New initiative launched by Sentencing Council

A new interactive website has been launched that allows member of the public to hand down their own sentences in real criminal cases.

‘You be the Judge‘, created by the Sentencing Council, lets users take on the position of a judge or magistrate to sentence defendants based upon the facts of real cases.

The platform features a range of offences, and offers budding benchers an insight into the facts, aggravation, and mitigation of each one, before allowing viewers to select their own sentence.

Each case is based upon a real set of facts, with offences such as fraud, possession with intent to supply a class A drug, possession of a bladed article, robbery, assault on an emergency worker, and possession of a firearm all on the roster.

The scenarios also inform users of the actual sentence in the case, with the aim of the scheme being to help improve public understanding of the sentencing process.

Lord Justice William Davis, chair of the Sentencing Council, commented: “You be the Judge gives the public a unique opportunity to see for themselves how complex the sentencing process is and how sentencing guidelines help judges and magistrates take a consistent approach.”

Lady Chief Justice, Lady Carr, added:

“The Judiciary of England and Wales supports the Sentencing Council’s new initiative to increase the public’s understanding of how sentencing works. Judges and magistrates make decisions based on the individual circumstances of the cases before them, and You be the Judge is a great way to encourage greater understanding of these decisions.”

Worked with group of ‘corrupt legal professionals’

A barrister and part-time immigration tribunal judge has been handed a three-year jail sentence for his part in a £1.8 million legal aid fraud.

Rasib Ghaffar, 54, conspired with legal clerk Gazi Khan, solicitor advocate Azar Khan, and solicitor Joseph Kyeremeh to defraud the taxpayer through submitting false legal aid claims, according to a statement released by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The offences relate back to a string of cases in 2011 and 2012 where the gang submitted false defendants’ costs orders, seeking to claim inflated legal costs back through legal aid.

Ghaffar’s case centred on four claims arising from separate defendants who were acquitted. The claims totalled £1,856,584, of which £469,477 (25%) was paid out.

Of this, Ghaffar was responsible for a fee note in his name for £184,000, relating to over 350 hours of purported work. The evidence, however, showed that he had only been instructed seven days before the conclusion of the case.

Gazi Khan, described by a CPS statement as “the leader in this criminal operation” has also been convicted of fraud offences relating to fraudulent defence cost orders.

In one of the cases the firm City Law Solicitors, of which Azar Khan was the principle partner, started work on a case around 10 weeks before its conclusion. Despite this short time frame the firm claimed to have carried out 500 hours of work, costing over £162,000.

The real giveaway? The firm backdated the work it said it had done to include “a long period when it was not instructed to represent any defendant”, resulting in a £93,000 payout through legal aid.

Kyeremeh, another partner in the same firm, claimed for 650 hours work at a value of over £176,000, with £60,000 coming from public funds.

Malcolm McHaffie of the CPS commented: “These convicted defendants defrauded the Legal Aid Agency for their own purposes. They fraudulently took advantage of a statutory scheme which was designed to help acquitted defendants with their genuinely incurred legal costs.”

“The Metropolitan Police and the CPS worked closely together to bring these corrupt legal professionals to justice and are now facing the consequences of their wrongdoing,” McHaffie said.

“The CPS will now commence confiscation proceedings in order to reclaim the defendants’ proceeds derived from the fraud,” he added.

Ghaffar was jailed for three years, Gazi Khan received a five-year sentence, and Azar Khan was sentenced to two years, suspended for two years. Kyeremeh was also given a two-year suspended sentence.”

Breached guidance

A Deputy Senior District Judge has been issued with a formal warning after “accidentally” liking an anti-Israel post on LinkedIn.

Tanweer Ikram CBE has been handed the sanction for inadvertently liking a post by a barrister which read: “Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist both in the United Kingdom, the United States and of course Israel, you can run, you can bomb but you cannot hide — justice will be coming for you.”

The incident first came to light in a news article published on February 14, and the next day, Judge Ikram referred himself to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO), stating that he had liked the post in error.

The JCIO received over 60 complaints about the incident, 43 of which were referred to a nominated judge for further consideration.

