header-logo header-logo

19 September 2018
Issue: 7809 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Threat to client confidentiality

The historic legal right to lawyer-client confidentiality could be put in jeopardy if proposed anti-terror laws go ahead, solicitors have warned.

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, has already passed through the House of Commons and is due to have its second reading in the House of Lords in October. It gives border guards powers to stop and detain travellers for questioning without suspicion they have committed an offence.

However, the Law Society has pointed out several shortcomings—there is no right to consult a solicitor if a person is examined and questioned for under an hour; and access to a solicitor is only given on request. Moreover, the Society says, the bill ‘compromises the right to a solicitor of a detained person by requiring an officer to be present during the consultation with the solicitor’. And in certain circumstances, access to a solicitor can be further delayed where this is authorised by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent.

‘Everyone under suspicion of a crime should be able to access confidential legal advice, particularly when facing serious charges,’ said Law Society president Christina Blacklaws.

‘Even when a solicitor is present, the bill currently only allows the suspect to consult them when an officer is listening in. The confidential nature of communication between a lawyer and their client has long been affirmed as a fundamental human right.’

A Home Office spokesperson said: ‘The UK faces a sustained threat from hostile state activity and it is essential that police officers have the power to question individuals at UK ports and the border area to determine whether they pose a threat to our national security.’

Issue: 7809 / Categories: Legal News
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