First Ed.
Table of Contents:
Latest News
Criminal Law
Commercial Law
Public Law
Civil Law
Family Law
This Month's Article for the Legally Curious
Pupillage and Mini-Pupillage Applications
Academic Articles and Links
Upcoming Events
Durham Bar Society Events
Upcoming Chambers Events
Access to the Bar
Editors
Latest News
Criminal Law
A brief introduction to criminal law:
Fundamentally, criminal law relates to crimes, the punishment they carry and the legal procedures surrounding their investigation, prosecution, and judgement. It encompasses the regulations established by legislative bodies to define unlawful conduct and prescribes the punishment for those found guilty. Criminal law covers a wide range of offences including, but not limited to theft, assault, murder, arson and white-collar crimes. Criminal law aims to protect individuals by maintaining public order and upholding the moral standards of society.
In The Chambers Chronicles, I hope to cover some of the latest updates and developments in criminal law. The first of which I will draw attention to is the progress of the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
New Victim and Prisoners Bill: Balancing Justice and Rehabilitation
The Victims and Prisoners Bill 2023[1], sponsored by Dominic Raab former Secretary of State for Justice, was introduced to the House of Commons on 29th March 2023. Since then, the bill has progressed through the House of Commons and now lies at the Committee Stage in the House of Lords, where suggested amendments to the bill will be openly debated and approved by members. The bill has the potential to significantly change the criminal justice system for both victims and prisoners alike.
Previous reform attempts for victims include the Victims Code enacted as part of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004[2]. The Code highlights the entitlements victims can expect to receive from the criminal justice system in terms of support through legal proceedings[3]. Nonetheless, Victims Support (a victim’s advocacy charity) estimates that six in ten victims are not receiving these rights under the code[4]. Thus, highlighting the need for an overhaul of the system.
To tackle the issues raised, the initial aims of the Victims and Prisoners Bill were to increase the transparency of the criminal justice system for victims and widen accessibility to support, by inscribing the Victim’s Code into law[5]. However, these early aims seem to have been overshadowed by increasing the powers of the state. For example, the bill proposes for the Secretary of State to overrule the parole board to make decisions about the release of those who have committed serious crimes[6].
Several prison reform activists have challenged the proposed bill and raised concerns for both victims and prisoners. A key contention raised by the Prison Reform Trust is the bill’s potential disregard of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, primary and subordinate legislation must be compatible with the convention[7]. This is because the bill allows for interpretation of the new parole clauses proposed including the judgement of the Secretary of the State[8]. The bill undermines the initial focus on the needs of victims and increasing support instead focusing on the state control of prisoners[9]. Women’s Aid highlighted that the Bill fails to acknowledge that a wide variety of victim support is needed, not just the sole usage of an Independent Domestic Violence Advisor[10].
It seems clear that at the next sitting of the committee stage on 12th March 2024, members have multiple considerations to make when debating the Victims and Prisoners Bill. The initial aims of the bill must not be forgotten, providing additional support for victims, and not obscured by the desire of the state to take control of the parole board system.
[1] Victims and Prisoners Bill HC Bill (2022-23, 2023-24) [31]
[2] Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 HC Bill (2003-04) [28]
[3] Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 HC Bill (2003-04) [28]
[4] Victim support , 'Victim Support- A commitment to victims ' (Victim Support , April 2017)<https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/documents/files/A-commitment-to-victims-2017.pdf>accessed 4 March 2024
[5] Victims and Prisoners Bill HC Bill (2022-23, 2023-24) [31]
[6] The law society, 'Parliamentary Briefing Victims and Prisoners Bill' (The Law Society Human Rights, 27 June 2023)<https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/human-rights/parliamentary-briefing-victims-and-prisoners> accessed 4 March 2024
[7] Human Rights Act 1988 cl 3(1)
[8] Howard league for penal reform, 'Victims and Prisoners Bill' (Howard League Briefing, 15 May 2023) <https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/HL-Victims-and-Prisoners-Bill-Briefing.pdf> accessed 4 March 2024
[9] ibid
[10] Isabelle Younane, 'Women's Aid responds to the Victims and Prisoners Bill' (Women's Aid , 29 March 2023)<https://www.womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-responds-to-the-victims-and-prisoners-bill/#:~:text=“This%20Bill%20fails%20to%20recognise,one%20type%20of%20victim%20support.> accessed 4 March 2024
Commercial Law
The Commercial Bar embodies a practice known for its cutthroat competition and formidable challenges, often conjuring images of venerable whitehead Oxbridge graduates striding through Temple's cloisters. Despite its intimidating and inaccessible facade, the allure of this formidable practice is undeniable, drawing in aspirants from all corners. What fuels this relentless pursuit?
