Edward Fennell’s LEGAL DIARY
Diary news, commentary, insights and appointments from the legal world
June 20 2025
Editorial Contact: fennell.edward@yahoo.com
SHORT THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK: THE PERILS OF EXTRADITION
Image courtesy of Pinterval
The UK’s Extradition Act is coming under scrutiny again with signs that the Law Commission could welcome a review of the way it currently operates (often, it might seem, with perverse results).
But alongside that are growing concerns about Interpol and its Red Notices which, it is claimed, are often issued at the request of authoritarian regimes who cynically abuse the system as a way of reaching out across borders to pick up dissidents or punish asylum seekers.
“INTERPOL has become a tool for transnational repression, extortion, and persecution,” observes Radha Stirling, Interpol expert and founder of IPEX (Interpol and Extradition Reform and Due Process International. “It is used by its member states not to combat crime, but to bully, harass and intimidate. And the global public has no remedy when that system fails.”
As if to underline the point, Vitalie Pîrlog, former Chairman of INTERPOL’s Commission for the Control of Files (CCF), has apparently been arrested this week at the request of the French authorities over possible corruption concerns.
Of course, everyone wants a rules-based system to function properly but if the rules can be gamed then the Referee has to blow the whistle. Maybe that time has now come.
The Legal Diarist
In this week’s edition:
Legal Diary of the Week
City Lawyers take on HMRC
DUAA or Don’t Yer?
Mums Take Aim at NoxEmissions
Do Lawyers Get Cross Selling?
Legal Comment of the Week
on ECHR reform, attacking Iran, Jury bias, The 10 Year infrastructure plan, ICO fines and 23andMe
Legal Appointments of the Week
at Church Court Chamber and Kennedys
LEGAL DIARY OF THE WEEK
City Lawyers take on HMRC
What does it mean to live in a free and democratic society?
Well, a good example was given this week by the City of London Law Society’s Tax Law Committee who have just ripped up, torn apart and then kicked down the road to oblivion HMRC’s consultation paper ‘Closing in on promoters of Marketed Tax Avoidance’. In short it is a masterpiece of how to tell an agency of Government (you might say the KEY agency of Government) where to get off. In a forensically rigorous analysis CLLS exposes HMRC for its unprincipled attack on a whole raft of entirely legal activities in the financial services industry.
Take this, for example, from the CLLS Committee Chair Philip Harle (who is also a Partner at Hogan Lovells), “We are talking about proposals which breach established fundamental human rights, the rule of law and constitutional conventions…. HMRC enforce tax legislation, they do not make it. The… proposal is so broadly framed that it would effectively give HMRC the power to criminalise, by regulation, with no mechanism for Parliamentary scrutiny and very little scope for judicial oversight, any conduct that HMRC might consider to amount to tax avoidance.”
When it comes to the role and privileges of lawyers, CLLS stands up heroically for its members.
“The proposals in relation to legal professional privilege are particularly concerning. Time and again, Parliament has recognised in legislation granting investigation powers that LPP is a fundamental right that is outside their scope. However, this consultation, uniquely in our view, amongst other things suggests a new concept of a limited waiver of privilege but in circumstances that are ill-defined, lack any definition of how such a waiver is supposed to work and fail to explain why other routes to achieving what HMRC seeks do not work. The whole approach to LPP in this consultation is one that CLLS finds seriously objectionable.”
HMRC’s current approach, then, reminds one of King John’s strategy for tax collection before Magna Carta pegged him down a step or two. Maybe we are heading for a Runnymede-style showdown.
The CLLS Tax Law Committee’s full response to the consultation can be viewed here.
DUAAA OR DON’T YER?
If you think HMRC is demonstrating the heavy hand of the State what do you make of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which has been given new powers courtesy of DUAA (the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025) which has just received Royal Assent. These powers include, for example, the ability to compel witnesses to attend interviews, request technical reports, and – most strikingly – issue fines of up to £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover under PECR.
The difference between HMRC and the ICO, perhaps, is that the latter will be using its powers to make it easier for UK businesses to protect people’s personal information.
“The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 gives organisations using personal information new and better opportunities to innovate and grow in the UK, and further enhances our ability to balance innovation and economic growth with strong protections for people’s rights,” said John Edwards, the Information Commissioner. “Today we’ve published a catalogue of resources to help explain what this new legislation means for businesses. Over the coming months we will launch new guidance, open consultations, and provide practical tools to help embed the Act’s principles into everyday operations. Our goal is to ensure that data can be used confidently and responsibly to deliver better services, drive economic growth, and uphold public trust.”
The Government is now aiming to phase in the implementation of the new law – ‘Commencing different changes using secondary legislation’ as they put it. This could become a drawn-out process. Although most provisions are expected to come into force either two or six months after Royal Assent, some may take up to 12 months. Time enough to get ready?
Sign up to the ICO newsletter and e-shots
MUMS TAKE AIM AT NOX-EMISSIONS
Taking place today is a hearing covering procedural matters in relation to the £6 billion NOx emissions group legal action due to go to trial this October. As readers will recall this involves Mercedes, Ford, Nissan, Renault and Peugeot Citroen and the claim that cheat devices were installed in test cars so as to give lower readings of NOx (meaning that that these cars passed safety tests). According to a report commissioned by environmental law organisation ClientEarth, 124,000 premature deaths in the EU and UK have been linked to illegally high Dieselgate emissions.
Among the interested parties in the case is Mums for Lungs, a community interest company, which is being supported pro bono by Mishcon de Reya and Questor Consulting. Back in February, Mums for Lungs wrote an open letter to the court (supported by many hundreds of people) which requested that documents in the so-called Dieselgate litigation should be made publicly available due to the level of public interest. To back this us they filed an application last week asking the Court for open justice.
Already there have been a multitude of redactions but Mums for Lungs believes the public cannot understand the thresholds at which the alleged defeat devices might operate in diesel vehicles still on the road because the specific parameter values are redacted. (These include temperature thresholds, atmospheric pressure, torque levels and other key metrics, such as gear, RPM, engine speed, vehicle velocity, and air per combustion stroke).
Coming up on 7 July will be a hearing in which one of the issues will be the ‘confidentiality ring’ – i.e. what the defendants want to be discussed behind closed doors, not in open court, with the press and public excluded. The outcome of this will have a significant impact on the October trial.
Looks like it’s going to be a long case
DO LAWYERS GET CROSS SELLING?
This is hardly news – there have been complaints about it since the 1980s – but lawyers who fail to cross sell their firms’ services are costing their colleague a fortune. Cross-selling is the biggest missed opportunity to boost profits, according to three-quarters of senior law firm marketers, with almost half (49%) claiming that lawyers don’t apply it because they don’t want to seem too forward. At least that’s according to a study by Passle which spoke to marketing and business development heads at 150 law firms – half in the UK and half US.
“In today’s competitive legal market, firms must demonstrate their full value,” said Connor Kinnear, Chief Marketing Officer at Passle “Failing to cross-sell means losing revenue to competitors. Rather than seeming pushy, cross-selling highlights a firm’s broad capabilities and strengthens client relationships. New data shows firms are missing out on millions—an avoidable loss. To stay ahead, marketers must get lawyers on board.”
Lack of interest or incentives was an issue for a third (33%) of lawyers and 28% said their fee-earners preferred to refer work to contacts outside the firm. Disinclination to share clients, uncertainty about how to approach them, a lack of time and also a lack of understanding about the different services their firm offered were also listed among the reasons.
Sounds like some inspirational chivvying is required.
LEGAL COMMENT OF THE WEEK
TOPIC: The Justice Secretary’s speech regarding ECHR Reform
COMMENT BY: Professor Richard Ekins KC (Hon), Head of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project:
“The Government’s newfound enthusiasm for ECHR reform is a welcome development. However, any serious attempt at reform has to address the flaw at the heart of European human rights law, which is the Strasbourg Court’s conceit that the ECHR is a “living instrument”. As Policy Exchange has argued for years, the Court has used this doctrine to remake the ECHR over time, not least to invent a European law of migration and asylum that goes well beyond foreign offenders. Meaningful ECHR reform has to tackle this doctrine and the case law to which it has given rise.”
TOPIC: Possible UK Support for attack on Iran
COMMENT BY: Kubo Mačák, professor of international law from the University of Exeter
“The Prime Minister – himself a human rights lawyer – should heed the legal advice he is receiving and avoid dragging the UK into another military adventure lacking a clear legal basis. Otherwise he risks exposing his government’s commitment to uphold the rule of law ‘at every turn’ as mere rhetoric, sacrificed at the altar of political expedience precisely when it matters most.”
TOPIC: The dangers of jury bias (as illustrated by recent experience in the Rochdale child abuse cases)
COMMENT BY: Jennifer Richardson, Partner at Blackfords LLP
“This highlights one of the imperfections of our Jury system. The reality is that unlike some other jurisdictions we don’t have the ability to probe into Jurors potential for bias before selection, and the only insight we ever get into whether or not there may be potential bias is if they allude to it through notes such as in this case. That said, I have found generally that Jurors stay very true to their oath and are often vocal about whether or not they feel they can fairly try a defendant based solely on the evidence.
Having a Jury of 12 people also provides some scope for checks and balances, in as much as Jurors will often speak out if they feel one of their fellow jurors is not acting with impartiality in their approach to assessing the evidence.”
