Recent legal news

Assisted Dying Bill debated

The House of Commons voted by 330 to 275 in favour of legislation permitting doctors to assist terminally ill patients to die sooner than they might otherwise have done. MPs took part in a free vote after a long debate over the second reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November 2024. The Bill is controversial, with many citing concerns over undue pressure, allocation of resources away from palliative or general care, the involvement of judges in the approval of each termination, but its broad aims have much wider support among the public than the relatively narrow proportion supporting it in Parliament.

Independent: Assisted dying bill passes after vote, paving the way for historic change

Justice system: ‘fire brigading instead of town planning’

The Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, in her appearance before the Justice Select Committee on 26 November 2024 made an urgent case for better funding. Having reiterated the benefits of the rule of law, which did not come cost-free, she said: “

“It is, I think, important to emphasise to you what is at stake by not funding the system properly, not only in terms of the daily impact of a lack of resourcing but as a distraction from what should be the real task, which should be for planning for, I would say, delivering a modern digitised court and tribunal environment fit for the 21st century and truly reflective of our international standing as a global centre of legal excellence. At the moment we are fire brigading instead of town planning””

Despite this, she said, “the Ministry of Justice is one of the most underfunded departments across government”. Of particular concern was the availability of judges, lawyers, and courts to hold the sittings that would go towards clearing the mounting backlog of prosecutions, but the lack of sitting days (permitted and funded by government) that would enable all these resources to be applied. And, she pointed out, it’s a false economy:

“This is not about saving anything. It is not about saving money. You are deferring the cost and indeed you are increasing it. Why are you increasing it?”

All of this is distressingly familiar from the savage and savagely counterproductive cost cutting carried out under the previous administration. What has changed?

“The new administration has arrived with a very clear and a very public commitment to cutting crown court backlogs. In the light of the information from HMCTS, inevitably there were conversations as to whether or not the Ministry of Justice wanted to fund the courts so as to allow them to sit to capacity in crime. The decision was taken not to fund them so as to sit to capacity. An additional 500 days was found, but that was from within HMCTS allocation. So no additional funding.”

It was, said the LCJ, a very distressing situation.

Legal speeches

The LCJ is one of a number of judges and senior lawyers who have recently given speeches or lectures. These are always interesting and often entertaining. They include:

Enacting Just and Equal Laws: the Mayflower 400 Lecture by the Lady Chief Justice

The LCJ was giving the 2024 Mayflower 400 Lecture at the University of Plymouth on Thursday 28 November. The lecture, entitled Enacting Just and Equal Laws — Enforcement and Fair Trial, can be found here as a PDF.

Speech by the Master of the Rolls: Are rights sufficiently human in the age of the machine?

Sir Geoffrey Vos MR was giving the Blackstone Lecture at Pembroke College, Oxford on Wednesday 27 November 2024, with the title Are rights sufficiently human in the age of the machine? The PDF is here.

Lady Rose: When Homer nods: how courts respond to mistakes in legislation

Lady Rose of Colmworth was giving the The Renton Lecture for the Statute Law Society at University College London on 20 November 2024.

Lord Sales: Purpose in Law and in Interpretation

Lord Sales was giving the F.A. Mann Lecture at Herbert Smith Freehills on 19 November 2024. This was commented on by Joshua Rozenberg on A Lawyer Writes, An intellectual Mann

Four inspiring women and one idea whose time has come: a speech by Lord Justice Peter Jackson

Lord Justice Peter Jackson gave a speech at the Association of Lawyers for Children Conference 2024 in Bristol on 15 November. The speech, entitled “Four inspiring women and one idea whose time has come” can be read in full here.

When to trust the creditors? A lecture by Mr Justice Zacaroli

Lord Justice Zacaroli, before his elevation to the Court of Appeal, gave a lecture earlier this year (on 26 April 2024) at the 5th International and Comparative Insolvency Law Symposium at Royal Holloway, University of London. This has now been published. The lecture, entitled When to trust the creditors? The protection of minorities in restructuring procedures, can be downloaded here.

David Anderson KC: National Security and Human Rights

This year’s Denning Society Lecture, given by David Anderson KC, at Lilncoln’s Inn on 27 November 2024. The full text of the lecture is here: National Security and Human Rights.

Generative AI and hallawcinations

Yes that’s a new word I just made up. Anxiety over the hallucinatory responses to legal research tools that use generative artificial intelligence has grown steadily, over the last couple of years, even as the hype from information providers has receded. That is one reason why at ICLR we have been very careful to limit our use of AI to functions that offer little scope for misleading hallucination (the making up of fake answers or citations, by mashing up references sourced from unreliable training data). We trained Case Genie on our own, reliable data; and we use generative AI (via third party supplier Jurisage) to provide short summaries and issues extracted from genuine unreported judgments. These features help users find and assess the results of their own research, using their own materials; they don’t offer to do the intelligent work for them.