During the investigation, Judge Ikram acknowledged that inadvertently liking the post had raised concerns about his impartiality. He also admitted that he had not familiarised himself with the latest social media guidance for judges but stressed that he had not intended to like the post, describing it as “repulsive.”

The guide to judicial conduct prohibits political activity by salaried judges and cautions them about the risks of participating in public debate. The social media guidance for the judiciary also warns against activities that could undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality.

This includes judges not using their official title as “it is most unlikely to be appropriate to disclose the fact of your judicial role on any platform or account with unrestricted public access”.

The nominated judge found that Judge Ikram had breached judicial social media guidance by identifying himself as a judge on LinkedIn, although concluded that he had triggered a like accidentally.

The judge further concluded that this “had resulted in a perception of bias,” drawing attention to the inference made between the LinkedIn like and a case heard by Judge Ikram involving pro-Palestinian protesters.

“The risk of undermining public confidence had been heightened by the fact that he had identified himself on social media as a judge,” the decision states.

Whilst the nominated judge recommended formal advice the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice were “not satisfied” with this, and issued the more serious formal warning.

“In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that, in addition to having breached the guidance on social media use, the judge’s actions caused significant reputational damage to the judiciary, as evidenced by the extraordinary number of complaints made to the JCIO. They also considered it important for their decision to underline their shared view on the seriousness of misuse of social media by judges.”

Lords Sumption and Collins

Two of the UK’s leading former judges have resigned from Hong Kong’s top court.

Lords Sumption and Collins have both stepped back from their roles as non-permanent judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.

Lord Collins, appointed to the court in 2011 at the end of a two-year stint in the House of Lords and then Supreme Court, cited the “political situation” as the reason for stepping back from his role in Hong Kong.

“I have resigned from the Court of Final Appeal because of the political situation in Hong Kong, but I continue to have the fullest confidence in the Court and the total independence of its members,” Lord Collins said.

Lord Sumption, who joined the court in 2019, has not yet issued a statement.

Hong Kong chief justice Andrew Cheung acknowledged the resignations “with regret”, before reiterating “the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and judicial independence in Hong Kong”.

“Suitable candidates from overseas common law jurisdictions will continue to be appointed to the Court”, he added.

Prominent former UK judges Lord Hoffmann, Lord Neuberger, and Lord Phillips still sit in Hong Kong on a non-permanent basis.

Back in 2022 two current members of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed and Lord Hodge, stepped down from the Hong Kong court, stating that the administration had “departed from values of political freedom, and freedom of expression”.

In recent years a number of law firms have also cut ties or amended their operations in China and Hong Kong. Earlier this year Latham & Watkins changed data access for lawyers in its Hong Kong office, with Dentons last year cutting legal ties with its Chinese partner, Dacheng Law Offices (大成), citing “recent Chinese government mandates on Chinese law firms”.

Update: June 11 — 08:32am

Lord Sumption has now commented on his decision to step down, starting that Hong Kong “is slowly becoming a totalitarian state”. You can read his full response here.

Shouted at legal rep throughout hearing, judicial body finds

A district judge has been issued with a formal warning after being “sarcastic and condescending” towards a legal representative during a hearing.

District Judge Najma Mian was reprimanded for her actions in a family law matter after the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) received a complaint from a litigant.

While not all aspects of the complaint were substantiated during a subsequent investigation, a judge did find that Judge Mian was “sarcastic and condescending and had shouted at and interrupted the representative on many occasions throughout the hearing”.

Explaining her actions, Judge Mian said that she had “repeatedly tried to move the case forward”, eventually showing frustration when faced with the same issues as previous hearings.

She considered that “she had taken a robust view on the evidence before the court and did not accept the findings of the nominated judge,” according to a notice published by the JCIO.

However, both the Lady Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor accepted the findings of the JCIO and issued the judge a “formal warning”. Consideration was given to a previous incident in 2021 where Judge Main was criticised in an appeal judgment for showing anger and sarcasm during another hearing, the notice states.

The guide to judicial conduct reminds judges to be courteous, patient, tolerant and to respect the dignity of all. They should also ensure that their conduct maintains and enhances public confidence in the judiciary.

Main isn’t the first judge to find themselves in hot water in recent months. Back in March, a judge was given formal advice after being accused of telling a barrister to “chill out”.