One could argue that the appeal lies in the sheer dynamism of the Commercial Bar. From navigating complex legal frameworks to advocating for Fortune 500 behemoths, the spectrum of engagements promises both intellectual stimulation and creative expression. On the other hand, some would argue that the only draw is the tantalising prospect of the pupillage award, a tax-free windfall that greets fresh graduates with open arms. With titans of the Commercial Bar like Lord Panic reportedly commanding astronomical fees of 5k per hour, the allure of financial prosperity is undeniable.
Yet, beneath the façade of glamour and prosperity lies an arduous journey. Commercial Barristers often find themselves immersed in a whirlwind of written advocacy, crafting opinions and skeleton arguments with meticulous precision, punctuated by sporadic courtroom appearances once or twice a month. Due to the self-employed nature, the workload is undeniably demanding, requiring a blend of flexibility and persistent dedication to maintaining a semblance of work-life balance due to the unpredictability of the work.
At the heart of this practice lie the chambers, each a circuit and set having its own culture and reputation. In London's revered circuit, the likes of 3VB, Brick Court, Fountain Court and Essex Court are ranked first in accordance with Legal 500 and Chambers Guide due to their stellar rosters of silk and junior members. Thus, these chambers unofficially make up the “magic circle” of the Bar. Yet, arguably the aforementioned reputation of the Commercial Bar is very much prevalent here. One Essex court’s average pupil age in 2023 was 30 and had entered the bar as a second profession or extended period of education, while 3VB boasts an Oxbridge of 5/5 of all their latest members.
Yet, beyond the capital, Chambers like St Philips and No.5 are ranked first in the Midlands circuit. Although the pupillage awards sit lower at 50k, with lower levels of Oxbridge intake the chances at the regional bar become much higher and enticing. For the north, Kings Chambers is often regarded as the best based in Manchester and Leeds. This “northern powerhouse’s” members have represented the likes of Wayne Rooney in commercial litigation.
Ergo, nowadays the dramatic narrative of the Commercial Bar can unfold beyond the confines of London, revealing a landscape teeming with opportunity and diversity in the regional sectors. Whether in the bustling streets of Manchester or the tranquil corridors of Temple, the Commercial Bar beckons with promises of prestige, prosperity, and perhaps most importantly, the thrill of the legal battlefield.
Public Law
It seems like the obvious place to start, especially for the first edition of this newsletter: what is public law, and why is it important?
Put very simply, public law relates to the type of law which governs “the conduct of public bodies”. This type of law also governs the relationships between individuals and public bodies, as well as the relationships between the different public bodies themselves. Public law clearly differs to private law, the latter governing the relationships and conduct of private individuals.
Developments in UK public law are undeniably tied to developments in UK politics. The judiciary is clearly the legal branch of the political trio, but public law cases usually arise from political decisions, and are representative of the interplay between judiciary and government/Parliament. This is a key reason to keep up to date with public law judgements - they impact more than just ‘the law’!
Big political developments obviously get a lot of coverage in the media, and as a result, related court judgements also reach the headlines. Media channels can sometimes take the liberty of oversimplifying the legal/political context, to paint a certain picture of the courts. Keeping up with the legal context behind a certain political development not only broadens our general understanding of this development, but also allows us to scrutinise how the court-government relationship is presented in the media. Following key judgements in public law may even allow us to recognise when these representations of the courts potentially sensationalise the legal story. See, for example, the Daily Mail’s infamous ‘Enemies of the People Headline’, as a response to the first Miller judgement.
This section will look at important and current cases in public law, as a means of better understanding the current interplay between the judiciary and government. This edition will first explore the case law and legislation surrounding the government’s current Rwanda policy, before looking at the recent Court of Appeal decision regarding Shamima Begum’s citizenship status. Interestingly, the Rwanda judgement can be seen as a major defeat for the government, whereas the Begum judgement seems to bolster the government’s decision-making.
The Rwanda Judgement and the Government’s Response
The current Conservative government is currently attempting to form an agreement with Rwanda, whereby asylum seekers arriving in the UK would be sent to Rwanda. If an asylum seeker’s claim is successful, they can stay in Rwanda with refugee status; if not, they can either apply to stay on other grounds, or seek asylum in another “safe third country”. These asylum seekers would not be able to return to the UK.
The government’s scheme has since been challenged in the courts, and in 2023 the Supreme Court (in the ‘Rwanda’ judgement) ruled unanimously that the scheme was unlawful. The decision has since prompted much reaction from the government, seeking to revive their policies and prevent the courts from challenging them further.
In their judgement, the court found that the key issue is whether the government had abided by the general principle of non-refoulement, and not whether there were specific breaches of the ECHR and other conventions. Non-refoulement is the principle which “prohibits States from returning individuals to a country where there is a real risk of being subjected to persecution, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or any other human rights violation.”
The court did not accept the government’s insistence that Rwanda was a safe country to send asylum seekers to, and found that numerous risks to the safety of asylum seekers (see paras [75]-[100]) had not been mitigated at the time of the proceedings.
Rishi Sunak’s response shows that he is dedicated to enforcing his Rwanda policy, and the government has introduced two key measures to reverse the court’s decision. Firstly, the UK has signed a new treaty with Rwanda, installing further ‘safeguards’ to ensure Rwanda is a safe third country. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the government has introduced a new ‘Rwanda bill’, declaring Rwanda a safe country and preventing the courts from mounting further challenges against this point.
As Sir Jonathan Jones KCB KC argues, “[t]he idea of declaring Rwanda to be safe is a startling one. It would amount to parliament making an assessment of fact (about arrangements in Rwanda) which is directly contrary to the recent findings of the Supreme Court.” Perhaps even more interestingly, although this legislation would prevent domestic court challenges, individuals could still go to the ECtHR, who can make its own assessment of the safety of Rwanda. Yet, Sunak has made it clear that he will not abide by international court rulings, suggesting that he is willing to put the UK in conflict with multiple international conventions/institutions, and even put “the UK on the path to leaving (or being ejected from) the ECHR.”
Although the Rwanda bill has passed the House of Commons, it is currently facing much defeat in the House of Lords. We are yet to see how far the Commons will go in overturning the Lords’ changes.
The Begum Judgement
The controversy surrounding the Home Secretary’s decision to deprive Shamima Begum of her UK citizenship is still very much alive, five years later.
Begum was born in the UK to parents of Bangladeshi origin. In February 2015 she travelled to Syria and aligned with ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), marrying an ISIL fighter and having three children, all of whom died. Under his powers granted by s40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Sajid David (Home Secretary at the time) deprived Ms Begum of her British citizenship, on the grounds that it would be conducive to the public good.
Begum’s first legal challenge began in 2019, in which she appealed for leave to enter the UK, so that she could be present for the appeal against the deprivation decision. The UKSC ultimately dismissed her appeal, holding that MS Begum could not return to the UK to pursue her appeal. Nevertheless, Ms Begum proceeded to appeal the deprivation decision - the Special Immigration Appeals Commission dismissed her appeal, so in 2024 she appealed to the Court of Appeal.
This case centred on five grounds of appeal. In summary, the Court of Appeal looked at the possibility that Ms Begum was a victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, balanced against the possibility that she voluntarily went to Syria and aligned with ISIL. The court then considered de jure versus de facto statelessness (i.e., the fact that on paper Ms Begum retained Bangladeshi citizenship, but in reality that she could not enter Bangladesh). The court also looked at the issue of procedural fairness (namely, whether the Home Secretary should have informed Ms Begum of his intention to deprive her of citizenship, before actually making the decision) and finally the Home Secretary’s Public Sector Equality duty (i.e. his duty to eliminate discrimination against those with protected characteristics).
The Court found against Begum. They found that the balancing of national security interests, with the question of to what extent Ms Begum voluntarily travelled to Syria, was a question for the Secretary of State, which is what parliament had intended. The Court found that the Home Secretary did not need to consider de facto statelessness. They also held that, as the British Nationality Act’s purpose was to advance national security interests, notifying individuals of the intention to deprive them of their citizenship would lead to their hastened return to the UK, frustrating the Act’s purposes. Finally, the court found that the Equality Act section 149 requirement did not apply to the deprivation decision, as it fell under the national security exemption in section 192 of the Equality Act.
