header-logo header-logo

26 April 2024
Issue: 8068 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Human rights , Equality
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Free speech or malicious communication?

169187

You’ve got to be thick-skinned to go into local politics, but to how much aggravation should a publicly spirited person be subjected? In this week’s NLJ, Nicholas Dobson tests the limits

Dobson considers the case of Middlewich, Cheshire resident Thomas Casserly, who was convicted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 for sending emails that were ‘grossly offensive’ to a town councillor. Casserly relied in his defence on his right to freedom of speech.

Dobson notes that Casserly ‘takes a keen interest in local politics, frequently attending and asking questions at town council meetings’. So, where does the law draw the line? Dobson investigates. 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Pandemic, sanctions, armed conflict, blocked shipping corridors, transport disruption... in these uncertain times, every successful commercial entity must ensure they have an effective force majeure clause in place. But how exactly do you ensure this? 
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
back-to-top-scroll