Nearly 30%

Judges and barristers have the largest gender pay gap of any profession in the UK, according to new research.

With an average pay difference of £8.31 per hour, judges and barristers top the list of largest gender pay gaps with a difference of 29.1%.

Taking data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the research looked at the median hourly earnings of 156,000 men and women, 1% of the UK workforce, across a range of professions.

Coming in second were financial managers and directors, with women paid on average £11.56 less per hour. With higher salaries, however, this leaves the percentage gap just below that of judges and barristers at 28.8%.

Ranked third by the Claims.co.uk report was web design professionals, with women paid 27.7% less.

Jobs with the largest gender pay gaps in the UK

1. Barristers and judges – 29.1%
2. Financial managers and directors – 28.8%
3. Web design professionals – 27.7%
4. Production, factory and assembly supervisors – 26%
5. Assemblers (vehicles and metal goods) – 23.5%
6. Vehicle technicians, mechanics and electricians – 22.4%
7. Education managers – 22%
8. Nursery education teaching professionals – 21.2%
9. Production managers and directors in construction – 21%
10. Newspaper and periodical journalists and reporters – 20.6%

Trialing more formality amid safety concerns

Judges sitting in the Central Family Court will don their robes during hearings as part of a trial to see if more formality is needed in the family courts.

The trial began on Monday this week, and comes after growing concern about “incidents of violent and threatening behaviour experienced by judges and other court users”, HM Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has said.

Wigs won’t be worn however, and lawyers will not be expected to wear robes.

As part of the trial, a survey will be conducted to assess if robing makes a difference to family court proceedings. The survey will look at the number of behavioural incidents experienced and judges’ perceptions of their own authority and safety.

The three month pilot scheme has been approved by president of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane.

The senior judge hit headlines just last week after adjudicating a case concerning the accidental order for divorce by top London family law firm Vardags after a junior lawyer “click[ed] the wrong button”.

Response to earlier letter calling for weapons ban

Two former Supreme Court justices have joined over 1,000 lawyers in signing an open letter urging Rishi Sunak to resist calls for an arms embargo on Israel.

The letter comes in response to another open letter published last week that called for a halt on weapons exports, sanctions to be levelled against Israeli individuals and entities, and for the UK to seek a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

This latest letter, published by UK Lawyers For Israel (UKLIF), states that its signatories are “extremely concerned” by what they describe as the “inaccuracy of the facts and law” in the previous letter. The earlier letter’s interpretation of the January 26 provisional order of the International Court of Justice is “incorrect”, according to UKLIF, both in regards to what the court found, and whether this is, in any event, binding on the UK.

The letter continues by laying out the UK’s obligations under international law. “Demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire at this time would undermine current negotiations between Israel, the US, Qatar, Egypt and Hamas to secure the release of hostages and a temporary ceasefire,” it states.

“There is no justification for imposing sanctions on individuals or entities without any findings or evidence of serious misconduct by them,” the letter continues. It also argues there is no justification for suspending the sale of weapons to Israel “without evidence of systematic violation by Israel of international law”.

Signatories include former Supreme Court justices Lords Dyson and Collins, former member of the Inner House of the Court of Session (Scotland’s Court of Appeal) Lady Cosgrove, Lord Macdonald, former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Wolfson, the former justice minister, and a selection of former Court of Appeal and tribunal judges.

Also on the list are a host of top KCs, including heavyweights Lords Pannick and Grabiner, as well as academics, barristers, and solicitors from across the UK.

Open letter

Four former Supreme Court justices are among the 600 lawyers and legal academics who have signed an open letter to the Prime Minister, urging the UK to halt the export of weapons to Israel.

The 17-page letter sent to Rishi Sunak this week highlights “significant developments” concerning the ongoing situation in Gaza, and goes on to remind the government of its obligations under international law.

These developments include the January 26 provisional order of the International Court of Justice, which the signatories say supports their view that there is “a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza”. It also notes the the UN and international aid agencies’ warnings of “imminent famine”.

Notable signatories to the letter include former Supreme Court president Baroness Hale, along with Lords Wilson, Sumption, Carnwath, and several former Court of Appeal judges, nearly 70 KCs, and over 240 solicitors. A host of legal academics from various law schools across the country have also endorsed the letter.

