Home Media Hub
Libertas News, Articles and Events
The aim of our Media Hub is to provide you a simple place to keep up with the ongoings at Libertas. From News Updates, Insights & Publications, to Events & Webinars. Simply scroll down to see featured items and more.
To ensure you do not miss future updates and events why not register to receive our newsletters by clicking here and completing just a few details.
Featured
Libertas Chambers Hosts Landmark FASD Criminal Justice Training
On Tuesday 5 May 2026, Libertas Chambers hosted a 2-hour training session for members of chambers and solicitor colleagues on FASD and criminal justice in England and Wales. Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder caused by prenatal exposure to alcohol. Research in the UK shows that FASD may occur in 3-4% of the population and research in Canada has found much higher figures for prison populations. However, FASD is often missed or misdiagnosed, leaving people with FASD and their families with insufficient support and access to services and at risk of ignorance in criminal justice. The training debunked the stigma blaming mothers for drinking alcohol during pregnancy with preliminary findings of causes by sperm from a male partner.
The training also debunked the suggestion that all people with FASD have distinctive facial features where research shows it is found in only 10% of those affected. The research has found that FASD is rarely picked up and certainly not understood in criminal justice where it can lead to false confessions and a failure to identify relevant cognitive issues. The training discussed the need for screening tools in the police station and at court for defence lawyers to be able to identify those potentially affected in order to instruct suitable experts.
It concluded that FASD can be relevant to fitness to plead, voluntariness, conduct, fault elements, and various defences alongside fitness to stand trial and special measures.
We were delighted to welcome Dr Alan Price, Dr David Gilbert, Uzma Naseem, Tania Goddard and David Connolly (a father of a son with FASD who described their experiences of systemic failure). The event was moderated by Dr Felicity Gerry KC
You can read more about the University of Salford FASD research here https://hub.salford.ac.uk/fasd/
You can read Felicity’s paper with David Gilbert and Gabrielle Hill here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39875345/
Libertas Chambers
Featured
Tanveer Qureshi Recognised as Lawyer of the Month by Sustainability Today
Libertas Chambers is pleased to announce that Tanveer Qureshi has been named Lawyer of the Month by Sustainability Today, in recognition of his specialist work in regulatory and criminal defence matters.
Tanveer focuses on health and safety and environmental regulation, and is regularly instructed in enforcement proceedings and investigations. He advises companies and directors from first contact with a regulator through to trial, sentencing, and appeal, providing strategic guidance at every stage of the process.
The award reflects his growing reputation for work at the intersection of ESG, compliance, and enforcement risk. As regulatory expectations increase and sustainability obligations become more closely scrutinised, Tanveer’s expertise in navigating complex investigations and defending high-stakes prosecutions remains highly valued.
We congratulate Tanveer on this well-deserved recognition.
For further information about Tanveer’s practice, or to discuss a regulatory or enforcement matter, please contact our clerking team.
Libertas Chambers
Latest News
Dr Felicity Gerry KC Co-Signs Open Letter on IPP Sentences
Dr Felicity Gerry KC has co-signed an open letter to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Justice and the Parole Board, renewing pressure for urgent action on Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) and Detention for Public Protection (DPP) sentences, building directly on her own report to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and the Rapporteur’s subsequent findings against the UK Government.
The open letter, dated 4 September 2026, was sent by Dean Kingham and John Turner of Nicholls and Nicholls Solicitors. Addressed to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice, and copied to the CEO of the Parole Board, it warns that the Government’s commitment to resolve the IPP injustice “by the end of this Parliament” cannot be reconciled with the urgency of two recent developments.
First, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has found the continued post-tariff detention of five IPP petitioners to be without legal basis under international law, while the Government still owes a formal response to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture over the “inhumane/degrading treatment” experienced by IPP prisoners. Second, the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Haycock v R [2026] EWCA Crim 1105 recognised a “clear and urgent need” for a system capable of identifying prisoners unlawfully held under IPP or DPP sentences who have never appealed.
The letter sets out five measures for immediate adoption: a proactive government-led audit of all remaining IPP/DPP sentences; a conditional pardon or equivalent statutory mechanism to reduce sentences to time served; an experienced practitioner review team applying a clear presumption in favour of release; a distinct, expedited priority category within the Parole Board’s existing IPP Taskforce; and urgent review of all IPP cases currently awaiting an oral hearing, so release is not delayed where it is already justified on the existing evidence.
The intervention builds directly on Dr Gerry’s own submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, filed in February 2026 on behalf of eight IPP prisoners who had, on average, served 516 per cent of their original tariff. That report documented a “dystopian” system amounting to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, fed into the Special Rapporteur’s escalating correspondence with the UK Government.
In her most recent communication of 24 June 2026, Dr Alice Jill Edwards reiterated “in pressing terms” her concern that IPP sentences have become forms of “psychological torture and/or other psychologically cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment,” noting that of the 946 people still serving IPP sentences, 99.6 per cent remain in custody beyond tariff and 73 per cent have already served ten years or more over tariff. She renewed her call for a full, or at minimum partial, re-sentencing exercise for all remaining IPP prisoners.
Dr Gerry, instructed pro bono throughout by Dean Kingham on behalf of over 90 people affected by IPP sentencing, continues to press the case that indefinite detention under a scheme abolished more than a decade ago remains one of the most pressing human rights issues in the UK criminal justice system and that domestic and international findings now leave the Government with no credible basis for further delay.
A copy of the open letter can be downloaded here: [Link to the letter]
You can also read more in The Independent and in Libertas Chambers’ previous update on the UN application filed on behalf of eight IPP prisoners.
Libertas Chambers
Dr Felicity Gerry KC Instructed on EncroChat Matter
Dr Felicity Gerry KC is instructed to advise on an EncroChat-related matter, as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) begins to grapple with the legality of evidence derived from decrypted cryptophone networks and fair trial issues.
The ECtHR has recently communicated two significant cases concerning the use of evidence obtained from encrypted communications platforms: Silgir (No 2) v Germany, concerning EncroChat, and Raal & Reudolph v Estonia, concerning ANOM, the system at the centre of the FBI’s Operation Trojan Shield, also an issue in Australia where Felicity is also admitted. In both scenarios, the encrypted communications of an entire user base were decrypted and collected by one state, with only portions of that data shared with other states to found criminal prosecutions, producing convictions worldwide for alleged serious criminality.
Fair Trials and the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) have intervened as third parties in these ECtHR proceedings, raising core rule-of-law and fair trial concerns, including the opacity around how the underlying data capture was authorised and carried out, the use at trial of curated evidential products obtained through mutual legal assistance without the raw data being made available, and the risks of excessive reliance on “mutual trust” between states in cross-border criminal proceedings.
These developments are of direct relevance to the growing body of EncroChat decisions in England and Wales, where questions of admissibility, disclosure, fairness and the integrity of cross-border evidence-gathering remain of serious concern.
You can read more about Fair Trials’ intervention in Silgir v Germany (No 2) and the Fair Trials and ECBA intervention concerning ANOM evidence.
Libertas Chambers
Supreme Court Clarifies Key Element of Domestic Violence Act Offence
Abdul Iqbal KC recently appeared as leading counsel for a Respondent in the appeal of R v Sheikh & Others at the United Kingdom Supreme Court (“UKSC”).
The appeal to the UKSC was from the ruling of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division concerning the statutory construction of section 5(1)(d)(iii) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which governs the offence of causing or allowing a vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm.
The Court of Appeal judgment can be found here.
The UK Supreme Court (Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Burrows, Lady Rose and Lady Simler) heard oral submissions on Thursday 25 June 2026. A recording of the hearing is available here.
Judgment was handed down by the UKSC on 27 July 2026.
The judgment clarifies the approach of the courts and the directions given to juries in Crown Court trials as to the meaning of a statutory ingredient of the offence, namely that the act causing death or serious physical harm “occurred in circumstances of the kind that D foresaw or ought to have foreseen”.
The UK Supreme Court judgment can be read here.
Abdul Iqbal KC practises principally in serious crime (including homicide, terrorism and serious fraud) and regulatory law (professional discipline and sports law).
Libertas Chambers
Marie Spenwyn and Matthew Lawson Appear in £11.5 Million Fraud Case
Marie Spenwyn and Matthew Lawson represented Steven Long, sentenced at Southwark Crown Court on the 17th July 2026 for a fraud valued at £11.5 million. The prosecution’s case was that the scheme targeted vulnerable elderly victims seeking to protect savings and/or their homes in so-called ‘wealth preservation schemes’. A sentence of eight years and four months was imposed.
The matter was listed for a three-month trial in March 2026, pleas were entered in the first week of the trial though proceedings continued in relation to a co-defendant who was tried in absence with matters concluding at the recent sentencing hearing.
Matthew and Marie were instructed and expertly assisted by Daniel King and Lucy Western of Forbes Solicitors.
Reporting on the case can be found below:
BBC News – Fraud scheme targeting elderly victims
BBC News – Southwark Crown Court sentencing
Evening Standard – £11.5 million fraud case
Libertas Chambers
View more News
Latest Insights
Stuck on You: Parasitic Hull-Mounted Narcotics, Maritime Forensics and Organised Crime at Sea
For decades, maritime drug trafficking has been associated with concealed compartments, corrupt crews, and false cargo declarations. More recently, however, organised criminal groups have adopted a method requiring neither the knowledge of the shipowner nor the complicity of the crew. Instead, drugs are attached directly to a vessel’s hull below the waterline, allowing legitimate merchant ships, yachts and commercial vessels to transport illicit cargo unknowingly across international borders.
Known variously as parasitic smuggling, hull-mounted trafficking or parasite trafficking, the technique represents one of the most sophisticated developments in maritime organised crime and drug smuggling. It exploits the vast scale of global shipping, the practical difficulty of inspecting submerged hulls, and the comparatively predictable movements of commercial vessels.
This article examines how parasitic drug smuggling operates, why it has become attractive to organised crime groups, and the unique forensic and legal challenges it presents.
What is parasitic smuggling?
Parasitic smuggling involves securing packages of narcotics to the external hull of a vessel. Unlike traditional concealment methods, the drugs never enter the ship itself.
Typically, waterproof packages are attached using:
high-strength magnets
bespoke steel cages
epoxy or industrial adhesives
straps secured around sea chests or structural fittings
purpose-built hydrodynamic containers designed to minimise drag.
Preferred attachment points include:
sea chests
stabiliser recesses
bow thruster tunnels
rudder assemblies
propeller shafts
bilge keels
recesses beneath the counter stern.
These areas provide concealment from casual inspection, while allowing experienced divers relatively rapid access.
The operational model
The attraction of parasitic smuggling lies in plausible deniability. A criminal group operating near the vessel’s port of departure attaches narcotics using commercial divers or specialist underwater teams. The vessel then proceeds on its ordinary commercial voyage. At the destination, another diving team removes the package before customs or port authorities become aware of its existence. If recovery fails, organised crime groups may simply abandon the package, rather than risk exposing the wider network. From the ship’s (and shipowner’s) perspective, nothing unusual may ever be seen to occur.
The appeal of the practice
Parasitic trafficking offers several operational advantages. First, it avoids corrupting crew members, reducing the number of conspirators and therefore investigative opportunities. Secondly, the drugs never appear disguised as (or concealed in) legitimate items in cargo documentation or manifests. Thirdly, legitimate shipping companies unknowingly provide international transportation free of charge. Finally, should authorities discover the narcotics, proving knowledge on the part of the vessel’s operators may be considerably more difficult than where drugs are concealed within the ship itself. For organised crime, the vessel becomes an unwitting courier.
Underwater delivery
Attachment operations are often conducted:
at anchorages;
alongside commercial berths;
during periods of reduced security;
while vessels await pilots;
during prolonged maintenance delays.
Commercial diving equipment is sufficient for many operations.
Increasingly, however, investigators have reported sophisticated methods including:
closed-circuit rebreathers to minimise bubbles;
diver propulsion vehicles;
GPS-assisted positioning;
underwater communications;
purpose-built hydrodynamic containers.
Some operations have also exploited remotely operated underwater vehicles (ROVs), although human divers remain the predominant method of recovery.
Recovery operations
Recovery is often considerably more dangerous than attachment. Divers must identify the correct vessel among hundreds arriving within a major commercial port. Timing is critical, as is a degree of diving proficiency.
Removal frequently occurs:
before customs inspection;
overnight;
while vessels remain at anchorage;
during pilot transfers;
before cargo discharge.
If the relevant authorities begin searching for underwater packages, recovery teams may abandon the operation entirely.
Forensic challenges
Hull-mounted narcotics present unusual evidential issues. Unlike drugs recovered from cargo holds, there may be little or no evidence linking the crew to the package.
Investigators instead rely upon a combination of:
underwater photography;
diver body-worn video;
ROV footage;
marine growth analysis;
corrosion patterns;
attachment marks;
toolmark examination;
fingerprint recovery where feasible;
DNA profiling;
fibre analysis;
packaging examination;
chemical residue testing.
The underwater environment rapidly degrades many forms of forensic evidence.
Salt water accelerates corrosion, removes biological traces and contaminates latent fingerprints.
Consequently, underwater scene preservation becomes particularly important.
The importance of underwater scene preservation
Once discovered, the temptation for teams may be to effect an immediate recovery of the drugs. However, premature removal can destroy valuable evidence.
Investigators should consider:
comprehensive underwater photography before disturbance;
precise location mapping;
measurements relative to hull features;
examination of attachment mechanisms;
recording marine growth;
documenting corrosion interfaces;
continuity of exhibits from recovery through laboratory examination.
Underwater photogrammetry and three-dimensional modelling provide increasing opportunities to preserve the original scene before recovery.
Marine growth as evidence
One particularly interesting forensic consideration is that of marine biology. Barnacle development, algal growth and biofouling may provide an approximate indication of how long a package has remained attached. Although environmental variables prevent precise dating, marine growth can assist investigators in estimating whether attachment occurred shortly before arrival, or much earlier during the voyage. Such evidence may become relevant when reconstructing the chronology of drug trafficking operations.
Intelligence opportunities
Parasitic smuggling often reflects sophisticated transnational organised crime. Successful investigations therefore often extend beyond the simple recovery of narcotics. In trying to collate the narrative behind the package, investigators may exploit:
AIS vessel movements;
CCTV around ports;
harbour access records;
diving equipment purchases;
marina CCTV;
mobile telephone data;
financial intelligence;
port worker intelligence;
customs databases;
previous targeting reports.
The objective then becomes identifying both the attachment and recovery teams (and the parties behind them), rather than merely seizing the narcotics.
Legal considerations
Parasitic smuggling raises difficult legal questions. Knowledge and possession become central issues. If neither the master nor crew knew of the narcotics, criminal liability may be difficult to establish. Investigators must distinguish between genuine ignorance and wilful blindness.
