9 May 2025

Editorial contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com

SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK:

YESTERDAY – Era-making or just erratic?

Official portrait

View and download portraits and cropped portraits of Lord Mandelson.

Lord Mandelson does not currently have an official portrait.

[Image courtesy of Lord Mandelson’s Parliamentary page]

Big day yesterday – VE celebrations, new pope greets the world and agreement courtesy of Lord Mandelson on a small mixed-up trade deal with the US which keeps the UK car industry in business (just). Difficult to say which will be the more consequential.

Also notable however (at least for readers of The Times) was that leading columnist Emma Duncan wrote a powerful piece arguing that it was time for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. Given that the convention was established as a consequence of VE in order to say ‘never again’ to mass murder and concentration camps this was, you might say, a provocative position to adopt. Duncan believes, though, that it will happen (almost inevitably) simply as a way of throwing a spanner into Reform’s traction.

All ‘eras’ come to an end. Maybe we saw the ‘Post War era’ come to an end yesterday.

The LegalDiarist

In this edition

+ LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

CPS Under Fire

Starry Line-Up for Human Rights Panel

Lawyers Contribute to Real Estate Debate

Level Enjoys the Playing Field

+ CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

How to avoid ‘Burying’ More Football Clubs by Tim Williamson

+ LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

on the US-UK trade deal, the conclusion of the infected blood inquiry, the Victims and Courts Bill, proposed changes to nature conservation legislation.

+ APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

at PILLSBURY and OSBORNE CLARKE

LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK

CPS UNDER FIRE

Rape must be the most contentious of all crimes in our justice system. First, there is concern at how few cases actually arrive in the courts inrelation to the number of allegations made to the police. Then, there is indignation at how low is the level of conviction for those cases which do make it through to trial by jury.

Clearly it is a deeply complex and confusing situation compounded by recent assertions by two highly experienced specialists that that the Crown Prosecution Service is “failing to make sensible decisions… leading to weak cases proceeding to trial, causing irrevocable damage to those accused.”

That is the view of Reeds Solicitors (Reeds) Senior Partner and Head of Private Crime, Stuart Matthews and Eleanor Laws KC who have successfully achieved ‘Not Guilty’ verdicts in two recent rape trials. “Neither of these cases should have passed the evidential stage,” they claim. “These cases are a good example of a clear trend in the charging of demonstrably weak cases.”

Matthews and Laws are by no means alone. Another highly experienced sex crime specialist told the Legal Diary this week. “Some of the decision-making at all levels within the CPS is quite extraordinary – it’s not just rape cases, although the RASSO unit shows some clear deficiencies in terms of prosecutorial common sense and acuity. They are under-resourced, often ‘victim’-led to the detriment of proper, impartial case analysis, and some  lawyers seem unable to apply the law correctly to the evidence – meaning that the threshold test is misapplied and some cases are prosecuted when they shouldn’t be, and vice versa.”

Given that the current Prime Minister knows a thing or two about the CPS one might hope there will be improvements ahead. But don’t bank on it. 

Starry Line-Up for Human Rights Panel

Given the success of Reform at last week’s local elections the issue of human rights law is going to be increasingly high on the agenda of political debate.

It’s a legal issue, it’s a political issue, it’s a row-in-the-pub issue. And with Labour struggling to find an effective response to the demands for more control on immigration (both legal and illegal) it is likely ot be occupying many minds in Whitehall as well as the Supreme Court over the next four years.

So with its habitual timeliness Policy Exchange is hosting a discussion about ‘The Future of Human Rights Law’ and the launch of a new Policy Exchange workstream next Tuesday (13 May) at lunchtime.

To handled the topic they have rustled up as heavyweight a panel as you could hope for and all held together by chair Lord Burnett of Maldon, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. Stretching from Professor Richard Ekins KC (Hon), the Head of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project and Professor of Law and Constitutional Government, at the University of Oxford though to Tony Blair’s old mucker Lord Faulks KC, former Justice Minister and now the Chair of the Independent Press Standards Organisation the panel is a sparkling collection of established talent.

Not least Marina Wheeler KC the former adviser to the Labour Party on protecting women from workplace sexual harassment and discrimination is likely to make a big impact while Lord Verdirame KC, barrister and Professor of International Law, at King’s College London will add forensic rigour. And if you want to add in any extra spice then Joshua Rozenberg KC (Hon) the well-known star of radio and print is as good as you can get. So all-in-all it should be a great event!