COMMENT BY: Lucy Tapper, criminal barrister, Reeds Solicitors LLP
“We will never be able to eradicate bias/prejudice from juries. The value of the jury system is that it is a random selection of members of the public – all of whom will inevitably have differing views, opinions, values and, unfortunately conscious or unconscious prejudice about all sorts of things – not restricted to race/culture. The juror in this case presumably didn’t recognise that their question was reflective of racial bias/prejudice or they wouldn’t have asked it, but if they hadn’t, those views would have still been circulating in the jury room – unknown to the Judge or barristers in the case – and could have led to a different outcome.
Any additional move to eradicate bias/prejudice has to be weighed against the risk of silencing jurors and if that were to happen, the prejudicial influence remains, but the ability of the Judge to take any remedial action is lost.”
TOPIC: The Government’s Ten -Year Infrastructure plan
COMMENT BY: Stuart McMillan, partner, Burges Salmon
“The Government has long been open about its ambition to collaborate more heavily with the private sector and its 10-year UK infrastructure plan could see the private sector eyeing a revived role as an active delivery and financing partner. It has been clear for many years that there is a need for a massive step-shift in infrastructure investment in the UK and the reintroduction of some form of revenue financing could be a change welcomed by many. To be successful though, we need models which the private sector can understand and easily invest into. There may well not be a “one size fits all” model but there could be a number of models the Government could look at and develop to suit different aspects of infrastructure investment.”
TOPIC: The fine imposed on 23andMe by the Information Commissioner’s Office
COMMENT BY: Jon Baines, Senior Data Protection Specialist, Mishcon de Reya
“The news that the ICO has fined 23andMe £2.31m is perhaps not surprising, given the serious security failings it found, in its joint investigation with the Canadian Privacy Commissioner. The 2023 hack on 23andMe systems was poorly handled, and exposed a number of underlying failings, which led to the compromise of the sensitive information of over 150,000 UK residents.
“But this may not be as straightforward to enforce as the ICO would want. 23andMe is established in California, and regulatory enforcement across borders can be difficult.
“And there is another angle: 23andMe filed for bankruptcy in March, and since then there have been complicated manoeuvres and negotiations for its sale. These have in themselves raised concerns about what will happen with users’ sensitive genetic data, but they also create a difficult dynamic, because a buyer of the company may not want to acquire at the same time the liabilities that accompany a regulatory fine, which might include the increased threat of legal claims from overseas users.“
LEGAL SECTOR APPOINTMENTS OF THE WEEK
CHURCH COURT CHAMBERS
Claire Anderson has been appointed to the newly-created role of Chief Executive at Church Court Chambers. Formerly a Director and Partner at two separate Legal 500-rated firms of solicitors (where she both developed her own practice and gained experience in management, client relations and business development), Anderson has significant insight into the needs and expectations of instructing solicitors.
In her own career as a well-known criminal defence lawyer, Anderson acted in a number of most high-profile cases where she earned a reputation for rigorous attention to detail, client care and unwavering commitment to justice. Her considerable experience as a lawyer gives her a unique perspective on the challenges faced by the modern Bar, and she is expected to bring both vision and insight to her new role.
“We are delighted to welcome Claire as our Chief Executive,” said Church Court Head of Chambers, Michael Mather–Lees KC. “Her appointment demonstrates Chambers’ vision and commitment to the implementation of strategic business development, and the continued structured and measured growth of Chambers, both domestically and internationally. We are all looking forward to this exciting new chapter.”
KENNEDYS
Tracy Watkinson has been appointed as the inaugural Chief Operating Officer (COO) at Kennedys. Previously occupying senior roles at financial institutions such as Barclays, UBS, and Credit Suisse, Watkinson recently served as Chief Operating Officer of Finance at NatWest Group, where she was responsible for implementing a global finance transformation. This entailed establishing a new COO department of 300 employees. She is also a Non-Executive Director of Time Finance, an AIM listed invoice and asset financing business for UK SMEs.
“This strategic hire reflects Kennedys’ continued commitment to excellence and sustainable growth,” said Meg Catalano, Global Managing Partner at Kennedys, “Tracy brings a wealth of experience in leading complex operational environments, and will play a pivotal role in driving operational efficiency, supporting our global expansion, and helping to realise the vision set by our Executive Group.”
Watkinson’s appointment is hot on the heels of last year’s appointments of Catherine Goodman as the firm’s first Chief Knowledge Officer and Paul Brotzel as Chief Information Officer.
We hope that you have found something of interest of amusement in this edition of the LEGAL DIARY.
If so, please circulate to colleagues and friends.
In any case do continue to send your Diary-type news, legal insights and comment as well as recent appointment to
Enjoy the weekend(under a nice shade, of course)!