Courts have generally been cautious about AI sourced citations, ever since a notorious case in New York in which a lawyer, who should have known better — or at any rate should have checked the sources — cited a number of fake cases in a submission. Similar issues have arisen in courts elsewhere, including Canada. According to a recent post on SLAW, the online Canadian law magazine, the Canadian courts are

“concerned that litigants may misuse AI and attempt to introduce fake cases or deepfake evidence into court proceedings. They are also concerned about AI potentially usurping judges’ decision-making role and thereby undermining the proper administration of justice”.

See SLAW, Canadian Courts and Generative AI: Broadening Our Gaze to Potential Corrosive Risks

In his Blackstone lecture (see above) the MR recalls from a recent comparative law conference the risk, averted to by a delegate from Africa,

“that big tech companies and the Western world more generally neither understood nor appreciated the problems that AI is causing and would cause in African judicial systems, and warned against recolonisation resulting from an irresistible push towards using AI in a continent, where there is: (a) less digital literacy, (b) less internet coverage and power capacity, and ( c) endemic corruption which makes AI tools a particular risk.”

(Might one, in that context, consider the risk of future colonisation, ie exploitation, including extraterrestrial colonisation, being managed and funded by multinational or supranational tech corporations rather than nations or governments? Just a thought.)

Meanwhile some of the more extravagant claims of the big infotech providers have also now been challenged, as a recent post on the Canadian Bar Association’s website makes clear: Law professor gives Lexis+ AI a failing grade

University of British Columbia law professor Benjamin Perrin said:

“After several rounds of testing, I found Lexis+ AI disappointing. I encountered non-existent legislation referenced in the results (without a hyperlink), headnotes reproduced verbatim and presented as ‘case summaries,’ and responses with significant legal inaccuracies.”

But according to Practice Source, Lexis have responded by suggesting that the good professor was asking the wrong questions. See also Law.com: LexisNexis Responds to Canadian Professor’s Criticism of Lexis+ AI

LexisNexis chief product officer Jeff Pfeifer said in a statement on 19 November 2024 that “some of the shortcomings Perrin wrote about were due to capabilities or features that had not been developed yet for Lexis+ AI”. The article in Law.com also notes:

“Earlier this year, Stanford researchers studied the accuracy of AI tools such as Thomson Reuters’ Westlaw AI-Assisted Research tool as well as Lexis+ AI. In an updated study, the researchers found that Lexis+ AI’s answers were accurate 65% of the time while Westlaw AI was accurate 42% of the time.”

You have been warned. Or to put it another way, AI told you so.

Recent case summaries from ICLR

A selection of recently published WLR Daily case summaries from ICLR.4

BANKRUPTCY — Trustee in bankruptcy — Recognition of foreign proceedings: Kireeva v Bedzhamov (Vneshprombank LLC v Bedzhamov), 20 Nov 2024 [2024] UKSC 39; [2024] WLR(D) 506, SC(E)

CONSUMER PROTECTION — Contract — Distance contract: 4VVV Ltd v Spence, 27 Nov 2024 [2024] EWHC 3035 (Comm); [2024] WLR(D) 520, KBD

CRIME — Sentence — Homicide: R v Deeprose (R v Papworth), 22 Nov 2024 [2024] EWCA Crim 1431; [2024] WLR(D) 514, CA

EVIDENCE — Privilege — Common interest privilege: Aabar Holdings SarL v Glencore plc, 27 Nov 2024 [2024] EWHC 3046 (Comm); [2024] WLR(D) 523, KBD

HOUSING — Secure tenancy — Right to buy: Howe v Brent London Borough Council, 27 Nov 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 1444; [2024] WLR(D) 517, CA

IMMIGRATION — Deportation — Removal: R (Branco-Bonfim) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 20 Nov 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 1421; [2024] WLR(D) 508, CA

JUDGMENT — Enforcement — Recovery from pension fund: Manolete Partners plc v White, 15 Nov 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 1418; [2024] WLR(D) 491, CA

LANDLORD AND TENANT — Assured shorthold tenancy — Notice of proceedings for possession: Switaj v McClenaghan, 28 Nov 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 1457; [2024] WLR(D) 522, CA

PRACTICE — Case management — Relief from sanctions: Bangs v FM Conway Ltd, 28 Nov 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 1461; [2024] WLR(D) 521, CA

PRACTICE — Documents — Disclosure to non-party: Moss v Upper Tribunal, 15 Nov 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 1414; [2024] WLR(D) 499, CA

Recent case comments on ICLR

Expert commentary from firms, chambers and legal bloggers recently indexed on ICLR.4 includes:

QMLR: Anonymity orders: putting the genie back in the bottle? PMC v A Local Health Board [2024] EWHC 2969 (KB), KBD

Nearly Legal: Fees before the Tenant Fees Act, after the Tenant Fees Act: Switaj v McClenaghan [2024] EWCA Civ 1457, CA

Nearly Legal: Posthumous Right to Buy: Howe v Brent London Borough Council [2024] EWCA Civ 1444; [2024] WLR(D) 517, CA

Local Government Lawyer: Defending cycling pothole claims: Robertson v Cornwall Council [2024] EWHC 2830 (KB), KBD (Linden J)

Law Society Gazette: CoA rejects late claim in spite of its merits: Bangs v FM Conway Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1461, CA

Free Movement: States cannot refuse asylum claims by LGBTQI+ people based on the ‘discretion test’ alone: M.I. v Switzerland (Application no. 56390/21); [2024] ECHR 862, ECtHR

33 Bedford Row: Balancing Open Justice and Privacy: A Case Study on Taxpayer Anonymity in the Upper Tribunal: Revenue and Customs v The Taxpayer [2024] UKUT 364 (TCC), UT

Free Movement: High Court finds no lawful system in place for expediting change of conditions applications: SAG v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 2984 (Admin), KBD

Law & Religion UK: Political views vs philosophical beliefs: Fairbanks v Change Grow Live [2024] UKET 2409700/2023,, ET

Local Government Lawyer: Asylum seeker granted permission to apply for judicial review of age assessment: R (LS) v Warrington Borough Council [2024] EWHC 2872 (Admin), KBD

3PB: Authority is the eye of the beholder: Advanced Multi-Technology for Medical Industry v Uniserve Ltd [2024] EWHC 1725 (Ch), Ch D

Mental Capacity Law and Policy: Best interests, wishes and feelings: a worked example in an imperfect world: Aberdeenshire Council v SF (No 4) (Residence) [2024] EWCOP 67 (T3), Ct of Protection

Kingsley Napley: Protected Conversations under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act: Gallagher v McKinnons Auto and Tyres Ltd [2024] EAT 174, EAT

Local Government Lawyer: Judge rejects application by local authority for declaration in dispute between council and health board over responsibility for care of 15 year old: In re SB; Conwy County Borough Council v PR [2024] EWHC 2964 (Fam), Fam D

Legal Futures: Tribunal “copied most of ruling” from one side’s submissions: Kemsley v Cambridgeshire County Council [2024] EAT 180, EAT

Free Movement: Unlawfully withdrawn asylum claim results in quashing of trafficking reconsideration refusal: R (KM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 2870 (Admin), KBD

Global Freedom of Expression: Tuleya v. Poland: expands expression Tuleya v Poland [2020] ECHR 643; (Applications nos. 21181/19 and 51751/20), ECtHR

Free Movement: Court of Appeal held that time limit did not start to run where notice of decision failed to mention right of appeal: R (Chowdhury) v First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2024] EWCA Civ 1380; [2024] WLR(D) 475, CA

Inforrm’s Blog: Kelly v O’Doherty: SLAPPs, Political Speech, and the 2024 Statutory Review of NI Defamation Law: Kelly v O’Doherty [2024] NIMaster 1, KBD (NI)

Free Movement: Court of Appeal dismisses challenge to employer penalty notice: Akbars Restaurant (Middlesbrough) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 1387; [2024] WLR(D) 501, CA

AND FINALLY…

[Basket] ball is in other team’s court

You can’t trust anyone on the net these days … people will jump through any amount of hoops to score points, exploiting every loophole…

Legal proceedings have been threatened by the Colombian basketball federation (CBF) after it transpired that imposters had donned the national team’s colours to enter a Russian tournament held in the city of Perm. The CBF vowed to take proceedings against the fake team “for the improper use of our image and logo”. But according to a recent story in Lowering the Bar, there is Still No Lawsuit Against the Fake Colombian Basketball Team. It reports that

“The CBF was upset because two games into the “Russian Friendship Cup,” an international basketball tournament in Perm, it became pretty clear that the Colombian national team was not, in fact, the Colombian national team. It was just some guys “wearing Colombia’s colors” but not in any way associated with the CBF. While the uniforms were good enough to fool officials, the team’s performance was not.”

Though suspicions were raised by a 102-point loss in the first game, against a local Perm squad, they were confirmed when the Colombian team lost its second game, against Venezuela, by almost 50 points (107–58). But given that the tournament was barred to the real team by international sanctions, it seems unlikely the prank has damaged anyone but the Russians (for whom drafting in crooks and foreign fighters to replace a national squad, and then suffering heavy losses, seems normal special military policy).

That’s it for now! Thanks for reading, and make sure you’re signed up for our email alerts.

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.

Featured image: Photo by Karolina Grabowska via Pexels

Weekly Notes: Legal news from ICLR, 2 December 2024