Recent legal news
International law
The leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, has once again raised the spectre of disengagement from international courts and institutions, if membership no longer served British interests. She made the remarks in a keynote speech to the conservative think-tank Policy Exchange, which has since been published on the Conservatives website under the the title “It’s time for realism”.
She set the scene by pointing out that
“the ‘Pax Americana’ of half a century is evolving, potentially even ending. We may be witnessing a more fundamental reset. Perhaps a return to the world of the strong and the weak. And in such a world, we must not be weak.”
Putting the phrase in ironic quotes, she said
“‘International law’ should not become a tool for NGOs, and other critics, to advance an activist political agenda through international bodies or our courts. … If international bodies are taken over by activists, or by autocratic regimes like China or Russia, we must use our influence to stop them, and if that fails, we will need to disengage.”
BBC: UK may have to leave human rights treaty, says Badenoch
Law Society Gazette: Kemi Badenoch threatens to ‘disengage’ from ECHR and ICC
Meanwhile, that international body the United Nations General Assembly has just backed a resolution drafted by Ukraine and the European Union condemning Russia on the third anniversary of its full-scale invasion. The vote was backed by 93 countries, and opposed by 18, including the usual suspects (Russia, Belarus, North Korea) and a somewhat unusual suspect: the USA. (So much for the Pax Americana.) A further 65 member states, including China and Iran, abstained from the vote.
United Nations: Ukraine war: Amid shifting alliances, General Assembly passes resolution condemning Russia’s aggression
But the USA routinely ignores other UN institutions, such as the International Court of Justice, so perhaps its stance not that surprising. Instead, it proposed its own UN resolution calling for an end to the conflict, which contained no criticism of Russia. The Security Council passed the resolution, but two key US allies, the UK and France, abstained after their attempts to amend the wording were vetoed.
Efforts to end the war in Ukraine have been complicated by a lack of agreement over who started it, who’s paying for it, and what the negotiating parties can expect to get out of it. The US president, Donal Trump, appears to have engaged Russia in talks by appearing to accept and adopt its perspective, while excluding other nations supportive of Ukraine from the talks. Some other nations, including Britain, have held separate discussions. The outcome may depend more on the spoils of war than the justice of peace.
BBC: Macron suggests Ukraine truce could be weeks away
Al Jazeera: A flawed peace deal would not end the war in Ukraine
Judiciary
The Judicial Attitudes Survey 2024 has been published, providing what it calls a “comprehensive picture of how the judiciary feels across a range of important issues”. It’s fairly gloomy.
In her executive summary, Professor Cheryl Thomas KC states that most judges feel undervalued in terms of their pay and pension, and feel they are less respected by society than previously, though they believe they are doing a valuable job and gain satisfaction from doing it. There has been an increase in judges’ concern for their own safety and a substantial number of them think the courts and other buildings they work in are not good. Many feel they lack administrative support and are experiencing high levels of stress. All in all, the survey
“indicates a looming retention and recruitment crisis in the judiciary in England and Wales, with an increasing number of salaried judges intending to leave the judiciary in the next 5 years which outstrips the number of fee-paid judges considering applying for a salaried judicial post. This comes at a time when courts are facing record backlogs.”
The Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill also spoke of judicial woes in her annual news conference. Commenting on the survey, she said
“For judges up and down the country, there are daily hurdles, their relentless and ongoing commitment to justice and their sheer goodwill is often keeping the system afloat. That, I think, is not sustainable, nor is it sufficient for the long term, and I worry about the future. Our latest Judicial Attitude Survey shows how much stress judges presently feel that they are under.”
She went on to say a few words about “what appears to be a mounting campaign of attacks on judges”, adding that “Concerns over judicial security are at an all-time high”. In what appears to be the context of recent criticism of judges for apparently controversial decisions, in family law or immigration, she said
“It is not acceptable for judges to be the subject of personal attacks for doing no more than their jobs… If they get it wrong, the protection is a challenge on appeal. If the legislation is wrong, it is Parliament’s prerogative to legislate. It is really dangerous to make any criticism of a judgment without a full understanding of the facts and the law.”
In the circumstances, one wonders what are the Motivations to apply for salaried judicial office. Dr Sophie Turenne has analysed them for the latest Ministry of Justice Analytical Series. The report presents findings based on qualitative research commissioned by the Ministry of Justice to understand the relative importance of different factors in incentivising or disincentivising fee-paid judges to apply for salaried office.
While remuneration has a lot to do with it, other factors include geographical deployment, the value of fee-paid experience and legal specialism in the selection process, measuring and scheduling judicial workload, and improving working conditions.
Crime
The Axel Rudakubana case continues to cause trouble. Having still been 17 at the time of the three murders and 10 attempted murders to which he had pleaded guilty, he could not be sentence to life imprisonment like an adult or given a whole life order. (See Weekly Notes, 27 January 2025.) But the minimum term of 52 years applied to his detention during his Majesty’s pleasure was still the second longest sentence imposed by the courts in English history, according to the Attorney General, Lord Hermer KC, who declined to refer the case to the Court of Appeal under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
The public could, however, have been given better information about him at the time of his arrest and during the investigation of his crimes, according to the UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, in an interview with a BBC Panorama investigative documentary.
