When is somebody complicit in another person’s crime? This is a question spoken (and answered about) by our very own Felicity Gerry QC in a podcast she did with Sally Penni MBE. The podcast goes over various aspects of complicity in crime such as: Commercial crime Fraud Conspiracy. If you’d like, you can view the podcast here: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1686745/8818598 or use the mp3 below to listen. https://www.libertaschambers.com/wp-content/uploads/episode-8-law-and-guidance-podcast-with-felicity-gerry-kc-1.mp3   If you’d like to hear more like this such as events, webinars, and more register for our newsletter by clicking here.

This article contains much of what we discussed in our Libertas Lecture on 22 April 2021 which followed the theme of the A.A. Milne quote: “You can’t stay in your corner of the forest waiting for others to come to you; you have to go to them sometimes”. In criminal proceedings, legal professionals have to consider, recognise and respond to a range of issues that regularly confront medical professionals. These include adverse mental health; equality, and inclusion issues; poverty; evidence of bullying; parental substance misuse (alcohol and/or drug use); domestic (inter-partner) violence; and child abuse. Add to this Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) where the display of challenging behaviour, particularly by children and within the criminal justice system means we have a forest of problems with no apparent clearing. This short article particularly considers accused persons in contact with the criminal justice system who may have some or all of these issues along with other disabilities. Download Article now This event has finished, you can find the recording as well as more information here

This article sets out some of the matters we discussed in our Libertas Chambers online lecture on 18 March 2021. It considers the current state of the English criminal law in relation to deception and the transmission of a virus through sexual intercourse with particular reference to the decisions in R v Lawrance [2020] EWCA Crim 971 and R v Rowe [2018] EWCA Crim 2688. Largely we consider two main issues: (1) the criminal law in relation to deception and (2) the decriminalisation of HIV transmission. Over the last 12 months of lockdown, the lottery of viral transmission is now more generally understood which make the issue of decriminalisation of viral transmission worthy of further discussion, which is complex when the law on deception remains unclear and unresolved.. Download Article now

The Covid-19 pandemic continues to pose a series of challenges to the criminal justice system. The sentencing regime is no exception. In R v Manning [2020], the Court of Appeal established that prison conditions could and should be factored into decisions to suspend custodial terms where appropriate, setting in motion a series of higher courts’ decisions on the availability and scope of the ‘Covid Discounts’. More than a year on, the Court has now fine-tuned its earlier jurisprudence; this article examines the implications of R v Dixon [2021] for offenders, advocates and sentencers concerned with Covid-related submissions at sentencing. Download Article now

Judgment in the case of R v Reed was handed down on the 21st April 2021. The effect is to regularise the position between what had become two divergent streams of authority in relation to attempted sexual offences taking place online where there is no ‘victim’. The case is an important one for those advising on and/or mitigating for the relevant offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 given the significant impact on the approach the court will take to assessing the overall category of offending notwithstanding the absence of a victim. Marie Spenwyn is a criminal defence practitioner with over twenty years of experience defending in cases of the utmost severity including across the spectrum of sexual offences. She is a Visiting Lecturer with the University of Law and trained as a facilitator for delivering Vulnerable Witness training. Download the article below to continue reading.   Download Article now

Cameron Scott provides a brief guide to the criminal liability of individuals under the Insolvency Act 1986 Download the article below to continue reading.   Download Article now

From April 2021 all prisoners in England will be screened for Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) as a result of domestic abuse. The Disabilities Trust has led a five-year campaign to ensure greater awareness of brain injury in prisoners since a large proportion of the prison population has a history of brain trauma. Statutory guidance will now include consideration of brain injury as part of the Domestic Abuse Bill. It’s a good start – in time, it is hoped that the screening will be extended to all prisoners. There will be no free MRI or CT brain scans in prison to diagnose the problem or any quick fix solutions. Instead, prisoners will be provided with a questionnaire inviting them to answer such questions as – have they ever experienced a blow to the head? Have they ever lost consciousness? Have they any past medical history concerning their brain? It presents an opportunity to raise awareness amongst those within the prison estate – and with the prisoner too – because the head injury sustained as an adolescent may still be impacting on the individual’s adult life. Download the article below to continue reading.   Download Article now

Last month we appeared for JUSTICE, intervening in the UK Supreme Court decision upon the cross appeals for Shamima Begum, against deprivation of her citizenship and leave to enter the UK to challenge same. The Supreme Court held that the Ms Begum cannot presently return to the UK to pursue her appeal. It considered that national security concerns raised by the Secretary of State outweighed Ms Begum’s right to a fair and effective hearing. It further held that there was no evidence as to whether these national security concerns could be managed upon Ms Begum’s arrival in the UK. As such, ‘significant weight’ was afforded to the Secretary of State’s assessment of the national security concerns. Further, when an individual’s right to a fair hearing comes into conflict with the requirements of national security, their Lordships held that the right to a fair hearing will not necessarily prevail – it does not ‘trump’ all other considerations. The result is that Ms Begum’s appeal against the deprivation of her citizenship will be stayed until she can play an effective part in it, without the safety of the public being compromised. This was acknowledged by the President of the Supreme Court as “not a perfect solution”. Download the article below to continue reading.   Download Article now