The event is available in-person or by live stream. For more contact
events@policyexchange.org.uk

Lawyers Contribute to Real Estate Debate

The question behind the question ‘Why isn’t the Uk building more houses?’ has long been ‘Where are the skilled building tradespeople actually to do the work?‘. After all, it is widely recognised that prior to Brexit the UK construction industry leant heavily on EU workers – and post-2016 these then started to return home.

So with the Labour Government now under big pressure to deliver its election promises on housing the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum (UKREiiF) will start to examine this challenge at its Leeds event in the week after next (20 to 22 May).

Contributing a legal perspective will be Browne Jacobson whose Gabor Taller (Partner and Co-Head of Social Housing), and Ayesha Khalique, (Partner, built environment team) will jointly host a panel debate titled Plugging the skills gap now for the built environment of the future at the Rethinking Places Pavilion (Tuesday 20 May from 3.15pm to 4.15pm).

“Tackling the construction skills shortage is essential for the substantiality and renewal of our built environment, as well as for enhancing the productivity of the UK overall,” said Taller. 

“This issue is resonating with so many of our clients across a range of sectors and is particularly timely in the context of the government’s ‘Plan for Change’ ambitions, which includes the construction of 1.5m homes during the current parliamentary term.

“I’m excited to hear from such a high-calibre panel and to create a great opportunity for collaborative discussion in the networking drinks we are hosting following the session.”

(Just don’t try climbing any ladders after the drinks.)

Level Enjoys the Playing Field

With the Football Governance Bill being debated in Parliament and the likely arrival of an Independent Football Regulator (see our ‘Contributed Article of the Week’ below) things are hotting up in the field of sports regualtion. Add in the complexities of the trans debate and the growth of Olympic sports then sports law starts to look increasingly complex.

No surprise then that one of the fastest growing British boutique law firms is Level which offers a dedicated sector focus on sport, media, entertainment and technology. “We boast a client roster featuring a treasure trove of the most prominent national and international federations, teams, agencies and broadcasters in the world of sport, as well as international sporting superstars,” it declares.

The firm’s latest arrival is Alistair Maclean (above) , former Group General Counsel at World Rugby, whose track record encompasses both of Europe’s leading ball games via being Group Legal Director and Company Secretary at The Football Association (FA), Director of the National Football Centre, and Group General Counsel at World Rugby. And beyond that he had cleverly positioned himself at the ‘intersection of sport, technology, and AI’, advising start-ups and established organisations alike.

“Alistair’s arrival marks a significant addition to our team,” says Morris Bentata, the Level Founding Partner. “His breadth of experience across global sports and events enhances our ability to support clients at every level of the industry. We’re thrilled to welcome him to Level.”

As to Maclean, his comment is, “I’m excited to join Level and work alongside a team that shares my passion for innovation and excellence in the sports and entertainment sectors. I am looking forward to using the knowledge gained working at the top level of sports governing bodies and at major global sporting events to deliver practical advice on complex and strategic issues for Level clients.”

So watch out, the match is on.

CONTRIBUTED ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

How to avoid ‘Burying’ More Football Clubs
by Tim Williamson

We do not need to come from Bury to know how traumatic the demise of that local football club was for that community. Football matters to people. The question then becomes, how do we ensure this football survives and thrives, for the benefit of so many people up and down the country. What should our approach be and why is it important?

Although the Conservatives’ proposed Football Governance Bill was not approved before the 2024 general election, the new Labour government promised to pass a ‘strengthened’ version. We can be confident the main features of the Bill will remain.

The Bill will seek to establish a new public body, the Independent Football Regulator (IFR) which will hold three primary objectives:

· promotion of clubs’ financial soundness

· systematic financial resilience

· safeguarding the heritage of some of the world’s oldest football clubs

Importantly, the Independent Football Regulator will require each club in the top five tiers of English football to hold a licence to operate. The IFR will have the power to impose conditions on such a licence, for example relating to fan engagement and financial regulation.

The regulator will also be empowered to introduce a much more rigorous Owners’ and Directors’ Test (OADT), to create a larger sense of responsibility amongst the custodians of prestigious English clubs.

Irrespective of viewpoint, the IFR will have a role as a backstop: holding the final card to force through a settlement in any dispute about remuneration between the Premier League and EFL.

It is difficult to resist the argument that such intervention is needed in a market, where competition has been so seemingly skewed. Premier League advocates plainly have a point, but it’s not just about the Premier League. We need to think about why the fan-led review was arranged in the first place. Clubs went out of business. Supporters actually lost the club of their birth, of their upbringing.

On witnessing the backlash against Florentino Pérez and his proposed European Super League, the UK Government realised the power held by English football fans, as it was majorly their influence which caused multiple clubs to withdraw from the competition the night of the announcement (even despite the rumoured joining fee of £310 million).

Why does this matter? It matters because there will be a great deal of discussion about why the IFR is a good idea and even more discussion about why it is a bad idea. There will be discussion about overreaching of duties and state intervention. Anyone with an interest, legitimate or not, will be entitled to their view, and we will certainly hear plenty of those.

But we must remember why the Independent Football Regulator and the Football Governance Bill were considered necessary in the first place.

For that we need to look around us at the clubs we know in our villages, towns and cities. Not the ones constantly seen on TV. Not the ones on the back pages (or any pages) of the newspapers. The other clubs.

We must remember how many people would be affected if they no longer existed. Because that is not just a risk. It is reality. There may be people who argue none of this actually matters. Try telling that to the people of Bury.

Tim Williamson is a partner, Clarke Willmott LLP

LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK

TOPIC: The US-UK Trade Deal 

COMMENT BY: Paul Kirkpatrick, Partner and Head of Manufacturing and Industrials, Browne Jacobson

“Agreement of a US-UK trade deal, hot on the heels of the India trade deal being signed, is a significant success for this government and will help to make UK industry globally competitive and innovative.

“Given the US is a key export market for steel, aluminium and cars, this is a further commitment from government following its British Steel intervention to creating a pro-business environment that not only helps to future-proof our manufacturing industry but can help to attract new inward investment.

“Coinciding with another cut to the Bank of England base rate today, a stable and ambitious trading environment should also help to bolster investment among UK firms, which can drive the productivity gains that can grow the economy.

“Businesses will now want to see the government continue to address other challenges in realising Invest 2035, the UK’s modern industrial strategy, by prioritising a sustainable science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) and green skills pipeline as well as energy security.”

COMMENT BY: Ewan Townsend | Partner | Arnold & Porter 

“Downing Street has stated that the UK will receive “preferential treatment in any further tariffs imposed” as part of the US Department of Commerce’s ongoing investigation into pharmaceuticals. However, as the outcome of that investigation is widely expected to be a recommendation that President Trump impose significant tariffs on imports of pharmaceuticals into the US, the UK pharma industry has been left waiting to see exactly what this preferential treatment will mean for the £8.8 billion of medicinal and pharmaceutical products that the UK currently exports to the US, which are currently exempt for any tariffs at all.”

TOPIC: The conclusion of the Infected Blood Inquiry

COMMENT BY: Des Collins, senior partner at Collins Solicitors and adviser to victims of the scandal

“On behalf of my clients I would like to thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team, especially the forensic Jenni Richards KC, for their efforts to shine a light on the inadequacies of the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (IBCS) and the Government’s approach to compensation for the infected blood community.

We heard powerful accounts from victims on exactly what the flaws are and why the IBCS as currently constituted is causing such anxiety, distress and distrust.

Ms Richards put detailed questions to the Paymaster General and senior IBCS and Cabinet Office representatives so they can now be in no doubt as to the deficiencies of the scheme from the community’s perspective.   There are fundamental problems both with the design of the scheme as well as aggravating issues with its delivery.  She also extracted various promises from these officials to review some of the issues with a view to making improvements.

We welcome, in particular, for example, the commitments from Paymaster General Nick Thomas-Symonds to look at: the speed of compensation delivery; the 1 January 1982 liability window and the possibility of a “supplemental route” for affected people including children, parents and siblings.

Sadly, the Paymaster General was probably right to say we can’t at this point start again – it would indeed cause yet further interminable delay. We are where we are, although frankly this was avoidable if the Government had involved the community in the design of the scheme as it originally promised. But improvements can still be made and are essential if we are to honour our obligation to the Infected Blood community as outlined in the Public Inquiry Final report. 

Regulations can be tweaked. Tariffs can be increased. More staff can be hired. The tone deaf aspects of the scheme can be adjusted. These are all possibilities if the Government wants to demonstrate it has heard the community and is committed to justice for them.”

