraine Scheme, Sir Keir Starmer called the decision “completely wrong.” Baroness Carr said she was “deeply troubled” by the comments. Emphasising the separation of powers, she pointed out that the right route for challenging judicial decisions was through the appellate process and that “it is for the government visibly to respect and protect the independence of the judiciary.”
The UK’s use of predictive policing is “automated racism,” according to a report from Amnesty International. Amnesty found that the use of predictive, profiling and risk assessment systems results in racial profiling and the disproportionate targeting of black people and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The charity said this was contrary to the UK’s obligations under human rights law including the Equality Act 2010, the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the Courts
The President of the Family Division has rebuked two women for an ‘astonishing’ surrogacy which risked leaving their children stateless. In Re Z (Unlawful Foreign Surrogacy: Adoption) [2025] EWHC 339 (Fam), Sir Andrew McFarlane heard that the parents had paid £120,000 to a clinic in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for two children. The children were carried by Ukrainian surrogate mothers and born on the same day “at the direction of the clinic.” One of the adoptive mothers then signed a form wrongly registering her as the mother of both the children. Subsequently, it became clear that: the location of birth did not afford the children Cypriot citizenship; having Ukrainian mothers did not afford them Ukrainian citizenship; and they had no legal connection to either of the adoptive mothers that would be recognised in the UK (the birth certificates having been issued on an incorrect basis). The children were eventually allowed to enter the UK through an application under the European Convention of Human Rights, article 8. Sir Andrew subsequently granted adoption orders for the children.
The judgment, published several months after the adoption orders were granted, was handed down “in order to draw attention… to the circumstances of the case…and to offer some advice for those who may, in future, unwisely seek to follow the path taken by the two applicants.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 February 2025 by Georgia Bowen
In UK News
The Home Office has tightened its ‘good character’ guidance for citizenship applicants who entered the UK illegally or via dangerous routes. From 10 February 2025, those applying who arrived without ‘a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey’ will ‘normally‘ have their citizenship applications refused. This is ‘regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry’. A ‘dangerous journey’ includes, but is not limited to, ‘travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle’. The Home Office has confirmed these new rules would ‘likely not apply’ to children, ‘given illegal entry is normally considered outside of a child’s control’. This policy shift reflects the government’s attempt to deter illegal migration via ‘small boats’, and comes alongside the introduction of the recent Border Security, Asylum an Immigration Bill. The change departs from the policy that illegal entrants could have their citizenship applications considered after ten years. These updates have been criticised as a potential contravention of UK obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention, which prohibits the penalisation of asylum seekers and refugees for illegal entry.
MI5 has admitted providing false information to the courts regarding neo-Nazi agent, ‘X’, accused of attacking his former partner ‘Beth’. Her complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) was heard in her absence in closed sessions, due to MI5’s claim that it could neither confirm nor deny X’s identity for national security reasons. However, it was revealed that a senior MI5 officer had disclosed X’s identity to a BBC journalist, while attempting to dissuade the organisation from naming him in a report. This contradicted the Security Service’s stance in evidence given to multiple courts that national security reasons meant its ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy was strict. The MI5 Director-General has given an ‘unreserved apology to the court’, emphasising the agency’s commitment to accuracy and transparency. This revelation has raised concerns about the reliability of the evidence provided by the security service, which is given deferential treatment in the courts. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has announced an independent review into the incident.
In International News
Ukraine will not be attending upcoming US-Russia peace talks in Saudi Arabia, with European leaders also excluded. The continent’s most powerful leaders will gather for a crisis summit in Paris to discuss how to safeguard the future of European defence in the event of US disengagement, and how best to support Ukraine’s position. This also comes after JD Vance, US Vice-President, has recently accused European democracies of stifling freedom of speech and religion, criticising the UK’s conviction of Christian Adam Smith-Connor for breaching a safe zone around an abortion clinic in Bournemouth. This reflects the fractures in relations between the US and Europe, and there is increasing uncertainty over what role the US will play in future European security. Former prime minister of the UK, John Major, has warned that global democracy is under threat if the US withdraws from its leading role in the world, and that American ‘isolationism’ risks emboldening Russia and China to step into the vacuum. Crucially, any peace deal concluded without Ukraine’s involvement risks undermining the country’s sovereignty and right to self-determination, which are foundational principles of international law. Without Ukrainian or European presence at the talks, it is also unclear what stance will be taken regarding justice and accountability for human rights violations that are alleged against Russia during the war. Whatever the outcome of the upcoming talks, the balance of the international order appears to be at stake.
In the Courts
The Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of Joseph El-Khouri against his extradition to the US to answer crimes of alleged insider trading. The decision clarified the definition of an ‘extradition offence’ and the operation of the ‘double criminality’ rule under s.137 of the Extradition Act 2003. This rule provides that the relevant conduct must constitute a crime in both the UK and the requesting country. Section 137 provides separate tests giving effect to the principle, depending on whether the acts took place in the requesting state’s territory (s.137(3)) or outside of it (s.137(4)). The Supreme Court rejected the USA’s arguments that, because the effects of Mr El-Khouri’s conduct were likely to be felt on US markets, they occurred ‘in’ the US . Departing from Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] 2 AC 1, the court held that the conduct occurred in the territory where the physical acts took place, not where their effects were felt. The court held that the statutory test for an extraditable offence was unworkable unless there was a clear distinction between offences taking place ‘in’ and ‘outside’ the requesting territory. The definition of conduct occurring ‘in’ the requesting territory had been too wide in Cando Armas, and this decision has labelled Lord Hope’s obiter comments in that case in particular as ‘mistaken’. In the present case, because almost all the relevant acts occurred in the UK and not in the US, Mr El-Khouri’s conduct had been wrongly classified as subject to the s.137(3) test. Although insider dealing was an offence under both US and UK criminal law, he could not be extradited because there was no provision of UK law which would have permitted a prosecution in equivalent circumstances of an individual in the US.
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 February 2025 by Emma-Louise Fenelon
In Episode 214 Emma-Louise Fenelon speaks to Rachel Marcus of 1, Crown Office Row and Dr Anna Colton, an experienced Clinical Psychologist, about vicarious trauma and trauma-informed lawyering.
Dr Colton’s book How to Talk to Children about Food, is available here:
· UK, audio & kindle
· New Zealand
· Australia
· More information about Dr Colton is available here
The episode mentions:
· Counsel magazine article: “The use of clinical supervision” by Mark Mason available here
· Law Pod Episode 147, Vicarious Trauma in the Legal Profession available here
· Vicarious Trauma in the Legal Profession: a practical guide to trauma, burnout and collective care by Rachel Francis and Joanna Fleck available here
· The Body Keeps the Score, Bessel Van Der Kolk available here
Law Pod UK aims to inform and enlighten our audience on important developments in civil and public law with a range of guests from 1 Crown Office Row and other legal experts. Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 February 2025 by Anogika Souresh
In Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 4, the Court of Appeal considered the High Court’s decision to anonymise the names of several judges who had made decisions in historic care proceedings and private family law proceedings (“the historic proceedings”).
The historic proceedings related to Sara Sharif, who was murdered by her father and stepmother in August 2023. On 18 August 2023, the Local Authority made an application for a wardship in respect of Sara Sharif’s five siblings. On 8 September 2023, the journalists requested disclosure of documents relating to the historic proceedings.
Mr Justice Williams made the following order, which was appealed by the claimant journalists:
… no person may publish any information arising from the disclosure of the documents from these proceedings to the public, or a section of it, which includes: …
g. The name of any third parties referred to in the historic proceedings for the avoidance of doubt including social worker, guardian other named professionals and experts instructed in the proceedings and any Judge who heard the historic proceedings (save for Mr Justice Williams). …
including not repeating such information by reference to the disclosed documents even if it is already in the public domain
[emphasis added]
Notably, when Mr Justice Williams pronounced the Order in court, no party had asked for the names of the three circuit judges who had been involved in the historic proceedings (“the historic judges”) to be anonymised. The judge had heard no submissions on the point. He had not mentioned to the parties that he had in mind to make the order he did [5].
The grounds of appeal were as follows:
i) It was a serious procedural irregularity for the judge not to have given reasons before anonymising the historic judges.
ii) The judge adopted an unfair, biased and inappropriate approach to the journalists and the media generally (including relying on his own erroneous analysis of alleged media irresponsibility), thereby unacceptably encroaching on their rights under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This ground was added by amendment and permission has not yet been granted to allow it to be pursued.
iii) The judge ought to have held that the demands of open justice meant that anonymity for a judge could not be justified within the framework of balancing article 8 and article 10 of the ECHR.
iv) The part of the Order anonymising the historic judges could not be justified in the absence of any specific application or evidential foundation, and was inimical to the proper administration of justice.