Hall said he believed the quality and quantity of information released by the authorities in the hours after the attack on 29 July 2024 was “inadequate”. Anger and disbelief soon followed, said the BBC, prompting burning questions over the identity, background and possible motive of the attacker, and suspicions about why the authorities appeared to be saying a lot less than they knew. The information released was either incomplete, inaccurate or even misleading. For example, the police issued a statement saying that the attack was “not currently being treated as terror-related”, yet shortly afterwards they found traces of ricin at the attacker’s home and an Al-Qaeda training manual. Yet nothing was said to correct the previous statement for three months.
The lack of information made it easier for lies and misinformation to spread, and riots to be fomented. That suggests a balance needs to be recalibrated between preventing the risk of prejudice to one trial and the risk of civil unrest, requiring many more.
“People got the sense that something was being withheld or fudged in some way, and that led the social media types who wanted to spread disinformation to spread disinformation,” Jonathan Hall KC said.
BBC: Inadequate information released after Southport attack by authorities, says terror law reviewer
Assisted dying
In another counterblast on the subject, the former President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby has commented on the latest proposals from the supporters of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in another post on the Transparency Project blog: Assisted Dying: What role for the tribunal? Thoughts on the latest proposals.
Last month, The Times reported that Assisted dying bill may drop need for High Court judge’s approval saying that ‘under plans being examined by MPs who support a change in the law to let people end their own life, a panel of experts, rather than a High Court judge, would decide whether to approve an assisted death’. Such a panel of experts ‘could include a retired judge as well as social workers and psychiatrists’, the article said, while the existing requirement for judicial approval would impose too large a burden on court resources. The article cites Sir James Munby and Sir Nicholas Mostyn as among the retired judges who had voiced their concerns. But the article goes on to note that a number of the Bill’s original supporters only did so on the basis there would be such oversight.
In his latest post, Sir James comments on the new proposals for a tribunal which would consist of a judicial figure, a psychiatrist and a social worker. The revised clause in the bill provides for qualification and selection, and in the case of the legal member, the criteria are more relaxed than previously, allowing KCs or part time judges to act on the panel.
Sir James remains sceptical of the efficacy of the new arrangements to prevent the risk of abuse. He goes on to compare the new arrangements with the original and reiterates, among other things, that
“As I said in my previous papers, I was and I remain strongly of the view that the integrity of the process and the maintenance of public confidence demand that there be a hearing in public in every case, and with an absolute minimum of reporting restrictions; that there should be no anonymisation of any of the participants (except, perhaps, for the patient during his or her lifetime); and that the judge (now, the panel) must be required to give and publish a judgment in every case. I said there can be no room here for secrecy or concealment. If there was to be a judicial process, it must be open and transparent.”
For a fuller analysis of the post, see Joshua Rozenberg, A Lawyer Writes: Assisted dying safeguards
See also: Alex Ruck Keene, Mental Capacity Law and Policy: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Questions on the amendments to the High Court approval requirement
Law Reform
The chair of the Law Commission, Sir Peter Fraser, giving the Hale Lecture 2024 to the Society of Legal Scholars, spoke on The Future of Law Reform. He recounted the history of the Law Commission, which this year marks its 60th anniversary, and how law reform had previously been attempted, and sometimes achieved, in earlier times. (Over 60 individual law commissions had been appointed during the 19th century, for example.)
He went on to issue a plea for a fifth commissioner (there are currently four, plus the chair) and then discussed the six principles or themes that he felt should guide the Commission in its current work, namely:
- Economic growth and the rule of law;
- Legal certainty;
- Transparency;
- Individual wellbeing;
- Protecting the vulnerable;
- Innovation and value for money.
For each of these he gave examples of projects by which these themes had been guided.
Recent case summaries from ICLR
A selection of recently published WLR Daily case summaries from ICLR.4
CONTRACT — Sale of goods — Payment: CE Energy DMCC v Bashar (CE Energy DMCC v Ultimate Oil & Gas DMCC) 14 Feb 2025 [2025] EWHC 297 (Comm); [2025] WLR(D) 103, KBD
DEBT — Cause of action — Merger in judgment: Zavarco plc v Nasir, 19 Feb 2025 [2025] UKSC 5; [2025] WLR(D) 105, SC(E)
DEBT — Enforcement — Transaction at undervalue: Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini, 19 Feb 2025 [2025] UKSC 4; [2025] WLR(D) 104, SC(E)
ESTOPPEL — Per rem judicatam — Issue estoppel: Hulley Enterprises Ltd v Russian Federation, 12 Feb 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 108; [2025] WLR(D) 107, CA
EXTRADITION — Appeal — Bar to extradition: SLP v Prosecutor General of the Republic of Latvia, 14 Feb 2025 [2025] EWHC 298 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 106, KBD
EXTRADITION — Extradition offence — Insider dealing: El-Khouri v Government of the United States of America, 12 Feb 2025 [2025] UKSC 3; [2025] WLR(D) 88, SC(E)
MENTAL CAPACITY — Capacity to make decisions — Assessment of capacity: CT v Lambeth London Borough Council, 12 Feb 2025 [2025] EWCOP 6 (T3); [2025] WLR(D) 96, Ct of Protection
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT — Contract award procedure — Disqualification: Working on Wellbeing Ltd (trading as Optima Health) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 14 Feb 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 127; [2025] WLR(D) 97, CA
REVENUE — Value added tax — Concession: R (Anglia Ruskin Students’ Union) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, 12 Feb 2025 [2025] EWHC 296 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 95, KBD
SEXUAL OFFENCE — Voyeurism — Upskirting: R v Barone (Paolo), 14 Feb 2025 [2025] EWCA Crim 125; [2025] WLR(D) 98, CA
Recent case comments on ICLR
Expert commentary from firms, chambers and legal bloggers recently indexed on ICLR.4 includes:
Law & Religion UK: The tort of nuisance and the consistory courts: Re St James, Southlake: In re St James, Southlake [2025] ECC Oxf 1, Const Ct
Transparency Project: Re XY Twins — another family court judgment names an individual to warn parents: In re XY (Twins: Inflicted Injury: Naming Perpetrator) [2024] EWFC 414 (B), Fam Ct
A Lawyer Writes: Unduly lenient? R v Rudakubana (Axel) Sentencing remarks, Crown Ct
Inforrm’s blog: Court throws out libel and privacy claims brought over Nicola Adams’ Amazon Prime documentary: Adams v Amazon Digital UK Ltd [2024] EWHC 3338 (KB), KBD
Local Government Lawyer: Judges reject appeal over whether protective duty had arisen in school exclusion case where pupil was vulnerable to child criminal exploitation: R (RWU) v Governing Body of A Academy [2025] EWCA Civ 147, CA
Local Government Lawyer: Disabled people in immigration bail: the duties of the Home Office and local authorities: R (BLZ) v Leeds City Council [2025] EWHC 154 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 73, KBD
Electronic Immigration Network: Family From Gaza Settle In UK Following Ukraine Scheme Application: A Legal Loophole? IA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Judgment PDF, UT
Local Government Lawyer: Capacity, insight and professional cultures: CT v Lambeth London Borough Council [2025] EWCOP 6 (T3); [2025] WLR(D) 96, Ct of Protection
Local Government Lawyer: Risk assessment in care proceedings, T (Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93, CA
Law Society Gazette: Law professor with ‘profound sense of grievance’ banned from courts: Kostakopoulou v University of Warwick [2025] EWHC 342 (KB), KBD
Law Society Gazette: Thames Water £3bn loan deal did not breach competition law, High Court rules: Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd, Re [2025] EWHC 338 (Ch), Ch D
Law Society Gazette: Supreme Court’s judgment over Insolvency Act ‘welcome confirmation’: Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini [2025] UKSC 4; [2025] WLR(D) 104, SC(E)
Law & Religion UK: Charity trusteeship and the right to free speech: Mond (Gary) v The Charity Commission for England and Wales [2025] UKFTT 103 (GRC), FTT
Out-Law: Ruling shows employers must act proportionately in respect of protected beliefs: Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109; [2025] WLR(D) 87, CA
Cloisters chambers: Court of Appeal considers relevant factors for the ‘just and equitable’ test: Jones v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EWCA Civ 1568; [2024] WLR(D) 555, CA
And finally…
A bog standard (surely gold standard?) burglary
In an astonishing heist, a solid gold water closet was stolen from Blenheim Palace, where it had been fully plumbed in, not as a regular stately cloakroom facility, as one might expect of the aristocratic pile of Marlborough Man, or perhaps as Donald Trump’s impeccably tasteful downstairs loo; but rather as an exhibit, if you please, in an art exhibition. Now the men accused of stealing it in September 2019 are finally — talk about the courts backlog — on trial. The solid gold loo weighed 98kg, was valued at £4.8m and was insured for $6m. Whoever took it must be pretty flush, unless they simply dumped it; but it was money down the drain for the owners or their insurers, unless it can be recovered as proceeds of crime.
According to the BBC, defendants Michael Jones, 39, from Divinity Road, Oxford denied a charge of burglary. Fred Doe, previously known as Frederick Sines, 36, from Windsor, and 41-year-old Bora Guccuk, from west London, have pleaded not guilty to conspiring to transfer criminal property. You could say they have washed their hands of the whole affair. A fourth man, James Sheen, 40, from Wellingborough in Northamptonshire, has pleaded guilty to burglary, jurors were told. The trial at Oxford Crown Court continues.
That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading, and make sure you’re signed up for our email alerts. And you can now find ICLR on BlueSky.
This post was written by Paul Magrath, Head of Product Development and Online Content. It does not necessarily represent the opinions of ICLR as an organisation.
