Recent legal news

Probation

The National Audit Office (NAO) has published a report, Building an effective and resilient Probation Service (HC 1354), analysing the performance of HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) and asking why, following reunification in 2021 (after being split up and partly privatised in 2014 as part of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms), it has not been able to improve performance of the service to date. The report’s findings are bleak:

Research shows that a well-functioning probation service can reduce the significant cost of reoffending to society, estimated by MoJ at £20.9 billion a year across adult offenders, in 2024–25 prices. However, available data show that, since unification of the Probation Service in June 2021, performance has worsened, with significant staffing shortfalls and high workloads, particularly for the Probation Officer grade.

Despite the reorganisation and some bold initiatives,

the pace of change required and nature of the changes HMPPS plans to make pose risks to the probation service’s aims of public protection, rehabilitation, and the government’s wider ‘Safer Streets’ mission, which will need to be actively managed. HMPPS, MoJ and the government more widely must urgently consider how to manage these risks and how to ensure that reducing the scope of Probation Service activity does not negatively impact on offender outcomes or increase pressure on the wider justice system.

Artificial Intelligence

Giving a speech at the OpenAI Frontiers Conference last week, Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor, David Lammy MP declared that “AI has brought humanity to a new technological frontier: One with the power to transform how we live, how we work, how we govern.” He said he was proud that the UK had “one of the most ambitious AI agendas in the world”.

As part of this agenda, he announced that British businesses were set to benefit from a new deal between the Ministry of Justice and global tech leader OpenAI. The plan would enable Open AI’s British business customers to store their data on British soil for the first time, which would not only enhance privacy and accountability but also reinforce national resilience in the face of growing global cyber threats.

Talking of which…

Cyber crime

Five months on, the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) cyber attack (admitted in May but occurring some time earlier) continues to have, amongst publicly funded legal service providers, almost as catastrophic an effect as the more recent cyber attack on Jaguar Land Rover has had on the motor trade.

Earlier this month the LAA published its Annual Report and Accounts 2024 to 2025, which admitted that the cyber attack made for a “very challenging time for the agency”, not least because it meant “we have disabled the majority of our digital systems”. They anticipate that “the repercussions will cause considerable disruption throughout the coming year as we move from contingency plans to restore systems and recover our services”.

Now the Law Society have stepped in to say that the government will have to compensate all those practitioners who have lost out or had to await overdue payments, according to the Law Society Gazette.

Speaking at the Legal Aid Practitioners Group’ conference last week, Richard Miller, the Law Society’s head of justice, told practitioners the Ministry of Justice will have to pay compensation, after LAA deputy chief executive Hitesh Patel told the delegates that crime systems were now back online but the main systems for civil work, such as CCMS and the replacement CWA service, would not be up and running until mid-November.

Last week the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) published its Annual Review 2025, aptly titled It’s time to act. “Cyber risk is no longer just an IT issue — it’s a boardroom priority,” is the theme of the report. But curiously enough, for a government agency, while mentioning attacks on commercial organisations such as Marks & Spencer, the Co-op Group and Jaguar Land Rover, it makes no mention whatever of the equally catastrophic attack on the LAA. It’s a bit like the curious reluctance of the Information Commissioner’s Office to chastise the Ministry of Defence over its catastrophic Afghan asylum seeker data leak (which had to be hidden for two years under an opaque blanket of superinjunctivity).

Legal research

As for the somewhat dubious benefits of AI, we now have yet another instance of someone using it to generate fake citations, as noted in a recent article in The Times law pages: Asylum judge rebukes barrister whose AI created fictitious cases. This reports that Chowdhury Rahman, an experienced barrister specialising in an immigration law, who was representing two Honduran sisters in asylum claims, was “scolded” by Upper Tribunal Judge Blundell in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, after it became clear that he had used AI software to prepare his submissions to a tribunal, and those submissions included non-existent cases.

As in previous cases where professional advocates have been found to have used AI then failed to check its homework, the barrister attempted to style it out, blaming his own lack of skill in legal research, prompting the judge to note:

“My other serious concern was that Mr Rahman did not appear to understand the gravity of the situation. He said that he might need further training on legal research …

Nor did he appear to be capable of using a basic legal search engine such as Bailii to discover a freely available decision”.

The full judgment in ANPV v Secretary of State for the Home Dept (Unreported, 29 September 2025) including its “Postscript — Inaccuracies in the Grounds of Appeal”, is something of a cautionary tale. (Yet another one, in this area.)

Inquiries

What makes an effective public inquiry? asks Peter Skelton KC on the UK Human Rights Blog, noting that there are currently over 20 public inquiries underway in the UK.

The discussion is all the more topical given the current problems with identifying both the appropriate scope and a suitable chair for the finally promised inquiry into grooming gangs etc. See, for example, BBC: Why is there a row over the grooming gangs inquiry?

Terrorism

The proscription of Palestine Action as a case study of terrorism law, by David Allen Green, on the Law and Policy Blog, asks why the general criminal law is not sufficient to deal with direct action groups. In another post on the same blog, he explains that The Kneecap prosecution collapsed because police and prosecutors did not take terrorism law seriously. This might be a response to Joshua Rozenberg’s post on the same topic, Kneecap: who’s to blame?

Other recent points

A selection of recent commentary on legal affairs

Is it time for an ethical reset? Annual City of London Law Society lecture, given in Gray’s Inn by Prof Richard Moorhead, via his Lawyer Watch blog.

Attacks on judges ‘dangerous’ writes Joshua Rozenberg, reporting the recent speech of the Attorney General Lord Hermer KC on “The Rule of Law: Powering Growth” at an event hosted by The Sheriffs of the City of London.

But the UK can, and should, leave the Human Rights Convention: Shadow AG’s advice underlines Conservative Party’s policy, reported Rosalind English on the UK Human Rights Blog, after a detailed legal review led by the Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, found that remaining in the ECHR would fundamentally obstruct key party policies on immigration, veterans’ rights, prioritising citizens for public services, and reforming sentencing and protest laws.

Connecting Systemic Risks and International Legal Practice: Guest post on the Lawyer Watch blog by Dr Trevor Clark, Senior Lecturer at the Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London.

Recent case summaries from ICLR

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

CHILDREN — Return order — Inherent jurisdiction: In re JK (A Child), 17 Oct 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 1309; [2025] WLR(D) 516, CA

CRIME — Public order — Conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress: R v Coskun (Hamit), 10 Oct 2025 [2025] WLR(D) 514, Crown Ct

GENDER — Gender recognition certificate — Living in the other gender: W v Gender Recognition Panel, 17 Oct 2025 [2025] EWHC 2685 (Fam); [2025] WLR(D) 519, Fam D

IMMIGRATION — Asylum — Child: Rex (DM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 08 Oct 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 1273; [2025] WLR(D) 504, CA

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS — Employment tribunals — Anonymity order: DBP v Scottish Ambulance Service, 13 Oct 2025 [2025] EAT 147; [2025] WLR(D) 512, EAT

LANDLORD AND TENANT — Forfeiture of lease — Relief from forfeiture: Mentmore Golf Investments Ltd v Gaymer, 13 Oct 2025 [2025] EWHC 2604 (Ch); [2025] WLR(D) 515, Ch D

LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Community care services — Persons in need of care and attention: R (BUS) v West Berkshire Council, 10 Oct 2025 [2025] EWHC 2599 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 507, KBD

PRACTICE — Claim form — Service: Robertson v Google LLC, 07 Oct 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 1262; [2025] WLR(D) 496, CA

TERRORISM — Proscribed organisation — Challenge to proscription: R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 17 Oct 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 1311; [2025] WLR(D) 518, CA

TORT — Harassment — Cross-examination: Optosafe Ltd v Robertson, 22 Oct 2025 [2025] EWHC 2733 (KB); [2025] WLR(D) 520, KBD

Recent case comments on ICLR

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

UK Human Rights Blog: Anorexia nervosa is a condition which may render a patient without capacity to decide on treatment: Patricia’s Father v Patricia [2025] EWCOP 30 (T3), Ct of Protection

Free Movement: Appeal against Immigration Advice Authority’s refusal to register firm struck out by tribunal: Prime Immigration Services Ltd v The Immigration Services Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 959 (GRC), FTT

Free Movement: High Court overturns decision on ability of Special Immigration Appeals Commission to make costs orders: R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2025] EWHC 2019 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 420, KBD

Law & Religion UK: Res judicata: Re Bingham Cemetery (№2) [2025] ECC S&N 3, Const Ct

Open Justice Court of Protection Project: A patient with “unusual” spiritual beliefs: Is withdrawing a feeding tube in his best interests? The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v YD & Others (Refusal of Withdrawal of Treatment) [2025] EWCOP 31 (T3), Ct of Protection

Free Movement: Upper Tribunal endorses practice of judges considering permission to appeal applications against their own decisions: Waele Bittar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKUT 277 (IAC), UT

UK Human Rights Blog: Court of Appeal Overturns Epping Asylum Hotel Injunction: Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd Press Summary, CA

Panopticon: Data protection damages: Equiniti in the Court of Appeal: Farley v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (trading as Equiniti) [2025] EWCA Civ 1117, CA

Free Movement: High Court upholds Home Office interpretation of the immigration rules in asylum withdrawal case: R (Zoto) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2148 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 440, KBD

QMLR: Anonymous, Again: PMC (a child by his mother and litigation friend FLR) v Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board [2025] EWCA Civ 1126; [2025] WLR(D) 449, CA

Free Movement: Court finds that policy to relocate high risk individuals from Afghanistan following data leak incident was irrational: R (CX1) v Secretary of State for Defence [2024] EWHC 892 (Admin), DC

Inforrm’s Blog: Clarke v Guardian News and Media, Actor’s Libel Case Dismissed: Noel Anthony Clarke v Guardian News and Media Limited [2025] EWHC 2193 (KB), KBD

Nearly Legal: Tales from the Housing Conditions wars. Part 1: Lancastle v Curo Group (Albion) Limited [2025] EWCC 48, County Ct

ICLR Blog: The Epping Forest hotel case on appeal: finding a balance: Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1134; [2025] WLR(D) 453, CA

Free Movement: Afghan driver refused resettlement loses High Court challenge: R (AFA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2143 (Admin), KBD

Panopticon: Cumulative Public Interest Exemptions in the Supreme Court: Department for Business and Trade (formerly the Department for International Trade) v Information Comr [2025] UKSC 27; [2025] 1 WLR 3456; [2025] WLR(D) 407, SC(E)

Local Government Lawyer: Judge criticises police force over “unjustifiable” redactions in child proceedings case: Warwickshire County Council v BN [2025] EWHC 2080 (Fam), Fam D

Nearly Legal: Wrong company: Global 100 Ltd v Ross[2025] UKUT 264 (LC), UT

Transparency Project: Judgment given and published in Welsh: TIRE (by her Litigation Friend LK) v Carmarthenshire County Council [2024] EWCOP 81 (T2), Ct of Protection

And finally…

Celebrating 60 years of the Law Commission

An exhibition to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Law Commission has opened at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Banners on display in the Great Hall explain the history of the commission and its work to keep the law under review and to recommend reform where needed.

The free exhibition runs until Friday 28 November 2025 and is open between 9am and 4pm Monday to Friday.

That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading, and make sure you’re signed up for our email alerts. You can also follow us on BlueSky and LinkedIn

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: Going straight: Photo by Pixabay