It goes on to say that the UK government is obligated under international law to undertake five actions, including “suspend[ing] the provision of weapons” to Israel and “impos[ing] sanctions upon individuals and entities who have made statements inciting genocide against Palestinians”.

It further urges Sunak to effectively work towards securing a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and to take all available measures to ensure the safe delivery of aid

The signatories also call for the 2030 Road Map for UK-Israel bilateral relations to be suspended and to “initiate a review into the suspension of the UK’s bilateral trade agreement with Israel and consider the imposition of sanctions”.

There have been several open letters penned by lawyers in relation to the Israel-Hamas conflict.

A group of Jewish lawyers, including former Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger, called on Israel to be guided by international law in its response to the Hamas terror attacks. The group recognised that Israel has a right to self-defense, but it also stated that “just as international law provides the means for categorising and criminalising the barbaric acts of Hamas, so too does it provide a framework for governing how Israel must respond”.

Elsewhere, in another open letter back in November 2023, a group some 800 lawyers urged the government to urgently advocate for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.

Follows two complaints

A judge has been issued with formal advice after engaging in “politically controversial issues” on social media.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) initiated an investigation into Recorder Simon Myerson’s behaviour on Twitter, now known as X, following two complaints from unnamed individuals. These complaints concerned a series of posts that the individuals found “offensive”.

In reaching its decision, the JCIO said it considered that Myerson “identified his judicial status in historic tweets, engaged in politically controversial issues, sometimes in an offensive manner, and failed to maintain the standards of his judicial office”.

Social media guidance issued to judges advises them to avoid participation in online debates about the judiciary, legal system or other topics of “political controversy”. It also reminds judges to maintain the moral authority, integrity, decorum and dignity of their judicial office.

The public notice from the JCIO does not offer additional details regarding the content of the posts.

Myerson has attracted over 20,000 followers since joining X in 2012.

Apparently mimicked TV character

A judge has been issued with formal advice after allegedly telling a barrister to “chill out”.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) said that the unnamed barrister had complained that His Honour Judge Nigel Gerald had apparently behaved in a “rude and aggressive manner” towards him.

The complaint also included the allegation that the judge told him to “chill out” and that he had “mimicked him [the barrister] in the style of a character from a television sitcom”.

The investigation that followed noted that while not all the allegations were made out, the judge had been “discourteous” by “raising his voice” and exhibiting “a degree of contempt” for counsel’s submissions.

The statement notes that the judge accepted the findings, expressing his apologies and regret for his behaviour.

The Guide to Judicial Conduct reminds judges to be courteous, patient, tolerant and to respect the dignity of all. They should also ensure that their conduct maintains and enhances public confidence in the judiciary.

The JCIO’s public notice does not provide further specifics of the allegations or what the “formal advice” issued to the judge consisted of.

Face calls to cancel membership

A host of top judges and lawyers are reportedly members of The Garrick Club, an exclusive male-only establishment in London.

The Guardian newspaper reports that the clubs membership includes five appellate court judges, eight High Court judges, a number of retired judges, senior solicitors, and around 150 leading barristers.

Supreme Court judge David Richards is said be a member, according to the report, as is Julian Flaux (head of the chancery division), Keith Lindblom (senior president of the tribunals), Andrew Moylan, Peter Coulson, and Charles Haddon-Cave (chair of the independent inquiry on Afghanistan).

Perhaps best known are former Supreme Court heavyweights Jonathan Sumption, and former president, David Neuberger.

In light of the news, a group of some 65 legal professionals, including 13 KCs, has urged judges members to resign from the club with “immediate effect”. The open letter argues that the Garrick Club “embodies a social and gendered ideology that starkly contrasts with the reality of the modern courtroom”.

It has additionally been reported this week that an opinion produced by Blackstone Chambers super silk David Pannick KC has said that the club does not, by its language used, exclude the admission of women.

In a document commissioned by club members who are seeking to admit women into the establishment, the top silk and his legal team shed some light on the phraseology and wording of the clubs historic documents.

“In our view, the language of the rules is clear. There is no prohibition on the admission of female members”, the opinion reportedly states. “There is nothing in the language of the rules which excludes the admission of women as members. Indeed… there is no restriction of the proposal of candidates for membership to men.”

Discussing the frequent use of “he” throughout the relevant rules, Pannick’s team argue that, “although the language … is phrased by reference to the masculine (‘No candidate shall be eligible unless he be proposed’), it is entirely within the ordinary use of English language that a reference to the masculine denotes the feminine unless the context otherwise requires.”

Law students will be familiar with cases, statutes, and commentators using a single gendered pronoun to describe hypothetical circumstances which could apply to a person of any gender.

And, Pannick adds, whilst there is one example of the use of “he/she” when referring to the club secretary, there is no apparent reason for this, the addition potentially coming at a time when a female secretary was contemplated or in post, or to ensure compliance with employment law. However, “that would not in itself suggest that there is any objective doubt over whether a member can be female by the absence of alternative pronouns”.

This opinion is not the first of its kind commissioned by members. There have been two previous legal opinions, both produced by fellow leading Blackstone barrister Michael Beloff KC. Whilst the first of these in 2011 suggested that the club did exclude women, a more recent opinion in 2022 is reported to have found the opposite.

Readers may recognise Lord Pannick from a host of constitutional and administrative law cases, or as the barrister who was rumoured to be making as much as £5,000 an hour when representing Manchester City last year, with fans displaying a large banner in honour of his work.

Recognising achievements on International Women’s Day

This International Women’s Day, Legal Cheek is paying homage to women icons in law — both past and present. It marks the perfect moment to spotlight the women that have disrupted, pioneered and blazed a path for women in the law in 2024. We’ve created a list of the most inspiring and decorated ladies in the law, from the early 20th century through to today.

Lady Hale

No women in law piece could ever be complete without the inclusion of the former “Beyonce of the Supreme Court” herself, Baroness Brenda Hale. This legal pioneer is the first in many respects. Not only was she the first woman to be appointed a Supreme Court judge in 2009, she was also the first woman to be appointed to the Law Commission in 1984, and the first woman president of the Supreme Court in 2017. Whilst her incredible achievements solidify her role as woman trailblazer in law, she has not shied away from vulnerability.

In her 2021 biography Spider Woman, an ode to her iconic spider brooch, she talks in length about how imposter syndrome affected her throughout her shiny career. Fundamental to the infamous R (on the application of Miller and another)(2017) judgment, Hale cemented her legacy in the Supreme Court as a guardian of the British constitution. Reaching the mandatory retirement age, Hale retired from the Supreme Court in 2020. 

Amal Clooney

A child refugee arriving in the UK with her family from Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War, Amal Clooney is now a renowned international human rights and criminal lawyer.

Clooney advocates for clients in front of the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights. Specialising in representing victims of mass atrocities, including genocide and sexual violence, she currently acts as legal counsel for a group of Iraqi victims from the Yazidi community. The Yazidi community, including Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Nadia Murad, are seeking justice for crimes committed by ISIS.

An iconic and heroic figure for many aspiring lawyers worldwide, Clooney co-founded the Clooney Foundation for Justice in 2016 with her actor husband, George Clooney.

Dame Linda Dobbs

As the first non-white person to be appointed to the senior judiciary, Dame Linda Dobbs is an irrefutable British woman icon in law. Appointed as a High Court judge in the Queen’s Bench Division in 2004, Dobbs served for nine years in the role until 2013.

These days, Dobbs is actively involved in various boards and advisory panels, and she has been awarded six honorary doctorates in law. Currently, Dame Linda holds the position of Senior Fellow in the Law Department at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) and serves as the Pro Chancellor at the University of Surrey.

Raffia Arshad

Paving the way for diversity in the judiciary, Raffia Arshad became the first Hijab-wearing judge in Britain. Appointed in 2020, Arshad practices family law in the Midland Circuit with a professional focus on areas such as child law, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and cases involving Islamic law issues. A mother of three, Arshad is an inspiration to mothers everywhere and an iconic figure paving the way for Muslim representation on the bench.

