The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has been on the receiving end of a major blow, as the trial of two former Serco executives fell through after a failure to disclose evidence to the defendants. Serco is an outsourcing company that is involved with many governmental activities. In 2019, they paid £22.9m in fines after the discovery of three offences of fraud and two for false accounting on electronic monitoring contracts. The company had agreed to a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), allowing it to avoid criminal charges and paid £12.8m in compensation to the Ministry of Justice in 2013 as part of a related civil settlement.Nicholas Woods and Simon Marshall, former directors at Serco Geografix Ltd, were charged with using fraud and false accounting in order to artificially reduce profit margins on a contract relating to the monitoring of offenders for the Ministry of Justice. However, the judge at Southwark crown court told jurors to return a verdict of not guilty after the SFO found material pertinent to the case which had not been disclosed to the defence. While the anti-corruption agency sought for an adjournment to seek retrial, the judge refused. The SFO have said that they are now, “considering how best to undertake an assessment to prevent this from happening in the future.” The collapse of the trial is a massive blow to the anti-corruption agency, which has led the case since 2018.This situation will likely increase scrutiny of DPAs, which were introduced in the UK in 2014 and are based on similar deals used in the US. While the SFO has made many such deals with large companies since its inception, 11 individuals charged in cases involved DPAs have been acquitted. The campaign group Spotlight on Corruption have described the collapse of the trial as a “disaster” for the SFO and the implementation of DPAs. They highlight that the UK is yet to successfully prosecute an individual where a DPA has been agreed with the company and call for an urgent review as to why this could be. Woods and Marshall have obviously welcomed the decision to discontinue the case, maintaining that they were “singled out for prosecution” in order to deflect blame from the company in the aftermath of wrongdoings found. 

The growing powers of police around rights to protest have been back in the news recently, this time in tandem the sensitive and hotly debated issues around NHS workers’ pay. Karen Reissmann, a 61 year old nurse who has been working on the frontlines throughout the pandemic, has handed a £10,000 fine by the Greater Manchester police (GMP) in March after protesting on behalf of other NHS workers about the government’s 1% pay rise for health care staff.Ms Reissmann organised the 40 person strong protest on 1 March following the pay increase which many economists predicted could contribute to new nurses being £300 worse off. She specifically requested a limit of protestors in order to guarantee social distancing and keep the protest Covid compliant. Despite offering a risk assessment of her protest to GMP and ensuring that their actions were safely within Covid-19 guidelines, the nurse was handed the eye-watering fine on the grounds that the protests are not exempt from every day coronavirus restrictions. Despite being informed by Ms Reissmann’s representatives that their interpretation of the law surrounding gatherings and protests during the pandemic was faulty, GMP have doubled down on their position. Claiming that their own lawyers had reviewed the fine, the police force claim that they were satisfied that their implementation of the law and the issuing of punishments was “proportionate, legal, accountable and necessary in the circumstances”. Furthermore, GMP have said that they are now awaiting the consideration from the Crown Prosecution Service around actions to take if the penalty notice is not paid.The controversy is not without even more contentious context. It comes against the background of the recent, highly controversial police, crime, sentencing and courts bill, which gives police forces more power to act and decide unilaterally how to handle and criminalise protests.Ms Reissmann and her representatives have claimed that GMP are using her case as a way to intimidate or deter future protestors. Her lawyers have stated that the force’s ‘blanket policy’ that all protest was unlawful under Covid-19 regulations is “wrong in law and contrary to authority”. They believe that such fines and punishments are symptomatic of a growing concern around an encroachment on civil liberties and the muting of important voices during these dangerous times. For more information on criminal law, visit our dedicated page.

A group of musicians have written to the Prime Minister calling for enforced changes to music streaming and the dissemination of royalties. The group, signed by 156 artists including Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, Sting, Jimmy Page, Noel Gallagher, Kate Bush, and Chris Martin accused streaming platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music, record companies, and other tech firms of “exploiting performers and creators without rewarding them fairly”. They claim to be attempting to “put the value of music back where it belongs – in the hands of the music makers”. The rates that which streaming platforms pay artists have been a contentious issue since the rise in popularity of streaming as a way to access music. In 2017, a ruling in the US ordered that the percentage of revenue paid to songwriters from plays on streaming services was to rise from 10.5% to 15.1%. Platforms and their owners such as Google, Amazon, and Spotify immediately contested the ruling, eventually getting a legal victory in 2020 with a court deciding that there was a fault in the methodology used to recalculate the new rates. Rates have been recalculated in favour of the streaming platforms but the case is still ongoing. The letter suggests changes to the 1988 Copyright Act in order to bring royalty payments more in line with how they are paid in radio, while acknowledging the differences between radio and on-demand streaming. The group argue that changes to the law would mean that streaming companies would make a more “equitable remuneration” to performers and songwriters via a rights collection company, a system already enshrined in UK law for music played over the radio. At present, radio stations buy a licence from rights collection companies who then distribute royalties to artists based on how often their songs are played. Currently, revenue from streaming is pooled by each company with payments distributed to the rights holder, who then take a share depending on their deal or contract with the artist. This is calculated on number of plays, along with other algorithms, and rates are set by each individual company. The artists are complaining that the current system gives the platforms too much control and there is a need for a regulator to shift the balance of power more equitably. However, even if this legal challenge comes to anything, it is sure to be heavily contested by the streaming platforms. Spotify, Apple, and other such companies are constantly under legal pressure to increase payments to artists and are always rebuffing them. Even if a legal definition of “equitable remuneration” is brought into UK law, it is sure to be contested in the strongest possible terms. 

Video sharing app TikTok is set to be on the end of a legal challenge being described as a “landmark case” for allegedly illegally collecting the personal information of underage users. The claim alleges that TikTok are taking personal information from children without proper warning, information, transparency, or the level of informed consent needed under law. The case is being brought by Anne Longfield, the former Children’s commissioner until February 2021, on behalf of millions of children in the UK and the European Economic Area. Ms Longfield claims that the app is in breach of UK and EU laws relating to children’s data protection and is fighting for it to delete all existing such data and pay compensation which could reach billions of pounds. TikTok’s official minimum age required to be an active user is 13; however, last year Ofcom found that 42% of 8-12 year olds in the UK used the video sharing platform. The regulator has also been monitoring and investigating the app’s handling of personal information. Just last year, TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, was fined a record $5.7in the US for illegally collecting personal information on children under 13.Ms Longfield estimates that more than 3.5 million children in just the UK could be effected by the mishandling or illegal storage of their personal data through TikTok. One of the case’s main points is that, while TikTok aren’t unique in their use of personal user information to drive profits via advertising and marketing, their disproportionately young user base makes the issue of consent all the more contentious. As Ms Longfield states, “kids can’t give consent”, to the handling of their user data and won’t be aware of the full context and consequences of agreeing to certain clauses in the terms and conditions of the app. It is believed that this case could be a landmark when drawing up frameworks for social media companies’ responsibilities to children using their platforms. 

The European Super League, the widely condemned competition between Europe’s largest clubs, fell apart only a matter of days after its announcement. Drawing ire from around the football community and beyond, its short and explosive life had parties for and against the league arming for a massive legal firefight. But what were the legal precedents on either side of the argument, and what effectively brought down the Super League before a ball was kicked? While it’s still very fresh, with a lot of the discussions not yet public knowledge, we do know some of the threats and legal avenues many were willing to take in order to block the proposed ventureEUFA and FIFA, the European and Global governing bodies of football respectively, both came out in full force against the idea. One of the most public threats made by both organisations was the exclusion of players playing for Super League teams from playing in their international tournaments, namely the Euros and World Cup. Legally, this is a bit of a grey area when it comes to contracts and it’s not been fully examined in practice as to whether or not these bans would be enforceable. However, should this have happened, it was likely that representatives of the effected players would point to a ruling by the European Commission last year which upheld the rights of ice skaters to take part in a newly formed, unsanctioned competition. Should the Super League have gotten much further, litigation as almost inevitable, given the astronomical sums of money involved. The clubs involved and the scorned governing bodies could, and probably would have, invoked claims of breaches in competition law. Hypothetically, the Super League clubs could have claimed an abuse of dominant position in relation to the governing bodies for trying to prevent them from playing in their own competitions, as well as internationally and in domestic leagues. On the other hand, football authorities were likely to argue that the clubs were trying to create what effectively could have acted like a monopoly, closing ranks and creating an unfair environment for other clubs not involved with the Super League. The matter was swiftly picked up by bodies usually outside football and the outrage was no longer one to be resolved internally within the sport. The matter was immediately taken up in the House of Commons, with the Prime Minister and Culture Minister ensuring that they would explore every governmental avenue to block the move. Many believe this could have even included intervention into the rules of football club ownership in the UK, a hitherto unprecedented level of interference between Parliament and the national sport.While it’s still not public knowledge exactly what battlegrounds these discussions would have been fought on, with many of the contractual withdrawals still ongoing, this is an unprecedented legal situation and certainly one to keep monitoring. 

Nicola Sturgeon, along with other MSPs, has vocally condemned the UK government’s decision to unanimously refer two bills passed by Holyrood to the supreme court. Weeks before going into recess, the Scottish parliament passed two pieces of legislation, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child bill, and the European charter for local self-government bill.These bills were then referred to the supreme court by the UK government. According to a government spokesperson, this is because there were concerns that the practicalities of both pieces of legislation could put legal responsibilities on UK ministers. In a statement, the government expressed concerns that “parts [of the legislation] are outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament.” In essence, the government has subjected a bill passed through the Scottish parliament relating to Scottish local authorities to the UK supreme court due to concerns over whether or not this was within the power of the Scottish parliament to do unilaterally as it implied possible risk of legal involvement from the UK.Naturally, the action has prompted outrage from Scottish politicians, with Nicola Sturgeon tweeting, “The UK Tory government is going to court to challenge a law passed by scotparl unanimously. And for what? To protect their ability to legislate/act in ways that breach children’s rights in Scotland. Politically catastrophic, but also morally repugnant.”Scottish ministers are accusing Westminster of trying to undermine the rights of children by subjecting the bills to the supreme court after they had passed through Scottish Parliament unopposed and certified independently as being within the powers of the Scottish Parliament.  John Swinney, deputy first minister for Scotland has pledged to fight the challenge, accusing the UK government’s actions as “morally repugnant”, and “deeply menacing”.For more information on children’s rights and family law, visit our dedicated page.

There has been an outpouring of support for blanket exemptions for parents on maternity leave from having to attend jury service after a breastfeeding mother was told that she’d have to attend her service in person. Zoe Stacey gave birth to her second child in February, and recently received a letter informing her that she had to attend Winchester crown court for jury service in May. She requested that she be excused because she will be breastfeeding her son over this period. However, she was refused her request and only offered the option to defer her service for 12 months. Ms Stacey has stated that she wished to breastfeed her child for longer than a year, so it was still not possible for her to attend jury service. Ellie Reeves, the shadow solicitors general has since written to Robert Buckland QC, the lord chancellor, criticising government policy for not having formal exemption procedures in place. Reeves has said that the current rule “unfairly penalises mothers of new-borns” and shows that there is still a large lack of understanding of, or interest in, the lives of new mothers.  However, justice minister Chris Philip has retorted that while he empathises with the difficulties of jury service for breastfeeding mothers, the jury is “made up of a cross section of society and provisions must be in place to ensure anyone who is eligible, including new mothers, can perform this duty”.While Ms Stacey was eventually excused from jury service after appealing the original decision, the issue is still being debated. The Ministry of Justice has since claimed that while it’s vital for juries to represent the population, which should include new mothers, they are urgently reviewing guidance to make it clear that they should be able to serve at a time that’s right for them.

The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, has been held accountable for failing to ensure that tragic deaths in detention centres are properly investigated and has been told that she cannot undermine or interfere with inquiries into said deaths.On top of this, three of the detention policies put forward by the Home Secretary were found to be in breach of human rights legislation.The rulings come off the back of the situation with Ahmed Lawal and Oscar Lucky Okwurime, two friends from Nigeria who were in Harmondsworth immigration removal centre together. On 12 September 2019, Okwurime was found dead in his cell, which an inquest found to have been from unnatural causes. Specifically, he died after neglect following a subarachnoid haemorrhage which ruptured due to hypertension. A previous blood pressure reading had shown hypertension and, because of multiple failures to keep to basic healthcare policies, was not followed up with. These failures resulted in the death of a vulnerable person, amounting to criminal neglect. The only reason this inquest found the findings it did and proceeded to its conclusion was because Ahmed Lawal was able to testify and give evidence in person at the inquest in November 2020. The Home Office had tried to deport Lawal five days after the death of his friend, but he took the case to the high court and eventually the judge halted his deportation. His challenge centred around whether the Home Secretary was able to remove a potential witness to a death in custody prior to it being confirmed as to whether or not they will be needed as a witness. He was quite right in this regard, and his evidence was paramount to the eventual ruling. As a result, the current policy was determined to be ‘legally deficient’ and the judge found that it was unlawful to have an absence of policy around what should happen following the death of someone in a detention facility. The Home Office has since stated that it will be “refreshing” their current processes to try and ensure that this situation doesn’t happen again. 

A litigant in person has recently incurred around £100,000 in legal interim costs after being reminded that he would receive no special treatment on the grounds of representing himself in court. A ‘litigant in person’ is someone who has gone to court without official legal representation from a barrister or solicitor. The litigant in person in this instance was the defendant in the case of Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation v Hardy, Mark Hardy. Mr Hardy had faced a claim from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation after he made allegations including false accounting and fraud. The court ruled that Mr Hardy’s requests for copies of documents under section 116 of the Companies Act and was not made for a proper purpose. At this point in the trial, the claimant sought to recover its legal costs, which were around £163,000. Mr Hardy’s behaviour and conduct throughout the proceedings did not help his case. He insisted repeatedly that the remote trial should be streamed on YouTube, a request which was dropped before the trial without argument. The judge continued that Mr Hardy’s behaviour was ‘well out of the norm’, citing the volume and nature of his correspondences. He had employed unprofessional and offensive tones, had attempted to submit large amounts of irrelevant material, and made unsupported accusations against the claimants. After dragging proceedings on, the trial accrued larger and larger legal costs. When told he had to pay these, Mr Hardy was informed repeatedly that, just because he wasn’t being represented by a barrister or solicitor, he was not exempt from paying what he owed to the claimant and court. The judge reminded him that unrepresented people cannot expect special treatment.