We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience. If you continue to use our website we will take this to mean that you agree to our use of cookies. If you want to find out more, please view our cookie policy. Accept and Hide [x]
UN Human Rights Council responds to situation in Iran
In its 39th Special Session on Friday, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) called for an urgent investigation into human rights violations by the Iranian state in the context of its repression of nationwide protests beginning in late December last year.
The UNHRC also extended the mandates of the Fact-Finding Mission and Special Rapporteur on Iran. The Special Session was informed of credible reports that thousands have been killed, many more injured, and over 24,000 arrested since the start of the protests, which have been accompanied by a complete internet and mobile services shutdown since 8 January. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, said:
“The only way out of this frightening escalation is through dialogue based on the human rights of all Iranians. The aspirations and ideas in particular of women, girls, young people and ethnic and religious minorities must be allowed to shape Iran’s future. We remain available to support any change in direction that fully respects Iran’s human rights obligations.”
European Committee of Social Rights publishes 2025 Conclusions
On Wednesday, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) published its Conclusions on Labour Rights for 2025. The Conclusions for the UK make findings of non-conformity with Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the European Social Charter on several grounds, including:
a lack of a right to disconnect from work;
a lack of coverage by health and safety regulations for domestic and self-employed workers;
a failure to promote the freedom of association and collective bargaining of gig economy workers; and
the denial of the right to strike to the police, prison officers, and members of the armed forces without effective alternative means of negotiating terms and conditions.
The inquiry into the conditions at Manston Short-Term Holding Facility has begun hearing evidence in public. The purpose of the inquiry is to investigate “the decisions, actions and circumstances” that led to significant overcrowding, outbreaks of infectious disease and mistreatment of detained migrant people at the former military base between June and November 2022. The inquiry will also investigate the death of Hussein Haseeb Ahmed, who died from diphtheria after contracting the infection while detained at Manston. The inquiry was downgraded from statutory to independent in September 2024, reducing its powers to compel witnesses to attend. The Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, and the Ministry of Justice are due to participate in the inquiry.
On Sunday, the government pulled the third reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 — widely referred to as the ‘Hillsborough Law’ — from the parliamentary schedule, amid criticism of a proposed amendment. The draft legislation would create a statutory duty of candour and assistance for public authorities and officials when engaging with inquiries and inquests. The bill would also create a new criminal offence of misleading the public. However, a new amendment proposed by the government had been critcised for creating an opt-out for intelligence officials, by allowing heads of security services to decide whether information is released. Families of the Manchester Arena bombing wrote to the Prime Minister earlier this month, stressing the need for the law not to exempt security agencies. The UK’s Security Service (also known as MI5) was found by the Manchester Arena Inquiry not to have given an “accurate picture” of the key intelligence it held on the suicide bomber who carried out the attack, instead presenting “a retrospective justification” for their actions.
The Guardian and Liberty Investigates have conducted an investigation into the Metropolitan police’s use of “cumulative disruption” as a justification to impost restrictions on protests. Liberty Investigates is an editorially independent investigative journalism group based in the civil liberties organization, Liberty.
According to the research and review of evidence obtained under freedom of information laws, the Met has used “cumulative disruption” against at least protests despite their power to do so being quashed in a May 2025 ruling.
However, the Met has used the cumulative disruption to ban or impose conditions on two pro-Palestinian groups since that ruling. On May 7, 2025, the Met banned the Jewish pro-Palestine group, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN), from holding its weekly meeting in North London citing “cumulative impact on the local Jewish community”. That ban has been renewed weekly since May 2025. In November 2025, the Palestine Coalition was forced to change the route of their march by the Met due to the “cumulative impact on businesses” in the area.
Both the Met and the Home Office assert that officers still have the authority to take cumulative disruption into account when imposing restrictions on protests. The Met argues that their consideration of cumulative disruption is lawful in efforts to balance the right to protest and ensuring that “serious disorder or serious disruption” does not result from protests. The Home Office stated that the Public Order Act 1986 implies the discretionary use of cumulative disruption, but future amendments will make its use explicit.
