Following the announcements made in the recent Queen’s speech, the government has confirmed that legislation is incoming to increase the judicial retirement age to 75.This is an increase from 70 and means that magistrates will be able to continue serving for another five years if there is a need for them to do so. A change like this is no small decision and requires primary legislation; the government have said that this will be passed “as soon as time allows”.The government published a response to a consultation on the compulsory retirement age in March and considered formally reforming the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Age 1993, which required judges to stop serving at 70 except in specific circumstances. The consultation received over 1000 responses with the vast majority reportedly supporting proposals for reform to increase the compulsory retirement age. The Ministry of Justice has stated that it acknowledges that working life patterns have changed over the last few decades and that people are working later into life. They have stated that they do not want to lose valuable members of the judiciary when they are able and willing to continue working, which has driven these reforms. Ministers will make provision for these changes through the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill by reforming judicial pension arrangements. Measures are in place in order to keep the judiciary running to a point where it can keep up with demands of the justice system with retirement and recruitment provisions. While details haven’t been shared yet, the bill will transfer members of the judiciary into a new pension scheme reflecting their unique circumstances. Visit our employment law page and learn more about the services we offer.

Tim Crosland, an environmental lawyer, has been fined £5,000 for criminal contempt of court after making a supreme court ruling public before it was formally announced. The ruling in question regarded the planned third runway at Heathrow airport, the source of controversy particularly from environmental groups. The supreme court ruled that the runway was legal, so Crosland’s leak sparked immediate outrage from those concerned with the expansion and its environmental impact. Crosland was one of the many parties that brought the legal case against the owners of the airport and was therefore privy to knowledge of the ruling before it was made public. He tweeted about the verdict the day before it was due to be released. While the judges said that there was “no such thing as a justifiable contempt of court”, Crosland insisted that his actions were a reasonable measure to combat the climate crisis. The supreme court ruling overturns a previous judgement by the court of appeal that the expansion was illegal as it was not in line with the UK’s commitments to the 2015 Paris climate accord. Crosland accused the government of knowingly ignoring and concealing knowledge of the environmental impact of the third runway and in court said that the former transport secretary knew full well that the plans were “inconsistent” with the climate agreement. The decision in February 2020 from the court of appeal was seen as incredibly significant as it was the first in the world to be based on the commitments set out in the Paris climate agreement; it also spawned more related cases against other infrastructure plans.The supreme court’s overturning of the Heathrow decision has been met with vehement protest from activists, scientists, lawyers, and campaigners.According to judges in the case, Crosland was unrepentant of his actions but his move was ultimately futile as the announcement was made 24 hours later. While the fine may seem steep, judges could have legally jailed him for up to two years for the offence. Fines in contempt cases such as these are theoretically limitless, but the decision for a £5,000 penalty was settled on to protect the integrity of the judiciary.Learn more about criminal law and other matters related to the subject.

The Lugano Convention is a 2007 agreement which sets out which country’s courts can hear cross-border disputes and decides which decisions are enforced. It also works to ensure that judgements and decisions are enforced across borders of member states.Now no longer a member of the European Union, the UK’s membership in the agreement is lapsed and the European Commission have dealt a large blow to any attempt to join. In a non-binding recommendation, the commission have stated that the EU should block any approach from the UK to join the Convention. The move comes as a devastating setback for British lawmakers and lawyers, who claim that it will greatly impede judicial cooperation across Europe.  While the decision whether or not to allow UK accession to the Convention lies with the European Council, any backing by the commission would have been very significant. Because the Convention is an international treaty signed on behalf of EU member states, as well as other select countries, the UK have to apply to accede into the agreement, with all member states voting on the decision.The commission’s justification for their stance is that the Lugano Convention is a “flanking measure of the internal market and related to the EU-European Free Trade Association (EFTA) / European Economic Area context.” It claims that the UK is a “third country without a special link to the internal market”. Because of this, bringing the UK into the convention would be to set a new precedent and they don’t believe that the EU should depart from its general approach to the Convention, giving the UK perceived special treatment. The campaign to re-join is still ongoing, with representatives from the legal sector arguing that the UK’s inclusion benefits all involved. It provides protections for parties deemed to be in a weaker position to the other in legal disputes and makes litigation more accessible across Europe. While the EFTA have already stated that they are willing to support the UK’s application, UK lawyers continue to hope that the EU will vote to support the nation’s application, for the benefit of all nations involved. 

Bosses across the hospitality sector lost a legal battle recently in an attempt to force the UK government to allow them to open for indoor dining before the upcoming deadline. The case was brought by Sacha Lord, co-founder of Parklife Festival and night-time economy advisor for Greater Manchester, and Hugh Osmond, former Pizza Express boss. They argued that there was no scientific justification to keep indoor hospitality closed for weeks after non-essential retail had been allowing customers indoors. The case claimed that approximately 60% of pubs, bars, and restaurants do not have the outdoor space in order to accompany those few customers they were legally allowed to serve from 12 April. They further cited findings by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), published on 30 April, that transmission rates in hospitality, leisure, and retail spaces were relatively low, even indoors. However, a high court judge dismissed the case as “academic”, as logistically they wouldn’t have been able to have the hearing take place before 17 May, the time when they could open indoors anyway. The claimants rebuffed this, saying it wasn’t “academic” for their sector, which they claim is losing £200m every day indoor space remains closed. Arguing on behalf of over 3 million people who work in the industry, they lamented the decision.While they agree that there wasn’t enough time to launch a legal challenge before 17 May, Osmond has claimed he will be reviewing other legal options regarding the situation. 

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.