Overall, this judgement has been met with considerable criticisms. The Court itself recognised that the decision could be considered “harsh” against Ms Begum. Steve Valdez-Symonds, the Refugee and Migrant Rights Director at Amnesty International UK, argues that “[t]his is a very disappointing decision”, and that the “Home Secretary shouldn’t be in the business of exiling British citizens by stripping them of their citizenship.” There has even been suggestions that Sajid David decided to deprive Ms Begum of her citizenship, for the purposes of “furthering his leadership ambitions”.
Ms Begum’s lawyers have made it clear that they will keep fighting. The only way Ms Begum can now return to the UK is through the courts, so we now wait to see the UKSC’s response.
Civil Law
Introduction to Civil Law
Civil law is basically the set of rules that govern how we behave as laymen. This is the branch of law which prevents you from playing loud music at absorb hours so you do not anger your neighbour (nuisance). Sometimes this is also the law which says that if you invite someone to your house knowing that the ceiling might fall if they open the main door, you need to let them know or else if it does fall, you would have fallen below the minimum standard of care expected of you (duty of care and negligence). Civil law basically guides us on how to be tolerable members of the society and to some extent reach the ‘legal’ standard of what it means to be good human beings.
White Island Volcano Eruption: Whakaari (Mis)Management
Here is the legal moral of the story in short before we delve into the details: Imagine you wish to visit an island for vacation owned by a private party and they send you there knowing the existence of an active volcano. Now imagine that volcano decides to put on a show for you called ‘eruption’ involving some of the tourists dying during the course of this performance. Suppose you lost your interest in the show on seeing violence being involved, you fled and and survived. In the event you find yourself in such a situation, you might have a claim against the private party owner of the island for negligence.
This is similar to what happened in New Zealand’s White Island where 22 tourists were killed in a volcanic eruption on 9th December 2019. The company which manages tours to the island is called Whakaari Management. In October 2023, the court held that the company had breached laws that required it to safeguard the tourists against the active volcano. They were ordered to pay $6m in compensation to the victims.
The regulator who sued Whakaari Management - WorkSafe - alleged around 13 organisations and individuals of negligence for not meeting the expected threshold for workplace health and safety obligations. It held the opinion that even though the volcanic eruption was sudden and unexpected, it was not unforeseeable considering it was an active volcano. WorkSafe argued that the tourists and visitors who died in the tragedy relied on the company expecting it to have taken all reasonable measures to ensure the safety of the victims.
The trial heard the survivors who claimed that they suffered serious injuries and were not warned about the risks. The WorkSafe Prosecutor stated that the company failed at two levels - first, failing to understand the risks associated with tourism to the island and second by not consulting other parties which understood these risks. It is noteworthy that even though volenti non fit injuria is a valid defence in tort law, the defendant must prove that the claimant was aware of the full magnitude of risks involved in an activity before he/she consented to it.
Before and during the trial most defendants pleaded guilty. At the end only one defendant remained adamant: Whakaari Management. The defendants argued that the company simply owned the volcano and professed no control over the tours taking place. The plaintiffs replied to this argument by highlighting that Whakaari Management is obligated to guarantee the safety of the island by virtue of it being the defendant’s “place of business”. They made around NZ$1m per year from tourism.
WorkSafe also alleged ID Tours New Zealand and Tauranga Tourism Services for failing to take adequate care and not obtaining or providing safety information promptly. However, these charges were dismissed. The companies had argued that they had no ‘duty of care’ to customers of other companies. The court agreed that neither had their workplace in White Island and thus, had no ‘influence’ on the conduct of tour operators.
The Auckland court also held GNS Science which is a government-owned research body monitoring volcanoes in New zealand to pay a fine of $54k for failing to adequately dissipate information with the concerned contractors. Judge Thomas emphasised that it is in the public interest to hold all entities including public bodies liable for the breach of duty of care.
Some concerns have arisen regarding means of compensation by parties who have been fined. Whakaari management pointed out that they had no money or assets to use as compensation since it is merely a ‘corporate trustee’ for the Buttles’ Whakaari Management Trust. Additionally, the company did not even possess liability insurance implying damages had to be paid first hand. The court has opined that compensation can still be paid through the company’s shareholders producing the required money.
Family Law
What is Family Law?
Before I get into the deadlines and latest news, I figured we should start with a little background history. Family law is a branch of law that deals with legal matters related to family relationships and domestic issues.
