header-logo header-logo

28 April 2021
Categories: Legal News , International justice , Sanctions , Human rights
printer mail-detail

LNB News: Bar Council condemns sanctions on Essex Court barristers following Uyghur opinion

The Bar Council has published a statement condemning the sanctions announced by the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) against certain barristers and their ‘immediate families’. 

Lexis®Library update: The statement has been published on behalf of the four professional bodies of barristers and advocates of the UK and Ireland. The Bar Council states that the imposition of sanctions on lawyers for providing a legal opinion contravenes the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and that the naming of a barristers’ chambers within the sanctions is a further indiscriminate attack on legal professionals, which is inconsistent with respect for the rule of law.

The statement follows the retaliatory sanctions against the UK on 26 March 2021 after the UK sanctioned China for 'gross human rights violations' against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. In late January 2021, four members of Essex Court Chambers had written a legal opinion, which was later published publicly, on legal issues arising from the alleged human rights violations. See further: China retaliates by sanctioning UK, barristers chamber.

In its statement, the Bar Council calls on the PRC government to review the sanctions, which are ‘a threat to the global legal community’. It also calls on other Bar associations to condemn the imposition of these sanctions. 

Source: Statement of the Four Bars on PRC Government sanctions against barristers

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 27 April 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: www.lexisnexis.co.uk.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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