Robert Sharp

Barrister

Andrei Aliaksandrau is Free

When I worked for English PEN there were occasions where someone for whom we had campaigned, whose face I had printed onto hundreds of banners and posters, would walk into our office, free. It was a jarring experience, like seeing a celebrity on the tube.

A campaigner holds a poster of Syrian political prisoner Mazen Darwish
An English PEN campaigner holds a poster of Syrian political prisoner Mazen Darwish, London 19 May 2015.
Robert Sharp and Mazen Darwish at the Free Word Centre, London, 18 July 2016.

When I met the Syrian journalist Mazen Darwish, I wrote:

I’ll also say that it’s a strange experience to meet in person someone for whom one has campaigned. We used the same old photo of Mazen for all our tweets and news releases and posters. The person becomes a symbol, an icon, a cipher. When I saw him sitting on the bench chuckling and smoking a cigarette, sweating a little in the London heat, there was a moment of dissonance, as if a fictitious character had become incarnate.

It’s different for him, of course. Even while unseen in Adra prison, Mazen was always very real, all flesh, vulnerable to torture, at risk of death. And Yara, so used to her husband’s physical presence in their house and their work, must have felt his absence deeply.

With Andrei Aliaksandrau it was different. A flesh and blood man who I had campaigned alongside, drank pints with, bantered with, suddenly two-Dimensional on a campaign poster. It’s fantastic to hear that he has been released from prison in Belarus, and that perhaps we will one day see him in three dimensions again.

Andrei and his wife Irina, following their release. 16 September 2026.

I am now available to take instructions

I’m delighted to report that the Bar Council has issued me with a provisional practicing certificate. This means I have ‘rights of audience’ in the courts of England and Wales and can take instructions from solicitors to represent their clients in court.

Field Court Chambers have published my profile. There is also a news item, so it must be real.

Open Justice and Journalist Access to the Courts

I have written another judgment summary over at Family Law Week, this time for the case of Jessica Bradley v CM & Ors [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam).

This was an application by a journalist for access to the reports of a clinic psychologist in four separate child arrangements proceedings. The application went beyond what journalists are routinely allowed access to under the ‘template transparency order‘.

This case is in many ways a companion judgment to Re AB (Disclosure of Position Statements) [2025] EWCOP 25 (T3) in the Court of Protection. This was another judgment of Poole J, in which disclosure of documents from previous hearings (that an observer had not attended) was ordered on the open justice principle. That judgment is under appeal.

I am aware that access to documents in order to understand hearings is not limited to the Family Court and Court of Protection. Last month I noted that criminal court reporters were grumbling about lack of access.

Continue reading

Appealing a Court of Protection Judgment

Over at the Open Justice Court of Protection Project, I have written a long explainer about appeals in the Court of Protection.


Any contested hearing in the Court of Protection will leave at least one party disappointed by the outcome.

Often, the disappointed party (whether that is a family member, a public body, or the protected person themselves) will accept the judge’s decision and work within the terms of the order that has been made.

On other occasions, the disappointed party may consider that the judge has made a mistake which may be corrected on appeal.

This post offers a basic introduction to Court of Protection appeals. It covers (1) the general principles that govern appeals and why appeals fail at an early stage (2) the procedure for making an appeal and some common reasons and (3) some alternatives to an appeal.

Visit the Open Justice Court of Protection Project blog to read the whole thing.

The Vilification of Welfare Recipients

There is a sanctimonious strain in British society that likes to divide the citizenry into ‘working people’ on the one hand, and feckless spongers on the other. This is a form of the ‘us and them’ mentality that the populists love and the tabloids love to repeat. It is as simplistic as racism and just as pernicious.

Listening to the vox pops on last week’s budget, you’d think that all the money has been taken straight from taxpayers and put into the pockets of lazy people.

What’s lazy is this analysis. It is simply not true. Large portions of the new tax take will be given to pensioners, most of whom will have paid into the system throughout their working life.

Child benefits are paid to everyone, including families where the parents work.

Recipients of disability benefits may also employed.

I’ve just spent two years working for a local authority. Every day I encountered people subsisting on benefits.

It is a miserable, miserable life. It is no-one’s first choice. The Universal Credit system and the cost of living (especially cost of accommodation) conspire to keep people in the system. Receiving benefits erodes dignity. The pittance we grant serves to keep them hovering around the poverty line. That increases both physical and mental illness, and encourages people towards crime and substance abuse.

Whether you fall into this system or not has nothing to do with the content of your character, but the luck of your birth and your postcode.

I don’t know whether Rachel Reeves’ particular economic recipie will boost growth and living standards. But I wish that the responses to her policies were not riddled with classism.


This was first posted on LinkedIn.

« Older posts

© 2026 Robert Sharp

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