Georgia Dawson

The first ever woman to take the lead at a Magic Circle firm, Georgia Dawson is a heroine of City law. She was elected senior partner at Freshfields in 2020. While Dawson holds the distinction of being the first woman to lead a Magic Circle law firm, she is not the initial female leader in a prominent City role. Notable predecessors include Lesley MacDonagh, who achieved the milestone in 1995 by becoming the first woman elected as managing partner at a top-ten City firm, Lovell White Durrant (now Hogan Lovells). Additionally, Penelope Warne currently serves as the UK chairman and senior partner at CMS, contributing to the legacy of female leadership in major City players.

Speaking to Legal Cheek in 2023, Dawson offered her advice to women lawyers everywhere.

“I would encourage women seeking a career in law to be brave and seize opportunities as they present themselves. The profession has made progress with representation, but we know there is still much to do; a major part of that stems from younger generations driving the momentum. Be an ally and support each other.”

I. Stephanie Boyce

Making British history as the first Black president of the Law Society of England and Wales’ in 2021, I. Stephanie Boyce is cemented as Black woman icon in the law. A criminal KC by trade, Boyce now acts on the Board of Trustees for Justice following her departure from the Law Society in 2022.

Lubna Shuja

Following on from I. Stephanie Boyce, Lubna Shuja became the first Asian and Muslim president of the Law Society. A qualified solicitor and mediator, Shuja is a keynote speaker and chair of various committees following the end of her Presidency.

Madge Easton Anderson

It would be remiss, in spotlighting British iconic women in the law, if we failed to mention those who paved the way for women in the legal industry. Madge Easton Anderson is without a doubt one of those icons. A Scottish lawyer, Anderson was the first ever woman to be admitted to practise, qualifying as a lawyer in Scotland in 1920, following the introduction of The Sex Disqualification Removal Act (1919). This Act officially provided that no woman should be disqualified from entering into the legal profession, overruling the infamous Court of Appeal judgment of Bebb v Law Society (1914) which upheld the position of the Law Society in refusing to allow women to take qualifying law exams.

Helena Normanton QC

The first ever woman to practise as a barrister, Helena Normanton QC was admitted to the Middle Temple the day after the passing of The Sex Disqualification Removal Act (1919). An advocate for women’s rights and suffrage, Normanton also achieved the milestone of becoming the first married woman in Britain to possess a passport in her maiden name. She was strong in her belief that men and women should maintain separate ownership of their money and property.

Eye-catching

A leading fashion designer has taken inspiration from some of the world’s leading female figures in law for her latest Autumn-Winter collection – but lawyers beware; you probably won’t be appearing at your local Crown Court in this garb anytime soon.

Designer Yuhan Wang recently debuted her latest collection — dubbed ‘The Trials’ and inspired by “women in law, and how they’ve shaped our history” — at a swish fashion show at London’s Old Selfridges Hotel.

Vogue debuts a new look for lady lawyers … “inspired by women in law, and how they’ve shaped our history, citing US Supreme Court justices … as well as British judge Brenda Hale”. Imagine trundling a wheelie case from railway station to court and addressing a judge in this? pic.twitter.com/5xAckgjBH4

— Barbara Rich (@BarbaraRich_law) February 21, 2024

In Wang’s collection, the courtroom is the new catwalk. Evoking judicial garb (but make it slay), a raunchy take on a traditional High Court robe featured in the show is fashioned entirely from sheer black lace. Exaggerated colonial-esque collars and floral ruffle cuffs meet a sea of hot pants and lace garters. Showing how silk can truly take Silk, Wang’s muses include Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O’Conner and, of course, Baroness Brenda Hale.

Will Hale soon forgo her iconic spider brooch for a sheer lace camisole?

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by yuhan wang (@yuhanwangyuhan)

Wang is a London-based designer and graduate from Central St Martins, a London arts and design college, who created her brand Yuhan Wang in 2018. Speaking to Vogue, Wang explains that her new collection for February 2024, “[is] really a celebration of their confidence and courage, their contribution to women’s social status and their work around the elimination of gender discrimination.”

This ready-to-wear fall collection is now available on the shelves, ripe for the picking by more avant-garde lawyers. If less is truly more, then it may become trial by style in the Royal Courts of Justice.

What could possibly go wrong?

