header-logo header-logo

18 January 2022
Issue: 7963 / Categories: Legal News , Constitutional law , Criminal
printer mail-detail

The Lords make their views count

The House of Lords rejected the Government’s controversial amendments dealing with extreme climate protest on Monday, the sixth and last day of the Report stage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

The clauses cannot be resurrected when the Bill returns to the Commons because they were not included in the Bill when it went to the Lords. To make these provisions law would require a new Bill.

The Lords rejected: the new offence of “locking on” (216 votes to 163); the new offence of obstructing major transport works (208 votes to 154); the new offence of interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure (198 votes to 153); new powers to stop and search in connection with protest affecting key national infrastructure both with suspicion (205 votes to 141) and without suspicion  (212 votes to 128); and the introduction of Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (199 votes to 124).

The Lords agreed that the maximum penalty for wilful obstruction of the highway should be increased to include 6 months imprisonment, but limited the penalty to obstruction of the 4,300 mile Strategic Road Network. (216 votes to 160) They voted (by 242 to 185) to make misogyny a hate crime by giving the courts the power to make it an aggravating factor in any crime and increase the sentence accordingly.

The amendment was moved by Baroness Newlove (Conservative), former Victims Commissioner. They also approved (by 144 votes to 101) an amendment moved by Lord Best (crossbencher) to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 which makes it a crime to beg and to sleep rough.

The House adjourned this final session on this stage of the Bill at 12.45am.

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