My latest piece for the @thespectator1828.bsky.social looks at the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the ‘Gaza family case’. www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-...

Hm. Should Dame Victoria be noting this? Wasn't it proceedings in Parliament, that can't lawfully be questioned by judges?

Very interesting thread of in-court reporting on Palestine Action hearing, by the estimable @lizziedearden.bsky.social. Even if government wins, it is facing what is called rather "anxious scrutiny" from the bench. Suspect government lawyers are not delighted by how hard the judges are pressing.

While I was offline I reviewed Baroness Hale of Richmond's newest book. It's actually very good! I'm going soft. Free link here @ www.thetimes.com/article/6dd6...

I have one jury hot take which I think is often missed from the discussion. The primary importance of a jury in criminal trials is not because it is somehow more democratic than judges or because a jury can reach a perverse verdict. Rather it is the safeguard that come from a consensus of numbers.

In essence: juries are important for what decisions they prevent others from making.

It'd be fair enough for him to argue that the government should tax the rich a lot more. But it's a silly distortion to say they "refuse to tax the rich" after (even ignoring tax rises from last year) they've just announced a "mansion tax". Trumpy post-truth X type disinfo.

As a quick aside on some of the discourse in E&W on non-jury criminal courts, the summary-jurisdiction District Court here can sentence to up to 12 months on a single offence, up to 24 months on combined offences. It works and works well but has proper, full-time, legally-experienced judges.

I'm unhappy about any limitation of jury trial, but to grapple with the crisis I'd definitely have backed implementing Leveson's proposals. I'm less sure I support going further than Leveson. www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

This story should be covered waaaaayy more than it is. The US has sanctioned six judges if the international criminal court ICC, because Trump didn’t like them issuing arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. www.lemonde.fr/en/internati...

Breaking News: Court of Appeal agrees to hear “important” Mazur appeal zurl.co/7ekvM

What’s so odd about Budgets is how they are a mix of secrecy and weeks of leaks and pre-announcements

Last chance to book this incredible event. www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/... Please donate to support the work of an organisation that Lord Hendy KC created to provide access to justice and train next generations of employment lawyers. www.thefru.org.uk/donate #AccessToJustice #EmploymentLaw #EmpLaw

Neither of these men can tolerate accountability or constraint, which explains their animus against judges and law. Their regime from 2019 to 2022 was the worst and most dangerous anyone living in Britain today has known.

It’s hard to say anything about it without spoilers, but Traitors Australia 2 is almost from start to finish a really astonishing procession of individual and group stupidity and weakness. Gripping telly to be fair.

I’d like to know what Sir Ivan, who was a rare Tory supporter of bringing the ECHR into our law I think as far back as the 80s, thinks about his party’s current plans.

It’s the pre-Ridge v Baldwin public law of the 1960s, but the concept of a “quasi-judicial” decision lives on in political and journalistic writing.

Oh, hullo....

Every single media lawyer I have spoken with this weeks agree that the BBC is doing exactly the right thing in admitting a mistake without admitting liability.

New post In a recent lecture, Lord Briggs places renewed emphasis on the common law’s ability to protect human rights, and argues that we should not doubt its capaity to step in if the UK were to withdraw from the ECHR. Is such optimism well-founded? publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/11/14/m...

Yes this looks very much like "we need to avoid a JR" rather than "we're now going to pay out".

You might think the 2004 resignations were an overreaction to criticism of the BBC in a public inquiry report, and you might disagree with the criticism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_... But they were not resignations "for being insufficiently rightwing".

Lord Briggs, “Protecting Human Rights: The Common Law As Starting Point” supremecourt.uk/uploads/spee... It’s interesting to see Lord Briggs make these remarks in the current political climate. But, as ever, I have serious reservations about putting too much faith in ‘common law rights’…

Here's a law professor lamenting the fads in legal theory popular among law professors that become popular for a decade or two and then fade away— written in 1950. Specifically, it's Roscoe Pound, reflecting on trends since he became a lawyer in 1890. jle.aals.org/cgi/viewcont...

Die My Love was about an hour too long, exhausting, clichéd in parts and just boring really. Don’t let them persuade you it’s worth it because of JLaw’s performance. It isn’t.

has this really taken 15 years? www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025...

I've had some good beer this week. I enjoyed Sambrook's autumnal red Tomahawk last night camra.org.uk/beers/sambro... and was impressed tonight with Hogsback's TEA, a very drinkable traditional bitter, and well named hogsback.co.uk/products/ton...

This raises the age-old change-of-status drafting question: if the letters patent are the operative document shouldn't they declare that "Prince Andrew" is no longer entitled to hold and enjoy (etc.)?

You don't half see some nonsense on here about the interaction of precedent and legislative interpretation.

I don’t understand why they murdered Lucy rather than Nick. And we never heard them explain. #Traitors

Asked if China was an enemy within the meaning of OSA, it'd surely be reasonable not to answer. Isn't that either a plain question of fact for the jury, directed on the law by the judge; or else opinion evidence on the "ultimate issue" which can I think be given but is again really for the jury?

I also expect Sales to be the next President. I think this suggests a continuation of the technical legal rigour, restraint and caution Lord Reed's presidency has brought to the court. Some see it as too conservative, and too deferential to government.

I gave the City of London Law Society (CLLS) lecture this week. It was a great night and I am grateful for the invitation. This is what I said... With thanks to Colin Passmore, Julie Norris, Tony Charles, Stephen Kenny KC, and Patrick McCann , amongst many people who made it happen or made it good!

Is it mad to wonder if evidence about whether China's an "enemy" is expert opinion evidence, if it's admissible as providing "information .. likely to be outside a judge’s or a jury's knowledge and experience", and if and why government evidence was needed at all? www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidan...

Slightly later than expected, we're delighted to announce that @tweaty-twacker.bsky.social is back. It posts every time a treaty is laid before the UK Parliament under the procedure set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

In US and UK, long drawn-out judicial processes that often turn on painstaking examinations of evidence and elaborate rules of procedure are often called… …’witch-hunts’. Which really were the opposite, if you think about it.

Leaving aside how nakedly partisan it would look (and indeed, be) and how it would tie up a government that is already - charitably - struggling to get to grips with everything, is there any evidence a written constitution provides any kind of bulwark anyway? America says hi here

Mags have just released a defendant on bail with a condition that she maintain daily contact with her solicitor who is to report the client if she fails to maintain contact... I bet the solicitor - who isn't in court - appreciates that.

Popcorn time for anyone interested in deprivation of liberty

On the topic of "vigorously denying". One of the first things a wise barrister teaches their pupil is to lay off the adverbs. If an allegation isn't true, say you deny it, or just say it's untrue, and explain why. Vigour is not a substitute for evidence, and it makes you look a bit desperate.

But Thatcher had been in Heath’s cabinet, as Education Secretary.

I can remember when everyone seemed to want the Attorney General completely out of individual criminal prosecutions. I bet this China thing makes some people decide he should be intervening in them.

🧠 Why some people defend obvious falsehoods New research finds that some endorse disproven claims as a show of “symbolic strength,” valuing independence over truth, and making fact-checks seem weak. 🔗 doi.org/10.64628/AAI... #FakeNews #SciComm 🧪

I don’t think it’s unhinged but a literary opinion of mine is that I don’t like author signed copies. It feels to me like the veneration of relics touched by saints. It runs counter to the whole print aesthetic and ethic of distributing many equally authentic original copies.

Yes. In a sense the SDP, or Alliance, were like Reform, rising because the opposition failed to respond sensibly to an election drubbing. In another way they were very unlike Reform in that they ran "to the centre" of Labour rather than to (in some ways) the outside right of the Conservatives.

MPs put tough new questions on China to director of public prosecutions: committees.parliament.uk/publications...

Generally I think it's a bad idea for former judges to pipe up in the media about current events. Lord Sumption is the worst example, but it'd also be better if Lady Hale avoided getting into the ECHR debate. They're not helping.

The European Convention on Human Rights is being misrepresented in the UK, says former Supreme Court President Lady Hale👇 🔗 www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home... via @the-independent.com “It seems so short-sighted. I’m sorry, I’m really, really worried about it.” #ECHR #OurRightsAndFreedoms

Roger Hallam and others related to Just Stop Oil have been refused Permission to Appeal to the UK Supreme Court regarding the length of their sentences and whether they are compatible with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR - the Court of Appeal's decision stands. www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2...

I know frontbenchers always follow a party line. But if the leader talks about all MPs having to back this or lose the whip, then tales of personal convincement can have no credibility at all. It's fair for the rest of us to assume that the leader's absolute diktat is the one, real reason.