10 February 2025
In UK News
Medical experts have claimed that Lucy Letby did not murder any babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, concluding that the infants died of natural causes and negligent medical care. Having reviewed the medical evidence, a panel of 14 world-leading neonatologists have concluded that they “did not find any murders”. The case has been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in light of what Letby’s legal team described as overwhelming evidence of a miscarriage of justice. Letby is currently serving 15 whole-life prison terms having been convicted of murdering seven babies. Two previous attempts to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal have been dismissed. The CCRC is expected to review the panel’s full report in the coming weeks. If it is decided that there is a real chance of quashing the convictions, the CCRC can send the case back to the Court of Appeal.
Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos,has urged lawyers and judges to embrace generative artificial intelligence at the LawtechUK Generative AI event for three reasons. First, the industrial, financial and consumer sectors, which lawyers serve, will be using it “at every level”. Second, lawyers are going to be “at the forefront of AI liability disputes” in the coming years with regard to the negligent or inappropriate use of AI, and if lawyers do not master the capabilities and weaknesses of AI they will not be able to advise clients properly. Finally, it will save time and money and engender greater efficiency. Vos expressed irritation towards those who use “silly examples of bad practice as a reason to shun the entirety of a new technology” and stressed that there is nothing “inherently problematic with AI”. Rather, it is a question of understanding what AI is doing and using it appropriately. Ultimately, for Vos, it is “uncontroversial” that lawyers should be using AI to “promote and improve access to justice and the quality of decision-making”.
In International News
China has unveiled tariffs on the United States in response to the 10% levies that President Trump recently imposed on China. China has justified its retaliatory tariffs by arguing the United States’ levies violated WTO rules, damaging economic and trade cooperation between the two countries. Trump contended that the imposition of Chinese tariffs is a response to trade deficits, and the flow of fentanyl into the US. Whilst Trump postponed the 25% levies imposed on Canada and Mexico for one month, no such postponement measures were enacted in the case of China. The levies have caused significant volatility in the global financial markets. Trump has suggested that he would pursue similar action against the EU but that a deal could be “worked out” with the UK. The UK now needs to decide if it aligns itself with the EU or the US, or neither. If the UK aligns itself more closely on trade with the EU, this will likely entail accepting the EU’s regulations on agriculture and food safety. However, the United States’ standards in such areas differ significantly from those of the EU. If the UK were to adopt EU agricultural standards, this may make a UK-US trade deal much harder given that the US would likely not want an agreement that excludes agriculture. This is at the same as the EU are wrangling with the UK over a closer relationship going forward. Key issues pertain to the youth mobility scheme (a priority for Germany) and an extension to current fishing rights arrangements (a priority for France). In the next few weeks, we may get clarity as to how the UK chooses to position itself between major global trading blocs.
In the Courts
The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal over whether a local authority which has ‘corporate’ parental responsibility for a child under the age of 16 can consent to the deprivation of their liberty. The case concerns a 14 year old disabled boy known as ‘J’ who is ‘looked after’ under S.20 of the Children Act 1989 and who resides in a specialist children’s home. In J: Local Authority consent to Deprivation of Liberty, Re [2024] EWHC 1690 (Fam), Lieven J held that a local authority could deprive J of his liberty and did not need the court’s approval to do so. This was because the decision the local authority was being asked to make under S.33(3)(b) of the Children Act 1989 was not of “such magnitude” that the Court would need to make it instead. For Lieven J, depriving J of his liberty was “essential to ensuring his best interests” so necessarily fell “within the LA’s statutory powers” under S.33 of the Children Act [34]. All parties in the case felt that the local authority should not deprive J of his liberty without the court’s approval. The interveners (Article 39 and Mind, the Secretary of State for Education and the Children’s Commissioner) also supported court oversight. With a panel comprising the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, Lady Justice and Lord Justice Singh, the Court of Appeal confirmed the appeal was successful and made a deprivation of liberty order, with full reasons due to be provided at a later date. Consequently, Lieven J’s ruling should not now be followed.
