header-logo header-logo

28 November 2025
Issue: 8141 / Categories: Legal News , Constitutional law , Criminal , Procedure & practice , Rule of law
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: When procedure is power

237023
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power

Under the Terrorism Act 2000 and Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, proceedings must begin within six months and only with prior authorisation from the Director of Public Prosecutions or Attorney General. Westminster Magistrates’ Court found the charge a nullity: no consent, no jurisdiction.

Grewal calls this no technical quibble, but a constitutional necessity ensuring accountability and proportionality. Defence lawyers, she argues, should treat such procedural analysis as central, not peripheral, to the rule of law.

Procedure, she concludes, is the Constitution.

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