Lawyer-bashing has been a long standing national pastime, with criticism regularly formulated by politicians and the press on ‘fat cat’ defence barristers and ‘activist’ legal aid lawyers for having the resolute to carry out their job.However, a new target has manifested – the supposed ‘enablers’ of oligarchs, whose cash was mostly welcomed in London until Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.A panel of eminent investigative journalists queued up at the Frontline Club in London this week to contest claimant media lawyers as the pressure continues to rise.A few firms are ‘becoming the servants of the super-rich’ and using litigation in an attempt to ‘silence a journalist for years’, noted Clare Rewcastle Brown, whose work revealed corruption in Malaysia resulted in her being sued in London and elsewhere.A reporter at Tortoise Media, Paul Caruana Galizia, whose mother Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered in Malta in 2017, noted that London lawyers are offering a ‘one-stop oligarch shop’ and, in some cases, are actually ‘acting for an organised crime group’.An officer of the court also joined in, with Adelaide Lopez – a senior associate at Wiggin who represented journalist Catherine Belton recently – stating that ‘naming and shaming … is probably going to be more effective than anything the SRA is going to do’.When questioned whether the Solicitors Regulation Authority has the ‘capacity or the competence’ to impose potential new requirements to stop so-called ‘lawfare’, Lopez and fellow lawyer Charlie Holt – the UK campaigns manager for English PEN – both answered: ‘No.’

An outbreak of fraud associated with crypto assets has sparked a joint effort by five professional services firms to highlight such matters in front of the courts. Crypto-related fraud reached a peak in 202, with banned addresses that received an estimated US$14bn throughout the course of the year, making it a 79% increase from the previous year.According to the five firms however, the amount of claims brought before courts regarding these losses are still low, partly due to limited funding options for otherwise worthy lower-value claims. The firms created a joint triage system for the first stage of assessing claims. Deserving claims will be evaluated and financed by litigation funder Sandton Capital, which has allocated £50m for crypto-related litigation.Other members of the consortium consist of the recovery specialist Asset Reality, accountancy Grant Thornton UK, Outer Temple Chambers and city firm Rahman Ravelli. Barrister at Outer Temple Chambers, Justina Stewart, commented: ‘This is a real opportunity to push the boundaries of the law by working symbiotically with true experts. All too often, potentially meritorious crypto fraud claims don’t get off the ground because of lack of funding and joined-up thinking between real specialists.’

New guidance from the judiciary on electronic bundles bring focus to the difficulty for litigants in person to navigate the court system, the Law Society has stated.In an announcement published this week, senior judges revealed that electronic bundles in the financial remedies court had shifted from being moderately rare to verging on universal in the past two years, which they reported to be an ‘excellent outcome’. However, they had been notified that guidance on electronic bundle preparation for litigants in person needed a ‘modest degree of clarification’.The guidance outlines that the duty to provide forms ES1 and ES2 was as much relevant to litigants in person as it does to represented parties. ES1 is a case summary. ES2 records assets, liabilities and income values.‘We recognise that there may be circumstances when the applicant LIP simply has insufficient IT ability to prepare the bundle. If this happens than that person should contact the court and explain the difficulty as far as possible in advance of the relevant court hearing,’ the guidance says. ‘Where possible that person should suggest a practical way of overcoming the problem, which may be that the respondent should be invited to prepare the bundle. A respondent in this situation is encouraged to offer assistance where possible.’If neither party has adequate IT ability to put together a bundle, ‘then the court will have to do its best to find a solution which overcomes the problem’.The Law Society welcomed the guidance, but I. Stephanie Boyce, president, noted that it emphasised the continuation of problems encountered by litigants in person attempting to navigate the court system.Ministry of Justice data reveals that the number of cases where both parties were regarded was 41% in the three months foregoing the legal aid slashes. Towards the end of 2021, it was 21%.Boyce stated: ‘Often forced to represent themselves due to a lack of legal aid, litigants in person can struggle to understand court procedures and their legal entitlements. This struggle can be exacerbated by the increased digitisation of court processes, which the courts system must ensure doesn’t leave people behind. Providing legal aid for early advice in family cases would help divert litigants from the court system towards mediation and the early resolution of their cases.’The Ministry of Justice has been approached to make comment. In August 2020, the department revealed an extra £3.1m to help sustain litigants in person to add to the £9m invested since 2015 through its current support strategy for litigants in person.

