header-logo header-logo

10 September 2020 / Dr Jon Robins
Issue: 7901 / Categories: Opinion , Immigration & asylum
printer mail-detail

Choppy waters

27140
Jon Robins highlights the clashes between government & ‘activist lawyers’ over the treatment of migrants

A short video posted from the Home Office Twitter account at the end of last month blamed EU regulations for ‘allowing activist lawyers to delay and disrupt returns’ of migrants. The government had been thwarted in its plans to put 23 migrants who had arrived in the UK on small boats on a charter flight to Spain. The video, described by The Times as resembling the opening sequence of the BBC sitcom Dad’s Army with arrows indicating ‘British forces attacking Nazi-occupied Europe’, was swiftly taken down.

The idea of activism being demeaned by government as a professional flaw predictably incensed the legal Twitterati: ‘ “Activist lawyers” again? Really? Doing your job is now activism, it seems,’ tweeted the Bar Council. ‘We are wondering what an “activist Home Secretary” does.’

Matthew Rycroft, permanent secretary at the Home Office, admitted that officials should not have used the phrase; however the home secretary waded in asserting people who had arrived

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
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll