Category: Legal Analysis

Legal Analysis by an amateur. This is not legal advice !

Categories
Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Good Law Project

Good Law Project

The Good Law Project is a UK campaigning organisation that uses litigation, investigations and public mobilisation to challenge government decisions and other concentrations of power.

We use the law to stop hate and bring hope – injustice is not inevitable

Good Law Project

Founded in January 2017 by tax barrister Jolyon Maugham KC, the Good Law Project Limited was established as a company limited by guarantee under English law (Company Registration Number 10556197). The Registered office address is 3 East Point High Street, Seal, Sevenoaks, Kent, United Kingdom, TN15 0EG

The Good Law Project is a not-for-profit company that has never been a registered charity. Jo Maugham deliberately chose this form to secure the public-interest features of a charity with no ability to pay dividends and an asset lock preventing assets being transferred at undervalue whilst remaining outside the regulatory reach of the Charity Commission, which the organisation has described as imposing “moving political guardrails.”

The Good Law Project is widely regarded as left-wing / progressive in orientation.

Jolyon Maugham KC

Jolyon Toby Dennis Maugham KC (born 1st July 1971) is the founder and executive director. Born in London and raised largely in New Zealand, he attended Wellington High School before returning to the UK. He graduated with a first-class LLB in European Legal Studies from Durham University (Hatfield College) in 1995, studied at KU Leuven in Belgium, and later completed an MA at Birkbeck, University of London.

Jo Maugham specialised in taxation law, practised from Devereux Chambers, and was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2015. He has advised both Labour and Conservative politicians on tax policy and written for national newspapers.

In 2023 he published the Sunday Times bestseller Bringing Down Goliath. He left full-time practice at the Bar around the end of 2020 to focus on the organisation and has stated that his salary is capped at the level of a backbench MP.

He is an Honorary Professor at the University of Durham and remains the dominant public face of the group. Supporters view him as a determined advocate for accountability; critics regard him as a polarising campaigner whose messaging about case outcomes has sometimes drawn formal complaints.

Mission and Methods

The Good Law Project stated aims are to hold power to account, protect the environment and ensure “no one is left behind.” In practice this has involved judicial reviews, procurement challenges, environmental cases and campaigns on issues including protest rights, media regulation and transgender healthcare.

The organisation combines court action with investigative work and crowdfunding-driven public campaigns.

The 2026 Move to Jersey

On the 8th May 2026 the Good Law Project changed its ownership structure. The GLP announced that Jo Maugham had been replaced as owner by a Jersey “purpose” trust holding the membership interest in the UK company.

The operating company remains registered in England (still company 10556197), UK-resident for tax purposes, subject to the same articles and asset lock, and still unable to declare dividends.

The stated reason was that English law does not recognise non-charitable purpose trusts, while Jersey law does. The change was presented as completing the original design by making the organisation exist for a purpose rather than being owned by an individual and also allowing a future multi-trustee board.

In the short term the sole trustee is a company owned by Jo Maugham, who remains the person with significant control.

Controversies Around the Jersey Restructuring

The move attracted accusations of hypocrisy. The organisation and Maugham had previously criticised offshore arrangements and tax havens. Critics highlighted the optics of using a Jersey structure while campaigning against secrecy and elite financial arrangements.

The group maintains there is no tax advantage and that the purpose is structural and regulatory.

Funding and Financials

The vast majority of funding of the Good Law Project comes from regular and one-off donations by members of the public, which the organisation says keeps it independent. It also receives grants and high-value donations from supporters including the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, Lund Trust, Avaaz, 38 Degrees, Necessity and Dale Vince (Ecotricity).

For the year ended 31 January 2025, total income was approximately £4.44 million (down slightly from £4.65 million the previous year). Roughly 70–80% came from regular and general donations, with the balance from crowdfunding, grants and other sources.

Expenditure was around £4.67 million, producing a modest deficit. Cash at bank stood at about £4.25 million and net assets at roughly £4.20 million.

The Good Law Project maintains a Legal Defence Fund (around £850,000 at that date) to cover potential adverse costs. Staff costs form a significant part of spending; average headcount has been in the mid-30s in recent years. As a non-profit company limited by guarantee it does not pay corporation tax on its core activities. Full accounts and filings are available via the Companies House page for company 10556197.

Success Rate and Criticisms

The Good Law Project claims a positive outcome, defined as a full or partial legal win or a useful campaigning result in more than two-thirds of its cases. Its own assessments have typically shown roughly 45 per cent legal wins, around 20 per cent mixed results and 35 per cent losses among classifiable legal outcomes.

Independent observers have challenged these figures. Government data showed the organisation winning fewer matters than it lost or withdrew and paying substantially more in costs than it received. Critics argue that many claimed “wins” are minor procedural points or cases spun after clear defeats.

Analyses in The Critic, The Times and elsewhere have accused the group of exaggerating its record.

Bad Law Project? – The good, the bad, and the ugly of crowdfunding legal cases. The miseries of Maugham – What is the Good Law Project accomplishing?

Landmark Cases

Several Landmark Case are listed on the “Our Story” page of the Good Law Project.

In 2019 the Good Law Project supported the successful Supreme Court challenge to Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament. Earlier Brexit litigation (Miller on Article 50 and Wightman on revocation) established important constitutional principles.

During the pandemic it litigated the “VIP lane” for PPE contracts; the High Court ruled the lane itself unlawful. Environmental work produced a High Court win (with Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth) requiring the government to revise its net-zero strategy, plus a Supreme Court intervention on water-company sewage liability.

