Trudi Warner, a climate protester, faces contempt of court charges for displaying a placard advocating jurors' rights to acquit based on conscience. The article explores historical and legal precedents, including Bushell’s Case and the trial of William Shipley, highlighting the tension between legal directives and jurors' moral judgments. It underscores the enduring debate over the role of juries in delivering justice, balancing legal evidence with personal conscience, and the implications for contemporary legal proceedings.

The UK's Illegal Migration Act, which bypassed the usual compatibility statement with the European Convention on Human Rights, has been subject to intense scrutiny and criticism. It bars asylum claims from those entering without the right to do so and prevents victims of human trafficking from seeking protection. The act allows for the detention of immigrants and their transfer to 'safe third countries' for asylum processing, with Rwanda being paid to receive them. The lack of a compatibility statement raises the risk of a 'declaration of incompatibility' by the courts and potential conflicts with the EU, which could suspend law enforcement cooperation under the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. This could have significant implications for crime prevention and the sharing of intelligence on human trafficking.

The article explores the ethical implications of the 'cab rank rule' in the legal profession, which mandates that barristers must take any case within their expertise regardless of personal beliefs. It highlights a recent declaration by 120 legal professionals, led by Jolyon Maugham KC, refusing to represent fossil fuel companies or prosecute climate protesters, arguing that the climate crisis necessitates an exception to the rule. The piece also examines the misuse of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) by the super-rich to silence critics, emphasizing that the fault lies in the law rather than the lawyers. The article concludes that the cab rank rule is essential for ensuring fair representation in the legal system, even for the most unpopular clients.

The UK's Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, containing provisions to restrict public protest and criminalize 'unauthorized encampments', has passed through the House of Lords and is returning to the Commons. The bill introduces new offences such as 'locking on' during protests, interference with infrastructure, and allows police to stop and search without suspicion. The Lords blocked some measures, but they may reappear in new legislation. The bill has been criticized for being an authoritarian attack on civil liberties, with the Lords having to defend public protest rights. Additionally, the Lords approved criminalizing residing on land without consent, which could lead to the seizure of vehicles and property, potentially rendering individuals intentionally homeless.

The UK Supreme Court has made two judgments that limit the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions, aligning with the government's own proposals in legislation. The Judicial Review and Courts Bill allows judges to suspend orders that strike down administrative actions, conferring temporary validity on decisions that are unlawful, pending correction. The Supreme Court's recent decisions in the cases of Re A and BF (Eritrea) have narrowed the grounds on which policy guidance and decisions made under it can be nullified, focusing solely on whether the policy misdirects officials in their legal obligations. This marks a shift back to the judicial review stance of the 1980s and provides the executive with more leeway to advance policies with reduced judicial scrutiny.

Juries, despite their imperfections, are a crucial part of British criminal justice, now threatened by proposals to suspend jury trials for certain offences due to Covid-19. The justice secretary's plan faces strong opposition from the legal profession, the Labour Party, and the House of Lords. The backlog of cases is attributed to long-term budget cuts rather than the pandemic. The article argues that removing juries undermines the fairness and public representation in the justice system, highlighting the importance of jury diversity and the dedication jurors bring to their role.

The article discusses the impact of Covid-19 on the UK's judicial system, highlighting the challenges faced by courts and prisons as ideal incubators for the virus. It criticizes the inconsistent government messages and the inadequate infrastructure of the courts, exacerbated by years of neglect and recent property sales. The piece also explores the accelerated shift towards remote hearings and the need for continued investment in technology to ensure justice is served. The author argues for the importance of live trials and the necessity of physical presence in the courtroom for effective justice.

The article critically examines the state of the UK's criminal justice system, focusing on the Court of Appeal and broader systemic issues. It highlights the low success rate of appeals, budget cuts, and policy failures that have led to inefficiencies and injustices. Key figures such as Alison Saunders, Chris Grayling, and Michael Gove are discussed, with particular criticism directed at austerity measures and their impact on legal aid and prison conditions. The article also references 'The Secret Barrister' book, which exposes the flaws in the system and calls for urgent reforms.

The Kavanaugh Senate hearings, similar to many sexual offence trials, involve choosing between conflicting accounts without supporting evidence. The jury must be sure of guilt, which means acquitting if there's any reasonable doubt, even if the defendant is probably guilty. The article discusses the challenges juries face in such cases, emphasizing that demeanor alone cannot determine the truth.

The article provides an in-depth look at the work of harbour pilots in Fowey, Cornwall, focusing on the experiences of Will Mitchell and his colleagues from the Fowey Harbour Commission. It describes the process of guiding large vessels into the port, highlighting the expertise required and the challenges faced. The narrative includes interactions with the crew of the MV Veendijk, a cargo ship, and offers historical context about Fowey's maritime significance. The piece underscores the pilots' skill and the importance of their role in ensuring safe navigation in and out of the harbour.

Donald Trump's rhetoric, while unprecedented in tone, follows a historical pattern of derogatory language used by imperialists and previous American administrations. The article draws parallels between Trump's policies and those of past presidents, as well as historical instances of racist and dehumanizing language. It critiques the persistence of such rhetoric in contemporary politics and media, highlighting examples from various sources and time periods.

Robert McCoy's death row appeal to the US Supreme Court questions the constitutionality of a defense lawyer admitting guilt against a client's wishes, aiming to avoid the death penalty. The case highlights the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment and the historical context of legal representation in the US and England. The Supreme Court must decide the extent of a lawyer's authority in defiance of a client's instructions.

The article is a personal narrative of the author's experience walking the Camino de Santiago during a midlife crisis. The Camino is a pilgrim's route that starts in southern France and ends in Santiago de Compostela in north-west Spain. The author reflects on the simplicity of life on the Camino, where pilgrims carry only essentials and support each other through the journey. The walk serves as a metaphor for life, encouraging perseverance through challenges. The author encounters various individuals, each with their own stories and reasons for walking the Camino, from dealing with loss to celebrating survival. The pilgrimage allows the author and others to reflect on life, find meaning, and decide on a new future, emphasizing the importance of just keeping walking, both literally and metaphorically.

Unesco is evaluating Asmara's bid for World Heritage status, highlighting its remarkable Futurist architecture from the Italian colonial period. Despite neglect and economic challenges, the capital's modernist buildings, such as the Fiat Tagliero, stand out. Positive attention from World Heritage status could counterbalance the generally negative Western media coverage of Eritrea, which often focuses on the government's controversial policies and human rights issues.

The article explores the extensive legal and legislative implications for the UK if it votes to leave the EU, highlighting the complexities of disentangling EU law from UK law. It discusses the various competences of the EU, the potential models for future UK-EU relations, and the significant challenges in renegotiating treaties and regulations. The text also addresses the potential impact on workers' rights, environmental standards, and cross-border policing, emphasizing the Herculean task of reworking UK law post-Brexit. The article critiques the Brexit supporters' understanding of EU legislation and the potential consequences of leaving the EU.

The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in R. v. Jogee has overturned the common law doctrine of joint enterprise, which allowed individuals to be convicted of crimes they did not personally commit or intend to commit. The court found that the doctrine over-criminalized secondary parties and placed an unfair burden on young people. The judgment corrects a legal error dating back to 1984, emphasizing the need for proof of intention rather than mere foresight. The ruling has significant implications for past convictions and highlights the importance of protecting children's rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The article criticizes the global and Israeli response to the Israel-Palestine conflict, highlighting the disparity in reactions to the deaths of Israeli and Palestinian youths. It argues that Israel's actions, including the recent military operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, are driven by political motives to prevent Palestinian unity and shift the narrative from colonialism to terrorism. The text also discusses the internal Palestinian political dynamics, including the strained relationship between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and the broader regional implications of the conflict.

In the article, Francis Fitzgibbon discusses the approach the LGBT community should take in the fight for gay marriage rights. He suggests that instead of fostering a mob mentality, the community could benefit from adopting Abraham Lincoln's strategy of turning enemies into friends. Fitzgibbon cites a historical anecdote where Lincoln was questioned about his treatment of enemies and he responded that by making them his friends, he is effectively destroying them. The article implies that a more conciliatory and understanding approach may be more successful in winning rights for the LGBT community.