header-logo header-logo

27 February 2026
Issue: 8151 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights , Judicial review , Compensation , Sanctions
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Art 6 boundaries tested from sanctions to Windrush

243397
A flurry of public law cases probes the reach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In NLJ this week, the public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer charts decisions from sanctions licensing to the Windrush Compensation Scheme

In PJSC VTB Bank, amended licences did not ‘usurp’ the Insolvency Court; SAMLA provided adequate review. But the Court of Appeal suggested Windrush claims are ‘capable of being civil rights for Art 6 purposes’.

Other rulings stress deference in national security and caution against courts becoming ‘the primary actor’ via mandatory orders. Together, the cases clarify limits while nudging the scope of fair trial rights.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll