Law In Focus

The government has recently announced that it intends to quash by legislation convictions of hundreds of subpostmasters who had been prosecuted by the Post Office for, variously, theft, fraud and false accounting. This follows a number of appeals which have already succeeded where it has been accepted that convictions that are based on generated by the Horizon software are necessarily unsafe. Usually, one would expect other subpostmasters to have to follow that same route, but the government is concerned about the delay in processing so many cases. Nonetheless it is unprecedented to quash convictions by legislative fiat in a situation when the courts would yet be competent to do the same; and notwithstanding the concerns of criminal and constitutional lawyers, a Bill to this effect appears likely to be produced this year and to receive support from all sides of the House of Commons. In this short video Dr Jonathan Rogers explains the background, explores the challenges that will face those who draft the legislation, and comments further on the likely reservations that many will still entertain about this innovation. Jonathan Rogers is Associate Professor in Criminal Justice at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. He co-founded the Criminal Law Reform Now Network (http://www.clrnn.co.uk/) in 2017 and leads an ongoing project by that network into the reform of private prosecutions, and in that capacity he gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee in 2020 on safeguards in the wake of the Post Office scandal. For more information about Dr Rogers, you can also refer to his profile at: https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/jw-rogers/78191 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

The government has recently announced that it intends to quash by legislation convictions of hundreds of subpostmasters who had been prosecuted by the Post Office for, variously, theft, fraud and false accounting. This follows a number of appeals which have already succeeded where it has been accepted that convictions that are based on generated by the Horizon software are necessarily unsafe. Usually, one would expect other subpostmasters to have to follow that same route, but the government is concerned about the delay in processing so many cases. Nonetheless it is unprecedented to quash convictions by legislative fiat in a situation when the courts would yet be competent to do the same; and notwithstanding the concerns of criminal and constitutional lawyers, a Bill to this effect appears likely to be produced this year and to receive support from all sides of the House of Commons. In this short video Dr Jonathan Rogers explains the background, explores the challenges that will face those who draft the legislation, and comments further on the likely reservations that many will still entertain about this innovation. Jonathan Rogers is Associate Professor in Criminal Justice at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. He co-founded the Criminal Law Reform Now Network (http://www.clrnn.co.uk/) in 2017 and leads an ongoing project by that network into the reform of private prosecutions, and in that capacity he gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee in 2020 on safeguards in the wake of the Post Office scandal. For more information about Dr Rogers, you can also refer to his profile at: https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/jw-rogers/78191 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill seeks to circumvent the UK Supreme Court's recent judgment holding the Government's Rwanda policy, concerning the removal of certain asylum-seekers, to Rwanda. The Bill contemplates placing the UK in breach of its international obligations, including under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Refugee Convention, while forming part of a policy that relies upon Rwanda's adherence to its own international obligations. The Bill is thus at once hypocritical and parochial, given that domestic legislation cannot free the UK of its legal obligations on the international plane. In this short video Professor Mark Elliott explores the legal and constitutional implications of the Bill. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at: https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill seeks to circumvent the UK Supreme Court's recent judgment holding the Government's Rwanda policy, concerning the removal of certain asylum-seekers, to Rwanda. The Bill contemplates placing the UK in breach of its international obligations, including under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Refugee Convention, while forming part of a policy that relies upon Rwanda's adherence to its own international obligations. The Bill is thus at once hypocritical and parochial, given that domestic legislation cannot free the UK of its legal obligations on the international plane. In this short video Professor Mark Elliott explores the legal and constitutional implications of the Bill. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at: https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

On the 15 November the UK Supreme Court decided that the United Kingdom's policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. In this short video Dr Kirsty Hughes explains the Court's reasoning, and considers the Government's response and possible next steps. Kirsty Hughes is an Associate Professor specialising in Human Rights Law. She is joint General Editor of the European Human Rights Law Review, Director of the Centre for Public Law, University of Cambridge, a member of Blackstone Chambers Academic Panel and Deputy Editor of Public Law. She is a co-convenor of the European Human Rights Law Conference. For more information about Dr Hughes, please refer to her profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/ke-hughes/2113 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

On the 15 November the UK Supreme Court decided that the United Kingdom's policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. In this short video Dr Kirsty Hughes explains the Court's reasoning, and considers the Government's response and possible next steps. Kirsty Hughes is an Associate Professor specialising in Human Rights Law. She is joint General Editor of the European Human Rights Law Review, Director of the Centre for Public Law, University of Cambridge, a member of Blackstone Chambers Academic Panel and Deputy Editor of Public Law. She is a co-convenor of the European Human Rights Law Conference. For more information about Dr Hughes, please refer to her profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/ke-hughes/2113 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

On the 23rd November the UK Supreme court decided that the Scottish Parliament did not have the power to enact legislation to hold a second independence referendum in Scotland. In this short video Professor Alison Young explains the backdrop to the case, sets out how the Supreme court decided the case, and explores possible future paths to Scottish independence. Alison Young is the Sir David Williams Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Robinson College. She teaches constitutional law on undergraduate and postgraduate courses at the University of Cambridge and is the author of Turpin and Tomkins’ British Government and the Constitution (8th Edition). For more information about Professor Young, please refer to her profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/al-young/77940 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

On the 23rd November the UK Supreme court decided that the Scottish Parliament did not have the power to enact legislation to hold a second independence referendum in Scotland. In this short video Professor Alison Young explains the backdrop to the case, sets out how the Supreme court decided the case, and explores possible future paths to Scottish independence. Alison Young is the Sir David Williams Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Robinson College. She teaches constitutional law on undergraduate and postgraduate courses at the University of Cambridge and is the author of Turpin and Tomkins’ British Government and the Constitution (8th Edition). For more information about Professor Young, please refer to her profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/al-young/77940 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law. Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject. For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

On Thurday 17th March leading UK ferry operator P&O Ferries sacked 800 British crew across its entire fleet and stopped all sailings. The move sparked fury amongst employees and unions, and consternation in parliament. Many asked was the move - and the proposal to use cheap agency staff instead - legal, and also was it a result of Brexit? In this recording, Professor Catherine Barnard considers the legal implications, and the Brexit question. Catherine Barnard is Professor of European Union Law and Employment Law at the University of Cambridge, and Deputy Director at UK in a Changing Europe. This item was originally published as a blog via UK in a Changing Europe at: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/po-ferries-and-employment-law/ For more information about Professor Barnard, please refer to her profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cs-barnard/9 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

On Thurday 17th March leading UK ferry operator P&O Ferries sacked 800 British crew across its entire fleet and stopped all sailings. The move sparked fury amongst employees and unions, and consternation in parliament. Many asked was the move - and the proposal to use cheap agency staff instead - legal, and also was it a result of Brexit? In this recording, Professor Catherine Barnard considers the legal implications, and the Brexit question. Catherine Barnard is Professor of European Union Law and Employment Law at the University of Cambridge, and Deputy Director at UK in a Changing Europe. This item was originally published as a blog via UK in a Changing Europe at: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/po-ferries-and-employment-law/ For more information about Professor Barnard, please refer to her profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cs-barnard/9 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

There have been several recent egregious examples of private prosecutions, including the case of the Post Office prosecuting numerous Postmasters for losses caused by a faulty IT system. Professor John Spencer discusses these cases, the evolution of the system of private prosecutions, and the considerations involved in regulating such actions. Professor Spencer is Professor Emeritus of Law and Honorary President of the European Criminal Law Association. He has written extensively on criminal justice matters and has been involved in a number of law reform projects. For more information about Professor Spencer, please refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/jr-spencer/79 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

There have been several recent egregious examples of private prosecutions, including the case of the Post Office prosecuting numerous Postmasters for losses caused by a faulty IT system. Professor John Spencer discusses these cases, the evolution of the system of private prosecutions, and the considerations involved in regulating such actions. Professor Spencer is Professor Emeritus of Law and Honorary President of the European Criminal Law Association. He has written extensively on criminal justice matters and has been involved in a number of law reform projects. For more information about Professor Spencer, please refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/jr-spencer/79 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

In January 2018 it was reported that the Parole Board had approved the release of John Worboys, the so-called ‘Black Cab Rapist’. Worboys had been incarcerated since his conviction for a number of sexual offences in March 2009, and it was believed that he was responsible for many attacks over which he was not charged. The announcement of the decision caused much public unrest, and led to scrutiny of the Parole Board’s decision and suggestions that it should be subject to judicial review. In this video, Professor Christopher Forsyth considers the situation, and the likelihood of any review being successful. Christopher Forsyth was Sir David Williams Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/c-f-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

In January 2018 it was reported that the Parole Board had approved the release of John Worboys, the so-called ‘Black Cab Rapist’. Worboys had been incarcerated since his conviction for a number of sexual offences in March 2009, and it was believed that he was responsible for many attacks over which he was not charged. The announcement of the decision caused much public unrest, and led to scrutiny of the Parole Board’s decision and suggestions that it should be subject to judicial review. In this video, Professor Christopher Forsyth considers the situation, and the likelihood of any review being successful. Christopher Forsyth was Sir David Williams Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/c-f-forsyth/31 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

In the first round of the French Presidential election, Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen progressed to the runoff on 7 May, notwithstanding neither candidate having the backing of the traditionally powerful parliamentary parties. Will the new French President be hamstrung in power if she or he does not obtain a majority in the parliamentary elections of June 2017? Does the French Constitution enable a government to govern without its policies being approved by Parliament? This short video by Professor John Bell provides some answers. John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Bell, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-bell/6 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

In the first round of the French Presidential election, Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen progressed to the runoff on 7 May, notwithstanding neither candidate having the backing of the traditionally powerful parliamentary parties. Will the new French President be hamstrung in power if she or he does not obtain a majority in the parliamentary elections of June 2017? Does the French Constitution enable a government to govern without its policies being approved by Parliament? This short video by Professor John Bell provides some answers. John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge. For more information about Professor Bell, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-bell/6 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

In Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 (http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-ilott-v-the-blue-cross-ors-2017-uksc-17/) the Supreme Court considered the competing claims of the animal charities included in a woman's will and her estranged adult daughter, who was excluded from the will but living in necessitous circumstances. In this video, Brian Sloan considers the outcome of the case, which raised fundamental principles of succession law, and its broader implications. Brian Sloan is College Lecturer in Law at Robinson College, University of Cambridge, and lectures in Family Law. For more information about Dr Sloan, please refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/bd-sloan/409 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

In Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 (http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-ilott-v-the-blue-cross-ors-2017-uksc-17/) the Supreme Court considered the competing claims of the animal charities included in a woman's will and her estranged adult daughter, who was excluded from the will but living in necessitous circumstances. In this video, Brian Sloan considers the outcome of the case, which raised fundamental principles of succession law, and its broader implications. Brian Sloan is College Lecturer in Law at Robinson College, University of Cambridge, and lectures in Family Law. For more information about Dr Sloan, please refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/bd-sloan/409 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.