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’.

This week Family lawyers entered a new era as ‘no fault’ divorce became a reality. The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act came into play on Wednesday, meaning couples wishing to divorce no longer need to attribute blame to the collapse of their marriage. The new legislation enables both or either parties to request an order to the court on the grounds that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.The modification in the law is the result of years of campaigning and endeavours during lockdown to put it into practice.Stephanie Boyce, Law Society president I. commented that the legislation terminates the practice of separating couples choosing between spending years still married and proving a fault-based fact, and enables them more opportunity to amicably move forward.‘We are delighted that the divorce system – unchanged for more than 50 years – will finally be modernised to reflect the society we live in,’ noted Boyce.‘This divorce reform will bring our marriage laws into the 21st century and ensure that, in the future, separating couples and their children do not suffer unnecessary conflict.’Former national chair of lawyer organisation Resolution, Nigel Shepherd, stated: ‘Resolution has campaigned for this reform since we were established in the early 1980s, so the moment that it becomes law marks a significant milestone for us as an organisation.‘But more importantly it will make a real difference to those who are sadly facing divorce and who will no longer need to play ‘the blame game’, which too often introduced or exacerbated conflict when it could have been avoided.’There are proposals that the reform may initially expand with the amount of divorce applications, as couples have been avoiding taking such a step until Wednesday this week.Head of family at London firm Forsters LLP, Jo Edwards, stated: ‘The experience of other countries where they’ve moved to a no-fault system is that there is a spike when the new law comes in – in Scotland, for example, when they changed the law in 2006.’Last week, figures published by the Ministry of Justice revealed that 22,683 divorce petitions were formulated between October and December in 2021 – a decrease of 26% from the same period in 2020. Petitions were down 5% from 2020 annually. Lawyers will now anticipate that the government’s online divorce portal can withstand any rise.

A selection of the world’s leading international human rights lawyers have joined a legal task force set up by the Ukrainian government to look into alleged crimes committed by Russian forces.The remit of the Legal Task Force on Accountability for Crimes Committed in Ukraine will include advice on proposals for accountability, including via the United Nations and regional organisations; advice and potential representation connecting to civil and criminal cases (including under universal jurisdiction laws) to ensure reparations and accountability in national jurisdictions; and planned guidance on Ukraine’s involvement with the International Criminal Court.Kennedy stated: ‘It is an honour to be of service to the government of Ukraine and its people. The task force is determined to ensure that no impunity is granted for the blatant violations of international law committed by Russia. It is crucial that perpetrators are brought to justice, and victims receive the reparations they deserve. There can be no peace without justice.’Neuberger said: ‘We must try and ensure that the rule of law prevails and that those responsible for any crimes suffered by the Ukrainian people are made accountable.’Iryna Venediktova, Ukraine’s prosecutor general, commented: ‘We are grateful to this esteemed group for their support for Ukraine. Their assistance and guidance will be invaluable in the process of securing justice for Ukrainian victims and rebuilding our state.’

The Ministry of Justice has indicated that it is not likely to reconsider its criminal legal aid reforms after the Law Society’s decision to revoke support for the recent proposals.Following additional analysis of the government’s meetings and proposals alongside officials, Chancery Lane announced this week that the ministry had ‘botched’ its reply to the independent criminal legal aid review.Dominic Raab, Justice secretary has proclaimed that the government’s package coincides with the review’s central £135m suggestion. Critics including the Society maintain analysis of the consultation document and impact assessment shows it does not.As well as recounting the government’s words as ‘spin’, the Society suggested criminal defence practitioners to think ‘long and hard’ about whether they want to continue carrying out publicly funded work since it no longer considers the work to be economically feasible.In a statement this week, a spokesperson for the ministry commented: ‘We have accepted Sir Christopher Bellamy’s recommendation for an uplift in fees and our proposals will deliver an extra £135m a year in criminal legal aid – the biggest increase in a decade.‘This is alongside our ambitious proposals to ensure professionals are better paid for the work they carry out, boosting pay for lawyers representing suspects in police stations, magistrates’ court and youth court by 15% and funding the training and accreditation of solicitors and solicitor-advocates.’The ministry stated that it urged the legal sector to engage in its consultation ‘so we can guarantee this uplift will make the sector sustainable for the future as we build back a stronger and fairer society after the pandemic’.

A former judge at the International Criminal Court has been appointed by the attorney general to assist the Ukrainian government in investigating war crimes reportedly committed by Russia in Ukraine. Sir Howard Morrison QC will act as an independent adviser to the Ukrainian prosecutor general, Iryna Venediktova.Called to the bar in 1977, Morrison was a circuit judge prior to his appointment to the International Criminal Court and the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. He acted as a trial judge in the case of the former president of Bosnia, Radovan Karadzic, who was given life imprisonment for genocide.  Morrison’s latest appointment is funded by the Attorney General’s Office. Earlier this month, Suella Braverman QC, signed a joint statement of support with Ukraine’s prosecutor general, reinforcing the UK’s dedication to assisting the gathering of evidence of crimes which could include war crimes and crimes against humanity. Braverman stated:  ‘It has been a privilege to work with Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Iryna Venediktova, my admiration for her courage and determination grows with every meeting. The UK is committed to showing that the atrocities we see being committed day after day in Ukraine will not be forgotten and that those giving or following illegal orders will be tracked down and held to account.’‘I am pleased to offer Sir Howard’s expert help and I will continue to do all I can as attorney general to support Ukraine’s journey to justice against Russia.’Venediktova commented: ‘Sir Howard’s experience and knowledge of international criminal law speaks louder than words and his help will be taken up immediately on a number of issues.’

