Recent legal news

Transparency and Open Justice

The Transparency and Open Justice Board, established last year by the Lady Chief Justice and chaired by Mr Justice Nicklin, has now published its revised Key Objectives, together with the Board’s Response to Public Engagement on the Key Objectives. This explains the public consultation which was held over what the key objectives should be, and how people and organisations (including ICLR) responded. Only some of the respondents are individually identified, but it is clear that many of them offered similar comments. (A full list of respondents

Much of the ongoing work of the TOJB was described by Nicklin J in a speech last month, at an event hosted by the Courts and Tribunals Observers’ Network: Open Justice — Fit for Purpose. Much of it focuses on the provision of more case information in advance of or during hearings in court or online (livestreamed), including publishing the parties’ skeleton arguments, links to cases cited, etc. We hope to support these endeavours and will keep the board’s progress under review.

The HMCTS have also trumpeted their role in boosting open justice, or at least one aspect of it: information for the media about reporting restrictions in criminal cases. On their Inside HMCTS blog, they announce Media notification rules clarified for criminal courts:

“The Criminal Procedure Rules will soon explicitly require proper notification of journalists when discretionary reporting restrictions (as opposed to automatic restrictions for youth cases and certain offences) are proposed, addressing a long-standing concern about transparency in criminal courts.

This important clarification has come about through the shared endeavour of colleagues, the HMCTS Media Working Group and the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. It is their work that has brought us this far.”

The change in the rules underlines the importance not just of the courts, but also of practitioners, to bear in the mind the requirements of open justice, when making applications about reporting restrictions.

Rule of law

“The state’s provision of a quick, efficient, and economical dispute resolution process is a cornerstone of the rule of law.”

So said the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, giving oral evidence recently to the parliamentary (HL) Constitution Committee, which is “seeking to understand the rule of law as a constitutional principle and practical matter, and what the state of the rule of law is in the UK”. Much of that must depend on the state of the courts, and open justice, which have been the subject of inquiries by other parliamentary committees, as we have variously reported on this blog (and in some cases responded, as an organisation, to their consultations). “The inquiry will also consider the role of education, the media and civic society in creating and maintaining a culture that values the rule of law.” (Well, here we are.)

Vos MR supplemented his comments with written evidence to the committee, in which he pointed out that, in essence, the future is online:

“The majority of litigants wish to resolve their disputes online, just as they shop online, bank online, and communicate online. Whilst paper services will always be needed to ensure digital inclusion, access to justice will only improve when digital services cover all types of [Civil Family and Tribunals] disputes, both pre-court and in court.”

In that regard, the Next Big Thing is the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) which Vos MR chairs, and which will be working towards a more streamlined online dispute resolution portal that may incorporate third party providers (third sector and commercial) offering pre-litigation advice and services.

As to that, and recent reforms more generally, there is an interesting paper by Dr Natalie Byrom via SSRN, Necessary But Insufficient? Reforms to Legal Services Regulation, Technology and the Role of the Courts in Increasing Access to Justice in England and Wales. One of the issues raised is the extent to which the current system of regulation of legal service providers will be capable of managing the expansion of online services envisaged by the MR and others.

Access to justice

This is also the subject of a new inquiry by another parliamentary committee, the Justice Committee. Its inquiry into access to justice will consider how the provision of legal advice and representation, and supplementary advice services, have developed in response to the restrictions on the provision of legal aid and, more recently, the the impacts of the cyber-attack on the Legal Aid Agency.

The Inquiry has issued a call for evidence on questions including:

1. How does the current state of the legal services and representation market in England and Wales, and associated operating pressures, affect access to justice for clients?

2. What is the role of supplementary advice services in supporting access to justice?

3. What is the impact of those acting without legal advice and / or representation having on access to justice?

4. Without impacting the public purse, what potential funding options would increase access to justice? e.g. an access to justice fund levy, conditional fee arrangements, third party funding.

5. If limited funds were available, what would be the priority areas for spending?

6. How are the legal services regulators responding to their obligation to improve access to justice under the Legal Services Act 2007?

7. How is pro bono work and free legal advice being used to support access to justice and what reliance is placed on it?

8. How can advice, legal support or non-court dispute resolution, such as mediation and restorative justice, help the early resolution of disputes?

9. What role is there for digital innovation and data collection in supporting access to justice?

10. How could the current system of legal aid be improved to provide a cost-efficient and cost-controlled service, with suitably remunerated legal practice across civil, criminal and family law?

11. What has been the impact of the Legal Aid Agency cyber-attack, revealed in April 2025, on recipients and providers of legal aid work, and how have the Legal Aid Agency and Ministry of Justice responded?

Responses should be submitted by the end of Tuesday, 30 September 2025.

County Courts

The present state of county courts has been described as “dysfunctional” in the report of another inquiry by the Justice Committee. In its report on the Work of the County Court (HC 677) published on 21 July 2025, the cross-party committee chaired by Labour MP Andy Slaughter says the lower tier civil courts are “failing to deliver” justice and says it is “imperative that the improvement of the County Court becomes a key priority of the Ministry of Justice” given the “unacceptable and increasing delays across nearly all types of claims”.

The report finds that the decade-long digital Reform programme has fallen well short of its ambition, failing to tackle a “myriad of incompatible systems and outdated paper-based processes”, and leaving civil justice in the county court as the “Cinderella service” of the justice system. (Well, if the shoe fits…) (Sorry.)

“Therefore, we recommend that an urgent and comprehensive, root-and-branch review of the County Court is undertaken to establish a sustainable plan for reducing the systemic delays and inefficiencies entrenched across its operations.”

Single justice procedure

Transform Justice have put out a report on what it called Industrial-scale prosecution? Why the single justice procedure needs radical reform. It looks at how the SJP works and what it means for people facing charges. It questions whether it is fair and finds it wanting. In particular:

  • Many people don’t know their rights or how to get help with their case.
  • Cases are decided in private, with no open court and little chance to ask questions or challenge what’s said.
  • Organisations that bring the cases often benefit from the outcome, which raises concerns about fairness.
  • Most people are convicted without responding, sometimes without even realising they were prosecuted.

Problems with the SJP, launched a decade ago as a streamlined procedure for low level criminal cases such as fare evasion and non-payment of the TV licence fee, have been highlighted before, both by Transform Justice and others — notably by Tristan Kirk in his award-winning investigation for the Evening Standard, which won the Paul Foot award in 2024. But the Ministry of Justice seems reluctant to reform what appears to be an efficient way of disposing of a large number of relatively small offences.

“Transform Justice has followed the progress of the single justice procedure (SJP) since its launch in England and Wales in 2015. We have written many articles about it, briefed journalists and made it the subject of our first ever podcast episode, but never brought our evidence together. In this report we acknowledge the potential benefits of the SJP but also express our deep concerns about the justice it delivers.”

This new report points out that one of the fundamental problems with the process is that

“Just as in the case of the Post Office Scandal, the victims are organisations and companies who are trying to protect their revenue or ensure behavioral compliance. They are both victim and prosecutor, which may cloud their objectivity in decision-making.”

For those organisations (like the BBC and rail companies), the process offers speed and simplicity. But is it really fair?

“Getting convictions is easy too, because most people don’t respond to their prosecution under SJP and are convicted in their absence. A tiny minority of defendants plead not guilty. No data is available on what proportion are acquitted.”

The system needs to be fairer, but also more transparent. The report concludes with a number of recommendations, including that the government should implement its own proposals for improving both the process and their scrutiny.

Intensive Supervision Courts

Following an evaluation completed last year, the Ministry of Justice has announced that it will be expanding the use of Intensive Supervision Courts, described as being “based on tough Texas-style punishment”, to tackle the root causes of criminal behaviour and slash reoffending.

“This will see offenders found guilty of committing crimes such as theft while facing issues like addiction or trauma attend necessary treatments and regularly appear before the same judge who can track their behaviour. Those who fail to attend will face tough consequences including time in prison.

This crime-cutting model, will target communities tormented by prolific offending and will combine strict judicial oversight with tailored support, led by the Probation Service.

These tough community sentences have seen positive results in reducing reoffending across the world, with countries using this model seeing further arrests cut by a third compared to people on a standard sentence.”

Ecclesiastical law

The Law Commission has launched a consultation on Chancel repair liability and registration. This might be thought a somewhat obscure matter of ecclesiastical or land law, but it can have wider repercussions. As their website explains,

“Chancel repair is an obligation on a landowner to pay for certain repairs to a local church. It has its origins in the feudal system and is rarely enforced, but when it is the liability can be huge. …

The project aims ensure that chancel repair liability does not bind purchasers of land, unless it is registered — and therefore visible — to purchasers. It will also help avoid the need for purchasers to undertake chancel repair searches, or to pay for insurance — potentially saving millions.”

A summary of the consultation paper explains the problem with some nice pictures and diagrams. The consultation will close on 15 November.

There is also an informative article in the Church Times, by former ICLR law reporter Shirani Herbert, Law Commission scrutinises chancel-repair liability.

