‘This article draws out two injustices to which retrospective criminal legislation may give rise: undermining accessibility of law and challenging equality before the law. It is argued that the censuring function of criminal law exacerbates both wrongs. This sets the stage for an analysis of delaying prisoners’ release. It is suggested that retrospective reform in this context threatens the same values as those threatened by retrospective criminalisation. Yet, the safeguards against retrospective reform of release provisions are weak due to two important strands of case law, one concerning which penalty was ‘applicable at the time’ of the offence and another which draws a distinction between penalties and their execution. Both strands of case law are in need of fundamental reconsideration if article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights is to realise its purposes of upholding rule-of-law values and providing practicable safeguards.’

Full Story

Legal Studiesm 6th March 2025

Source: academic.oup.com

‘Parents and children experiencing shorter family court hearings following a government review is “encouraging”, a minister has said.’

Full Story

BBC News, 29th March 2025

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

‘The Supreme Court’s judgment in R (The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2025] UKSC 11 traverses some important ground concerning the principle of legality and heightened-scrutiny rationality review — and serves as a reminder that a good deal of work remains to be done if doctrine and principle are to sit in appropriate relationship in this area of administrative law.’

Full Story

Public Law for Everyone, 28th March 2025

Source: publiclawforeveryone.com

‘In what is believed to be the first of its kind, a team of specialist lawyers, Sarah Wood & Ashley Fairbrother, and experts, Carmel King, worked alongside law enforcement to secure a full recovery under the recently enacted s.303Z51 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) for their client, Mr. A, an 80-year-old man who lost over £520,000 to a sophisticated crypto scam.’

Full Story

5SAH, 27th March 2025

Source: www.5sah.co.uk

‘In Tickle v The BBC and others [2025] EWCA Civ 42, the Court of Appeal considered whether the courts had the power to make orders anonymising the names of judges. The issue concerned the anonymisation of the names of three judges who had presided over historical family proceedings concerning Sara Sharif. Although this was a family law case, it has wider significance.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 28th March 2025

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

‘A proposed overhaul of copyright law risks “running roughshod” over a British design industry that has created such memorable products as the red phone box, the London underground map and the iPhone, according to a group of leading UK designers.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 31st March 2025

Source: www.theguardian.com

‘Two brothers who groomed and raped vulnerable girls as young as 13 in Rotherham have been jailed.’

Full Story

BBC News, 28th March 2025

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

‘The two largest legal regulators – the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Bar Standards Board (BSB) – are the only ones to fail their performance assessments over the past year, the Legal Services Board (LSB) revealed today.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 31st March 2025

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

‘The Applicant, BDW, was the developer of 5 separate buildings which were constructed between 1999 and 2005 (“the Development”). As part of this process, BDW contracted with the First Respondent, Ardmore Construction Limited (“ACL”), to carry out the design and build of the Development. ACL was a subsidiary of the Second Respondent, Ardmore Construction Group Limited, who was itself a subsidiary of the Third Respondent, Admore Group Limited. All of the companies were owned by the parent-company, the Fourth Respondent, Ardmore Group Holdings Limited (collectively “R2-R4”).’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 26th March 2025

Source: tanfieldchambers.co.uk

‘IN Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd. and others [2024] EWCA Civ 138, the claimant (C) had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. A few years later, he was detained by the police on suspicion of burglary and was visibly mentally unwell. He was released after being seen by mental health professionals employed by the defendants (DD). Later that day, C was arrested on suspicion of assault and released the next day, again after being seen by DD’s mental health professionals. Soon after his second release, C killed three men during a psychotic episode. C was acquitted of murder by reason of insanity, on the basis that he did not realise his conduct was contrary to the criminal law or the “standards of reasonable ordinary people” (see Keal [2022] EWCA Crim 341, at [41]). Following this acquittal, C was detained in hospital. C sought damages from DD in negligence, including for loss of liberty, and an indemnity for claims against him by the victims’ estates. C argued that, had DD not been careless in their provision of care, he would not have been released from custody and in a position to kill. At first instance, DD failed to strike out the claim on the ground of illegality. The Court of Appeal, by a majority (Underhill L.J. and Dame Victoria Sharp P.), agreed that the illegality defence did not apply. In this note, we argue that the majority was correct.’

Full Story

Cambridge Law Journal, 7th January 2025

Source: www.cambridge.org

‘The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a resident over what could be raised in a review request to London Borough of Haringey after she had rejected a property offer as unsuitable.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 27th March 2025

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

‘Can a person who expects to be granted a licence, and whose expectation is disappointed, bring a claim in proprietary estoppel?’

Full Story

Tanfield Chambers, 3rd March 2025

Source: tanfieldchambers.co.uk