Posted on

A New Job, and (Hopefully) a Return to the Blog

Last month I began a pupillage at Field Court Chambers. It is a civil set with a strong Public Law team, and I am enjoying spending time in the Court of Protection and the Administrative Court. The power of the state over the individual, and the rights that the individual might have against the exercise of state power, was a theme of my undergraduate studies and my career since (at least) 2007. 

So I find myself in a state of eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία), the good spirit of feeling I am doing exactly what I should doing. I cannot wait to begin taking instructions and building a practice.

My new job has got me thinking about this old blog. My conversion to the law and subsequent legal work in the County Courts and for the Royal Borough of Greenwich has kept me away. 

The activism of writing was entirely in keeping with my work at English PEN. But in recent years, I felt I had to refrain. There were many reasons for this. 

Continue reading “A New Job, and (Hopefully) a Return to the Blog”
Posted on

Failure to implement a care order

I’ve done another judgment summary for Family Law Week. I’m finding its a useful way to gain an understanding of an area of law,.

This time I’ve dealt with the snappily titled Re E (A Child – Application to Discharge Care Order – Failures of Local Authority) [2025] EWFC 223 (B).

This was a judgment of HHJ Earley regarding an application by a child to discharge a Care Order that the Court had made ten months earlier. The Court dismissed the application and maintained the order, but in doing so made pointed comments regarding the local authority’s failures to implement the agreed care plan. The judge reviewed the legal authorities regarding the Court’s oversight of care placements, once a final order has been made. It is salutary reading for those working in social care and those representing Looked After Children.

Posted on

Discussing the role of parental consent in withdrawal of treatment cases

Over at Family Law Week, I have written two case summaries and a short legal analysis on the vexed issue of withdrawing care from seriously ill children.

  • In An NHS Foundation Trust -v- J [2025] EWHC 2247 (Fam), a child was born with catastophic brain damage after his mother suffered a cardiac arrest. The medical evidence was clear that it was not in the child’s best interests for him to stay on ventilation, but his mother did not have capacity to consent to withdrawal.
  • In The Trust -v- Z, FA and KB [2025] EWHC 2100 (Fam), a child was born with a congential brain abnormality and was being sustained only by invasive medical intervention. Several doctors were of the opinion that further treatment should be stopped, but his parents wanted to “give him the best chance” of continued life. The Court overruled the parents’ wishes and treatment was withdrawn.

In my short analysis I note that the law does not consider parental views to be determinative in these kinds of applications. They are relevant only to the extent that they illuminate the ‘best interests’ of the child. This is a point of law wiorht restating, because the lay-public’s view is often that parents should “have the final say” in such matters. I recall that this was the opinion expressed (often in shrill terms) during the Charlie Gard case in 2017 and the Archie Battersbee case in 2022.

Posted on

Democracy vs Ochlocracy

Simpsons Angry Mob

The Government’s hideous Rwanda asylum plan has been ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court.

Under the plan, people who applied for asylum in the UK after arriving via an irregular route would be deported to Rwanda, and have their claim processed there. Not everyone realised that successful applicants would be granted asylum in Rwanda.

My view is that the policy is wrong on the most fundamental level. We take far fewer refugees than we should, if they were dispersed proportionally throughout the world. There are reasons why people choose particular countries for their asylum claim and it’s often to do with prior links to that country. It’s absurd that a person who already has family living in the UK, and who applies to the UK government for asylum, should be sent elsewhere.

Continue reading “Democracy vs Ochlocracy”
Posted on

Call to the Bar

Both readers of this blog will have noticed that posting has slowed in recent months. Only three additions in all of 2022! A decade ago I would easily post that many in a week.

The reason for this has been a major distraction: I’ve been studying for a Bar Practice LLM. This year I conceived of myself as living in a movie study montage, with a singular focus on the work required for upcoming seminars. Resisting the urge to distract myself with a 2,000 word blog-rant about free speech or the Bill of Rights (et cetera) has been difficult but necessary. And I haven’t read a novel in months.

But the sacrifice paid off. I was called to the Bar at Middle Temple in July. Here’s the proof:

Of course, the demands on my time have not been alleviated. I’m now doing advocacy work and seeking pupillage, so logging my thoughts on current affairs is still a lower priority, and the paucity of posts will be prolonged.