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

Tanveer Qureshi and Sarah Day Secure Acquittal in Health and Safety Trial 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

Libertas Chambers

Not Guilty Verdicts Secured in Southwark Murder Trial 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’

Libertas Chambers

Operation Bale: Crown Drops Case Following Defence Representations Chaynee Hodgetts, instructed by Mr John Goodwin and Ms Vanda Haunch of Ison Harrison Solicitors, represented Ms CF in Operation Bale, a substantial multi-handed fraud and money laundering prosecution at Teesside Crown Court involving allegations of conspiracy, spanning several years and numerous Defendants. The wider Prosecution concerned allegations that vulnerable customers had been dishonestly overcharged for building and maintenance work, together with associated allegations of converting criminal property through the use of third-party bank accounts. Ms CF faced an allegation of conspiracy to convert criminal property, arising primarily from the use of her bank account in circumstances which the Crown ultimately accepted required significantly more nuanced consideration than had initially been suggested. The case was listed for a trial initially estimated at up to eight weeks, involving extensive evidential material, multiple Defendants, and complex issues surrounding attribution, knowledge, and participation within an alleged wider conspiracy. Ms Hodgetts had conduct of the case from PTPH onwards. Detailed Defence representations were advanced regarding the evidential position against Ms CF. The Crown ultimately accepted that: there was no direct identification evidence implicating her in the underlying conspiracy allegations; the financial activity relied upon by the Prosecution required a different inference from that initially advanced; and the Crown case itself suggested that the relevant banking activity had occurred at the direction or behest of a Co-Defendant. Following negotiations between counsel, and just before the jury was sworn, the Crown agreed that the appropriate course was for the charge against Ms CF to lie on file, pending the conclusion of proceedings against the remaining Defendants, at which point the Prosecution will formally offer no evidence. The result brought proceedings against Ms CF to an effective end immediately before the jury was sworn, avoiding her participation in what became a lengthy and complex multi-handed jury trial continuing against the remaining Defendants.

Libertas Chambers

Latest Insights

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

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