Jurisdiction may also become complex where:
attachment occurs in one State or jurisdiction;
transit passes through several others;
recovery is intended in a different State or jurisdiction;
the vessel is registered elsewhere.
This creates overlapping issues concerning territorial (and extraterritorial) jurisdiction, Flag State authority, and international co-operation. Mutual legal assistance, intelligence sharing and coordinated investigations are therefore essential for investigators to be able to effectively establish an evidential narrative as to what has occurred.
The international legal framework
Parasitic drug trafficking presents a unique challenge for international law because the conduct often spans multiple jurisdictions. Narcotics may be attached to a vessel in one State, transported unknowingly through the territorial seas and exclusive economic zones of several others, and removed in an entirely different jurisdiction. The vessel itself may be registered under the flag of yet another State, while those responsible operate across several organised criminal networks. Such cases therefore require the coordinated application of international criminal law, the law of the sea and domestic criminal legislation.
The Palermo Convention
The cornerstone of the international response is the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime 2000 (UNTOC), commonly known as the Palermo Convention.
The Palermo Convention was designed to combat serious organised crime operating across international borders. Rather than creating detailed maritime enforcement powers, it establishes the legal architecture through which States cooperate in investigating, prosecuting and dismantling organised criminal groups. It provides a framework for mutual legal assistance, extradition, joint investigations, intelligence sharing and the confiscation of criminal proceeds.
Hull-mounted narcotics operations illustrate precisely the type of criminal enterprise contemplated by the Convention. They typically involve structured groups operating over a sustained period, with clearly defined roles including organisers, logistics coordinators, divers, surveillance teams, transport facilitators and financial controllers. The deliberate compartmentalisation of these functions reflects the hallmarks of sophisticated transnational organised crime.
In practice, prosecutions may depend upon the co-operation mechanisms established by the Palermo Convention. Evidence may need to be obtained from several jurisdictions, financial investigations coordinated internationally, and suspects extradited or prosecuted in the State best placed to do so.
The Vienna Convention
The principal treaty governing maritime drug interdiction is the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988, often referred to as the Vienna Convention.
Of particular importance is Article 17, Illicit Traffic by Sea. Article 17 requires States Parties to cooperate as fully as possible to suppress illicit drug trafficking at sea, consistently with the law of the sea. Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel flying another State’s flag is involved in drug trafficking, the requesting State may seek confirmation of the vessel’s nationality and request authorisation from the flag State to board, search and, where appropriate, take enforcement action.
This provision is especially relevant where intelligence indicates that a vessel is being used, knowingly or unknowingly, as a platform for parasitic smuggling. Although the narcotics may be attached externally rather than concealed within the ship, the vessel itself remains central to the trafficking operation. Co-operation between Flag States, coastal States, and law enforcement agencies therefore becomes essential.
Article 17 has also encouraged the development of numerous bilateral and regional boarding agreements, enabling more rapid operational cooperation, while respecting Flag State jurisdiction. The Council of Europe’s 1995 Agreement implementing Article 17 is one prominent example.
UNCLOS
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides the wider jurisdictional framework within which maritime drug interdiction occurs.
Article 108 obliges all States to cooperate in suppressing illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances carried by ships on the high seas contrary to international conventions. However, UNCLOS preserves the fundamental principle that vessels on the high seas remain subject primarily to the jurisdiction of their flag State.
Accordingly, enforcement action against a foreign-flagged vessel suspected of involvement in parasitic trafficking generally requires either:
the consent of the Flag State;
authority under an applicable international agreement;
or another recognised basis under international law.
This balance seeks to preserve freedom of navigation while enabling effective suppression of transnational maritime crime.
Evidential and jurisdictional challenges
Parasitic smuggling creates evidential difficulties extending beyond traditional drugs prosecutions. Discovery of drugs attached to the hull does not, without more, establish that the Master, officers or crew possessed the requisite knowledge or control.
Investigators must, therefore, potentially distinguish between an innocent vessel exploited by organised crime and one whose operators were complicit. This requires careful analysis of intelligence, communications data, vessel movements, surveillance material, forensic examination of attachment mechanisms and, where available, financial evidence linking individuals to the criminal enterprise.
For prosecutors, these investigations frequently depend upon the complementary operation of the Palermo Convention, the Vienna Convention and UNCLOS. Together, they provide for the relevant State legal mechanisms necessary to investigate, cooperate across jurisdictions and prosecute increasingly sophisticated forms of maritime organised crime.
Implications for the maritime industry
Although relatively uncommon, compared to container trafficking, parasitic smuggling represents a disproportionate security concern – and is arguably on the rise as a form of narcotics trafficking.
Shipping companies may, therefore, wish to consider:
underwater hull inspections before departure from high-risk ports;
random diver inspections;
ROV surveys;
enhanced waterside security;
monitoring of unauthorised diving activity;
crew awareness training;
reporting procedures for suspicious underwater activity.