TOPIC: The Victim and Courts Bill, which, if passed, will give judges the power to punish convicted criminals who refuse to attend sentencing hearings

COMMENT BY: Katie Wheatley Head of Crime, Bindmans

“The vast majority of defendants do attend their sentencing hearings, and those hearings also provide an opportunity for defendants, if they wish to do so, to express remorse in an appropriate way and provide an explanation for their actions, which may also be of value to victims. This bill is about the small number of defendants who decide not to attend. The Government has understood that being able to see the defendant at their sentencing hearing is of enormous importance to many victims and this bill  is designed to incentivise defendants  who may consider not attending to do so. It is certainly preferable to expecting prison staff to drag people from their cells and into court and it may ensure attendance by some who are considering not attending, but  there may remain others who will opt not to do so.”

TOPIC:  Proposed changes to nature conservation law 

COMMENT BY: Richard Broadbent, Environmental Lawyer, Freeths LLP

“It is deeply frustrating that the Government is seeking to make the biggest changes to nature conservation law this country has seen for decades on the basis of no data or research in support of its key arguments. 

“As usual, slashing environmental protections is offered up as a solution because it is easier and sounds rhetorically satisfying to do so rather than because there is evidence that it is needed or will work. 

“This is reminiscent of Defra’s Habitats and Wild Birds Directives Implementation Review published in March 2012 not long after the Tories came to power. This Defra report found that of the 26,500 land use consultations Natural England received annually, it only objected to less than 0.5% on Habitats Regulations grounds and most of those objections were successfully dealt with at the planning stage. 

“A Natural England information request I carried out in 2022 after the previous Government awarded itself powers to gut the Habitats Regulations in the Environment Act 2021 found that in the year April 2021 to March 2022 out of 32,056 land use consultations, just 15 were objected to on Habitats Regulations grounds (0.045%). 

“Like any legal regime, over time reform is needed and the Habitats Regulations is no exception. This, however, should be carried out in a sensible and informed way. For example, rather than remove the protections under the Habitats Regulations new European sites guidance could be issued for example requiring greater proportionality in terms of the “reasonable scientific certainty” which is needed or on what is required for compensatory measures. Greater political support could be given to emerging nature markets, ensuring that they have the integrity and governance needed to ensure they thrive. 

“Finally, a great deal of assistance could be provided if the Government invested in funding baseline data to underpin, for example, bat and dormouse district level licensing schemes.”

APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK

PILLSBURY

Sarah Melaney is joining the Pillsbury office in London as a Corporate Tech Partner. Previously with Withers, Melaney’s practice focuses on advising high-growth companies and investors on their investment rounds, scale-ups, exits including trade sales and IPOs, and general corporate governance matters, Melaney has been recognized by both Chambers UK and Legal 500 UK in which she is described as ‘one of, if not the best in [the venture capital] space’.

Throughout her career, Melaney has been especially active on behalf of women founders and she often serves as general counsel to start-up clients, providing strategic guidance on all manner of commercial issues. She has an emphasis on impact investing and has valuable experience with listings on both the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) and the main market of the London Stock Exchange.

“With strong financial infrastructure and easy access to markets in Europe and beyond, London has established itself as an increasingly important part for the startup ecosystem,” said David Dekker, the Pillsbury chair. “The UK has become the third most valuable venture economy in the world according to reports, and our own interactions with entrepreneur and investor clients reflect that same enthusiasm. With Sarah on board, we can better serve emerging companies and venture capital funds in London while also providing valuable expertise to US clients looking to expand their businesses internationally.”

OSBORNE CLARKE

James Meakin is joining Osborne Clarke as a Partner in its corporate tax practice in London. Previously with Howard Kennedy LLP, Meakin has more than 20 years’ experience as a corporate tax lawyer advising a variety of clients on tax issues facing their businesses and transactions. He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Tax.

Meakin’s clients include multinational and private companies and their shareholders, financial institutions, funds and private equity houses across a wide range of sectors, including the built environment, technology, media and comms, and retail. Meanwhile his core practice includes corporate, real estate and financing transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, group reorganisations, joint ventures, venture capital and private equity from both a UK and cross border perspective.

 The corporate Tax Team is a key part of Osborne Clarke’s wider Tax Group which has a strong presence in the market and has grown significantly in recent years.”Osborne Clarke’s corporate tax team is a highly regarded team full of exceptional lawyers and it will be a pleasure to be part of it. I look forward to supporting the Team’s offering across all core areas of tax “, said Meakin.

We hope that you’ve been interested or amused by something in this week’s LEGAL DIARY. If so do send on to colleagues.

And please continue sending your ‘Diary-type’ stories, insights legal comment and appointments to

fennell.edward@yahoo.com