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. 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.

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.  

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).

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  

The Law Commission has published a consultation paper on homicide offences. Whilst the paper does not make provisional proposals to reform the law of complicity (sometimes called “joint enterprise liability”), it is envisaged that the proposed changes to the structure of homicide offences would, in some homicide cases, facilitate a more accurate differentiation between the culpability of a principal offender (who committed the fatal act) and an accessory (who assisted or encouraged the principal offender), resulting in more proportionate sentences. Felicity’s work with Professors Clare Allely and Andrew Rowland on autism and “joint enterprise” is cited on page 180 when the Law Commission acknowledges the following: “Some evidence suggests that people with ASD (often not diagnosed or misdiagnosed) are at risk of being convicted under the law of complicity (and some have been convicted) even though they are often prone to be misunderstood or not able to assess the future conduct of another person due to their communication difficulties” You can read the Libertas Chambers article cited by the Law Commission here  and watch the related webinar here. There is an online response form for the Law Commission consultation and responses are due 30 September 2026 – see here.

Dr Felicity Gerry KC granted leave to appeal on use of rap music and “gang affiliation” evidence on behalf of young man convicted of “joint enterprise” murder. Dr Felicity Gerry KC has been granted leave to appeal in a case raising important concerns about the prejudicial use of police evidence said to suggest gang affiliation, and the admission of a rap video at trial. The appeal concerns a young man convicted of murder under what is known as “joint enterprise”, where the appellant argues that the evidence risked unfairly shaping the jury’s view of his character and association. The case is likely to add to the growing debate over how courts treat rap music and alleged gang evidence in criminal trials, particularly where questions of race, stereotyping, and fairness arise. It will be heard alongside 3 connected cases referred by the CCRC and a 4th unrelated case where the same issues arise. At a directions hearing on 18 June 2026 the Court of Appeal granted leave on 3 grounds and referred a 4th ground to the full court. There will be a further directions hearing later in 2026. You can read more here (her client is Durrell Ford).

Libertas Chambers is delighted to report that Tanveer Qureshi, leading Sarah Day, and instructed by Ghulam Sohail of MPR Solicitors, successfully secured the acquittal of their client following a lengthy and complex health and safety prosecution at the Central Criminal Court. The case arose from a tragic fatal incident on a construction site in Banstead, Surrey, where a worker died after a trench collapsed during excavation works. The prosecution followed an extensive investigation into the circumstances of the incident, the allocation of responsibility on site, and the duties owed by corporate entities and individuals under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Following a trial lasting more than three months, Tanveer and Sarah’s client was acquitted of failing to discharge a health and safety duty. Reporting restrictions having now been lifted, it is possible to comment on the outcome and the issues raised by the case. The case was legally and factually complex. It involved detailed consideration of the scope of duties under section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the circumstances in which an individual director or officer may face personal criminal liability under section 37, where an alleged corporate breach is said to have been committed with that person’s consent, connivance or neglect. A central issue in the defence case concerned the distinction between title and actual responsibility. The prosecution case relied, in part, on the suggestion that the defendant, through his company, had responsibility for aspects of site management and supervision. The defence position required careful analysis of what his company’s undertaking actually was, whether it extended to excavation planning, management or supervision, and whether there was sufficient evidence that the defendant had practical control or authority over the relevant excavation works. The case therefore required the jury to consider far more than the tragic outcome itself. It required a close examination of contractual arrangements, working practices, the allocation of duties between the principal contractor and subcontractors, the role of site managers and assistant site managers, and whether responsibility for a high-risk activity such as deep excavation could properly be attributed to a particular individual or company. In health and safety prosecutions, there is often a danger that labels such as “director”, “manager”, “site manager” or “assistant site manager” are treated as shorthand for legal responsibility. This case demonstrated why that approach can be unsafe. Criminal liability requires detailed analysis of the evidence: what role was actually performed, what authority existed in practice, what knowledge the individual had, what systems were in place, and whether the alleged breach truly fell within that person’s sphere of responsibility. The defence also involved careful consideration of expert and factual evidence. The issues required a detailed understanding of construction-site practice, excavation risk, the role of method statements and risk assessments, and the documentary systems by which health and safety responsibility is usually allocated, communicated and monitored. The defendant’s acquittal underlines the importance of specialist representation in serious regulatory and health and safety prosecutions. Cases of this kind sit at the intersection of criminal law, regulatory enforcement, corporate responsibility and technical evidence. They require advocates who are able to analyse complex documentation, challenge assumptions about responsibility, and present the issues clearly to a jury. Members of Libertas Chambers are regularly instructed in serious and complex criminal and regulatory matters, including health and safety prosecutions, corporate crime, fraud, financial crime, professional discipline and cases involving director or officer liability. The case reflects Chambers’ ability to provide robust, forensic and commercially aware representation in proceedings where the consequences for individuals and businesses are profound. For companies, directors, managers and professionals operating in regulated sectors, the case carries an important message. Health and safety investigations can move quickly from the facts of an incident to questions of criminal liability, corporate structure, delegation, supervision and control. Early specialist advice is essential, particularly where there is any prospect of individual liability being alleged against directors, managers or those said to have assumed responsibility for safety-critical work. Media Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0m2g84zevko  