Likewise, ports may also benefit from greater co-ordination between harbour authorities, customs agencies, coastguards and police diving units.
Overall conclusions
Parasitic hull-mounted narcotics illustrate the continual evolution of maritime organised crime. Rather than compromising the vessel itself, traffickers increasingly exploit the ship as an unwitting platform, transforming legitimate commercial shipping into an unsuspecting component of an international drug supply chain.
For investigators, these cases demand expertise extending well beyond traditional enforcement. Marine casualty investigation techniques, underwater scene preservation, forensic science, intelligence analysis, and international legal co-operation all become critical.
As underwater technologies continue to develop, so too will the methods employed by organised criminal networks. Effective countermeasures will therefore depend upon multidisciplinary collaboration between maritime professionals, forensic investigators, law enforcement agencies and legal practitioners. Ultimately, the most valuable evidence may not be that within the ship, but what lies beneath…
Prefer to read this article as a PDF? Download a copy here.
Chaynee Hodgetts
Dr Felicity Gerry KC Writes for Counsel Magazine on Autism
Dr Felicity Gerry KC, a leading expert in criminal law, explores the complex intersection of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the UK criminal justice system in her latest piece for Counsel Magazine. Drawing on her extensive experience, Dr Felicity Gerry KC examines how systemic gaps in understanding and support can have profound consequences for neurodiverse individuals, particularly in cases involving joint enterprise convictions. Her article sheds light on the urgent need for reforms and greater awareness to ensure justice is equitable for all.
Article
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
It is not known how many people are in prison for murder when they did not kill anyone but were convicted as secondary parties via the discredited label ‘joint enterprise’. It is not known how many of these people were convicted under the law on ‘joint enterprise’ that in 2016 was held to be erroneous by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It is not known how many of these people in prison live with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There is currently no national UK audit of prisons to establish this information.
It is known that ASD is a lifelong neurodevelopmental disability which affects how people interpret the world and understand it. It affects more than one in 100 people. Despite its prevalence, it remains poorly understood, stigmatised and stereotyped. Research states: ‘if social conventions and connectedness are opaque to [people with ASD], how can they authentically appreciate that a person’s actions are morally wrong?’ The Autism Research Centre, University of Cambridge found that an overwhelming majority of ASD accused persons were not provided with adequate support or adjustments in the UK criminal justice system (CJS). This followed an Equality and Human Rights Commission report in June 2020 that warned that the CJS is failing those with learning disabilities and autistic people. The Cambridge report noted that there was almost no research investigating how autistic defendants are being treated within the CJS. In 2024 an expert consensus was published on the identification and support of individuals with ASD in within the UK CJS. It concluded that greater attention needs to be given to this potentially vulnerable population when navigating the CJS.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Joint Enterprise National Monitoring Scheme 2024/25 data released in September 2025 focused on mental health, to include neurodiverse conditions. It states ‘the quality of data flowing about whether or not a defendant has a disability is poor’ and more likely to ‘be identified during a case’ and while it ‘would be kept under review throughout the life of a case’, any updated information may not be available for the purposes of the monitoring scheme. These are significant holes through which ASD people will fall.
Continue reading the full article here:https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/autism-joint-enterprise
Libertas Chambers
Clean Hands, Clean Title: Navigating Good Faith and Ownership in Modern Fraud Litigation
I was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in the recent first-instance judgment of Khan v Allana (2025), a case that vividly illustrates how traditional property principles intersect with the realities of modern fraud litigation.
The dispute concerned ownership of a valuable Audemars Piguet watch and required the Court to determine whether a purchaser acting in good faith could acquire better title than an original owner alleging loss.
Having appeared in the case, I was reminded how often these issues arise at the boundary between civil and criminal law a space in which I regularly practise, navigating both the commercial and criminal arenas where allegations of fraud, deceit, and financial misconduct converge.
The analytical tools are similar: proof of ownership in the civil court and proof of criminal provenance in the Crown Court both demand precision about evidence, motive, and credibility.
This article explores that shared territory by examining the intersection between nemo dat quod non habet the principle that no one can give what they do not have and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA).
The Court of Appeal recently considered the provisions of PoCA in The King (on the application of World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency [2024] EWCA Civ 715, and applied the same in determining when tainted property may, or may not, be “cleansed” through acquisition in good faith.
Under section 21 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a person cannot transfer better title than they possess. The exceptions, voidable title, estoppel, and sale by a person in possession are all premised on the good faith of an innocent purchaser.
In Khan v Allana, that doctrine was decisive: the defendant’s account of loss was contradictory, and no theft was proved. The watch was, at most, subject to voidable title, and the claimant having purchased in good faith and for value took good title. The judge’s findings underline that the burden rests on the party asserting loss to establish factual dispossession.
The Court of Appeal in World Uyghur Congress v NCA noted that the definition of “criminal property” in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA) “is not only very broadly expressed, but it is a fluid one which depends on the state of mind of the alleged offender”. The court recognised, the same asset can be clean in one person’s hands and criminal in another’s, depending on their state of mind.