To support his request for civil servants to return to office working, this week the minister for government efficiency, Jacob Rees-Mogg, published a league table supposedly showing the amount of civil servants who worked from the office from the 4 April. According to the table’s figures, only 48% of MoJ personnel were present at their desks in Petty France and elsewhere during that week. This places the MoJ fifth out of 19 government departments, being only behind the Department for International Trade (73%), the Department for Health and Social Care (72%), Rees-Mogg’s own Cabinet Office (69%) and the Ministry of Defence (67%). The MoJ divides its ranking with the Department for Transport and HM Treasury. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (31%), the Department for Work and Pensions (27%) and the Department for Education (25%) sit at the bottom of the table.It is considered that the MoJ’s attendance record is particularly good, taking into account that the office’s lack of lifestyle boosting attractions are currently being added by private sector firms wishing to encourage staff to return to their desks.

The Court of Appeal has been asked to evaluate how judges should direct juries in criminal cases brought against protesters, following the acquittal of four protestors who pulled down the statue of Bristol slave-trader Edward Colston. Announcing that she had referred the case this week, the attorney general, Suella Braverman QC MP, noted that the case has led to a lack of certainty around the offence of criminal damage and the right to peaceful protest. Braverman’s decision is simultaneous with the publication by thinktank Policy Exchange of a report by a former Old Bailey judge highlighting questions about the trial’s conduct. In the report, Charles Wide QC sates that the jury’s verdicts were not ‘perverse’ based on the case’s evidence. However he noted that the defences used – reasonable force to prevent crime and that conviction would have been a unreasonable interference with human rights – should not have been put in the jury’s hands.Condemning the case management of the trial, he said that all parties have a responsibility to make sure that such hearings are carried out in line with the criminal procedure rules. ‘With the state of the law as it is, or may be, the conduct of such trials is fraught with manifold difficulties.’ Reporting her referral of the case, Braverman said: ‘Trial by jury is an important guardian of liberty and critical to that are the legal directions given to the jury. It is in the public interest to clarify the points of law raised in these cases for the future. This is a legal matter which is separate from the politics of the case involved.’The attorney general’s office announced that the power to refer criminal cases has been used 19 times since 2000; the last time in December 2020 to define the law in relation to sexual assault.

From this summer, the scheme for diagnosing whiplash injuries in RTA claims is to reinstate its exclusion of remote examinations. The restriction had been deferred by MedCo during the pandemic to enable injured people to be assessed through virtual appointments instead.In light of the government’s ending of Covid-19 rules though, all examinations on or after 1 July must be in person. Executive chair of MedCoMartin Heskins, stated ‘It has always been MedCo’s policy to prohibit medical examinations by remote methods. This is stipulated in our rules, which all operational experts agree to. When this prohibition was suspended in 2020 it was made clear that the change was temporary. At a recent meeting the MedCo board unanimously agreed that the ban on remote examinations should be reinstated.’MedCo reported that a limited group of claimants may still need to isolate as a result of Covid-19. However, in situations where the claimant is vulnerable, there may be arrangements for them to have a remote examination.Experts will be obliged, if undertaking a remote examination because the claimant is vulnerable due to Covid-19, to record in their report the type of vulnerability the claimant has and why that has resulted in the examination being conducted remotely.Remote examinations were prohibited to cut the risk of fraud and to make sure that claimants with more serious injuries were not mis-diagnosed by doctors. Claimant lawyers highlighted concerns during the pandemic regarding the potential for insurers to challenge medical reports as examinations were not conducted in person.Representatives of the defendant and claimant sectors make up the MedCo board, as well as the British Medical Association and Law Society.

In the week following the introduction of reforms designed to make the separation process less acrimonious – HM Courts & Tribunals Service has noted a 50% rise on the weekly average, having received 3,000 divorce applications in the week alone.Last Wednesday, a system that introduced provisions under the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act came into action, meaning it is no longer necessary for divorcing couples to assign blame for the breakdown of their marriage.Official statistics reveal that last year, a total of 107,724 divorce petitions were made – which amounts to 2,071 applications per week.On application costs, attendees were informed that applicants do not have to pay the £593 fee twice if they are unable to progress with a joint application and thereupon have to submit a single application. When asked about joint applicants hoping to split payment, HMCTS confirmed that the system can only accept one payment in full.A partner at London firm Fletcher Day, Julius Brookman, commented: ‘The introduction of no-fault divorce has led to a run of enquiries at this firm and something of a collective sigh of relief. I had a petition we had to file urgently where the parties were deeply involved in disputing particulars and they now wish to file a new petition which takes out their major initial grudges and gripes. Likewise, I have had existing clients saying they would like to file now so that they do not have to spend time haggling over apparently anodyne parts of the petition. The new terminology from the courts also offers some clarity to parties who has previously been perplexed by the old use of words.’HMCTS reported that practitioners who may experience error messages whilst using the portal should contact the courts and tribunals service centre at [email protected] or call 0300 303 0642. A webchat service is also available.A spokesperson stated: ‘Our new digital system is designed to be robust and create a better experience for users. It has been running smoothly since it launched on 6 April.’

Proposed human rights reforms will diminish existing protections, a parliamentary committee has forewarned, encouraging the government to abandon plans for a supposed bill of rights.In a 93-page report published this week, the joint committee on human rights details why the government has not made a strong case for replacing the Human Rights Act with a bill of rights in the form suggested by the government.The report unearths that plans to diminish the existing relationship between the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights would make litigation more expensive and time-consuming. The committee highlighted that amending section 2 of the 1998 legislation, which calls for UK courts to take into account Strasbourg judgments, would expand the likelihood of cases being taken to the ECtHR, risking more untoward judgments against the UK.The report notes: ‘During the pandemic, the government suspended jury trials before the Crown Court on the grounds of a public health emergency, which led to inevitable delays to justice. If the British bill of rights contained specific protections for the right to trial by jury, the Government may be open to challenge if they seek to reduce the scope of jury trials, or suspend jury trials, in the future.‘The government states it is their intention to “create a bill of rights for the whole of the United Kingdom, founded on principles common to us all”. However, the right to jury trial does not exist in Scottish procedure. The bill of rights would therefore diverge from universality, as not all rights would be given effect in all four jurisdictions. It will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine whether to make any amendments to their criminal justice system.’Of opposed to introducing a bill of rights, which the report notes is a ‘rebranding exercise’, the committee suggests the government emphasises on championing respect for human rights as a main element of the country’s values and constitution.Committee chair Harriet Harman MP commented: ‘The government’s case that human rights legislation is in serious need of reform is not proven. There is nothing in their consultation that would serve to strengthen the protections we currently have and much that would weaken them. In many cases what is described as the strengthening of rights is simply tweaking what is already protected, while at the same time making it harder for people to actually enforce their rights.’A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice stated: ‘Our proposals will strengthen quintessentially British human rights, such as freedom of expression, while staying a party to the ECHR. They will also prevent abuses of the system, adding a healthy dose of common sense and restore parliament’s rightful role as the ultimate decision-maker on laws impacting the UK population.’

The attorney general has attained a High Court injunction to prevent the BBC from revealing the identity of an alleged MI5 informant who is supposedly ‘a dangerous extremist and misogynist who physically and psychologically abused two female partners’.An interim injunction was applied for by Suella Braverman MP, to prevent the broadcaster revealing the identity of a man known only as X, who is assumed to be a ‘covert human intelligence source’ (CHIS). She maintained that revealing X’s name or picture would ‘cause real damage to national security’ and result in ‘a real and immediate risk that X would be killed or subject to serious physical harm’.However, the BBC stated that there was a robust public interest in distinguishing X, who they argued ‘used his status as a CHIS to coerce and terrify his partner’, which should have resulted in MI5 stopping using him as a CHIS.The broadcaster additionally highlighted evidence of X’s violent behaviour towards two former partners, one of who supplied a video showing X attacking her with a ‘dangerous weapon’.Nonetheless, Mr Justice Chamberlain allowed the attorney general a provisional injunction to stop the broadcasting of X’s name and image, which he noted would cause ‘a real and immediate risk that X would be killed or seriously injured’.The judge stated: ‘The BBC will still be able to convey what it regards as the core elements of its story, including the allegation that X abused his CHIS status and the allegation that MI5 is at fault for using or continuing to use him as a CHIS.’He also noted that the injunction symbolises ‘a significant interference with the BBC’s right to freedom of expression’, but commented that the order ‘will not prevent the BBC from making the allegations central to its story’.A spokesperson for the BBC stated: ‘We fought the case to try to tell as fully as possible two women’s stories and their experiences with X – his abuse of them and his use of his status as an MI5 intelligence source to coerce and terrify one of them, behaviour we say MI5 should have known about and that should have caused them to stop working with X.’ They further noted that the broadcaster is taking into account ‘whether there is a basis to appeal’.