THIS ISSUE
Corruption in the Metropolitan Police is not new and has not been fixed despite several high-profile cases over the years, professors Mike McConville and Luke Marsh write in this week’s NLJ
William Gibson explores the unlikely origins of the law of parliamentary privilege
Masood Ahmed provides guidance on taking evidence from non-parties in international arbitration
Ross Dixon charts the evolution of deferred prosecution agreements in the UK & assesses their credibility
Charlie Steele & Sarah Wrigley report on what to expect in the UK sanctions landscape post-Brexit
Michael Zander QC on a report by the parliamentary Joint Human Rights Committee
Hannah Porter explains why there can be so many complications for divorcing farming couples
Sarah Moore & Stuart Warmington discuss product liability & the platform economy at home & abroad
The Daniel Morgan scandal follows 150 years of corruption in the police & won’t be the last case of its kind, say Mike McConville & Luke Marsh
MOVERS & SHAKERS
Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace
Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team
Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall
Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role
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?
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