Mainly splitting in matrimonial and child law, it aims to regulate and protect the rights and responsibilities of individuals within familial relationships and ensure the well-being of family members, especially children, during times of transition or conflict. Family law matters are often emotionally charged and require sensitive handling by legal professionals to achieve fair and equitable resolutions
What’s Happening in Family Law in the UK?
New Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020
The implementation of no-fault divorces under the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, effective from April 6, 2022, marks a significant legal change after five decades.
This alteration eliminates the necessity to attribute fault when seeking divorce, legal separation, or civil partnership dissolution. Moreover, spouses cannot contest the filing, and the entire process has shifted to a digital platform. Under the new law, couples can jointly or individually apply, citing irretrievable breakdown of the relationship. This streamlined process is also notably quicker.
As fault is no longer a requirement and contestation is barred, the need for legal representation in divorce proceedings diminishes.
Family Leave
Parental leave policies continue to evolve, marking significant progress since the 1970s when pregnant women faced dismissal. In 2023, the new Carer's Leave Act 2023 reflects ongoing changes. This legislation caters to employees with caregiving responsibilities, granting them the right to take a minimum of one week's leave within any 12-month period, starting from their first day of employment.
Additionally, the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 has been passed, providing statutory paid leave for working parents whose newborns require neonatal care. Under this act, parents receive 12 weeks of paid leave in addition to standard parental leave.
Although the Neonatal Care Act has received Royal Assent, its enforcement is unlikely to commence before April 2025. This delay aims to allow employers and HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) sufficient time in 2024 to prepare for the impending changes.
Transparency in the Family Courts
Sir Andrew McFarlane, the head of the family courts in England and Wales, released a report titled "Confidence and Confidentiality: Transparency in the Family Courts," advocating for increased transparency within the Family Court system.
Traditionally, cases in the Family Court have been shrouded in strict confidentiality, leading to diminished public trust in the family justice system. However, Sir Andrew's report emphasizes the importance of preserving the anonymity of children and family members involved in court proceedings, as well as safeguarding the confidentiality of intimate aspects of their private lives. As part of the recommendations, judges are encouraged to annually publish a minimum of 10% of their judgments in anonymized form.
Read the reports for more indepth explanations
Family Law Module (LAW2121) @ Durham
Whether you’re a first year who missed the module fair or a second year thinking about choosing a second year module - Here’s a brief outline of what the module covered this year:
Marriage & Civil Partnership
Divorce & Dissolution
Financial Remedy Orders & Prenuptial Agreements
Cohabitation
The Children's Act 1989
Assisted Reproduction
The module leaders and worth a quick email if you want to know more or have any questions.
Some Top Family Chambers to look out for:
(These are just some of the popular Chambers for Durham students - it's always best to do your own research as well!)
This Month’s Article For The Legally Curious
Air Canada’s Chatbot Swasti Mehta
With the increasing relevance of AI and everyone around me depending on it, I often wonder, and sometimes fear - would there be any jobs to occupy by the time I graduate? Although my stance might be exaggerated, AI will inevitably eliminate the requirement of humans for certain tasks. But then stories like these give me some solace; my sleep deprivation would not be rendered completely futile because of a robot who does not need sleep at all.
Recently Air Canada’s chatbot misled a customer into buying a full-price ticket and thus the airline was ordered to pay compensation. The Company attempted to claim that the bot was not under its control and was “responsible for its own actions''. This is another hurdle when it comes to swapping humans for AI; if an error is made, whom to hold accountable? The company using the AI bot, the creator of the AI bot, or the AI bot itself? The UK Supreme Court in Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs, recently ruled that AI cannot be an inventor because it does not satisfy the requirements of the Patent Act 1977. This corroborates with the judgement in this case which does not deem the AI bot a ‘legal entity’. It is interesting to observe the pattern of judgements which do not classify AI as equivalent to humans or legal entities.
The plaintiff, Moffatt, had asked the Air Canada chatbot if the airline accepted retroactive bereavement applications. The chatbot replied in a deceptive language which induced Mofatt into believing it was possible. Later, when he tried to apply for refunds, it was denied. On viewing Moffatt’s screenshots, Air Canada agreed that the chatbot had misled him. Moffatt decided to sue Air Canada. The defendant argued that the chatbot was a separate legal entity and that a link was provided within the chatbot to confirm the chatbot’s reply. The Tribunal was not convinced. It took the stance that Air Canada was responsible for all information available on its website; whether it comes from the chatbot or the static page. Furthermore, there was no information provided to the customer that implied that the chatbot must not be trusted.
The information provided by the chatbot was held to be “negligent misrepresentation” by the Tribunal and Air Canada asked to pay Moffatt a sum of C$650.88.
Pupillage and Mini-Pupillage Applications:
Mini - Pupilage
London
Fourteen (29th March 2024) Family
1 GC (31rst March 2024) Family
Lincoln House Chambers (Civil law): 15th March 2024
Garden Court North Chambers (Civil actions against the police & public authorities): 15th March 2024
Henderson Chambers (Professional Injury & Clinical Negligence): 29th March 2024
Pump Court Chambers (Civil Fraud and Clinical Negligence): 29th March 2024
Fountain Court Chambers (Civil Fraud, Employment, Professional Negligence): 29th March 2024
Drystone Chambers (Civil applications by the police): 31st March 2024
23 Essex Street Chambers (Civil Fraud): 31st March 2024
Keating Chambers (London)
Mini-pupillage dates: July-September.
Mini-pupillage deadline: 31 March.
Known for: Energy, Professional Negligence, International Arbitration.
7 King's Bench Walk (London)
Mini-pupillage dates: 1 May- 31 July.
Mini-pupillage deadline: 1 March.
Known for: Banking and Finance, Commerical Litigation.
Landmark Chambers (London)
Mini-pupillage dates: May-June.
Mini-pupillage deadline: 28 February.
Known for: Planning, Property, Public and Administrative.
South-East
Cornwall Street Barristers ( rolling applications) civil, criminal, family and public
Midlands
Deans Court Chambers, Manchester (applications re-opened in March 2022) commercial, crime, family and civil.
Exchange Chambers, Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds (rolling applications) civil, commercial, criminal and family.
North-East
St Pauls Chambers (31st March 2024) Criminal
New Park Court (rolling deadline) Criminal
South-west
3PB Barristers (rolling deadline) Criminal
St John’s Chambers, Bristol ( rolling deadline) commercial, wills & trusts, public and administrative, family, crime, civil.
North-West
Academic articles and links:
Criminal Law
New Park Court, Civil Briefing- The forfeiture rule and assisted suicide by Ashley Tucker https://www.newparkcourt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Civil-briefing-January-2024.pdf.
2 Bedford Row has insights in all areas of criminal law, top Legal 500 chambers
25 Bedford Row are cirminal defence barristers who have released an engaging seminar series on updates at the criminal bar, international and regulatroy crime. They also have some seminars scheduled for the future.
Commercial Law
Have a look at many of Gatehouse Chambers’ insights such as their recent property webinar on the 7th of March and analysis of some of the recent cases they have represented in.
Fountain Court Chambers has also provided some recent insights into relevant commercial issues in law. Make sure to also listen to their podcast series!
Public Law
Garden Court Chambers have released some very useful social welfare updates relevant to public law, have a look at the updates in the case and their analysis of new case law.
Matrix Chambers have released some helpful analysis of their recent cases in the High Court on human rights and public law.
For those of you interested in environmental, planning and public law Francis Taylor Buildings have an ongoing Environmental Law Blog which includes updates on the most pressing issues in this area of law. To read their environmental blog you can sign up and subscribe for free!
Analysis of their recent high profile public law cases can be found below
You can read about the Rwanda judgement from the perspective of the representing barrister, alongside other cases here on Landmark Chambers’ website.
Civil Law
Read about why it is controversial to bring civil lawsuits against soldiers and whether Australia is willing to tread into that territory.
Read about medical negligence under UAE law!
3 Paper Buildings have covered clinical negligence cases in a lot of detail:
Family Law
Dr Andy Hayward, Financial Remedies Journal (2023)
A succinct update on the latest with cohab laws - worth a read if you managed to catch the Financial Remedies Debate in December on Cohabitation with Sir Andrew MacFarlane
St John’s chambers has released important updates on family law and their other practice areas.
3 Paper Buildings have released some interesting family law seminars which are worth checking out!
Upcoming Events:
Durham Bar Society Events
The London Trip:
Keep an eye out for the announcement of the London trip taking place on the 10th of June. This will involve the opportunity for around 15 - 20 members to go down to London with our society and visit Grays inn for a tour and lunch. This will then be accompanied by a tour of the Royal Courts of Justice in the afternoon and a visit to Francis Taylor Buildings for drinks and networking with barristers. Further announcements on applications will be out soon!
Upcoming Chambers Events
Criminal Law:
Garden Court Chambers,19th March 2024: Neurodivergence Webinar Series: Part 5- Neurodivergence in the Criminal Justice System, (Online Webinar).
Booking form:
Trinity Chambers, 20th March 2024: Criminal Law Update Seminar, (In-person, Trinity Chambers, The Custom House, Quayside, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 3DE). Booking email- liam@trinitychambers.co.uk
For more information-
Civil Law:
Doughty Street Chambers, 20th March 2024: Quantum of Damages in the Employment Tribunal and Civil Courts (Online, Zoom)
Register here.
Access to the Bar
Welcome to the ‘Access to the Bar’ section of The Chambers Chronicles. Within this, I hope to explore opportunities to extend access to the Bar to underrepresented groups. I aim to share my favourite resources to excite and prepare a new generation towards a career at the Bar.
I will focus on opportunities in Chambers themselves, Inns of Court and various programmes. Furthermore, each edition, I will share a selection of my favourite legal podcasts, videos, and articles which focus on breaking barriers at the Bar.
From Middle Temple, ‘The Pupillage Podcast’, hosted by Georgina Wolfe and Beatrice Collier of 5 Essex Court, is an invaluable resource. In each episode Beatrice and Georgina chat to a range of guests – junior tenants, junior barristers, senior juniors, silks, judges and others – to obtain their advice on what applicants should be doing to pursue their goal and increase their chances of obtaining pupillage. Each guest brings the benefit of his or her own experience of sitting on scholarship committees, marshalling with students, judging moots, reading applications, conducting pupillage interviews, mentoring students and of Life at the Bar to give listeners precious insights, tips and pitfalls to avoid.
In the first episode, we are introduced to Ubah Dirie, junior barrister and recipient of an Access to the Bar Award. Ubah told the podcast about her journey to the Bar – from her first steps taking part in activities in Middle Temple, to the rewards of her pro bono work.
Available on Soundcloud, Spotify, iTunes and Mixcloud.
Twitter: @pupillagepodca1
“Access to the Bar for all not for the few” - Charlotte Ogilvie, marketing and communications executive, Garden Court Chambers
Within this article, Ogilvie addresses the current underrepresentation of women, people from BAME, and low-socio economic backgrounds, which “clearly does not derive from any shortage of talent”.
For one, she highlighted that only 13 percent of barristers are from BAME backgrounds, and only 7.8 percent of those were QCs in 2018. At this rate, it will take 50 years before women comprise half of all QCs and 100 years for the percentage of BAME “silks”.
Garden Court Chambers offer mini-pupillages to those who share their commitment to human rights, social justice and equality.
They organise two mini-pupillage courses each year. The first is held in March and the second in September/October. On each occasion, they take 8-10 mini pupils. Whilst their 2024 application process is now closed, it is anticipated to re-open in December 2024.
A bar that represents society also benefits society - is the slogan of Bridging the Bar (“BTB”). With their aim to extend accessibility to the Bar for everyone regardless of race, sex, class or other characteristics, BTB is committed to increasing the equality of access to opportunities in the legal profession across all underrepresented groups. Over 70 Chambers, 26 sponsorship partners and over 300 Barristers and members of the judiciary have committed to achieving this vision.
The Academy is their sole programme which sees 100 candidates each year gain access to multiple programmes and training opportunities over the course of the academic year. Through mentoring, advocacy training, personal development workshops, lectures and a mini-pupillage programme, BTB equips students with vital skills necessary for their academic and personal journey to a career in the Bar.
Whilst the programme is currently closed for 2023/24 applications, sign up to their mailing list now to be the first to hear about their 2024/25 programme- https://bridgingthebar.us17.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=006b7727d5316730bfa02b5de&id=79c81f011e
St John’s Chambers (Bristol) BarNone initiative: part of the mini-pupillage applications.
St John’s Chambers intends to allocate a minimum of 50% of mini-pupillages to applicants from BAME backgrounds and state schools, aiming to stimulate increased interest from these underrepresented cohorts. The overarching goal is to enhance both the diversity and caliber of talent within the Bar.
Comments