Judges have received new guidance on the use of AI tools in courts. The report, which was produced for all judicial office holders, noted the potential uses of AI, while focusing on the risks that new tech presents.

For summarising or administrative tasks, the guidance states that judges may find AI tools useful. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and the country’s second most senior judge, added that AI provides “great opportunities for the justice system”, and the potential to help develop “a better, quicker and more cost-effective digital justice system”.

“But”, he noted, “because it’s so new we need to make sure that judges at all levels understand [it properly]”. “Technology will only move forwards and the judiciary has to understand what is going on. Judges, like everybody else, need to be acutely aware that AI can give inaccurate responses as well as accurate ones.”

In conducting research, the guidance is clear that AI bots are “not recommended”. The information these tools provide, the guidance continues, “may be inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or out of date.” Concern was also shown for AI’s tendency to rely heavily on US caselaw. “Even if it purports to represent English law” the document says, “it may not do so.”

Elsewhere in the guidance there was concern over potential privacy risks, with judges instructed that any detail they give to a public AI tool “should be seen as being published to all the world”.

The use of deepfake technology to forge evidence was also referenced. This was highlighted in another recent report by the SRA, stating that this manufacturing of evidence using AI had already been in contention in UK cases.

Last week, a tax tribunal found as fact that nine cases presented by a litigant in person had unknowingly been fabricated by “an AI system such as ChatGPT”. Whilst ultimately being sniffed out, and having no impact on the case at hand, “providing authorities which are not genuine and asking a court or tribunal to rely on them is a serious and important issue”, the tribunal said.

Nice work if you can get it

A High Court judge is set to take the somewhat unusual step of sampling rival ciders as part of an ongoing trademark dispute between Thatchers and Aldi.

In the High Court case, concerning Thatchers cloudy lemon cider and Aldi’s Taurus brand, the German retailer has been accused of “riding on the coat tails” of Thatcher’s success.

In claiming that the Aldi product had damaged Thatchers’ trademark, Martin Howe KC, for Thatchers, asked Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke to conduct a blind taste test of the two drinks, The Law Society Gazette reports.

Having conducted a similar experiment himself, along with his junior and a pupil, the KC argued that “[the products] do taste materially different, at least to a substantial number of people, and that will skew the public appreciation of the product and therefore damage the trademark.”

Whilst agreeing to this request, HHJ Clarke declined to do so in court. “I have a no-alcohol while sitting rule” she went on. Howe’s suggestion that the cider was in fact not particularly strong, coming in at 4% alcohol, was met with a simple remark that that was “strong enough”.

Instead, the ciders will be sent to Oxford for Clarke to try in private.

Speaking elsewhere during the case, Howe claimed that Aldi has received an “unfair advantage” due to the similarity of the branding and packaging of the two drinks.

“This has given Aldi an advantage”, he said. “They do not seem to have promoted this product but have achieved very large sales from a standing start and that was, in essence, their plan all along, which was to use the similarity between the appearance of the products.”

Aldi denies any intention to deceive customers. The trial continues.

Open letter comes in response to Hamas terror attacks

Former Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger has written an open letter with seven other senior legal figures, calling on Israel to be guided by international law in its response to the Hamas terror attacks.

The group, all of whom are Jewish, also includes barristers Philippe Sands KC, Richard Hermer KC, Danny Friedman KC, Anthony Metzer KC, Jon Turner KC and Adam Wagner, as well as Oxford University professor Sandra Fredman.

The prominent group began their letter to the Financial Times (£) by stating that they write both as Jews and as lawyers. “In these darkest of days, we write to emphasise the importance of international law as a guide to all,” they say. “The despicable actions of Hamas are not simply a moral outrage but an egregious violation of all norms of international law.”

“There are no possible defences to these crimes — whatever the context, there is no room for legal, let alone moral, equivocation,” the letter continues.

Noting that Israel has a right under international law to self-defence, the group states that, “just as international law provides the means for categorising and criminalising the barbaric acts of Hamas, so too does it provide a framework for governing how Israel must respond.”

“These laws apply irrespective of the level of outrageous conduct of an enemy and no exceptions to those rules can be derived from the level of suffering caused by Hamas’s actions,” the letter states.

