header-logo header-logo

19 December 2014 / Jon Holbrook
Issue: 7635 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

The big question

Jon Holbrook reflects on why John Stuart Mill is a better guide to “liberty” than judicial precedent

Writing in The Guardian Simon Jenkins observed how issues of social policy often call for a philosopher yet “all we get are bloody lawyers” (“Our addiction to criminalising human behaviour makes a mockery of private responsibility”, 6 November 2014). His point being that deep thinking about social issues is often curtailed by the lawyer’s resort to judicial precedent.

This criticism cannot be levelled at Mr Justice Mostyn who ruled in November on whether the caring arrangement for Katherine, a woman who lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for herself, amounted to a deprivation of her liberty (Rochdale MBC v KW [2014] EWCOP 45, [2014] All ER (D) 200 (Nov)). Mostyn J observed “that the first question I have to answer is what is ‘liberty’ for Katherine?” This, he noted, “is obviously a big question”. And he proceeded to answer it with citations from John Stuart Mill’s essay “On liberty”.

By approaching this

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll