header-logo header-logo

03 July 2024
Issue: 8078 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Victory in Uyghur labour case

The National Crime Agency (NCA) erred in law by not investigating whether cotton imports from Xinjiang, China were the products of forced labour, the Court of Appeal has held

The World Uyghur Congress (WUC) gave the NCA evidence in 2020 that cotton from Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region was likely to have involved forced labour. It invited the NCA to investigate the imports for money laundering offences, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The NCA declined, stating it was not required to investigate unless a specific shipment of cotton was identified as the proceeds of crime. It also said that once someone in the supply chain had paid ‘adequate consideration’ (market value) for the product, it could no longer be criminal property.

Handing down judgment in R (on the application of World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715 last week, the court found that both reasons given for refusing to investigate were wrong in law. It quashed the NCA’s decision and ordered it to reconsider.

Alice Hardy, partner, Bindmans, assisting WUC, said: ‘The NCA did not contest that the products of forced labour are criminal products, nor that 85% of cotton from China comes from the Uyghur region where there is clear evidence of serious human rights abuses, including forced labour.’

Lloyd Firth, counsel at WilmerHale, said: ‘This successful appeal judgment effectively re-states that the NCA does not need concrete evidence of particular crimes committed by particular persons before it opens a criminal (or civil) money laundering investigation and confirms that the provision of “adequate consideration” for criminal property anywhere in the supply chain does not have the effect of cleansing it, such that it cannot be recovered from anyone who subsequently acquires it.’

Issue: 8078 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
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