Whilst noting that “emotions are understandably raw”, and that “many might be reluctant to remind Israel of its international law obligations”, the writers disagree. “In these times of pain and terror,” they say, “the notion that there are laws that we must all live by is challenging but essential.”

Lady Justice Simler joins top bench

Lady Justice Simler has been appointed the newest member of the Supreme Court.

Dame Ingrid Simler will join the top bench on 14 November 2023, the court announced yesterday. She replaces Lord Kitchin who retired last month, leaving the court a justice short.

The King made the appointment on the advice of the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor, following the recommendations of and independent selection commission.

The mother-of-four was called to bar in 1987, having studied law at Cambridge University. She was a tenant at London’s Devereux Chambers and went on to lead the set before becoming a judge.

In 2002 she was appointed a recorder and was elevated to the role of deputy High Court judge in 2010. She was sworn in as a Lady Justice of the Court of Appeal in June 2019.

Welcoming the announcement, the president of the Supreme Court, Lord Reed, said:

“I am delighted to welcome Lady Justice Simler as a Justice to the Supreme Court. She will bring exceptional experience and ability to the Court following a distinguished career as a barrister and Judge. Her experience in employment law, tax, public law and criminal law will be highly valuable to the Supreme Court and will further strengthen us as a world-leading Court.”

Lady Justice Simler’s appointment means the top bench now consists of 10 men and two women — Lady Rose being the only other female justice.

Earlier this month the Supreme Court came under fire for its lack of diversity after an image of the justices celebrating the opening of the new legal year was posted online.

‘Judicial bullying’

A senior judge has been issued with a formal warning after he was found to have behaved in a “rude and hostile manner” towards a barrister during a hearing.

The Court of Appeal’s Lord Justice Clive Lewis “intervened excessively” in the unnamed barrister’s submissions throughout the hearing, in a manner which became “increasingly harsh and rude” and to the extent that it constituted “judicial bullying”.

The experienced judge had accepted he had allowed his frustrations at the hearing to show and reflected that he should have handled matters differently, according to a finding published by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). He apologised at the hearing.

A spokesperson for the JCIO said the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor agreed to issue the judge with a formal warning, after “they took into consideration the mitigation offered… including his apology and commitment to learn from the experience and adjust his behaviour in future”.

No further details about the incident were provided.

Lord Justice Lewis called to the bar in 1987 and began practice in 1992 with a focus judicial review and public law matters. He was appointed to the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division (now King’s Bench Division) in 2013 and was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in October 2020.

Lady Chief Justice

History was made this morning as Dame Sue Carr became the first woman ever to head up the judiciary of England and Wales.

Carr was officially appointed the country’s first Lady Chief Justice at a special swearing in ceremony this morning at the Royal Courts of Justice. She is the 98th person to hold this historic office and the first woman.

The new LCJ was joined by her family who were invited to witness the historic ceremony, which was live-streamed on YouTube for the first time ever.

Dame Sue Carr today becomes, and will be known as, the LCJ of England and Wales.

She will be the President of the Courts of England and Wales and Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales.

She is the 98th person to hold this office and the first woman. pic.twitter.com/GhtrQf9xhK

— Judicial Office (@JudiciaryUK) October 2, 2023

Commenting on her appointment, Carr said:

“It is a great privilege to assume this role. I would like to pay tribute to Lord Burnett who has demonstrated extraordinary resilience and leadership during a time of great change, including keeping the courts running during the pandemic. He has personally given so much to the law and to the judiciary.”

She continued: “I do not underestimate the challenges that lie ahead, and I look forward to approaching the role with energy, enthusiasm, and positivity. The rule of law is a fundamental constitutional principle which underpins an open, fair and peaceful society, where citizens and businesses can prosper. Our judges and magistrates are its cornerstone.”

Carr was called to the bar in 1987 and undertook pupillage at Brick Court Chambers and 2 Crown Office Row, now 4 New Square, where she became a tenant in 1988. She developed a broad commercial practice, taking silk in 2003.

Her judicial career began in 2009, when she was appointed a recorder. She was appointed a High Court judge in 2013 and a Court of Appeal judge in 2020.

Carr’s appointment follows the retirement of Lord Burnett who has held the office since 2017.