Data protection

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published their Annual Report 2024/25 (HC 956). The report is upbeat about the regulator’s activities over the past year or so, including enforcement measures in response to data breaches; but, reviewing the report on Inforrm’s blog, Prof David Erdos finds it disappointing in many respects: The UK Information Commissioner’s Annual Report 2024/25: Surveying a Systematic Trend Away from Adequate Enforcement

Recent case summaries from ICLR

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

CRIME — Conspiracy — Conspiracy to defraud; SUPREME COURT — Appeal to — Jurisdiction: R v Hayes (R v Palombo), 23 Jul 2025 [2025] UKSC 29; [2025] WLR(D) 402, SC(E)

DATA PROTECTION — Personal data — Processing: Kul v DWF Law LLP, 22 Jul 2025 [2025] EWHC 1824 (KB); [2025] WLR(D) 401, KBD

DISCRIMINATION — Race — Less favourable treatment: Leicester City Council v Parmar, 22 Jul 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 952; [2025] WLR(D) 392, CA

EMPLOYMENT — Wages — National minimum wage: Taylors Services Ltd (Dissolved) v Revenue and Customs Comrs, 24 Jul 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 956; [2025] WLR(D) 405, CA

LANDLORD AND TENANT — Licence or tenancy — Electronic Communications Code agreement: AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd v On Tower (UK) Ltd, 25 Jul 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 971; [2025] WLR(D) 406, CA

PLANNING — Planning permission — Duty of planning authority: R (Moakes) v Canterbury City Council, 21 Jul 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 927; [2025] WLR(D) 391, CA

PRACTICE — Competition Appeal Tribunal — Disclosure: Gormsen v Meta Platforms Inc, 21 Jul 2025 [2025] CAT 40; [2025] WLR(D) 390, CAT

PRACTICE — Judgment — Duty to give reasons: GLAS SAS ( London Branch) v European Topsoho SARL, 24 Jul 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 933; [2025] WLR(D) 403, CA

SHIPPING — Bill of lading — Time bar: Batavia Eximp & Contracting(s) Pte Ltd v Pedregal Maritime SA, 22 Jul 2025 [2025] EWHC 1878 (Comm); [2025] WLR(D) 398, KBD

SOCIAL SECURITY — Welfare benefits — Universal credit: R (LMN) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, 18 Jul 2025 [2025] EWHC 1849 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 388, KBD

Recent case comments on ICLR

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

UK Human Rights Blog: Article 6 in International Sports Arbitration: More than procedural rights? Semenya v Switzerland (Application no. 10934/21), ECtHR

Law & Religion UK: Praying in private and Article 9 ECHR: Rafiyev v Azerbaijan (Application no. 81028/17), ECtHR

A Lawyer Writes: Lammy ‘must think again’: R (BEL) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2025] EWHC 1970 (Admin), KBD

UK Human Rights Blog: False evidence, procedurally deficient investigation, and warning bells for contempt: MI5’s approach to domestic abuse agent scrutinised: Attorney General v British Broadcasting Corpn [2025] EWHC 1669 (KB), DC

A Lawyer Writes: Traders cleared — But Supreme Court says their cases raise concerns about criminal appeals: R v Hayes [2025] UKSC 29; [2025] WLR(D) 402, SC(E)

Ropewalk Chambers: The Application of the Grindleford Criteria for Diagnosing Acoustic Shock Claims: Bevan v Ministry of Defence [2025] EWHC 1145 (KB), KBD

UK Constitutional Law Association: Darwall and the Public Life of Private Property Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2025] UKSC 20; [2025] 2 WLR 1075; [2025] WLR(D) 276, SC(E)

Becket chambers: A Case of RUFF Justice: FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B), Fam Ct

Local Government Lawyer: Council ordered to undertake re-assessment of age of asylum seeker: R (MIA) v Dorset Council [2025] EWHC 1324 (Admin), KBD

Devereux chambers: Privacy appeal providing comprehensive guidance on Rule 49 Orders: XY v AB [2025] EAT 66, EAT

12 King’s Bench Walk: Foreign Judgments Part 1: Olsen v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S [2025] EWHC 42 (KB), KBD

4 New Square chambers: The solicitors’ duty to advise on their own negligence: Evans v Hughes Fowler Carruthers Ltd [2025] EWHC 481 (Ch), Ch D

UK Human Rights Blog: Attorney General’s refusal of a fiat to seek a fresh inquest is non-justiciable: R (Campbell) v Attorney General[2025] EWHC 1653 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 344, KBD

And finally…

Vacation time!

The Trinity Term ends on 31 July.

The Michaelmas Term will begin on Wednesday 1 October and run till Friday 19 December 2025.

That’s it for this term. Weekly Notes will be back in the autumn, but over the long vacation we’ll post other content on the ICLR blog.

Have a good break!

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 via Shutterstock.