The UK Home Office has begun a ten-week public consultation into the use of facial recognition and biometrics technologies by the police, with the view to expanding the rollout of live facial recognition policing (currently limited to ten forces) across the entire UK. Among the Government’s proposals is the creation of a regulator overseeing police implementation of the technology; any new legislation arising from the consultation is unlikely to be in force for at least another two years. The Government has invested over £15 million into facial recognition policing since 2024. Its currently unregulated use has drawn sharp criticism from human rights and civil liberties groups, and in August the Equality and Human Rights Commission warned that its present implementation was disproportionate in its infringement of human rights. Liberty director Akiko Hart responded positively to this week’s announcement of a consultation, but stressed that the Government “must halt the rapid rollout” of facial recognition and ensure that rights-prioritising safeguards are in place. Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo called the “consultation necessary but long overdue”, adding that police facial recognition should be paused immediately, pending the consultation’s outcome. Strong tendencies towards racial discrimination in the use of the technology have raised particular concerns, as the Home Office conceded this week: whereas white people are only wrongly identified by the technology at a rate of 0.04%, this occurs at a rate of 5.5% for black people and 4% for Asian people. Earlier this year the Metropolitan Police declined to adopt live facial recognition at September’s far-right ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally, despite deploying it weeks earlier at the Notting Hill Carnival.
The International Federation for Human Rights (Féderation Internationale pour les droits humains, FIDH) has published a report sharply critical of French, German, UK and US state and media responses to pro-Palestine movements between October 2023 and September 2025, in what it calls “a profound crisis”, “not only under authoritarian regimes, but also in liberal democracies that have long claimed to uphold human rights.” Co-signed by the Ligue des droits de l’Homme (France), the Center for Constitutional Rights (US) and the Committee on the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland), the report compares “violations to the rights of freedom of opinion and expression” across the four jurisdictions, particularly through what it perceives as direct and indirect media censorship and “systematic bias in reporting”; “violations against activists, NGOs, and civil society”; “violations against academic freedom”; and restrictions to “freedoms of peaceful assembly and association” (with blanket bans on protests in France and Germany coming under particular criticism for failing to meet tests of necessity and proportionality). FIDH claims that diverse measures “directly violat[ing] international human rights obligations… have created a widespread chilling effect on freedom of expression and public debate” in the countries concerned, “further undermining democratic participation and the voices of minority groups.” Among the report’s recommendations directed at the UK are a review of public nuisance orders, and the creation of an independent body to oversee police practices during demonstrations, based on the model of the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland.
Michael O’Flaherty, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, has published two separate letters on human rights concerns in the UK: one regarding protest policing, the other the “situation of trans people”. The first letter, addressed to the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, notes the “ever more prominent” policing of protests in the UK since the Commissioner’s visit in July. It urges a “comprehensive review of the current legislation on the policing of protests within the United Kingdom’s human rights obligations” (referring specifically to the Terrorism Act 2000, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and the Public Order Act 2023). Further concerns are expressed about the prohibitions of assemblies “in the vicinity of a place of worship” and of the wearing of masks in the Crime and Policing Bill, currently before the House of Lords. In the second letter, addressed to the Chairs of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Women and Equalities Committee, O’Flaherty draws attention to the guidance provided by Strasbourg case law on the rights of trans people: “this is particularly important as the Supreme Court [in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16] did not engage with these human rights issues.” Speaking of the fallout of the Supreme Court case, the Commissioner warns against “a tendency to see the human rights of different groups of people as a zero-sum game. This has contributed to narratives which build on prejudice against trans people and portray upholding their human rights as a de facto threat to the rights of others.”
In the courts
The Home Secretary has lost her appeal against the decision to grant one of the founders of Palestine Action permission for judicial review of the group’s proscription under the Terrorism Act. In R (Huda Ammori) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1311, Lady Carr CJ held that the fact there was a route open for Palestine Action to seek “deproscription” through the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission did not rule out a challenge to the original proscription by way of judicial review. “We consider that the fact that judicial review would be a more expeditious means of challenging the Order, given the public importance of issues raised, and, in particular, the fact that persons were facing convictions for acting in ways that were made criminal as a consequence of the Order, justified using judicial review” ([59]). The Court of Appeal also granted Ms Ammori permission to apply for two further grounds of review: that the Home Secretary failed to have regard to relevant considerations, and that she did not follow her published policy. These are in addition to the two grounds already permitted by the High Court on 30 July: that the Home Secretary’s Order was unlawful as a disproportionate interference with Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention (freedom of expression and assembly), and that the Home Secretary should have consulted Palestine Action before making the Order, and by failing to do so was in breach of natural justice and Article 6 of the Convention (right to fair trial). The judicial review hearing is due to commence at the High Court on 25 November.
The number of hate crimes committed in England and Wales has risen since the previous year, according to statistics released by the Home Office. In the year ending March 2025, 115,990 hate crimes were recorded by the police: this marks a 2% increase overall, a 6% increase in race hate crimes, and a 3% increase in religious hate crimes. A 19% increase in religious hate crimes targeting Muslims coincided with the time of the Southport murders and the subsequent race riots across the country.
Kemi Badenoch has confirmed at the Conservative Party Conference that her party would withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights and repeal the Human Rights Act if they form the next Government. This follows a legal review by the Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, into the impact of remaining in the ECHR. The Wolfson Report concluded that ‘it is hard to overstate the impact the ECHR has had on government decisions’, placing ‘substantial’ limitations on government policies to do with immigration, veterans’ rights, benefits, and reforms to sentencing and protest laws. Read Rosalind English’s summary of the Report here: The UK can, and should leave the Human Rights Convention (7 October 2025).
In International News:
A ceasefire has been agreed for the war in Gaza. The deal, brokered by the US, provides for a cessation in the conflict between Israel and Hamas which has been ongoing since 2023. The full text of the deal — entitled ‘Implementation steps for President Trump’s proposal for a comprehensive end of Gaza War’ — has not been publicised, though parts have been published by Israeli media. Trump’s 20-point plan, announced last week, provided for Gaza to be a ‘deradicalised terror-free zone’ which will be ‘redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza’; all hostages will be released, and full aid will be sent to the Gaza Strip.
In the Courts:
An asylum seeker unsuccessfully challenged the housing and financial support given to him by Enfield Council. In R (on the application of BLV) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2516 (Admin), the Claimant was a disabled man suffering from deafness, impaired eyesight, and major depressive and anxiety disorders. The Defendant was obliged, under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to provide ‘adequate’ accommodation and other ‘essentially living needs’ to the Claimant; under the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998, it was also bound to adjust its general approach to providing support under the IAA 1999 to account for the Claimant’s specific disabilities. The Defendant contended that Enfield’s support was inadequate for two reasons:
His accommodation was inadequate, because it was too far away from his support network and did not have a suitable disabled lift;
His internet access was inadequate, because it was not sufficient for him to access mental health and other support services via video-call (his deafness made it impossible to rely on voice call alone).
The court applied the ‘twin-track’ test, namely: 1) whether the Secretary of State met an objective ‘minimum standard’ for ‘ensur[ing] full respect for human dignity and a dignified standard of living, maintain[ing] an adequate standard of health and meet[ing] the subsistence needs of the asylum seeker’; 2) even if the minimum standard has been met, whether the Secretary of State complied with public law standards including rationality. The court found that (stage 1) the Claimant’s accommodation did meet the minimum standard. Furthermore, (stage 2) the Defendant’s treatment of the Claimant did not violate its duties under the EA 2010, HRA 1998, or other public law principles.
An interesting aspect of this case was that internet video calling was deemed capable of being an ‘essential living need’ because of the Claimant’s disabilities. The court ruled that ‘the concept of ‘need’ is…affected by technological progress and consequent changes in societal expectations’, and that ‘internet-based communication… has become essential for interacting with other people and accessing public services.’
The UK Government enforced its first deportations under its controversial “one-in-one-out” asylum-seeker agreement with France this week, despite an interim injunction on Wednesday temporarily blocking the removal of one Eritrean national. Home Office sources reported the deportation of asylum seekers of Indian, Iranian and Eritrean nationality under the scheme; one deportee’s challenge at the High Court on human rights grounds failed upon Mr Justice Sheldon’s finding that, as a fellow signatory of the European Convention, France would afford the applicant the same human rights protections as the UK. Earlier in the week, a 25-year-old Eritrean man had succeeded in being granted an interim injunction temporarily staying his removal to France, after it was argued that the applicant required more time to make representations on his claim to be a victim of modern slavery. The ruling had prompted the newly appointed Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to accuse asylum seekers of making “vexatious, last-minute claims” that “make a mockery of this country’s generosity”, and to issue new guidance to the Home Office slavery assessment team. The UK-France Dangerous Journeys Agreement was presented to Parliament last month, and is set to run until June 2026. It provides for the forced return of individuals entering the UK illegally from France, in exchange for the same number of asylum seekers who do meet UK immigration rules. The first French arrivals under the ”exchange” are now due to enter the UK over the next week.
The Sentencing Bill 2025 was introduced by the government. The Bill follows a major review into sentencing by former Justice Secretary David Gauke, and accepts the majority of its recommendations. It aims to follow the prison overcrowding crisis through measures including:
Creating a presumption that custodial sentences of less than 12 months will be suspended (subject to a number of exceptions);
Empowering courts to give a greater range of community orders, including bans from certain venues and events and ‘restriction orders’ limiting movement;
Extending suspended sentences to max. three years (up from two years);
Allowing courts to defer sentencing for up to 12 months (up from six months), so that offenders can demonstrate good behaviour;
Setting a minimum release point of 33% for standard determinate sentences (down from 40%);
Allowing foreign prisoners to be removed from UK prisons without first serving a minimum period of custody.
Controversially, the Bill also imposes an obligation on the Sentencing Council to obtain permission from the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice before issuing sentencing guidelines. This follows a furore in early 2025 over draft guidelines which included wording about an offender’s ethnicity.
The refugee family reunion scheme has been temporarily suspended. Yvette Cooper (who was Home Secretary before a Cabinet reshuffle on Friday) announced that migrants granted asylum will be temporarily unable to bringing partners and children to the UK. The suspension will continue until the government has imposed further conditions on the scheme through legal changes.
Comedy writer Graham Linehan was arrested over tweets about transgenderism, including one which referenced punching trans women ‘in the balls’. The arrest has been criticised by Prime Minister Keir Starmer as well as members of the shadow cabinet. Mr Linehan is currently also being tried for harassment in relation to an altercation with a transgender activist.
In International News
France has issued arrest warrants for Syrian ex-president Bashar al-Assad, his brother, and five other officials regime officials. Al-Assad has been living in Russia since being deposed in December 2024. These warrants relate to the 2012 bombing of a press centre in Homs; French photographer Rémi Ochlik and American journalist Marie Colvin were killed. The bombing is being investigated by the French judiciary as a war crime and crime against humanity.
In the Courts
The Home Office has received permission to challenge a High Court ruling allowing Palestine Action to appeal its proscription under terror legislation. Palestine Action, a group founded by Ms Huda Ammori, was banned as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. In a judgment dated 30 July 2025, Ms Ammori was granted permission by the High Court to appeal this proscription. Now, the Home Office has won the right to challenge the 30 July ruling. In an unpublished order seen by the press, the Court described the government’s appeal has having ‘a real prospect of success’; it is due to be heard on 25 September.
Dr. Victoria McCloud, the UK’s first openly transgender judge, has filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights. The application is challenging the UK Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland Ltd v the Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16. Dr. McCloud is seeking a re-hearing of the case, arguing that the initial trial infringed her Article 6 right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Dr. McCloud sought leave to join the case before the courts in For Women Scotland in light of the impact the ruling could have on transgender individuals with gender recognition certificates (GRCs), but her application was rejected by the Supreme Court. Moreover, no evidence or representations from the estimated 8,500 individuals who hold GRCs was entered in the original hearing.
Dr. McCloud will be represented by a trans-led legal team in partnership with London’s Trans Legal Clinic.
Facial Recognition Technology and the London Metropolitan Police
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been granted leave to intervene in a judicial review examining whether the use of live facial recognition technology (LFRT) by police complies with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The ECHR argued that the case of R (Thompson and Carlo) v the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis raises important questions of public interest and that the current policy related to the technology is incompatible with Articles 8 (right to privacy), 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention.
LFRT captures and analyses the faces of individuals walking in front of real-time close- circuit television (CCTV) cameras. Biometric data that is unique to those individuals is then compared to a ‘watchlist’ of persons the police are seeking. The EHRC is concerned with the expansion and development of LFRT in light of the lack of domestic legislation that regulates its use. The Commission will make submissions that the technology is intrusive and will highlight the development of international policy on LFRT and artificial intelligence (AI) regulation.
Parole Futures
A new anthology on the future of parole systems, Parole Futures: Rationalities, Institutions and Practices has been published by the Onati International Series in Law and Society, edited by Harry Annison, Nicola Carr and Thomas Guiney. The book includes insights from 27 world-leading experts on the pressing issues about parole systems around the world, including: Asia; Australia, North and South America, and Europe. The objectives of the anthology is to encourage a ‘systematic and critical reflection’ on parole systems, and to introduce ambitious ‘what if’ thinking ‘about the futures of parole and prison release’.
International News
A United Nations (UN) panel of 11 experts—including six Special Rapporteurs—released a statement expressing concerns over escalating intimidation and censorship of Iran International journalists globally. According to the UN statement, 45 Iran International journalists and staff and 315 of their family members have received credible threats to life or safety. Individuals are located across seven countries: the UK, USA, Canada, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, and Türkiye. The increase in threats to journalists over the last year coincided with the Iran-Israel conflict of June 2025, with Iranian officials alleging that journalists were acting as spies for Israel.
UK-based journalists have required police protection or re-location within the UK or abroad. Women have also faced additional threats of sexual violence; while family members have been interrogated, surveyed, and threatened with death or arrest.
The UN argues this is a campaign to ‘silence and censor critical reporting and courageous public interest journalism’, and that such intimidation violates the freedom of expression, media and ‘deprives the public of their right to information’.
The UN is urging Iran to immediately cease the threatening and intimidation of journalists and their families, and to investigate and prosecute perpetrators.
In the Courts
The High Court has granted the Epping Forest District Council an interim injunction which will prevent Somani Hotels Limited from continuing to accommodate asylum seeks at the Bell Hotel in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited ([2025] EWHC 2183 (KB)). The Council argued that the use of the Bell Hotel constituted a material change of use from its classification as a hotel, requiring planning permission, which the Somani Hotels Limited had not obtained.
The High Court acknowledged that the Home Secretary has a statutory duty to provide accommodation, and that this need is growing. However, the ‘balance of convenience’ and the strength of the Council’s case ultimately outweighed the considerations raised by Somani and an interim injunction was granted. Somani Hotels Limited has until September 12, 2025, to comply with the order. There are concerns that other councils may now seek interim injunctions for hotels utilized in their areas. As of March 2025, there were approximately 30K asylum seekers living in hotels.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has written to the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, urging ‘proportionate policing and protection of protest rights’ in the ongoing controversy over the Government’s proscription of the direct-action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. In her letter of 15 August, EHRC chairwoman Baroness Kishwer Falkner raised concerns over recent ‘reports of police engagement in forms of protest that are not linked to any proscribed organisation’, ‘heavy handed policing’, and ‘blanket approaches [which] risk creating a chilling effect, deterring citizens from exercising their fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly through fear of possible consequences.’ Baroness Falkner stressed that any ‘restrictions on the exercise of… fundamental freedoms’ imposed by the police must be subject to an ‘established’ three-stage proportionality test, and that ‘all police officers should receive clear and consistent guidance on their human rights obligations in relation to protest.’ On the same day as the EHRC’s intervention, it was reported that Greenpeace, Human Rights Watch, Global Witness and the Quakers had written to the Attorney General, urging him to suspend the prosecution of protestors detained under the Terrorist Act until the judicial review of the Government’s ban on Palestine Action (due to be heard in November). Over 700 protestors have been arrested under the Terrorist Act since its amendment last month.
The first migrants were detained under the new ‘one-in, one-out’ deal with France. The ‘Agreement on the Prevention of Dangerous Journeys’ came into force on 6 August; detentions began at lunchtime that day. Under the scheme, anyone crossing the Channel in a small boat can be returned to France. An equal number of migrants will be eligible under a new legal route to come to the UK. The Agreement, which governs the pilot scheme, will remain in force until June 2026.
The government announced ‘restriction zones’ curbing freedom of movement for serious violent and sexual offenders. Under the new plans, offenders will be confined to agreed areas — a step beyond existing ‘exclusion zone’ measures which simply prevent them entering a location where the victim lives. Restriction zones will be technologically monitored, with prison time as a possible sanction.
The Home Secretary called for police to disclose the nationality and asylum status of criminal suspects. This follows the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl in Warwickshire in July. Police refused to reveal the immigration status of the two men charged, prompting accusations of a ‘cover-up’ from Reform leader Nigel Farage. Current guidance by the College of Policing is silent on whether this information should be released. The College has said that this guidance is already under review.
Two prominent human rights organisations in Israel, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), released reports contending Israel is committing genocide in Gaza by targeting Palestinians because of their identity.
The organisations have been monitoring events in the region for years, preceding the current conflict; however, the reports specifically focus on human rights and international law violations over the last two years. The 88-page report from B’Tselem outlines crimes of killing (elderly, women, children), starvation, the prison system, forced displacement and the depravation of healthcare and education. PHR’s report outlines the assault on the Palestinian health care system over the last two years, as well as the impact that the lack of medical care, the destruction of health infrastructure and killing of medical personnel is having.
These reports were released at the same time that Doctors Without Borders, or Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), are reporting critically low food supplies in Gaza as concerns of a famine mount.
In the Courts
This week, the High Court determined that Huda Ammori, co-founder of Palestine Action, may proceed with an unprecedented legal challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to ban the direct-action group under proscription laws. This is the first time a group or organisation has been permitted to challenge a proscription order at a trial. The three-day hearing will take place in November.
Over 100 people have been arrested across the UK in the wake of the Government’s proscription of the direct-action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, via its amendment of the Terrorism Act 2000 earlier this month. The arrests, which mostly took place this weekend in Bristol, Edinburgh, London, Manchester and Truro at demonstrations co-ordinated by Defend Our Juries, saw protestors who had called for a reversal of the ban on Palestine Action charged with the offence of supporting a terrorist organisation. At a separate event in Canterbury, another pro-Palestine demonstrator was filmed being threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act by armed police, without having expressed any support for the proscribed group. Amnesty International have called the footage “very concerning… We have long criticised UK terrorism law for being excessively broad and vaguely worded and a threat to freedom of expression. This video documents one aspect of exactly the kind of thing we were warning about.” The following Monday, Palestine Action’s co-founder Huda Ammori renewed her legal challenge against the ban at the High Court. The group’s acts of terror include spray-painting aircraft and blockading traffic.
The Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, published part 1 of its report. The Review was commissioned to address the backlog in criminal courts. The report makes a number of proposals to reduce the Crown Court caseload, most significantly:
Reducing the number of cases sent up from the Magistrates Court (by removing right of election for offences punishable by under two years’ imprisonment, and reclassifying offences from triable either way to summary only);
Introducing a new branch of the Crown Court, the ‘Crown Court (Bench Division)’, consisting of a judge and two magistrates. This court would handle offences punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years;
Allowing trial by judge alone in cases of exceptional length or complexity, such as serious and complex fraud;
Allowing defendants in the Crown Court to request judge-only trial.
The report stated that, while juries trials were seen as the ‘gold standard’, there was no ‘right’ to a jury and it was not always the most proportionate mode of trial. Other proposals include: investing in rehabilitation programmes and Out of Court Resolutions to divert people from courts; requiring permission to appeal from the Magistrates’ Court; match-funding criminal pupillages; raising the cap on Crown Court sitting days.
A number of amendments to the Employment Rights Bill have been made. These include softening the fire-and-rehire ban; banning NDAs which prevent workers from talking about discrimination or harassment; and extending bereavement leave to include pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.
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.
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.
Recent comments