header-logo header-logo

15 July 2022
Issue: 7987 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Ministerial comings & goings

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has a temporary team in charge until at least 5 September, when Prime Minister Boris Johnson is expected to give way to a new leader of the Conservative Party

The Attorney General, Suella Braverman, was one of the first to throw her hat in the ring for the job of Prime Minister, following last week’s turmoil in Downing Street.

Braverman, a barrister, told ITV journalist Robert Peston, in a live interview prior to the PM’s resignation speech, she thought Johnson should step down and announced her intention to stand for the leadership. However, she has continued in her role. The field of leadership candidates was due to be whittled to two this week.

Solicitor General, Alex Chalk and Justice ministers, barrister Victoria Atkins and former entrepreneur James Cartlidge were among more than 50 members of the government to resign, as Conservative MPs struggled to persuade Johnson to leave office last week.

Chalk has since been replaced by former family law barrister Edward Timpson while Atkins has been replaced by non-lawyer Tom Pursglove. Legal aid minister Cartlidge has been replaced by Stuart Andrew, who was a housing minister before resigning last week. Two under secretaries of state have also joined the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)―barrister Sarah Dines, previously an assistant whip before resigning last week, and Simon Baynes, who will perform the role jointly at the MoJ and Home Office.

Timpson said: ‘One of my first priorities is to continue the government’s work in rebuilding confidence in our criminal justice system—particularly for victims.’

Dominic Raab continued in his joint role of Lord Chancellor and deputy PM.

Christopher Bellamy, a Peer, who chaired the Criminal Legal Aid Review and was appointed in June as under secretary of state at the MoJ, has continued in his role as justice spokesperson in the House of Lords.

Issue: 7987 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Constitutional law
printer mail-details

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