Later cases on Partygate, tax policy and transgender rights have been more mixed or unsuccessful.

Good Law Project and Professor Jason Arday

In July 2026 the Good Law Project published and promoted an open letter and petition in support of Cambridge University sociology professor Jason Arday, who faced allegations of plagiarism in his PhD thesis and other academic work, as well as questions about aspects of his personal biography and achievements.

The organisation described the claims as a “vile” or “right-wing smear campaign” and gathered thousands of signatures, including from politicians, academics and public figures (some of whom later withdrew their names).

Jason Arday resigned from Cambridge and Jesus College on the 5th August 2026; the Good Law Project hosted and published his resignation statement on its website.

After Jason Arday’s death on the 14th August 2026, the group launched a further campaign and petition calling for a public inquiry into alleged media harassment, arguing that intense press scrutiny had contributed to the tragedy and that racism played a role.

Some of our supporters will have seen a statement on the corrections page of the BBC’s website.

I’m afraid the truth is complicated. Although we got the important things right, we also got some things wrong…

Statement about the BBC and our fundraising – Jo Maugham

The Good Law Project has maintained that universities and journals had cleared Jason Arday of wrongdoing, while critics have pointed to substantial evidence of textual overlap and disputed biographical claims, and questioned the Good Law Project’s involvement and framing of the case.

Summary

The Good Law Project has grown from a one-person crowdfunding vehicle into a professionally staffed organisation with multi-million-pound annual income and substantial cash reserves.

Its highest-profile successes remain the 2019 prorogation judgment and the PPE VIP-lane ruling.

The Good Law Project continues to attract strong support from donors who share its priorities and sharp criticism from those who question its methods, messaging, financial transparency and governance choices.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, are legal actions brought primarily to silence, intimidate or financially exhaust critics rather than to vindicate genuine rights.

In the UK they most often take the form of defamation claims, though privacy, data protection, confidentiality and harassment actions are also frequently used.

SLAPPs are considered an abuse of the legal process, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper and costly legal intervention.

The impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) – House of Commons Research Briefing

These cases typically involve a significant imbalance of resources: well-funded individuals, corporations or organisations pursue claims against journalists, academics, campaigners or private citizens who lack comparable means to defend themselves.

The Chilling Effect on Free Speech

SLAPPs create a powerful chilling effect on public debate. Even when a claim is weak or ultimately unsuccessful, the mere threat of litigation, combined with the high cost of defending it, can force defendants to retract statements, settle, or avoid publishing in the first place.

A 2022 Foreign Policy Centre report found that at least 70 per cent of documented UK SLAPP cases were linked to financial crime or corruption.

Investigative reporting on Russian oligarchs, tax avoidance schemes, environmental issues and corporate misconduct has been particularly vulnerable.

Publishers and individual writers have sometimes chosen to settle or alter content simply to avoid the financial and emotional burden of a full trial, even when they believed their reporting was accurate and in the public interest.

Existing Legal Safeguards

English law already contains several important safeguards.

The Defamation Act 2013 introduced a “serious harm” threshold, abolished the presumption of damage for most corporations, strengthened the public interest defence, and restricted “libel tourism” by requiring claimants to show that England and Wales is the most appropriate jurisdiction.

Despite these reforms, the cost of defending a defamation action remains extremely high. Success fees are no longer recoverable from the losing side, and the inequality of arms between wealthy claimants and ordinary defendants continues to distort the process.

The 2023 Economic Crime Reforms

In response to growing concern, particularly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 introduced limited anti-SLAPP measures (sections 194 and 195).

These provisions came into force on the 18th June 2025. They allow courts to strike out claims at an early stage where the claim seeks to restrict freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the speech concerns public-interest disclosures relating to economic crime, and the claimant’s behaviour indicates an improper purpose.

Early dismissal and costs protection for defendants are available under these rules. However, the protection is deliberately narrow and applies only to economic-crime related cases.

Risks for Solicitors and Law Firms

The Law Society has drawn attention to the reputational risks that SLAPP related work can pose for solicitors and their firms. Lawyers instructed in high-profile cases have faced criticism in Parliament and the media, even when they have acted within the professional rules.

Law firms Mishcon de Reya, Schillings, Harbottle & Lewis, CMS and Carter-Ruck were criticised…..for pursuing cases that were deemed SLAPPs.

SLAPPs and reputational risks – Law Society

The Law Society maintains that existing Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) standards, combined with more rigorous judicial case management and costs control, offer the most practical immediate way to reduce abusive litigation without the need for extensive new primary legislation.

A Recent Example – Carter Ruck and Jason Arday

A recent illustration of the continuing problem of potential SLAPPs emerged in August 2026.

The Free Speech Union highlighted a letter sent by the law firm Carter-Ruck to Times Higher Education. The letter appeared intended to deter further journalistic questions about the academic record of Professor Jason Arday.

At the same time, police complaints were made against Jack Grove, a journalist at Times Higher Education, and David Harris, a former/emeritus professor.

The Met Police investigated journalist Jack Grove for harassment after he emailed Cambridge professor Jason Arday questions about apparent plagiarism in his work and other claims regarding his academic and charity record; officers later told Grove to stop contacting Arday because it had affected the professor’s mental health, though the four-month inquiry was closed with no action taken and Grove was never interviewed.

Arday contacted the Metropolitan Police to lodge a complaint of harassment against Harris. Because Harris is based in Plymouth, the matter was referred to Devon and Cornwall Police, which declined to pursue it.

Jason Arday reported academic critic to police after questions over his research – Committee For Academic Freedom

Although the complaints were later dropped, the episode raised serious concerns that powerful individuals or institutions may still use legal threats and police involvement to discourage legitimate scrutiny.

Conclusion

The anti-SLAPP measures that took effect in June 2025 represent a meaningful first step.

Nevertheless, their restriction to economic-crime cases leaves a significant gap. Journalists, academics and citizens remain exposed whenever the disputed speech concerns other matters of public interest.

Broader, carefully balanced legislation, together with stronger judicial scrutiny of costs and purpose, would provide more effective protection for public participation while still allowing genuine claimants access to the courts.

Until such reforms are enacted, the threat of strategic litigation will continue to cast a long shadow over free expression and investigative journalism in the United Kingdom.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Government Law Legal Analysis

Repeal a Law

Repeal a Law

Repealing a law in the United Kingdom does not mean the original law was bad, defective or mistaken. It means Parliament has decided the law is no longer required or useful.

Under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament may repeal any legislation without implying criticism of the earlier law or the Parliament that passed it. Repeal is a normal and necessary part of maintaining an effective legal system.

The Process to Repeal a Law

The process of repealing a law in the UK usually follows these steps:

  1. Proposal – Repeal can be proposed by the government, individual MPs or peers (through Private Members’ Bills), or recommended by the Law Commission.
  2. Inclusion in a Bill – Most repeals are included in a larger bill (e.g., a reform bill or a dedicated Statute Law (Repeals) Bill). The bill must go through all stages in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
  3. Parliamentary Scrutiny – The bill is debated, amended if necessary, and voted on in both Houses.
  4. Royal Assent – Once passed by Parliament, the bill receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act.
  5. Commencement – The repeal may take effect immediately, on a future date, or when brought into force by secondary legislation (commencement regulations).

For routine technical repeals, the Law Commission prepares reports and draft bills that are usually passed with little debate.

Why Laws Are Repealed ?

Laws are repealed for a variety of reasons. Societal values and economic conditions change over time. Rules that were once appropriate can become obsolete as technology, daily life, or public priorities evolve. Some laws are repealed because they are redundant or have been replaced by clearer, modern legislation. Others are removed as part of routine maintenance of the statute book to reduce complexity and improve accessibility.

Routine Repeals: The Law Commission

Much repeal work is technical and non-controversial. The Law Commission plays a central role in this process. It systematically identifies enactments that are no longer of practical utility. Its goal is to reduce the size of the statute book, save time and costs for lawyers and the public, and prevent confusion caused by outdated rules that have no current application.

The Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969 was the first in a series of modern repeal Acts. It removed numerous old enactments, including certain medieval statutes and most remaining provisions of Magna Carta 1297 (while carefully preserving the four most important articles). The Act was not a judgment on the quality of those ancient laws. It simply recognised that they had become obsolete after centuries.

Another example is the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993, which repealed a wide range of obsolete laws covering areas such as justice, agriculture, companies, and ecclesiastical matters, while also correcting a mistake from an earlier repeal Act.

This was followed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1998, which carried out a large-scale clean-up across many different fields.

In 2008, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2008 removed numerous old colonial and Indian-related statutes, helping to clear post-empire legislation from the statute book.

More recently, the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2013 focused on obsolete provisions relating to transport, local government, and finance. These Acts demonstrate the continuing, methodical work of modernising and simplifying the law.

Since 1965, Parliament has passed 19 Statute Law (Repeals) Acts, leading to the complete repeal of more than 3,000 statutes. These are standard “tidying-up” measures designed to keep the law clear and manageable.

Recent Repeal: The Vagrancy Act 1824

Not all repeals are routine. Some reflect significant shifts in social attitudes or government policy. A prominent example is the Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalised rough sleeping and begging. This Act was repealed by section 81 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, with the repeal brought into force on the 29th June 2026.

Originally introduced in 1824, the Vagrancy Act has been found to punish people simply for not having a home. As a result, it has pushed vulnerable people away from support, increased the risk of fines or criminal records and made it harder for people to rebuild their lives.

Repealing the Act is a vital step in ending a system that has failed to address the causes of rough sleeping and in shifting the focus towards prevention, support and long-term solutions.

Rough sleeping no longer a crime as Vagrancy Act repealed

The repeal was not proposed by the Law Commission as part of its Statute Law (Repeals) programme. Instead, it resulted from government policy, parliamentary debate, and long-running campaigns by homelessness organisations.

The Vagrancy Act, originally passed in response to post-Napoleonic War conditions and rising homelessness after the Industrial Revolution, was increasingly viewed as outdated and punitive rather than supportive. Its removal marks a clear shift toward addressing homelessness through prevention, support and long-term solutions instead of criminal penalties.

Other Reasons for Repeal

Political or policy changes frequently lead to repeals. A new government may remove or amend measures introduced by its predecessor. In some cases, a law produces unintended consequences or is replaced by better drafting. Repeal then forms part of legislative improvement and modernisation.

Technical consolidation exercises also involve repeal. Older fragmented laws are removed and replaced by single, clearer Acts that are easier to understand and apply.

Conclusion

Repeal does not erase the historical context or the original purpose of the legislation. Many repealed laws were reasonable and effective in their time. The willingness to repeal them demonstrates a mature legal system that adapts to new circumstances rather than preserving outdated rules indefinitely.

Parliament’s power to repeal legislation is an essential feature of UK democracy. It allows the law to remain relevant and responsive. The Law Commission’s ongoing repeal programme handles technical obsolescence, while broader policy repeals, such as the Vagrancy Act, reflect changing societal values and priorities.

In summary, repealing a law is a neutral act of law-making. It reflects current needs rather than a verdict on the quality or wisdom of earlier legislation. Whether through routine tidying by the Law Commission or deliberate policy change, repeal helps keep the statute book clear, accessible and fit for purpose in a modern society.

Check out our articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, Lady Chief Justice, Judges Salaries and Fees, Dodgy Judges, Magistrates, Chief Magistrate, Do you Have to Bow to a Judge ?, Can you Email a Judge ?, Can you Criticise a Judge ?, Crown Prosecution Service, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the highly dubious Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Legal Analysis Police

What is Two Tier Policing ?

Two Tier Policing

The BBC describes so-called “two-tier policing” as where right-wing protests are considered to be dealt with more harshly than left-wing ones by the police. This explanation is simply not true.

The most simplistic and accurate explanation of two tier policing is that there’s one rule for one person and another rule for another. The publicly shown bias and discrimination by the Police is manifesting itself irrespective of politics, sexuality, race or colour.

The police should and must operate independently under the law without fear or favour. The Rule of Law applies to everyone regardless of who they are. Policing in this country and around the world is by consent. There should no bias by the police or by anyone in the justice system.

Lawful Use of Handcuffs by the Police

The debate over two-tiered policing has significant implications for public trust in law enforcement. If the perception of biased policing persists, it can erode confidence in the police and exacerbate social divisions. On the other hand, dismissing legitimate concerns about unequal treatment can also harm community relations and hinder efforts to address systemic issues within law enforcement.

Two-tiered policing remains a contentious issue, with strong arguments on both sides. While some see it as a reflection of systemic biases within law enforcement, others view it as a necessary differentiation based on the nature of the protests or other lawlessness.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue, it is crucial to continue scrutinising police practices to ensure fairness and accountability in all aspects of law enforcement.

The State of Policing Report 2022 and the Loss of Public Trust by HMICFRS said amongst other things “The public’s trust and confidence are unacceptably low. The fundamental principle of policing by consent, upon which the service is built, is at risk.”

What is Policing by Consent ?

The discussion of #TwoTierPolicing #TwoTierJustice and #TwoTierKeir along with Free Speech is very much alive on X.

Sir Keir Starmer stated “there is no two-tier policing“ and said it is a “non-issue”.

Elon Musk calls out Sir Keir Starmer as #TwoTierKeir

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has called accusations of two-tier policing “complete nonsense”.

They are hardly going to agree that there is Two Tier Policing ?! Maybe the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) should investigate ? Is the accusation of Police bias worthy of Judicial Review ?

Do you have evidence of two tier policing by the Met Police, West Midlands Police or any other UK police forces ? Contact Us

Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley demonstrates violent thuggery and Two Tiered Policing without Fear or Favour.
Superintendent Emlyn Richards of West Midlands Police explains Two Tier Policing in simple language.
The Guardian have been telling people about two-tier policing based on race and sexuality for decades

Adam Brooks calls out MORE two-tier policing

Adam Brooks calls out more two-tier policing as roads were closed for Pakistan Independence Day, but England fans were ...
Adam Brooks calls out MORE two-tier policing
Adam Brooks calls out MORE two-tier policing
Adam Brooks calls out more two-tier policing as roads were closed for ...
'I Am A VICTIM Of Two-Tier Policing' | Leeds Resident In TEARS After Being Arrested Over Rioters
'I Am A VICTIM Of Two-Tier Policing' | Leeds Resident In TEARS After Being Arrested Over Rioters
Talk EXCLUSIVE: Leeds resident Nicola Wilcox claims she was a victim ...
‘Two-tier policing’: UK police under fire over man’s arrest
‘Two-tier policing’: UK police under fire over man’s arrest
GB News host Alex Armstrong weighs in on the most recent case of ...
Two tier policing in the uk
Two tier policing in the uk
The policy is clear: priority is given to anyone but the British. Have ...
"Completely And Utterly UNACCEPTABLE!" | Reform UK's Richard Tice Blasts Two-Tier Policing Of Riots
"Completely And Utterly UNACCEPTABLE!" | Reform UK's Richard Tice Blasts Two-Tier Policing Of Riots
Tom Tugendhat said he did not believe there was a two-tier approach to ...
Two tier policing 'BLATANTLY VISIBLE'
Two tier policing 'BLATANTLY VISIBLE'
Leo Kearse hits out at two tier policing, which he says is 'blatantly ...

Check out our related articles on Policing by Consent, Thought Police, Sussex Police, Met Police, Chief Constable Jo Shiner Sussex Police, , What is a Police and Crime Commissioner and a Police and Crime Panel ?, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Innocent until Proven Guilty, R v Sussex Justices and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Law Legal Analysis

Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks

Norwich Pharmacal Orders and Dodgy Fire Sticks

Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) are a form of court-ordered disclosure used in England and Wales and in equivalent jurisdictions such as Ireland.

Norwich Pharmacal orders (NPOs) require a third party to provide information or documents to help identify or locate an unknown wrongdoer when that information is held by an innocent party who has become involved in the relevant wrongdoing.

Unlike standard disclosure in ongoing litigation, Norwich Pharmacal orders target non-parties who have been unwittingly “mixed up” in the misconduct. This allows claimants to pursue justice when the perpetrators hide behind anonymity online or through other means.

Norwich Pharmacal orders are widely used in digital contexts. Common applications include identifying anonymous online infringers in defamation, harassment, or copyright cases, tracing fraudsters through banks or payment providers and supporting intellectual property enforcement actions.

Origin and Legal Basis

The remedy originates from the landmark 1974 House of Lords decision in Norwich Pharmacal Co v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133. In that case, the pharmaceutical company found that counterfeit versions of its patented drug were entering the United Kingdom but could not identify the importers. Customs and Excise held the import records.

The House of Lords ruled that a third party innocently involved in facilitating wrongdoing owes an equitable duty to assist the victim by disclosing relevant information, including the identity of the wrongdoer. This principle forms the basis of Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction today.

Requirements for Obtaining an Order

To obtain a Norwich Pharmacal order, the applicant must generally satisfy the following key conditions:

  • There is a good arguable case that wrongdoing has occurred (this can include torts, breaches of contract, intellectual property infringement, or other actionable wrongs).
  • The order is necessary to enable the applicant to bring proceedings or obtain legitimate redress against the ultimate wrongdoer. Alternative routes must be unavailable or ineffective.
  • The respondent (third party) has been “mixed up” in the wrongdoing, even innocently, and is able to provide the required information.
  • The court must be satisfied that granting the order is just and proportionate, and that the application is not a mere “fishing expedition”.

Courts exercise discretion and balance the need for justice against privacy and other rights.

The Justice and Security Act 2013

Section 17 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 introduced a statutory restriction on the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. It provides that a court may not make a Norwich Pharmacal order (or similar order) in civil proceedings if the disclosure sought would be damaging to the interests of national security.

The Act was enacted partly in response to cases where claimants sought disclosure of sensitive intelligence material through Norwich Pharmacal applications. It prevents the court from ordering disclosure of “sensitive information” where the Secretary of State certifies that such disclosure would damage national security.

Sky v Revolut – Dodgy Fire Sticks

On the 26th March 2026, Mr Justice Brian Cregan in the Irish High Court granted a Norwich Pharmacal order requiring Revolut Bank UAB to disclose information to Sky.

Sky sought the names and addresses of 304 subscribers and ten resellers who had made payments via Revolut for illegal streaming devices, commonly known as “Dodgy Fire Sticks” or “Dodgy boxes”.

These devices, loaded with unauthorised software, enable access to premium content including Premier League football, TNT Sports, Sky Sports, and Disney+ without legitimate subscriptions. It is said that many UK viewers access Irish-sourced illegal feeds through such devices.

The payments related to services provided by Wexford resident David Dunbar, who was previously ordered to pay Sky €480,000 in damages.

He also faces approximately €100,000 in legal costs and was fined €30,000 for contempt of court after breaching orders to preserve data.Sky confirmed that the information would be used to commence legal proceedings against the resellers and certain users.

The data is to be provided on an encrypted spreadsheet within 28 days. Revolut remained neutral on the application.

Police authorities have repeatedly warned that purchasing such devices can fund organised crime and expose users to risks of data theft and malware.

Check out our related articles on Defendant’s Costs Order, Wasted Costs Order, Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO), Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

Sir Kier Starmer

In October 2013, the Treasury laid before Parliament a short statutory instrument, in relation to Sir Keir Starmer, that has since gained unexpected political attention.

Officially known as The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/2588), the measure came into force on the 31st October 2013.

Despite its modest length of just three operative paragraphs, the Regulations addressed a specific technical issue arising from Keir Starmer KC’s departure as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Made – – – – 8th October 2013
Laid before Parliament 9th October 2013
Coming into force – – 31st October 2013

The Treasury, in exercise of the power conferred by section 5(2) of the Pensions (Increase) Act
1971(a) and now vested in them(b) hereby make the following Regulations:

Citation and commencement

  1. These Regulations may be cited as the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013, and come into force on 31st October 2013.

    Interpretation
  2. (1) In these Regulations, “the 1971 Act” means the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.
    (2) For the purposes of these Regulations the time when a pension “begins” is that stated in
    section 8(2) of the 1971 Act(c).

    Pensions to which the 1971 Act shall apply
  3. The 1971 Act shall have effect in relation to any pension payable under the Pension Scheme
    for Keir Starmer QC (being a scheme made under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972(d)),
    as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act.
The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

Background

Sir Keir Starmer, who is currently the UK Prime Minister, served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2008 until 2013, leading the Crown Prosecution Service through a period of major reform.

As with other senior public appointments, his remuneration included a pension arranged under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972.

This was a bespoke pension scheme created specifically for the role of DPP, separate from the standard civil service pension arrangements. When Keir Starmer left office, a question arose regarding how his pension would be increased for inflation once it came into payment.

Purpose of The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013

The 2013 Regulations were made under section 5(2) of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971. They declared that the 1971 Act “shall have effect” in relation to any pension payable under Keir Starmer’s scheme “as if it were a pension specified in Part 1 of Schedule 2” to that Act.

In simple terms, this ensured that Kier Starmer’s DPP pension would receive the same annual up-rating for inflation as most other public-service pensions. Increases would therefore be linked to the Retail Prices Index (or its successor measures), thereby protecting the pension’s real value over time.

Key Provisions and Scrutiny

Signed by Treasury ministers Desmond Swayne and Stephen Crabb on the 8th October 2013, the instrument was laid before Parliament the next day.

An accompanying explanatory note emphasised its narrow scope, stating that it had “no impact upon the private or voluntary sectors”. A parliamentary joint committee scrutinising statutory instruments noted a minor drafting point concerning the definition of when a pension “begins”. However, the committee accepted the Treasury’s clarification and viewed the Regulations as largely technical in nature.

The underlying pension scheme was tax-unregistered, a common feature for certain high-level public posts at the time. The 2013 Regulations did not create or change this tax status; they simply applied standard indexation rules.

Later Controversy

For nearly a decade, the Regulations attracted little public interest. They resurfaced in March 2023 during debates over the abolition of the lifetime allowance. Some critics portrayed the measure as a “special law” granting Kier Starmer, by then Leader of the Opposition, a personal tax advantage.

Supporters argued that the arrangement was standard practice for the DPP post and that the Regulations merely aligned indexation with other comparable public-sector schemes. Keir Starmer has described the pension as the normal entitlement for the office he held.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of hypocrisy by Conservatives over a tax exempt pension deal he has from a previous job.

Sir Keir criticised measures in the Budget which scrapped the £1m cap on lifetime pensions savings.

The Telegraph reported that Sir Keir got a special “tax unregistered” pension scheme when he stood down as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in 2013.

Labour says it was standard practice for retiring DPPs to get such a deal.

But senior Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith told The Telegraph it made a “mockery” of Labour’s position on the lifetime pension allowance, and was as “close to hypocrisy as it is possible to get”.

Sir Keir Starmer criticised over tax free pension scheme

Image of The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP – xAI – Grok

Check out our related articles on Statutory Instruments, Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Rule of Law, Crown Prosecution Service, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for the independent prosecution of criminal cases investigated by the police and other agencies.

This role ensures that decisions to prosecute are taken fairly, free from political interference and guided solely by the evidence and the public interest. Established over a century ago, the office has evolved into one of the most influential positions in British law, overseeing hundreds of thousands of cases each year.

Thank you for contacting the Private Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Operating Officer, at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Your email has been received.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) email is [email protected]

Historical Background

The office dates back to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1879, which created the DPP to advise police and handle serious cases. The first holder, Sir John Maule QC, assumed the post in 1880 but operated with limited powers.

After a brief merger with the Treasury Solicitor in 1884, the role regained full independence under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1908. Significant modernisation occurred between 1944 and 1964 under Sir Theobald Mathew QC, who updated regulations, introduced new technology, and expanded staff numbers.

The pivotal moment came in 1986 with the launch of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This transformed the DPP from leading a small department into the chief executive of a national prosecution service.

Role and Responsibilities

The Director of Public Prosecutions is the third most senior public prosecutor, ranking below the Attorney General and Solicitor General. The holder bears personal responsibility for approximately 7,000 CPS staff and around 800,000 prosecutions annually.

Key duties include applying the Full Code Test to decide whether cases should proceed, advising police during investigations, setting charges in complex matters, and issuing legal guidance and policies. The DPP also presents cases in court where necessary and supports victims and witnesses. Crucially, the role demands strict independence; prosecutorial decisions cannot be directed by government.

The DPP reports to the Attorney General, who accounts for the CPS in Parliament, but day-to-day operations remain free from ministerial control.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. This is the eighth edition of the Code and replaces all earlier versions and was published on the 26th October 2018. Almost 8 years without an update is quite a long time.

Appointment and Current Leadership

The DPP is appointed by the Attorney General for an initial five-year term following an open competition overseen by the Civil Service Commission. The process emphasises integrity, legal expertise, and leadership.

The current Director of Public Prosecutions is Stephen Parkinson, who took office on the 1st November 2023. A University College London law graduate, Parkinson qualified as a barrister in 1980 and later as a solicitor in 2005.

He began as a junior prosecutor in 1984, rose through CPS ranks, and held senior government posts, including Deputy Head of the Attorney General’s Office. For two decades he practised as a defence solicitor at Kingsley Napley, becoming Senior Partner in 2018. His unique experience on both sides of the courtroom equips him to lead the service effectively.

Stephen Parkinson has been announced as the new Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is expected that he will take up the appointment in November 2023 for an initial term of five years. He will succeed the outgoing DPP, Max Hill KC.

Chair of the Bar Council, Nick Vineall KC, said: “The Bar Council would like to congratulate and welcome Stephen Parkinson as the new Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service.  Mr Parkinson practised as a barrister for over 20 years and then qualified as a solicitor and has had a distinguished career in both the public and the private sectors. We very much look forward to meeting and engaging with the new DPP on areas of mutual concern, at a time when the criminal justice sector is under unprecedented pressure, and Crown Court backlogs are at record levels.

“The Bar Council would also like to record its sincere thanks to the outgoing DPP, Max Hill KC, who steered the CPS through the Covid crisis and has always sought to ensure that remuneration for those involved in prosecuting on behalf of the CPS was on a par with criminal defence fees.” 

New DPP Stephen Parkinson announced – Bar Council comment

Stephen Parkinson Legal Experience

Challenges and Future Outlook

Today’s DPP operates under intense pressure. Backlogs, rising caseloads, and high-profile events such as civil disturbances test resources and impartiality.

Maintaining public trust while improving efficiency, supporting victims more effectively, and embracing digital transformation are key priorities. DPP Stephen Parkinson has emphasised collaborative working across the criminal justice system to reduce delays and deliver fair outcomes.

Charlies Prosecution Service (CPS)
Coming Soon at https://cpsgov.uk – Charlie’s Prosecution Service

Image of Stephen Parkinson : PA

Check out our related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback, HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI), Rule of Law, Open Justice, Victims’ Right to Review (VRR), Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Criminal Justice Government Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Complaints and Feedback

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) plays a vital role in the UK’s criminal justice system, ensuring offenders are brought to justice while supporting victims and witnesses.

However, like any public organisation, the CPS may occasionally fall short of expectations. This article explores the CPS’s guidance on providing feedback or making a complaint based on their official policy.

The most senior judge in England and Wales, The Lady Chief Justice Sue Carr has criticised the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) over “fundamental errors” in a press release concerning the sentencing of three boys who were spared custody for the rape of two girls in Fordingbridge.

Judge Nicholas Rowland was ‘wrong’ to spare boy rapists from custody, court told – BBC News

HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI) has a statutory duty to inspect the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

For reasons unknown, the CPS – Crown Prosecution Service (cps.gov.uk) didn’t renew the registration of the domain cpsgov.uk. So we did 🙂

Charlies Prosecution Service (CPS)
Coming Soon at https://cpsgov.uk – Charlie’s Prosecution Service

The CPS’s Commitment to High Standards

The CPS is dedicated to upholding principles of independence, fairness, honesty, openness, respect, and professional excellence. Their complaints handling is guided by standards such as the CPS Complaints Handling Standard, the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, and the Principles of Good Complaints Handling from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

All complaints are managed confidentially by trained Complaints Coordinators, ensuring fair and sensitive treatment without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, disability, religion, or belief. Defendants’ complaints are treated equally to those from victims or witnesses.

External oversight is provided by the Independent Assessor of Complaints (IAC), who scrutinises the process to maintain high service levels.

For more on the IAC’s role, visit the CPS website.

What the CPS Complaints and Feedback Policy Covers

Feedback includes positive or negative comments on CPS policies, procedures, services, or performance. Anyone can provide it at any time, with no restrictions. Examples might include praising a new policy or expressing dissatisfaction with a case outcome reported in the media.

Feedback is acknowledged, recorded, and analysed to improve services and promote best practices.

Complaints are expressions of dissatisfaction from those directly involved in a CPS service. They can be:

  • Legal: Related to decisions, such as charging choices.
  • Service: Concerning conduct, like not allowing a victim to read their personal statement in court.
  • Mixed: Combining both elements.

Professional disagreements (e.g., between police and prosecutors) are excluded.

Exclusions from the Policy

Certain matters fall outside the policy:

  • Victims’ Right to Review (VRR): For decisions not to charge or to end proceedings. This stems from the 2011 Killick case and is handled separately. Dissatisfaction with VRR outcomes cannot become a formal complaint. Learn more about VRR on the CPS VRR page.
  • Defence Applications or Appeals: Not for dropping cases or overturning convictions; seek independent legal advice.
  • Ongoing Proceedings: Responses may be limited to avoid prejudice.
  • Civil Claims: Complaints pause if civil action is initiated.
  • Abusive or Persistent Complaints: May be declined.
  • Other Organisations: Direct complaints about police, courts, or judiciary to them (contacts below).
  • Recruitment or Employment: Handled under separate policies.

CPS Complaints Procedure

Complaints can be made by the affected individual or a nominated representative (with written consent).

The process has three stages for service/mixed complaints, but legal complaints end at Stage Two.

Early Resolution

Contact your local CPS office first for informal resolution within three working days, possibly via explanation or apology.

Stage One: Local Review

Submit formally to the originating CPS office. A relevant manager investigates and responds within 20 working days (or notifies of delays).

Stage Two: Senior Review

If unsatisfied, escalate to the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor or equivalent within one month. Response within 20 working days.For legal complaints, this concludes the process.

Stage Three: Independent Review

For service complaints, refer to the IAC within one month of Stage Two. The IAC, independent of CPS, reviews service quality and procedure adherence, responding within 40 working days.

Contact: Independent Assessor of Complaints, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9EA; Email: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]); Phone: 020 3357 0893 (10am-4pm, Monday-Friday).

If involving Victims’ Code breaches, victims can escalate to the PHSO via an MP after IAC review.

PHSO details: Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

How to Provide Feedback to the CPS

There is no time limit, and feedback can be submitted via:

  • Online: Use the CPS Feedback Form.
  • Email: Download the form and email to your local CPS Area (addresses on the CPS Areas page).
  • Post: Send written feedback or the form to local CPS addresses.
  • Telephone: Call local CPS offices (numbers on the website).

All feedback helps refine services for the public.

Handling and Outcomes

Complaints are handled confidentially and fairly. You’ll be informed if upheld (wholly/partly) or not. If justified, expect an apology, corrective action and prevention measures.

In rare cases of severe distress or loss due to maladministration, a consolatory payment may be offered.

Check out our related articles on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate (HMCPSI), Rule of Law, Open Justice, Victims’ Right to Review (VRR), Is the Law Black and White ?, Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?,Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Law Legal Analysis

What is International Law ?

International Law

International law consists of rules, norms and principles governing relations between sovereign states and other international entities.

It promotes peaceful interactions, dispute resolution and cooperation on transnational issues. Unlike domestic law, it primarily relies on state consent and voluntary compliance.

Historical Development of International Law

The concept of law governing relations between nations dates back to ancient times, but modern terminology emerged in the late 18th century. Jeremy Bentham, the English philosopher and jurist (1748–1832), coined the term “international law” in his 1789 work An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. He proposed replacing the older phrase “law of nations” (jus gentium) with “international law” to better describe law between nations rather than within them.

Bentham wrote several essays between 1786 and 1789, later compiled as Principles of International Law. He advocated codification of international rules, proposed an international court for dispute resolution, and outlined a plan for universal and perpetual peace based on utilitarian principles, maximising happiness and minimising harm across nations.

Sources of International Law

These are specified in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ):

  • Treaties and conventions, such as the United Nations Charter, prohibiting the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council authorisation.
  • Customary international law, from consistent state practice accepted as binding (e.g., prohibition of genocide).
  • General principles of law recognised by nations (e.g., pacta sunt servanda—agreements must be honoured).
  • Judicial decisions and scholarly writings as subsidiary sources.

It covers human rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights, humanitarian law, environmental protection Paris Agreement, trade and maritime issues.

Enforcement of International Law

Enforcement is challenging without a central authority. The UN Security Council can impose sanctions or authorise force, but permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK, US) hold veto power. The ICJ resolves disputes between consenting states.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes individuals for grave crimes, though major powers like the US are not parties.

US Military Action in Venezuela (January 2026) – International Law

On the 3rd January 2026, the United States conducted airstrikes in Venezuela, including targets in Caracas, and captured former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.

They were extradited to the US to face drug trafficking and narco-terrorism charges. Maduro pleaded not guilty in a New York federal court on the 5th January 2026.

The operation has faced widespread international criticism as a violation of state sovereignty and the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force.

The UN held emergency meetings, with allies and others condemning it as unlawful aggression. This illustrates tensions between unilateral actions by powerful states and core principles of international law.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, a former barrister and KC, has refused to be drawn on whether or not US President Donald Trump’s military action against Venezuela may have broken international law.

Additional Examples of International Law

International law features in ongoing conflicts, such as Russia-Ukraine (ICC probes into war crimes; ICJ on territorial integrity) and South China Sea disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Significance and Challenges

International law establishes a framework for global order but struggles with enforcement and geopolitical influences. Jeremy Bentham’s vision of codified rules and institutions remains influential, yet events like the Venezuela incident highlight persistent vulnerabilities when compliance is uneven.

Adherence remains essential for addressing shared challenges like security and climate change.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Categories
Civil Justice Criminal Justice Family Law Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Art of Law

Art of Law

Art of Law is a Youtube channel run by Alan Robertshaw who is an experienced barrister of England and Wales.

This channel provides you with free legal guidance and explains different aspects of law, legal principles, and, procedures for media and art law. Legal advice can be very expensive and you will usually have no knowledge when you encounter a legal problem.

Art of Law

Alan Robertshaw was Called to the Bar in October 1997 (Middle Temple). He has Full Rights of Audience and his areas of practice are Defamation, Intellectual property, Other and Other common law.

Alan is authorised by the Bar Standards Board to accept direct public access work and to conduct litigation.

Alan was formerly at 1 Dr Johnson’s Buildings and then Goldsmith Chambers where he still remains a door tenant.

Art of Law should should not be confused with The BlackBelt Barrister or the Secret Barrister.

Art of Law is not a replacement for formal legal advice but it is highly informative and may help you to understand more about the law.

Highly Recommended ★★★★★

Latest Art of Law YouTube Videos

Why did the judge give Prince Harry such a costs kicking?

Oops, uploaded the unedited version. Not that it makes much difference. I'm hardly Spielberg.

The costs judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2026/2207.html


Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal ...advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it.Show More
Why did the judge give Prince Harry such a costs kicking?
Why did the judge give Prince Harry such a costs kicking?
Oops, uploaded the unedited version. Not that it makes much ...
How far can you go to defend yourself against a VERBAL attack?
How far can you go to defend yourself against a VERBAL attack?
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal ...
If you lie on your CV, do you have to give your wages back?
If you lie on your CV, do you have to give your wages back?
More here: ...
Are companies abusing this law? See UPDATE below.
Are companies abusing this law? See UPDATE below.
UPDATE: The police have said that they will be taking no further ...
Will Nigel Farage be made to pay for sharing that photograph?
Will Nigel Farage be made to pay for sharing that photograph?
I mentioned my much missed mate JP. Here's one of his songs... ...
Is Broadmoor REALLY a softer option than prison?
Is Broadmoor REALLY a softer option than prison?
The relevant legislation: ...

Read the reviews of Junior Sussex Barrister Gavin Howe and Legal 500 Junior Barrister Eleanor Battie.

Check out our related articles on Rule of Law, Open Justice, What is Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Branches of Law, Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination at the Bar, The Secret Barrister, Barristers, Direct Access Barrister, Barristers Behaving Badly, Inns of Court, Council of the Inns of Court, Bar Standards Board, Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Services, Bar Council, Innocent until Proven Guilty and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

“Publicity is the very soul of justice. . . . It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial….Where there is no publicity there is no justice”

Jeremy Bentham – Mr Justice Cobb: ‘Justice must be seen to be done’

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent