Terms and Conditions - Read our terms of business

Website Terms & Conditions

Read Our Latest Terms And Conditions

Libertas Terms of Business

View our terms of business by clicking here

Website Terms

CONNECT WITH US FOR THE LATEST NEWS & UPDATES

Latest News

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

Felicity Gerry KC Cited by the Law Commission 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.

Libertas Chambers

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

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