Parliament

Debate on assisted dying

In response to an online petition signed by over 200,000 people, Parliament has now held a debate on whether the law should be changed to allow medically assisted dying. The petition also called for MPs to have a vote on the matter, but that hasn’t happened. The petition said:

“Terminally ill people who are mentally sound and near the end of their lives should not suffer unbearably against their will. We believe dying people in the UK should have the option of requesting medical assistance to end their lives with dignity, through a safe and compassionate system with strict eligibility criteria and safeguards. Without this, too many are taking matters into their own hands with tragic consequences.”

Last year the Health and Social Care Committee held an inquiry into into assisted dying/assisted suicide, and the government has since issued a response to the inquiry report. The report was not intended to provide or propose a particular solution, but rather to collect evidence and views about end of life and palliative care, as well as AD/AS (assisted dying and assisted suicide). Its overall effect seemed to be that we should “wait and see”, since

“Following the recommendation by the Jersey Citizens’ Assembly it looks increasingly likely that at least one jurisdiction among the UK and Crown Dependencies will allow AD/AS in the near future and Ministers should be actively involved in discussions on how to approach the divergence in legislation”.

You can watch the debate (and read a transcript) via Parliament’s YouTube channel here. See also:

Legal professions

Prosecutorial excellence encouraged

“The Horizon scandal has undoubtedly shaken public confidence in prosecutions”, according to the Solicitor General, Robert Courts KC MP. Together with the Attorney General Victoria Prentis KC MP, he recently met with members of the Whitehall Prosecutors Group to discuss “best practice and collaboration amongst prosecutors” and to “bolster efforts to ensure mistakes are never repeated”, according to a government announcement.

The Whitehall Prosecutors Group is made up of prosecutors and departments who are signatories to the 2009 Prosecutor’s Convention. The members are listed in a Memorandum published by the Justice Committee in 2009. They do not include the Post Office but they do include the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, which would presumably have covered the Post Office at the time of its unrepeatable “mistakes”. A more recent list on the CPS website appears to contain fewer names, which suggests some tightening up of controls, perhaps? The Post Office ceased prosecuting in 2015, according to its own website.

The Insolvency Service and Serious Fraud Office (SFO) have recently been recognised for their prosecuting excellence by the Attorney General. At the Prosecution Team and Prosecutor of the Year Awards 2023, Ian Whittaker, Senior Lawyer for the Insolvency Service was awarded Prosecutor of the Year and SFO’s Glencore team won Prosecution Team of the Year. It seems the awards were newly launched in January.

The legal professions do love their baubles, but are there ever enough of them?

Other recent items

Disinformation and democracy

The European Union is planning to investigate Meta’s Facebook and Instagram over concerns they are not doing enough to counter disinformation from Russia and other countries, according to the Financial Times: EU to probe Meta over handling of Russian disinformation. Regulators are set to express concern over insufficient moderation of political ads that risk undermining the electoral process.

Standards in public life

Britain’s revolving door rules are broken, says Spotlight on Corruption, and there seems to be no sign of the government’s long-promised reforms. In a recent post Dr Susan Hawley says the existing mechanisms to police the UK’s “revolving door “— the movement of ministers and public officials from public service into private sector employment — are not fit for purpose.

Nine months ago the government promised it was introducing “a wide-ranging programme of reform to strengthen ethics and integrity in central government.” In particular, it promised “fundamental reforms” to the Business Appointment Rules which manage how conflicts of interests are governed when ministers and senior civil servants take up roles outside of government. Chief among the reforms promised was a new “ministerial deed” to make the rules legally binding. But as an election draws closer, there is a growing risk that those in government are making the political calculation that it is no longer very attractive to introduce such a deed. Without a deed, these ministers and former ministers will be treated under existing rules for post-government business appointments which are widely regarded as unfit for purpose.

Prisons: rehabilitation for leavers

The Ministry of Justice announced a new partnership with professional services firm KMPG to encourage more businesses to recruit more prison leavers. “As part of our efforts to reduce crime, fill gaps in the job market and grow the economy, we’re encouraging multi-national corporations — specifically white collar businesses — to hire reformed prison leavers,” the government said.

The New Futures Network, which supports businesses to recruit from prisons, also involves Redemption Roasters, which has trained nearly 900 former prisoners giving them valuable skills in coffee roasting, barista techniques and wider hospitality sector skills; the pub chain Marston’s, which trains prisoners to fill skills gaps in the hospitality sector; and Rail Centre Excellence, which provides training to lay and maintain rail infrastructure.

Court security and open justice

Penelope Gibbs of Transform Justice recounts a number of recent incidents at Stratford Magistrates’ court where overzealous security staff have wrongly excluded legitimate persons such as lawyers and court observers from the building: The collateral damage of the drive for more stringent court security.

US courts: Trump at bay

David Allen Green offers an English lawyer’s perspective on Trump’s case in New York, where the actuality of evidence may trump, as it were (sorry), his undoubted abilities to bluster and obfuscate matters in the outside arena. For Trump, the courtroom is forum non conveniens. If his is the art of the deal, it does not extend here:

“Pre-trial litigation is often deal-making by another name. But when a dispute gets to court (and most Trump-related litigation does not get to a courtroom) then such bilateral game-playing becomes far less important.”

Scotland: hate crime

Legislation recently came into force in Scotland which creates an offence of stirring up hatred. Laura Higson-Bliss explains what this means in a recent post on Inforrm’s Blog, Scotland’s hate crime law: the problem with using public order laws to govern online speech. The new law has provoked derision and hostility, and has been subject to the somewhat predictable criticism that it will waste police time that could have been better spent tackling more urgent priorities. According to Higson-Bliss,

“there is little evidence that the offence of stirring up hatred itself is effective in tackling online hate, which is certainly on the rise. The reality is that prosecutions for harmful online speech are likely to fall under other existing laws.”

Recent case summaries from ICLR

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

CRIME — Bail — Appeal against grant: R (Molina) v Crown Court at Snaresbrook, 12 Apr 2024 [2024] EWHC 816 (Admin); [2024] WLR(D) 183, DC

HOUSING — Homeless persons — Suitability of accommodation: R (Pickford) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, 12 Apr 2024 [2024] EWHC 756 (Admin); [2024] WLR(D) 181, KBD

IMMIGRATION — Leave to enter — Application: R (Ali) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), 17 Apr 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 372; [2024] WLR(D) 182, CA

IMMIGRATION — Leave to remain — Application to vary leave: Al-Azad v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 25 Apr 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 407; [2024] WLR(D) 185, CA

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS — Trade union activities — Industrial action: Mercer v Alternative Future Group Ltd (Secretary of State for Business and Trade v Mercer), 17 Apr 2024 [2024] UKSC 12; [2024] WLR(D) 165, SC(E)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Housing duty — Council’s duty: Ghaoui v Waltham Forest London Borough Council, 24 Apr 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 405; [2024] WLR(D) 184, CA

MAGISTRATES’ COURT — Case stated — Jurisdiction: Cuciurean v Crown Prosecution Service, 17 Apr 2024 [2024] EWHC 848 (Admin); [2024] WLR(D) 173, DC

PENSIONS — Public service pension schemes — Transfer to new schemes: R (Fire Brigades Union) v HM Treasury (R (British Medical Association) v HM Treasury), 17 Apr 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 355; [2024] WLR(D) 166, CA

PRACTICE — Pleadings — Claim form: Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors, 18 Apr 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 376; [2024] WLR(D) 174, CA

TRUSTS — Declaration of trust — Land: Crescent Gas Corpn Ltd v National Iranian Oil Co, 15 Apr 2024 [2024] EWHC 835 (Comm); [2024] WLR(D) 179, KBD

Recent case comments on ICLR

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

A Lawyer Writes: Closed hearing for leak suspect: Andrew Hale-Byrne v Secretary of State for Business and Trade [2024] EWHC 942 (KB), KBD

Prospect: The placard of Trudi Warner: HM Solicitor General v Warner [2024] EWHC 918 (KB), KBD

Nearly Legal: Universal Credit, transitional protection and temporary accommodation: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JA [2024] UKUT 52 (AAC); [2024] WLR(D) 164, UT

UK Human Rights Blog: Termination of pregnancy and wishes and feelings in the Court of Protection: Rotherham and Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust v NR [2024] EWCOP 17, Ct of Protection

Inforrm’s Blog: Blake v Fox, Judgment on Remedies, £90,000 to each claimant: Blake v Fox [2024] EWHC 956 (KB), KBD

Local Government Lawyer: Council wins Court of Protection appeal over ruling on capacity of 20-year-old man: In re ZZ (Capacity) [2024] EWCOP 21, Ct of Protection

Law & Religion UK: Banning ritual prayers in school: R (TTT) v Michaela Community Schools Trust [2024] EWHC 843 (Admin), KBD

UK Supreme Court Blog: Case Preview: Davies v Bridgend County Borough Council (appn all) [2023] 1 WLR 2215, SC(E)

Gatehouse Chambers: Cost liability determined following partially successful application for a final third party debt order: Chedington Events Ltd v Brake [2024] EWHC 384 (Ch); [2024] 4 WLR 22; [2024] WLR(D) 88, Ch D

Gatehouse Chambers: A limitation period applies to unfair prejudice petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006: Zedra Trust Co (Jersey) Ltd v THG plc [2024] EWCA Civ 158; [2024] WLR(D) 84, CA

Becket Chambers: Does the Court have the power to grant newcomer injunctions? Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2023] UKSC 47; [2024] 2 WLR 45; [2024] 2 All ER 431; [2023] WLR(D) 513; The Times, 5 February 2024, SC(E)

Nearly Legal: Not at home alone, but intending to return: Weintraub v London Borough of Hackney [2024] EWHC 845 (Ch), Ch D

Out-Law: Anti-suit injunction issued by English court to halt Russian proceedings: Unicredit Bank GmbH v Ruschemalliance LLC, 23 Apr 2024 Decision summary (Video); Case details, SC(E)

Gatehouse Chambers: Former administrators have standing to apply for additional remuneration but application dismissed: Frost & Anor v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd [2024] EWHC 422 (Ch), Ch D

2 Hare Court: Insight and ‘conduct fundamentally incompatible with continued registration’: Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2023] EWHC 3331 (Admin), KBD

Henderson chambers: Formal notice not required to have “sought to take” parental leave: Hilton Foods Solutions Ltd v Wright [2024] EAT 28; [2024] WLR(D) 106, EAT

39 Essex Chambers: Substantial injustice — where are we now? Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 806 (KB); [2024] WLR(D) 167, KBD

Gatehouse Chambers: Two for one: one case but two decisions on occupation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: The Royal Borough of Kensington And Chelsea v Mellcraft Ltd [2024] EWHC 539 (Ch), Ch D

And finally…

Tweet of the week

Records a decision that must surely be reversed…

Easily done, when adjusting the size or position of a pasted-in image in Word, and not that obvious (unless of course you spend all day looking at judgments, as we do here at ICLR…)

That’s it for now. Thanks for reading, and thanks for all your toots, tweets, posts and links. Work hard, be kind, take care.

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 Heidi Fin on Unsplash.