Critically, payment of adequate consideration the statutory defence under section 329(2)(c) does not “cleanse” criminal property. The taint only lifts if section 308 applies: where property has been acquired for value, in good faith, and without notice of the underlying criminality. This echoes the nemo dat logic: a bona fide purchaser for value can break the chain of taint.
The question of title, in both the criminal and civil jurisdiction are built on the same basic idea that once property becomes tainted, it can only be made “clean” again if it passes to someone who acts honestly, pays proper value, and has no reason to suspect anything is wrong.
In civil law, the source of taint lies in a defect of title where someone sells what they do not own whereas in criminal law under POCA, the taint arises because the property represents the proceeds of crime. Each system provides its own route to purification. In the civil sphere, title may pass to a good-faith purchaser for value without notice, unless there is evidence that the original owner did not voluntarily part with the property, since involuntary loss or theft prevents any title from passing at all. In the criminal sphere, section 308 of POCA removes the criminal character of property acquired for value, in good faith, and without knowledge or suspicion of its illicit origin.
The burden of proof differs, civilly it rests on the party alleging defective title; criminally it lies on the prosecution to prove knowledge or suspicion but both regimes treat state of mind as decisive.
In each, the law distinguishes between the innocent acquirer who deals honestly and the wilfully blind actor who ignores obvious red flags. Title and criminal purity are thus preserved by the same moral and evidential principle: good faith and absence of notice cleanse what would otherwise remain contaminated.
The symmetry between nemo dat and the statutory scheme of POCA has practical importance that extends well beyond theoretical comparison. In civil fraud litigation, tracing and restitution hinge on whether title ever validly passed; if the original transferor’s title was void or voidable, the downstream recipient may acquire no better title, and recovery follows.
In criminal confiscation, by contrast, the central question is whether the property retains its criminal character if it remains the proceeds of crime, it is liable to recovery regardless of subsequent transfers. Yet the dividing line in both systems is the same: good faith.
Each regime penalises wilful blindness. A purchaser who ignores suspicious circumstances risks losing the protection of section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act, just as one who acquires property under section 308 of POCA with suspicion or awareness of criminal provenance cannot rely on statutory immunity.
The parallel demands of honesty and inquiry mean that both civil and criminal fraud cases ultimately turn on an evaluation of state of mind, inference, and evidential discipline. This convergence explains why modern commercial fraud advocacy requires practitioners to operate fluently across both jurisdictions navigating the interplay between title, suspicion, and the differing burdens of proof that govern the civil and criminal response to tainted assets.
For practitioners, the message is clear adequate consideration alone is not enough; due diligence and absence of suspicion remain essential.
Nemo dat quod non habet and the idea of criminal property are based on the same simple test of honesty. Both ask whether a person who receives property does so cleanly or carries forward the stain of wrongdoing. In each case, the law looks not just at the price paid but at what the buyer knew or should have known. The closer the buyer is to suspicion, the less protection the law gives.
In the judgment, the Judge specifically praised Mr Qureshi’s handling of the case, noting that his cross-examination was “highly skilled.”
Libertas Chambers
Sinéad O’Connor and the Weaponization of Hunger: What if she Sang for Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan?
If Sinéad O’Connor were around today, watching the children of Gaza, Yemen, and Sudan starve, her outrage would be incandescent. Thirty-one years ago, she revealed the true nature of the Irish ‘famine’ and its ‘painful feelings’, in her unique and fearless voice. An Gorta Mór was a woeful period marked by invasion and conflict – a purposeful program starvation, politically recast as the sole result of crop failure. There is no doubt Sinéad’s howl of outrage would link the bitter legacy of Britain’s starvation of Ireland to the deliberate deprivation being perpetrated in parts of the MENA region. She would rightly be calling it a crime.
Across the MENA region, like Sinéad, musicians have framed the language of resistance. Palestinian group DAM have spoken about their guilt and mourning as activist artists watching the devastation at home. Tunisian singer Emel Mathlouthi, her voice soaring at the Arab Spring, asserted, “I am free and my word is free/ Don’t forget the price of bread … I am the voice of those who do not die,” lyrics that resonate as both witness and indictment. Egyptian band Cairokee, Syrian singer Samih Shqeir, and Lebanese composer Marcel Khalife all fuse grief and protest, arguably turning every refrain into evidence. Through their music, collective memory is sharpened into accusation, particularly on the theme of starvation.
But, when and how can such an accusation become a criminal case?
According to the World Food Programme (WFP), conflict is the primary reason people are living in acute hunger. The WFP explain that hunger drives people away from their land and livelihoods, disrupts markets, increases food prices and destroys critical developmental gains. Palestine, Yemen and Syria are described as “hunger hotspots” where people are suffering devastating impacts.
Research has shown that across all causes and factors, conflict is the dominant feature in famine across time, but it was not until more recently that it became a crime. The Lieber Code (1863) specifically allowed the ‘extreme measure’ of driving the fleeing civilians back into a starving city under siege ‘so as to hasten on the surrender’.
The first instance where ‘deliberate starvation of civilians’ was identified as a war crime was after WWI by the Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties. Although ultimately never implemented, the list of crimes, including starvation, remains one of the earliest attempts at itemising specific war crimes.
Ask about starvation and the siege of Leningrad in WWII is often recalled where there was mass death from hunger, but the siege itself was not unlawful. Starvation remained a military and political tactic, framed as legitimate globally and regionally, well into the twentieth century. Even after the horrors of two world wars, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 did not specifically prohibit starvation. It was the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions that explicitly prohibited starvation as a method of warfare. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I, concerned the protection of victims of international armed conflicts. It prohibits various acts which deny civilians sustenance. Eleven years later, starvation was added to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as a war crime. Six years ago the same laws were amended to apply to non-international armed conflicts – applicable to regions, including MENA.
It is often said that in World War II more people died of starvation and disease than in active combat but Daphne Yuqing Liu, an expert on the law on starvation, describes this as too sweeping a declaration. She explains the modern approach as follows:
“First, there is a fine difference between the tactical use of starvation and starvation due to an instability. Second, the war crime of starvation as we discuss it today is more than food. ‘Hunger’ for water and medicine also count. The test is whether the item is indispensable to civilian life”
This modern test of what is indispensable is important to account for activities in conflict such as destruction/rendering useless by poisoning or polluting water supplies. In MENA, violent attacks on aid workers (and their convoys) and healthcare providers (and their facilities) may be evidence of a starvation tactic.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation which controls food distribution has been described as “an experiment in food control and counterinsurgency for the digital era”. In Syria 5.4 million are at risk of hunger. Famine in Yemen is so ubiquitous it has its own Wikipedia page. In relation to Gaza, UN experts have said :
“Securing access to food, water, medicine and critical services is not a matter of charity – it is a legal duty”
So it is that international law now reflects Sinéad’s moral values: Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare can, with the necessary evidence, lead to accusation, arrest, prosecution, conviction and sentence, although the laws do not apply to combatants, which can make understanding a situation opaque. It is a law which needs to be tested and therefore should not sit idly on the Rome Statute books but needs to be enforced to see if it functions. If it is used, there may be an impact in terms of deterrence or crime prevention, however aspirational that may sound.
We do not have to wait for the much-beleaguered International Criminal Court (which by the way only has three courts), because in many cases, international laws can be enforced in those states which can apply what is known as ‘universal jurisdiction’. This means that many states have the ability to put anyone on trial for international crimes, wherever they are committed.
The Global Investigative Journalist Network has reported that in 2025, over 300 million people face acute hunger and that Sudan and South Sudan, Gaza, and Haiti are facing the worst crises. Which of these are conflict related, time and evidence will tell. In addition to the importance of what has become known as ‘activist lawyering’ for moral imperatives , the international legal prohibition on starvation is also a crucial tool for advocacy, evidence-gathering, and the demand for accountability. The recognition of starvation as a war crime (national or regional) transforms it from a military objective to a violation of international norms.
It follows that the fundamental right to food is not a ‘cost’ of conflict but a key basis to identify organised criminal military activity. In this context, law also empowers musicians, activists, and lawyers to frame starvation, as Sinéad did, not as collateral tragedy, but as evidence of a prosecutable crime. If Sinéad O’Connor were here, she may demand that these laws against starvation do more than exist on paper. She may insist they serve the hungry, not through empty promises but through real-world prosecutions and prevention. Anything less, as MENA’s musicians explain, is silence.
Dr Felicity Gerry KC is an international barrister, consultant and media commentator with expertise in complex, contemporary legal issues such as human trafficking, homicide, terrorism and war crimes.
Check out the article here.
Libertas Chambers
View more Insights
Latest Events
FASD Training for Legal Professionals | SAFETRAC Webinar
Libertas Chambers is pleased to bring you specialist training webinar focused on Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) and their impact across the criminal justice system.
SAFETRAC is a research-informed training programme designed to equip barristers, solicitors and legal professionals with a clear understanding of FASD and the significant implications it can have in practice. Individuals with FASD are disproportionately represented in justice settings, with international estimates as high as 46%, and may face particular challenges in understanding their rights, participating in proceedings, and providing reliable evidence.
This session will provide a practical and accessible overview of the causes and characteristics of FASD, and examine how these factors influence offending behaviour, police interviews, fitness to plead, and court participation. Drawing on case examples and lived experience insights, the training will also highlight key indicators that legal professionals can identify, alongside practical strategies to safeguard client rights and ensure a fair process.
The webinar is delivered by the Salford FASD research team, Europe’s largest specialist group in this field, offering extensive expertise to support legal professionals in strengthening advocacy, ethical practice, and communication when representing vulnerable clients.
Session Details
Date: 5 May 2026
Time: 5:30pm – 7:30pm
Location: Virtual
Register: https://forms.office.com/e/ry4xJuRdef
Speakers
Dr David Junior Gilbert, Chartered Psychologist and University Fellow in FASD and the justice system
Tania Goddard, Solicitor and PhD researcher in FASD and fitness to plead
Uzma Naseem, Lawyer and PhD researcher in FASD and harmful sexual behaviours
Dr Alan Price, Lecturer in Psychology specialising in FASD and trauma
This webinar is free to attend for Law Firms and Legal Professionals in the Libertas network
To ensure you don’t miss out on future events please register for our newsletter by clicking here.
Libertas Chambers
Libertas Chambers Supports The Economist Sustainability Week 2026
We’re pleased to share that Libertas Chambers is supporting The Economist’s Sustainability Week next week, and Chambers Member Tanveer Qureshi has been invited to speak on a topic that is moving quickly from “good practice” to live legal risk – 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘄𝗮𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲: 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸, 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆
🗓️ Tuesday 3 March 2026 | 15:00 GMT | 30 minutes
📍 InterContinental London – The O2
This invitation reflects Tanveer Qureshi’s growing presence in ESG and sustainability – related regulatory work, and the increase in instructions in matters where environmental claims, disclosures, and supply-chain assurance are central issues.
Ahead of the session, Tanveer comments: “As scrutiny intensifies, environmental claims are no longer a marketing flourish. They are increasingly treated as statements that must be evidenced and, if they are not, the consequences can be regulatory, commercial, and reputational.
In my session, I’ll look at what is changing in practice: where enforcement attention is landing, how claims are being tested, and why businesses with complex supply chains are often the most exposed. The focus will be practical: what “good” looks like in 2026 for manufacturers, retailers, and brands – particularly when it comes to substantiation, governance, and the internal controls that sit behind sustainability messaging.
I’ll also cover the UK landscape and regulators, including the CMA and ASA, and how their approach feeds into wider board-level risk management.”
Visit the event site for more details: https://events.economist.com/sustainability-week/
Libertas Chambers
Urgent Submission to UN on Medical Neglect of Guantanamo Detainee by Felicity Gerry KC
Dr Felicity Gerry KC makes an urgent further submission to the Special Rapporteur’s Mandate on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment regarding Mr AMMAR AL-BALUCHI held in Guantanamo Bay
Mr al-Baluchi has been detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (‘NSGB’), by the United States government since 5 September 2006 after being detained at CIA ‘black sites’ across North Africa, Asia and Europe between 2003 and 2006. He has now been imprisoned for 22 years with no conviction. He was held incommunicado for at least 3 years, was subject to extraordinary rendition and interrogation techniques, and was at one-stage used as a ‘torture prop’ by a rogue interrogator who used him to train other interrogators in his particularly harsh brand of information extraction. In April 2025, the Guantanamo Bay military commission ruled that admissions Mr al-Baluchi made were not admissible because the information was obtained by means of torture.
The fact of Mr Al-Baluchi’s torture is unequivocal. As a direct result of his treatment Mr al-Baluchi suffers from on-going physical and psychological health conditions. These conditions have largely gone untreated. This submission concerns the fact that Mr al-Baluchi has been diagnosed with a spinal tumor and doctors visiting NSGB have determined that he will need surgery to investigate, treat and/or remove it. The kind of specialised medical care that this requires cannot be accessed at NSGB. Dr Corry Jeb Kucik, a former Congressionally-mandated oversight Chief Medical Officer (CMO) at NSGB, and currently, Full Professor of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, and consultant to the Military Commissions Defense Organization has provided a report (attached) on this matter that plainly states that Mr al-Baluchi’s surgery should beundertaken in the United States or at another Host Nation with the ‘expertise, equipment, required caseload and support structures in place for all potential surgical misadventures’.
Professor Kucik’s report is unambiguous that NSGB is incapable of safely providing complex care for detainees in a timely manner, as is required by Geneva Convention obligations.
Without adequate and immediate medical care Mr al-Baluchi risks a worsening of his condition that is tantamount to torture or ill-treatment.
Therefore, it is important that this issue is addressed by the Special Rapporteur urgently, alongside the extant issues of Mr Al-Baluchi’s historic torture, to help ensure that the United States comply with their obligations under international law as to his treatment (and the treatment of other detainees at NSGB in similar circumstances).
You can read the further submission here
You can read the previous submission here
Libertas Chambers
Dr Felicity Gerry KC will be at the International Bar Association Conference in Paris from 29 Oct to 3 Nov
Dr Felicity Gerry KC will be at the International Bar Association Conference in Paris from 29 Oct to 3 Nov – She is the Asia Pacific Member of the Criminal Law Committee – if you are attending, she would be delighted to meet you
Conference details here #IBA2023 https://www.ibanet.org/conference-details/CONF2244.
Felicity is currently awaiting verdicts in the Al Hassan trial at the ICC and drafted the memorandum that led to the $82m divestment of the Golden City Investment Scheme in Myanmar. She was recently listed as one of the top 5 international lawyers you would want on your side – details here https://lawandcrime.com/partner-content/meet-the-top-5-international-lawyers-you-want-on-your-side/amp/
Libertas Chambers
View more Events