A top family practitioner has requested the government to prolong a voucher scheme designed to support the use of mediation to settle family disputes outside of court, after referrals plummeted after the 2013 legal aid cuts.The Ministry of Justice launched the £1m voucher scheme last March, and it was extended with an additional £800,000 in August.A member of the Law Society’s family law committee, Solicitor Jo O’Sullivan, informed a webinar this month that approximately 6,608 vouchers have been issued, and around 400 are left to hand out until the end of this month.‘There has been no word yet about an extension. We’re all hoping there will be an extension,’ she informed the webinar, hosted by co-parenting support service Our Family Wizard.The ministry confirmed that by 13 March, 6,850 families have benefited from the scheme and the department anticipates 7,000 will have used it by the end of the financial year. It has been suggested by Family Mediation Council survey data that 65% of separated parents reached a partial or whole agreement, and did not attend court. An additional 3% only needed to attend court to secure a consent order to formalise their agreement.An MoJ spokesperson stated: ‘We launched this scheme to spare more children and parents the stress of courtroom battles and are thrilled to see nearly 7,000 families have benefited from our vouchers. The popularity of the scheme has helped ease pressure on the courts and any announcements on funding will be made in due course.’Dominic Raab, Justice secretary has made apparent he hopes to see more family disputes resolved outside ofcourt.

The Ministry of Justice has refused to divulge whether senior ministers have conversed imposing sanctions on City law firms acting for Russian clients.Last week, Steve Reed MP, the shadow justice secretary, questioned Dominic Raab, lord chancellor, ‘whether he has had discussions with cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of sanctioning law firms working for Russian clients with cases in the English court system’.James Cartlidge MP, junior justice minister, responded on behalf of the MoJ, saying: ‘Discussions on sanctions remain ongoing, but it is an important aspect of the rule of law that individuals can access legal advice.’He said that lawyers who advise those subject to sanctions should acquire a licence from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OSFI) and ‘operate under strict rules’, further noting: ‘There are severe penalties for breaches, including fines and potential imprisonment.‘Many UK law firms are taking a strong stance against the deplorable actions of Russia and those linked to Putin’s regime, including winding down operations in Russia, reviewing client lists and carefully considering new work.’Reed also questioned  Raab what conversation he has had with the chancellor of the exchequer or the OFSI ‘on the matter of law firms representing clients that are linked directly or indirectly to the Russian state with pending legal cases in the English judicial system’.In his reply, Cartlidge noted that MoJ officials are in ‘regular discussions’ with the OFSI and ‘other agencies and regulators to ensure the sanctions regime is adhered to in the legal services market’.He also mentioned Solicitors Regulation Authority guidance which prompted solicitors of their legal requirements and professional obligations.Cartlidge also added: ‘Legal sector regulators are coming together rapidly to look at what can be done to further improve the enforcement of the restrictions under the current sanction and anti-money laundering regime. They are already stepping up compliance monitoring and enforcement activity.’

In a critical report this week on the 2020 Coronavirus Act, MPs have recommended that the government should prepare for future emergencies with a draft legislation – and give to parliament to examine ahead of use.The process was criticised by the cross-party Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee because the act was passed two years ago, with a minimal parliamentary sitting time of just three days. However, the ‘take it or leave it’ nature of six-monthly votes to resume the act meant that MPs could not object to individual powers.It discovered that the draft Pandemic Flu Bill, on which the Coronavirus Act was based, never made public knowledge and did not receive any parliamentary inspection.The report also states that the government should have avoided issuing advice for Covid-19 restrictions which revoke legislation as it bypasses parliamentary scrutiny and results in confusion amongst the public and law enforcement.While understanding the government’s keynote that it is not possible to project what a future emergency may entail, it pushes the government ‘to look again at the possibility of introducing a piece or range of draft legislation to allow for prior scrutiny of plans before an emergency occurs’. William Wragg MP, the committee chair, stated: ‘It is unsatisfactory that since the Coronavirus Act was passed, in just three sitting days in March 2020, parliament has been unable to substantively debate its provisions as was promised during its passage. Strong and broad powers such as those in the act must be accompanied by equally robust parliamentary scrutiny mechanisms, particularly in a rapidly evolving public health emergency.’The report suggests that the proportionality and necessity of each of the powers in the Coronavirus Act be evaluated as part of the upcoming public inquiry. It requested the government to provide further detail on the timetable for the inquiry, emphasising it should be completed in a ‘timely manner’.