The Judgment
The Court of Appeal considered that there were three main issues to determine:
i) Whether the court had jurisdiction to prohibit the publication of the names of judges, and if so how and in what circumstances.
ii) Whether the part of the Order anonymising the historic judges was irregular for lack of submissions, evidence or reasons.
iii) Whether the judge’s comments in his judgment demonstrated inappropriate bias against or unfairness towards the media.
The Court of Appeal considered that the statutory limitations contained in section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and section 97 of the Children Act 1989 do not displace the open justice principle or create any separate “shielded justice” environment. They provide a degree of privacy for certain proceedings relating to children according to their terms [45]. Further, section 12 of the Administration of Justice 1960 makes clear that its provisions do not apply to judges hearing the case: “Court orders always name the judge, so, in that way, section 12 of the AJA 1960 expressly excludes anonymity for the judge” [51].
The Court of Appeal notably stated that:
In accepting office, all judges will or should be aware that that is the expectation, because public scrutiny of judges and the justice process is essential to the rule of law [55].
Issue 1: Was there jurisdiction to prohibit the publication of the names of judges?
The Court of Appeal considered whether Mr Justice Williams had jurisdiction to order the anonymity of the historic judges. In resolving this question, the Court of Appeal considered that, notionally, the names of the historic judges had been in the public domain as (a) the name of the judges appeared on public documents and on each of the orders that they made and (b) the names of the judges would have appeared in the public listings as sitting on the days in question at the courts in question.
The Court of Appeal considered the relevant rights under Articles 2, 3, and 8, which apply as much to judges as to any other person. However, there was no evidential basis on which the threshold for the application of Articles 2, 3, or 8 had been reached [64]. There was no need to undertake any balancing exercise between Articles 8 and 10 as there was no evidence about the risks to the historic judges [69].
The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no jurisdictional foundation for making the anonymity order.
The following comment from the Court of Appeal (at [66] will have wider application beyond the facts of this case:
The authorities that I have cited demonstrate that judges are in a special position as regards open justice. The integrity of the justice system depends on the judge sitting in public and being named, even if they sit in private. The justice system cannot otherwise be fully transparent and open to appropriate scrutiny.
Issue 2: Was there irregularity for lack of submissions, evidence or reasons?
The appeal was allowed on this ground, on the basis that the Mr Justice Williams ought to have asked for submissions and evidence prior to making his decision.
In the absence of specific evidence about risks or threats to the ECHR rights of the historic judges, Mr Justice Williams ought not to have taken any steps to anonymise the names of the historic judges.
Issue 3: Was there inappropriate bias against or unfairness towards the media?
The Court of Appeal noted Mr Justice Williams’s language when discussing media reporting as well as his decision to adjourn the journalists’ application for permission to appeal being akin to dismissing the application.
The appeal was also allowed on this ground.
Comment
This decision will have wider application beyond the facts of this case, and beyond family law. The Court of Appeal reiterated the necessity for open justice, and confirmed that transparency requires judges to be named, even if they sit in private.
The Court of Appeal did caveat the decision by clarifying that judges are not obliged to tolerate any form of abuse or threats. The requirements to consider in such cases are:
- Evidence about the risks to the judges;
- The court being satisfied that those risks could not be adequately addressed by other security measures;
- The court concluding that the risks were so grave that they provided a justification for overriding the fundamental principle of open justice.
The historic judges were given 7 days before their names are published, to allow HMCTS to put in place measures to protect them.
Anogika Souresh is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row, Brighton
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...
3 February 2025 by Benjamin Savill
In UK news
The UK Government introduced its Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to Parliament on 30 January. The Law Society welcomed the Bill’s repeal of the controversial Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 – described by Society president Richard Atkinson as ‘one of the most damaging pieces of legislation in recent history’ – and certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. However, a number of charities have expressed concern that the Bill’s proposed anti-people-smuggling measures – including the creation of what Home Secretary Yvette Cooper calls ‘counter-terror-style powers’ – will adversely affect legitimate asylum seekers. ‘We are very concerned that by creating new offences, many refugees themselves could also be prosecuted’, wrote the Refugee Council. ‘This would be a gross miscarriage of justice… The most effective way to break the smuggling gangs’ grip is to stop refugees from getting into the boats in the first place, which means giving them a legal way to apply for asylum in the UK.’
This week also saw the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill undergo the scrutiny of the Commons General Committee. Lord Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme Court, told the Committee that the Bill’s requirement that those applying for assisted dying would need the approval of a High Court judge as well as two doctors was ‘unnecessary and in some respects undesirable… It is not entirely clear what the judge is supposed to do … Is he there to ensure that the two doctors have done their job… or is he there to form his own view on these matters, completely independently of all those who have given certificates? If the latter, one is talking about quite a time-consuming process, involving a lot of additional evidence. It seems to me this is a protection which no other country, so far that I am aware of among those who have authorised assisted dying, have included.’ The Committee sits again on 11 February.
In international news
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is under investigation by her country’s prosecutors for releasing and repatriating Osama al-Masri, a Libyan warlord wanted by the International Criminal Court. The Court issued its arrest warrant for Al-Masri on 18 January, citing his alleged command over a network of prisons in Tripoli, and ‘crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder, torture, rape and sexual violence, allegedly committed in Libya from February 2015 onwards.’ Al-Masri was arrested by the Italian authorities at a football game in Turin only a day after the warrant’s issue, before his release on 21 January ‘without prior notice or consultation of the Court.’ Meloni’s Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi, who is now also under investigation, had told the Italian Senate that al-Masri’s deportation was ‘for urgent security reasons, with my expulsion order, in view of the danger posed by the subject.’ It has since been claimed that al-Masri was released on a technicality, following bureaucratic errors made in the course of the suspect’s arrest. These are said to have compelled the Italian court of appeal to refuse to validate his further detention. Al-Masri was then boarded onto a military plane and safely returned to Libya.
In the courts
The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal brought by two freelance journalists, permitting the disclosure of the names of two family court judges behind historic care proceedings relating to the murdered schoolgirl Sara Sharif. In Louise Tickle & Anor v The BBC & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 42, Sir Geoffrey Vos MR ruled that Mr Justice Williams had ‘no jurisdiction’ to make a Reporting Restrictions Order anonymising the judges in December last year – save a possible obligation to do so under section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, had it been necessary to avoid an infringement of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).
Sir Geoffrey found that there was ‘no evidential basis’ on which to believe that the threshold for the application of ECHR Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) or 8 (respect for family and private life) was reached. ‘For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that judges are obliged to tolerate any form of abuse or threats… Nor am I saying that it would never be possible for section 6 of the HRA to allow, or even require, a court to consider… an anonymisation order in relation to judges. In my judgment, however, it is very hard to imagine how such a situation could occur.’ It would require: (1) ‘compelling evidence… as to the risks’; (2) the court to be ‘satisfied that those risks could not be adequately addressed by other security measures’; and (3) the court ‘to conclude that the risks were so grave that, exceptionally, they provided a justification for overriding the fundamental principle of open justice.’
Like this:
Like Loading...
27 January 2025 by Rosalind English
It may come as a surprise that there still exists a country or countries in the enlightened West which do not regard sexual intercourse without consent within marriage as rape – or at least sexual assault. After a long campaign in this country, the courts of England and Wales finally capitulated in October 1991, recognising marital rape as a crime in the landmark case of R v R [1991] UKHL 12. In his judgement, Lord Lane confirmed: “The idea that a wife consents in advance [i.e. by being married] to her husband having sexual intercourse with her whatever her state of health or however proper her objections, is no longer acceptable.”
This was a long cry from the position that had held before, best expressed by Justice Henry Hawkins in 1888, that
“The intercourse which takes place between husband and wife after marriage is not by virtue of any special consent on her part but is mere submission to an obligation imposed on her by law.”
Now comes a judgement against France that shows that in some pockets of the Council of Europe, the old rule still applies, even if the criminal law has established the possibility of rape within marriage.
H.W. c. FRANCE (Requête no 13805/21)
The judgment is presently only available in French, so I give a fairly detailed summary below.
Background facts
In July 2015, the applicant sued her husband for divorce on the grounds of fault. She claimed that he had prioritised his professional career over their family life and that he had been irascible, violent and hurtful. Her husband counterclaimed that the divorce be granted on the grounds of the applicant’s exclusive fault, arguing, among other things, that she had failed in her marital duties for several years. Alternatively, he requested a divorce on the grounds of permanent breakdown of the marital relationship.
In a judgment of July 2018, the family court judge of the high court considered that none of the spouses’ claims were substantiated and that the divorce could not be granted on the grounds of fault. He granted it on the grounds of permanent breakdown of the marital relationship.
The applicant appealed this judgment. In November 2019, the Court of Appeal granted a divorce for fault, the exclusive fault of the applicant, on the grounds that she had acknowledged having ceased all intimate relations with her husband since 2004, which constituted a serious and repeated violation of the duties and obligations of marriage, making the continuation of their life together intolerable. [my italics]
The applicant’s appeal on points of law was dismissed in September 2020.
Background law
The divorce was granted pursuant to the relevant articles of the French Civil Code, which provide that a divorce may be granted for fault when facts constituting a serious or repeated breach of the duties and obligations of marriage are attributable to one of the spouses and make the continuation of the common life intolerable.
It follows from the long-standing but consistent case law of the Court of Cassation that spouses are bound by a marital duty and that its failure to perform may constitute a fault justifying divorce. Although the high court has not reaffirmed this case law since then, it has never been reversed and continues to be applied by the lower courts.
French case law does not consider every refusal to have sexual relations to be wrongful. It leaves it to the lower courts to determine whether this refusal is sufficient to characterise a serious or repeated breach of the duties and obligations of marriage justifying divorce. It also acknowledges that certain circumstances such as the age, state of health or abusive or violent nature of the spouse are such as to justify the failure to perform the marital duty. Domestic law gives trial judges the power to assess whether or not the breach of a matrimonial obligation is serious enough to justify divorce.
In this case the Strasbourg Court upheld the wife’s application, finding a breach of her right to private life under Article 8 of the Convention.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
27 January 2025 by Rosalind English
In Episode 213 of Law Pod UK, Alasdair Henderson of 1 Crown Office Row joins Labour MP Henry Tufnell (formerly of 1 Crown Office Row) to discuss some of the salient and problematic proposals in Labour’s most sweeping changes to employment law in decades. They consider the proposed restrictions on zero hours contracts, the radical reduction of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and that most controversial part of the bill, Clauses 15 and 16, which impose liability on the employer for third party harassment (as defined under the 2010 Equality Act). This goes beyond sexual harassment and could cover situations where for example an entertainment venue books a comedian whose riff, though legal, is maybe offensive to some people. If there are employees who say, we really hate what this comedian’s saying on stage, the Bill may impose a duty on the employer to cancel the comedian; does this not impose a chilling effect on free speech?
Join Ally and Henry for a lively and interesting to and fro on the Bill as it passes through its various Committee and Report stages in the Commons.
Law Pod UK starts 2025 with nearly 950K listens. We aim to inform and enlighten our audience on important developments in civil and public law with a range of guests from 1 Crown Office Row and other legal experts. Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
Like this:
Like Loading...
27 January 2025 by Catherine Churchill
In UK News
Axel Rudakubana, who murdered three children at a dance class in Southport earlier this year, pleaded guilty last week and has been sentenced to a minimum of 52 years. He unexpectedly pleaded guilty to all charges last Monday, including weapons and terrorism offences. Mr Justice Goose stated in his sentencing remarks that Rudakubana’s actions had ‘caused such extreme shock and revulsion that it must be seen as the most extreme level of crime’. Given Rudakubana was 17 when the attack occurred, he cannot legally be sentenced to a whole life order (which would mean he could never be considered for release). Despite the chances being very high that Rudakubana will never be released under his current sentence, some believe the sentence is not harsh enough. Southport MP Patrick Hurley has said the sentence is ‘not severe enough’ and does not ‘reflect the crimes committed’. Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, has called for the law to be changed so that whole life orders can be imposed on under 18s. However, a spokesperson for Downing Street said that while they ‘share the public’s disgust’, they are ‘restricted in [their] ability to extend whole life orders by UN laws’ – specifically the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Rudakubana’s sentence has been referred to the Attorney General, who has 28 days to decide whether to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider it for being ‘unduly lenient’.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights announced on Friday that it is launching an inquiry into transnational repression in the UK. While acknowledging that there is no universal definition, the Committee stated that transnational repression ‘is generally understood to include instances of intimidation, violence and harassment by a state against people in another state’. Lord Alton, launching the inquiry, said: ‘People from countries around the world come to the UK as a place of safety from repression. It is deeply concerning to hear reports that foreign governments are moving beyond their own national borders to persecute people here’. The inquiry seeks to investigate whether the human rights of immigrants in the UK are being respected by foreign governments, and whether the UK should be doing any more to safeguard them. The inquiry is calling for evidence to be submitted over the coming month.
In Other News
Donald Trump was sworn in last Monday as the 47th president of the United States. On his first day in the White House, he signed multiple executive orders he said in his inaugural speech will lead to the ‘complete restoration of America’. Among the orders were ones providing for the US to leave the World Health Organisation and the Paris Climate Accords, to end birthright citizenship (the guarantee of citizenship to anyone born on US soil), to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, and to create a policy that the US only recognises ‘two genders, male and female’. The American Civil Liberties Union has accused the administration of ‘undoing decades of federal anti-discrimination policy’ with these orders. US District Judge John Coughenour has granted a temporary block on the order ending birthright citizenship on the grounds that it is ‘blatantly unconstitutional’. The executive order and any enforcement measures will now be held for the coming 14 days pending further legal proceedings.
In the Courts
The European Court of Human Rights ruled last week in HW v France that France’s divorce laws, which recognise a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in a divorce, constitutes a violation of Article 8 ECHR – the right to respect for private and family life. The case was brought by a French woman after the divorce, which was granted in 2019 by the Versailles Court of Appeal, attributed fault to her on the basis that not having sex with her husband constituted a ‘serious and repeated breach of marital duties and obligations, making it impossible to continue in a state of matrimony’. In judgment, the ECHR objected to the fact that the concept of ‘marital duties’ recognised in French law pays no attention to the importance of consent to sexual relations. The very existence of this fault-based ground infringed upon the right to sexual freedom and bodily autonomy. The Court could not find any possible justification for the interference with the applicant’s Article 8 rights.
Prince Harry has proclaimed a ‘monumental’ legal win after reaching a settlement moments before his lawsuit against Murdoch newspapers was due to return to court last week. The case alleged that Murdoch’s media group, News Group Newspapers, had carried out unlawful information gathering, the principal allegation concerning the phone hacking scandal that came to light in 2006. Prince Harry’s barrister, David Sherborne, said in a statement read outside of court that ‘News UK is finally held to account for its illegal actions and its blatant disregard for the law’. The settlement includes a specific admission of wrongdoing by The Sun newspaper against Prince Harry; a formal apology was issued and read in court. The apology was said to finally take accountability for wrongdoing against not only the Duke of Sussex, but all the other victims of the information scandal whose cases never reached court.
Like this:
Like Loading...
20 January 2025 by Rosalind English
In Episode 211 of Law Pod UK I am joined by former President of the Supreme Court, Brenda Hale, first female law lord in the Court of Appeal, one time Professor of Law at Manchester University and participant in many Law Commission projects during her nine year sojourn there. She discusses with me the emergence of the English law of privacy from the network of common law torts such as breach of confidence, misuse of private information and libel, in the constellation of cases that reached the courts before the 1998 Human Rights Act ushered in the right to respect to private life and the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms. The balancing act between Article 8 and 10 is not always straightforward, as Lady Hale points out, where different members of the appellate committee have differing views on transparency and confidentiality.
She talks about her years at the Law Commission and her role in the team collaborating with what was then the Department of Health and Social Security to come up with a systematic drawing together of all the different rules about the care and upbringing of children the Children Act 1989. At this point of the discussion, Rosalind and Lady Hale touch upon the novel by Ian McEwan by that very title, The Children Act (2014), which gets Lady Hale’s full endorsement.
The full citations of the cases we discuss are set out below.
Kaye v Robertson [1991] FSR 62
Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2004] UKHL 22
The “salt overdose” case
Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42 (general principles of illegality)
Law Pod UK starts 2025 with nearly 950K listens. We aim to inform and enlighten our audience on important developments in civil and public law with a range of guests from 1 Crown Office Row and other legal experts. Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts.
Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments