Recent legal news

Parliamentary petitions

Anyone can start a petition on the UK Government and Parliament site, as long as they are a British citizen or UK resident. And anyone can sign such a petition, as long as they too are a British citizen or UK resident. The Petitions Committee reviews all published petitions. If it gets a minimum of 10,000 signatures, the petition will get a response from the government; if it reaches 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for a debate in Parliament.

But not if it’s on a topic that’s already been debated or going to be anyway. And perhaps not if it’s just plain daft. Which is what the one is that Citizen Musk and his X-bots have been fomenting and boosting from outside the UK. His platform is being thanked / blamed for helping to boost a rather silly petition calling for a general election that has now gathered over two million signatures. We had an election earlier this year and, not surprisingly, some people didn’t like the result. But holding elections every few months doesn’t tend to make for very stable government. It’s not really how our system works; indeed, quite recently we tried to introduce a system of fixed term parliaments, but that collapsed partly as a consequence of the referendums that the same government set, like a hare, racing.

The Independent asks: Who are the 2 million people demanding a general election? Crunching the numbers behind the viral petition. Its answer is that

“The majority of signatories to the petition are concentrated in Conservatives or Reform safe seats. Many of the names in these seats may seem familiar, as vocal critics of the current Labour government. The MPs in constituencies where the petitions have received the most signatures include leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch, former leadership hopeful James Cleverly, and topping the list, Alex Burghart.”

The BBC reports that the Prime Minister is not surprised some want an election re-run. He told ITV

“There will be plenty of people who didn’t want us in the first place… I’m not surprised, quite frankly, that as we’re doing the tough stuff there are plenty of people who say ‘well I’m impacted, I don’t like it’.”

Sharing the petition, Musk said: “The people of Britain have had enough of a tyrannical police state.”

The people who signed the latest one might like to reflect on the success rate of such petitions (including for things they might not themselves have petitioned for): in 2019, a petition calling for Brexit to be cancelled received 6.1 million signatures. Three years earlier a call for a second Brexit referendum garnered 4.2 million names.

The petition is, says Prof Mark Elliott on Public Law for Everyone, straight out of the populist playbook. However daft or unlikely to be acted upon, the problem is that:

“culturally and politically, initiatives of this type risk being high corrosive, for they form part of an insidious, populist agenda that is antithetical to democratic principle — a point that applies even if, as seems likely, some (perhaps many) of the signatures are not genuine, given the willingness of some politicians to attempt to capitalise on the petition as part of their wider populist project.”

Judiciary

In her first annual report to Parliament, the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr of of Walton-on-the-Hill said the past year had brought with it

“both anticipated and unforeseen opportunities and challenges, each of which the judiciary has worked through or is continuing to navigate: advancements in technology, including artificial intelligence, progress in transparency, fresh or changing legislation, court closures due to estate issues and security concerns, to name but a few.”

She stressed the importance of transparency — flagging up her establishment of the Transparency and Open Justice Board earlier this year, and of public (and parliamentary) legal education: she said she had

“increased my engagement with parliamentarians and expanded the pool of Parliamentary Liaison Judges to help Members of Parliament better understand the work of the judiciary, judicial independence, and the important role that it plays for their constituents”

— something that surely should not be necessary for parliamentarians in a civilised country, but there you go. There have been instances of MPs commenting on current cases in a prejudicial way, and there are some MPs who still seem to think judges are, as the Daily Mail once put it, enemies of the people.

Joshua Rozenberg explains more about parliamentary liaison judges in a recent post on A Lawyer Writes: What MPs should know.

Police

The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper MP, set out her vision for police reform at the National Police Chiefs’ Council and Association of Police and Crime Commissioners’ annual conference. While praising the police for the often dangerous work they do, she also identified the challenges and setbacks, and promised to work for improvement.

“Our police officers deserve better, and the public deserve better. Which is why the government has set out our mission for Safer Streets, with our unprecedented ambition to halve violence against women and girls, and to halve the knife crime that devastates young lives in a decade and our essential task to rebuild confidence in policing and the criminal justice system, and to restore the public sense of safety on our streets.”

She identified four of the key areas for reform — neighbourhood policing, police performance, structures and capabilities, crime prevention — and also put her, or her government’s money, where her mouth was (as the saying goes):

“direct central government funding for policing will increase by more than half a billion pounds next year, including over 260 million pounds for the core grant and additional funding for neighbourhood policing, counter-terrorism and the National Crime Agency.”

Employment

In Britain’s New Tipping Act: A Promising Path for the Regulation of Service Work, Einat Albin on the UK Labour Law blog discusses the coming into force, on 1 October 2024, of the newly adopted Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 together with a Code of Practice on the fair and transparent distribution of tips issued by the Department for Business & Trade (DBT). The post looks at the history of legislation and regulation of tipping in restaurants, in particular, and how we reached the present position.

Public order

In The strange afterlife of blasphemy, Russell Sandberg in a guest post on the Law & Religion UK blog discusses how, long after the criminal offence of blasphemy has been abolished, soft law provisions such as advertising regulation exerts a similar policing of content that is judged likely to offend.

Discrimination

On 26 September 2024, Canada announced a plan to take the Taliban to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over their violations of Afghanistan’s obligations under the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The joint plan has been launched by Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands, with support from 22 other countries. This initiative is discussed on a recent post on SLAW, the Canadian online legal magazine, by Catherine Morris, in The Erasure of Rights of Afghanistan’s Women and Girls: Taking the Taliban to Court.

For an illustration of what justice, in particular family justice, is like for women in Taliban controlled Afghanistan, see this video from The New Yorker: Swift Justice: A Taliban Courtroom in Session.

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)

CRIME — Plea — Fitness to plead: R v Vinnell, 15 Nov 2024 [2024] EWCA Crim 1294; [2024] WLR(D) 511, CA

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

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS — Employment tribunals — Striking out: Xie v E’Quipe Japan Ltd, 14 Nov 2024 [2024] EAT 176; [2024] WLR(D) 510, EAT

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

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

PRACTICE — Summary judgment — Claimants bringing proceedings in relation to personal guarantees given by defendant: Jeckz Investment Ltd v Yeung, 14 Nov 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 1413; [2024] WLR(D) 490, CA

SHIPPING — Bill of lading — Time bar: FIMbank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd, 13 Nov 2024 [2024] UKSC 38; [2024] WLR(D) 494, SC(E)

Recent case comments on ICLR

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

Local Government Lawyer: Father fails in appeal in childcare case over subsequent diagnosis of autism: T (Fresh Evidence on Appeal) [2024] EWCA Civ 1384, CA

Law Society Gazette: In depth: Supreme Court’s Sky ruling sends ‘shockwaves’ through IP sector: Sky Ltd v Skykick UK Ltd [2024] UKSC 36, SC(E)

Blackstone chambers: De Bank Haycocks v ADP RPO UK Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1291; [2024] WLR(D) 468, CA

4 New Square: When can Contribution Claims run into trouble? Riedweg v HCC International Insurance Plc & Anor [2024] EWHC 2805 (Ch), Ch D

Mental Capacity Law and Policy: Coercion, control and powers of attorney — a dilemma for the court: Norfolk County Council v CA [2024] EWCOP 64 (T3), Ct of Protection

12 King’s Bench Walk: Liability for omissions: Is the law as it should be?Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2024] UKSC 33; [2024] 3 WLR 822, SC(E)

Law Society Gazette: Firm loses appeal against directors who quit to run their own business: Cheshire Estate & Legal Ltd v Blanchfield [2024] EWCA Civ 1317, CA

Local Government Lawyer: Integrated care board breached duty to provide lawful health care plan: High Court: R (A) v North Central London Integrated Care Board, [2024] EWHC 2682 (Admin); [2024] WLR(D) 455, KBD

Transparency Project: Felix and Bella — two judgments following an injury to a baby: In re Felix (fact finding and welfare) [2024] EWFC 302 (B), Fam Ct

Local Government Lawyer: Appeal judges reiterate that it is for the court — not local authorities or any other person — to determine in adoption cases whether there should be ongoing contact with birth family: In re R (Children), [2024] EWCA Civ 1302; [2024] WLR(D) 469, CA

Nearly Legal: Lateness — excusable and otherwise: Idara v Southwark LBC (unreported), KBD

Law & Religion UK: Balancing consent, religious beliefs, and human rights in posthumous embryo use: EF v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2024] EWHC 3004 (Fam), Fam D

AND FINALLY…

A 99-year-old lawyer who won’t retire

Frank Lucianna is pushing 100 and still in practice, as a criminal defender in New Jersey, in this lovely little film by David Gauvey Herbert in The New Yorker: A Ninety-Nine-Year-Old Lawyer’s Final Case in “Frank”

Frank loves his work, which he sees as primarily redemptive. “We’re all God’s children”, he says, in the film. “To unearth the goodness in some of these people who have done wicked things is a tremendous job, [but] that’s what the law comes out to.”

Frank has since passed away, much mourned and much missed, but if anyone deserved to have his appeal to the Almighty fast-tracked it ought to be Frank.

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 Paul Magrath