Trudi Warner, a climate protester, faces contempt of court charges for displaying a placard advocating jurors' rights to acquit based on conscience. The article explores historical and legal precedents, including Bushell’s Case and the trial of William Shipley, highlighting the tension between legal directives and jurors' moral judgments. It underscores the enduring debate over the role of juries in delivering justice, balancing legal evidence with personal conscience, and the implications for contemporary legal proceedings.

Francis FitzGibbon resigned as a part-time immigration judge in May 2023, citing the UK's asylum policies, particularly the plan to off-shore asylum seekers to Rwanda, as the final straw. He reflects on his career, expressing pride in the tribunal's justice but disgust at the increasingly oppressive laws. The article critiques the Home Office's unreliable decisions and the new Illegal Migration Act, which limits asylum appeals. FitzGibbon highlights the importance of a fair judicial process and expresses concern over the erosion of appeal rights, emphasizing the need for independent scrutiny in asylum cases.

The UK's Illegal Migration Act, which bypassed the usual compatibility statement with the European Convention on Human Rights, has been subject to intense scrutiny and criticism. It bars asylum claims from those entering without the right to do so and prevents victims of human trafficking from seeking protection. The act allows for the detention of immigrants and their transfer to 'safe third countries' for asylum processing, with Rwanda being paid to receive them. The lack of a compatibility statement raises the risk of a 'declaration of incompatibility' by the courts and potential conflicts with the EU, which could suspend law enforcement cooperation under the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. This could have significant implications for crime prevention and the sharing of intelligence on human trafficking.

The article explores the ethical implications of the 'cab rank rule' in the legal profession, which mandates that barristers must take any case within their expertise regardless of personal beliefs. It highlights a recent declaration by 120 legal professionals, led by Jolyon Maugham KC, refusing to represent fossil fuel companies or prosecute climate protesters, arguing that the climate crisis necessitates an exception to the rule. The piece also examines the misuse of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) by the super-rich to silence critics, emphasizing that the fault lies in the law rather than the lawyers. The article concludes that the cab rank rule is essential for ensuring fair representation in the legal system, even for the most unpopular clients.

The UK's Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, containing provisions to restrict public protest and criminalize 'unauthorized encampments', has passed through the House of Lords and is returning to the Commons. The bill introduces new offences such as 'locking on' during protests, interference with infrastructure, and allows police to stop and search without suspicion. The Lords blocked some measures, but they may reappear in new legislation. The bill has been criticized for being an authoritarian attack on civil liberties, with the Lords having to defend public protest rights. Additionally, the Lords approved criminalizing residing on land without consent, which could lead to the seizure of vehicles and property, potentially rendering individuals intentionally homeless.

Dominic Raab, the eighth lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice since 2010, is scrutinized for his conservative and populist approach to human rights and justice. The article critiques the Conservative Party's handling of the Ministry of Justice, highlighting significant budget cuts and policy failures under various ministers. Raab's book, 'The Assault on Liberty,' and his views on the European Court of Human Rights are discussed, emphasizing his belief in minimal state interference and judicial restraint. The article suggests Raab may push for reforms that weaken the UK's ties to the European convention on human rights.

The UK Supreme Court has made two judgments that limit the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions, aligning with the government's own proposals in legislation. The Judicial Review and Courts Bill allows judges to suspend orders that strike down administrative actions, conferring temporary validity on decisions that are unlawful, pending correction. The Supreme Court's recent decisions in the cases of Re A and BF (Eritrea) have narrowed the grounds on which policy guidance and decisions made under it can be nullified, focusing solely on whether the policy misdirects officials in their legal obligations. This marks a shift back to the judicial review stance of the 1980s and provides the executive with more leeway to advance policies with reduced judicial scrutiny.

The article discusses the need for a fair and formal process for restitution claims, particularly for artefacts looted during Britain's colonial past. It examines the role and effectiveness of the Spoliation Advisory Panel (SAP) in handling Nazi-era restitution claims and explores whether a similar body could be established for colonial-era artefacts. The author highlights the complexities involved in determining ownership and the moral weight of claims, suggesting that a commission of experts could provide a credible and principled process. The article also reviews international efforts and varying approaches to restitution, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based, independent, and fair decision-making.

In 1819, England faced economic stagnation and repression of public dissent, exemplified by the Seditious Meetings Act. The current Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill revives similar repressive measures, criminalizing public actions that cause 'serious annoyance' or 'inconvenience.' The bill also targets unauthorized encampments, affecting the Traveller population. The legislation is seen as a threat to the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, protected under the European Convention of Human Rights, and is viewed as part of a broader nationalist agenda.

The article discusses the confusion and distrust surrounding the UK's pandemic regulations, highlighting the inconsistency and lack of clarity in government guidance. It criticizes the government's mixed messages and performative announcements, which have led to public confusion and a loss of trust. The author emphasizes the importance of clear legal distinctions between rules and advice, and the potential long-term consequences of ministers issuing commands without a legal basis. The article also touches on the broader political context, including the government's approach to freedoms and international treaties.