Felicity Gerry KC and Roxanne Morell (instructed by Saima Akhtar of Hannah Solicitors) secured not guilty verdicts on charges of both murder and manslaughter yesterday following a jury trial at Southwark Crown Court in which the Crown Prosecution Service had refused a request to discontinue their case against a young woman who it was agreed at trial had suffered violence and abuse herself for over a decade. After hearing all the evidence, the jury acquitted their client of both murder and manslaughter. The prosecution alleged that their client was party to an agreed plan to attack, the scope of which included a stabbing, and they sought to establish that their client intentionally participated in, encouraged or assisted the actions of her co-defendant. The co-defendant agreed there was no plan and raised reasonable self-defence. The deceased had emerged with a very large knife. Felicity and Roxanne consistently maintained that the evidence did not support the allegations of planning against their client and that the prosecution’s case depended upon speculative interpretations of footage and conduct rather than proof of the mental and conduct elements required in law. A central feature of the defence case was agreed and unchallenged expert evidence establishing that their client was a highly vulnerable young woman. That evidence, not disputed by the prosecution, was directly relevant to the proper interpretation of her conduct and state of mind before, during and after the incident. The defence argued that the prosecution’s analysis invited the jury to draw conclusions from their client’s reactions at the scene which were incompatible with the expert evidence. Conduct said by the prosecution to demonstrate knowledge, participation or shared purpose was, the defence submitted, equally consistent with the behaviour of a vulnerable individual responding to a rapidly unfolding and traumatic event. In the closing address for the defence, Felicity summarised the central defence argument: “This is a case where hindsight and interpretation of footage by the prosecution distorts reality. A life has been lost, and it is natural to search for accountability. But the law demands discipline. You must acquit when the interpretation of evidence is so unreasonable that you can conclude there is no evidence at all.” Felicity and Roxanne also challenged the prosecution’s approach to secondary liability. The case raised important questions concerning the distinction between objective inferences drawn from circumstances and proof of a defendant’s subjective knowledge, intention, or encouragement. Felicity and Roxanne submitted that the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence elided that distinction. Rather than proving what their client actually knew, intended or encouraged, the prosecution invited the jury to infer criminal responsibility from presence, association, reaction and hindsight analysis of events captured on footage. The judicial route to verdict was structured to enable the jury to conclude there was no evidence of planning while considering whether this was a spontaneous event between two men on a doorstep with a background of a financial dispute over a rental scheme and thus issues of reasonable self-defence for the co-defendant who was convicted of murder. The agreed expert evidence of vulnerability for the female defendant was particularly important in this regard because the prosecution suggested that her lack of reaction and participation at the scene was evidence of knowledge. The defence argued that the expert evidence substantially undermined the suggestion that her behaviour demonstrated any shared intent or common purpose. Vulnerability, trauma, passivity and evidence of “freezing” when faced with violence were all matters the jury was required to consider when assessing whether the prosecution had proved the elements necessary for liability for murder or manslaughter. Despite those issues being raised throughout the proceedings, the CPS maintained its case and declined a written request to discontinue the prosecution. The jury’s verdicts confirm that the prosecution failed to satisfy the criminal standard of proof. While the reasons for the verdict remain known only to the jury, the outcome serves as an important reminder of the principles reaffirmed in Jogee: criminal liability cannot be established through association, assumption, or hindsight. The law requires proof of agreed planning, intentional encouragement or assistance and proof of the defendant’s own state of mind which Felicity and Roxanne maintained was absent here. This case further highlights the need for particular care when interpreting the conduct of vulnerable defendants. Behaviour that may appear significant when viewed retrospectively may look very different when assessed against the realities of vulnerability, trauma and the pressures of unfolding events. You can read a news item on the case here but Felicity notes ‘Please do not be distracted by any suggestion this was a targeted attack’