New legislating is being put in place in order to curb the addictive and dangerous effects of online slot machines. Tougher measures will be placed on operators in order to protect players. Online slot machines currently generate around £2.2 billion for gambling companies, the largest online revenue stream in the industry. This is down in no small part to tactics and stimuli previously used in order to make them the most addictive online game on these gambling websites. They have, by far, the highest average losses per player of any online gambling product, with players being able to generate thousands of pounds in losses in a matter of minutes. The Gambling Commission, galvanised by growing concern over the harm being caused by online gambling during national lockdowns, has said that new measures will be put in place from October 2021. Under new rules, operators will have to slow down games to a maximum speed of 2.5 seconds per spin, discouraging continuous spins and generation of further losses. They will also be required to stop using sounds, lights, and other stimuli to make losses feel like wins. Auto-play options will be removed, along with ‘reverse withdrawals’, options to allow players to change their mind about withdrawing winnings and wagering them again instead. Finally, all online slot machine games will have to clearly display how much time a player has played the game, as well as a clear record of wins and losses. The nature of online platforms such as gambling websites means that games and ways of interacting with the public are constantly changing and innovating. Protecting the public and keeping up with changing markets poses constant legal challenges in order to keep legislation relevant and effective. 

The House of Lords has inflicted a heavy blow to the government by voting for a second time to amend a trade bill in the hope of giving British courts a role in deciding whether or not a country is committing genocide. Peers voted with a majority of 171 to insist that the UK courts be handed the ruling and the issue will now return to the House of Commons, where Conservative ministers will oppose the measure. The amendments to the trade bill regarding genocide provide a sticking point for the government because they would require the UK to review any bilateral trade agreements with China due to their human rights record. Recent treatment on behalf of Beijing to Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, as well as the suppression of Hong Kong’s liberties, have caused widespread condemnation with many MPs seeking to take a firmer stance against China.When the issue was first brought to the House of Commons in December, the government faced a major backbench rebellion, seeing its majority go from 80 to 11 so another close vote is expected. However, if the voting patterns from the House of Lords are anything to go by, it won’t make for comfortable reading for the government. It previously voted with a majority of 126 on the issue, so support for giving British courts the right to determine genocidal regimes is growing. Lord Alton, an independent peer, stressed the importance of giving the High Court a role in determining genocide, stating that international criminal courts were less able to make these determinations due to the Chinese ability to veto any such references. There have been counter proposals from the government which don’t involve giving the courts this power, such as a select committee to establish whether or not a country is committing genocide. Among other issues, the main opposition view to this approach is that the government can simply ignore the findings of a select committee.Potentially giving British courts the ability to make such large decisions regarding foreign governments has huge implications not just for our judicial system, but for our international trade. It’s a pivotal time for the British legal sector, so we’re not letting this one out of our sights.

A trial to roll out extended hours for several Crown courts has been abandoned thanks to a legal on behalf of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA).The legal battle, which began in December, focused on controversial proposals and trials to extend operating hours of seven Crown court centres to ‘COVID operating hours’ (COH). The structure of the pilot meant that certain types of cases were listed for trial from 9am to 1pm, with a different trial to begin in the same courtroom during the afternoon from 2-6pm. HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) first suggested the measures in order to reduce the dramatic backlog of cases that have been accumulating over the last year due to Covid-19. Off the back of multiple lockdowns, medical emergencies, and social distancing legislation, it became increasingly hard to physically hold trials and hear cases.However, the CBA described the measures as ‘discriminatory’, citing that if it continued, the government risked breaching the Equality Act 2010 by proposing to roll the hours out ‘without proper assessment’. After successfully winning their case, the CBA stated that the Ministry of Justice had made the choice not to continue with the plans and that it would not be ‘proceeded with in the future’. Furthermore, the CBA considers that the issue ‘will not raise its head again’.That said, the government subsequently stated that the scheme is still under review, so we’ll have to keep a close eye on how this develops. Cases are still being heard and trials are still underway, either virtually or in person. Manak Solicitors are still here with the same commitment to provide legal services to our community so please do not hesitate to get in touch if you’re seeking legal aid or advice. 

The UK Government has received a legal challenge over its recent decision to lift a ban on neonicotinoid pesticides, a substance previously banned across the EU, in order to combat crop disease. The Government have said that its use will be sparing and is viewed as an emergency measure in order to combat drastic fall in sugar beet harvests, caused by the beet yellows virus spread by aphids. Since the inception of the original ban on neonicotinoid pesticides in 2018, the UK has reportedly only yielded one full outdoor sugar beet harvest. According to the NFU, there are 3000 farmers that grow sugar beet and around 9,500 jobs in England supported by the industry, so the concern for the crop yield is of genuine importance to the national economy. Neonicotinoids used to be seen as a good alternative to traditional pesticides as they are systemic, meaning they are absorbed by the plant and are added to the seeds as a coating and not sprayed directly onto crops.However, they were originally banned due to their harm to pollinating insects such as bees. Bees, and other pollinating insects, are an integral part of our ecosystem and are already under threat of dwindling numbers, so their protection is a large point of concern when environmental legislation is discussed. Not only this, but they are also harmful to aquatic life as it leaches into the soil and then into water supplies. While several hundred thousand people have signed an online petition against the reinstatement of the pesticide, the government and NFU remain confident that ‘sparing’ use of the pesticide is the best way forward to maintain a sugar beet harvest, regardless of the risks to bee population numbers and biodiversity. Then-Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, said at the time of the original EU ban that restrictions would be maintained post-Brexit unless the evidence of their harmfulness changed. The government are now saying that they have changed their standing on the policy based on new scientific evidence regarding the pesticide, however they are yet to make these new findings public. 

There’s a huge legal battle happening just down the road from our Orpington office with the development of the “London Resort”, the UK’s answer to Disneyland, which has been hit with another legal challenge from conservationist groups.The development would be the first of its kind in the UK and the first in Europe built from the ground up since Disneyland Paris. Set to sprawl over 535 acres on the Swanscombe Peninsular in Kent, the development would have two theme park gates, a water park, a conference and convention centre, hotels, restaurants, and an e-Sports facility. The resort, set to feature attractions based on productions from the BBC, ITV, Paramount Productions, and more, is also in line to create over 30,000 new jobs – a real economic boost for the local area. However, it’s been hit with another in a long list of legal challenges from conservationist groups following the discovery of the rare ‘Distinguished Jumping Spider’, better known as the ‘Zebra spider’.Conservationists recently lodged an application for the Government to protect the 465 hectare site as it is currently the home of many forms of wildlife, including nightingales, cuckoos, and lizards. The Environment Agency has responded by saying that Natural England is aware of the importance of the wildlife on the Swanscombe Peninsular and so will be considering whether the land should be proposed for notification as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It is expected that there will be a finished assessment and decision made on the land’s SSSI status early this year. Quite the legal battlefield to have right on your doorstep!

Stamp duty is simply tax that people pay when buying a property in the UK which varies depending on where you’re buying and how much the property is bought for. In July 2020, Rishi Sunak announced that there would be a stamp duty ‘holiday’ until 3 March 2021. In practice, this meant that the threshold for paying stamp duty was increased to £500,000, meaning that no payments were needed on properties up to that amount, and only needed to be paid on the value of the amount exceeding £500,000. Buyers could save up to £15,000 when purchasing property. The holiday was aimed to encourage buyers in a market and economy impacted by Covid-19 and the realities of lockdown. As the property market had fallen every month for the four months prior to the implementation of the holiday, it was a much needed incentive for people to start buying again.The impact is there for all to see, the housing market immediately began to grow again and 2020 culminated with one of the healthiest housing markets for years. HMRC found that December 2020 saw a 31.5% rise in residential transactions compared to December 2019 and were even up 13.1% from the month before. UK average house prices increased 7.6% in the year to November, the highest rate since June 2016, to a national average of £250,000 and £500,000 in London. While these figures make for pleasant reading for those in the property sector, and do show a positive economic impact of the stamp duty holiday, it did raise some issues. Because of the rush to purchase property and with the knowledge that people would be paying no to less stamp duty, the dramatic rise in house prices has priced out several people from purchasing property, notably first time buyers. With the stamp duty holiday still set to end on 3 March 2021, there are some concerns moving forward. There have been multiple calls within the property market to extend the holiday to avoid ‘falling off a cliff’ come March. Many agents and property professionals have warned that ending the holiday as planned would risk the collapse of thousands of deals that haven’t been completed, while extending it would see wider economic benefits. Some developers have even offered their own extension of the holiday, offering to cover the costs of stamp duty themselves for buyers up until October. Many see the fact that the holiday ending coincides with the end of the furlough scheme as another reason to be wary. The removal of financial support schemes as well as the incentive to purchase property could see the market slow down with prices falling as quickly as they rose. As experts in conveyancing, we’ve been keeping a keen eye on the housing market over the last year and are best placed to help you in the property market. Whether you’re a first time buyer looking to get on the property ladder while the stamp duty holiday is in place, looking to sell your home while prices are still high, or simply have any questions about your best course of action, our team are here to listen and to help. 

According to Appendix: Hong Kong British National (Overseas), two new categories will be introduced for persons holding BN(O) status wishing to gain entry clearance or settlement in the UK.The two main categories are as follows:BN(O) Status Holder Route This route is available for the following applicants:BN(O) citizens who are ordinarily resident in Hong Kong or the UK Dependent partner or dependent children (or grandchildren) of a BN(O) citizenIn exceptional circumstances, other family members with a high degree of dependency BN(O) Household Member Route This route is for the adult child, born on or after 1st July 1997, of a BN(O) citizen. The BN(O) Household Member, and any dependent partner or child of a Household Member, must:Be ordinarily resident in Hong Kong or the UK, and Form part of the same household as the BN(O) citizenApplications in either category can be made for either a period of 30 months OR 5 years.These new avenues will open from 31st January 2021. With cheaper Home Office fees for these applications, individuals are encouraged to take advantage of this new system for themselves and their families. Speak to our immigration specialists for further information:Call 01474 324 529 or email [email protected], we will be happy to answer your queries.  

President Biden wasted absolutely no time once being sworn into office, signing a flurry of executive orders in an effort to reverse a number of his predecessor’s policies. This blog will deconstruct the specific legislation enacted to briefly outline the new administration’s outlook towards immigration.In mere hours after his inauguration, the president signed seventeen executive orders, six of which directly pertained to immigration and deportation. The subject of immigration and border ‘security’ were one of the hot topics that Donald Trump based his campaign and presidency on, so it was no surprise that his successor saw this as a priority to address upon taking office. Construction of Trump’s infamous wall across the US-Mexico border was ordered to cease immediately, a direct halting of the former president’s most ubiquitous policies.President Biden also put a pause on most forced deportations from the US interior, along with lifting the travel restrictions the previous administration placed on a number of countries with predominantly Muslim populations. Another significant order was the safeguarding of protections for so-called “Dreamers”, named after the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. The DREAM Act is a legislative proposal to provide temporary residency and right to work to unauthorised immigrants to entered the US as minors with the view for them to gain full citizenship should they achieve future qualifications. The Department of Homeland Security has clearly had a busy few days on the phone with the White House. President Biden ordered the DHS to safeguard the Obama era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme which offers works permits and deportation relief to more than 640,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children. Donald Trump’s many attempts to suspend programme were previously blocked in court.As well as the DHS announcing a 100 day moratorium on deportations for immigrants in the US facing removal, it suspended the Trump administration’s policy of requiring non-Mexican asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico for their US court hearings.This is a very succinct view of some of the immediate actions taken by the new President, but it’s a view that paints a much kinder picture for immigrants in the US, as well as for those looking to live there in the future. With travel restrictions ceased, borders opened and deportations greatly relaxed, the new administration’s stark opposition to the previous one’s immigration policies couldn’t be clearer. Our team of immigration solicitors are accredited as one of the most qualified experts in the country. If you or anyone you know is looking to settle in the UK, or you have questions or concerns about your right to remain in the country, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, has announced a new regulator to monitor the manufacture of dangerous building supplies like those used in the cladding at Grenfell Tower. Companies that make these materials can now be prosecuted and have their products banned by the new watchdog. Evidence presented at the public inquiry into the disaster at the West London housing estate prompted calls for new checks and balances to be put in place for each stage of the building process. Under new legislation, offences could be punished with anything from fines to imprisonment and are designed to encourage and ultimately enforce compliance with building standards regulations. It isn’t just the products being manufactured under the microscope either; there were several instances of unacceptable practices and behaviour from employees of the companies cited at the inquiry. The Government are looking into ways to exclude companies who have been deemed to ‘play the system’ when cutting corners in manufacturing or performing business in unethical and legally dubious ways. Some of the companies quoted in the initial inquiry have claimed that it is not the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that materials are compliant with building standards regulations, however did admit unacceptable conduct from a number of their employees. While building inspectors are and have been ultimately responsible for the approval of the use of materials, this new regulator wishes to exist as a safeguard to stop dangerous practices at the source. While the implementation of the new regulator has been largely met positively, it has its detractors. Some experts doubt that the funding for the scheme won’t be sufficient, citing that some fire safety tests can cost up to £60,000 each, questioning whether the £10m quoted will be enough. Campaigners for victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster have also criticised the scheme and ministers for simply being too late to effectively enact action to prevent similar incidents.  As experts in commercial property law and residential property law, we welcome any action taken to increase public safety and ensure a transparent, legal process for construction.