Conrad Hallin successfully represented a local authority in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), resisting the Court’s suggestion that it might make a mandatory order against either the local authority or the probation service to require the appointment of a supervisory officer under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964.

Read the judgment here.

Sir Adrian Fulford has published his report of phase 1 of the Southport Inquiry.

On 29 July 2024, AR (who was 17 years old at the time) carried out a brutal knife attack at a children’s dance club in Southport.  He murdered 3 young girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Alice da Silva Aguiar and Bebe King, and injured 10 other people. Sixteen others survived the attack but live with the serious emotional consequences.

Phase 1 considered the events leading up to the Southport attack and the attack itself; and (ii) the decision-making and information-sharing by local services and agencies which interacted with AR prior to the attack.

Sir Adrian identified five fundamental problems in how AR’s risk managed and opportunities, made detailed findings on missed opportunities to manage the risk AR posed to the public, and made 67 recommendations for improvements.

The Phase 1 report may be found here.

Phase 2 of the Inquiry will examine how acts of extreme violence by ‘violence-fixated individuals’ can be prevented. Its terms of reference were published by the Home Secretary on 13 April 2026.

James Berry KC and Chloe Hill acted for Merseyside Police.

John Beggs KC and Oliver Williamson acted for Lancashire Police.

We are delighted to announce that Laura Bramall has been shortlisted for the Young Pro Bono Barrister of the Year at the 2026 Pro Bono Awards.

Laura Bramall joined us as a tenant this month, upon successful completion of her pupillage at Chambers.

Since 1997, the annual Bar Pro Bono Awards have been a unique opportunity in the legal calendar to recognise and celebrate the remarkable pro bono achievements of the Bar in England and Wales.

For the full list of nominees please see here.

We are delighted to announce that Michael Walsh KC, Alexander dos Santos KC & Elliot Gold KC were appointed to silk yesterday, Monday, the 23th of March 2026, in Westminster Palace. Michael, Alex and Elliot were accompanied at the ceremony by clerks  Jennifer Pooler, Tom O’Connor & Clare Sabido.

Congratulations to Michael, Alex & Elliot and many thanks to all those who participated in the application process as referees.

Since 2016 our silk team has increased from 9 to 31, enabling us to extend and diversify the service we provide to our clients.

George Thomas KC and Chloe Hill successfully defended the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in this claim for breach of the Human Rights Act Articles 3 and 4.

The Claimant claimed that, over a period spanning 2010-2018, the four defendants (three local authorities and the Metropolitan Police), failed to protect her from child sexual exploitation and criminal exploitation by a gang, whilst she was a young person.

There were a number of complex factual and legal matters to be determined, including the application of limitation in HRA claims, the threshold for when the HRA duty applies and for breach of such a duty in the context of a young person who disrupted efforts to protect her.

The trial was listed for 20 days in the High Court, before Mr Justice Bourne KC.  At the end of day 16, the Claimant discontinued the claim against the Metropolitan Police and local authority defendants, following the conclusion of the defence evidence, and during the evidence of the Claimant’s Social Care Expert.

In a significant ruling handed down on 26 January 2026, the High Court has upheld all grounds of challenge brought by former Metropolitan Police Federation Chair Richard Prior, represented by Elliot Gold, in judicial review proceedings against the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW). On 18 February 2026, the High Court refused PFEW permission to appeal. On 11 March 2026, PFEW confirmed there would be no further application to the Court of Appeal.

Background to the case
Mr Prior, then Chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation, was said to have faced multiple complaints following public comments he gave during a GB News interview in October 2024. The PFEW CEO immediately suspended him, initiated an investigation, and subsequently expanded the scope of that investigation.

The claim challenged the decision to suspend Mr Prior, to dismiss his appeal against suspension, to review and maintain his suspension, the terms of reference of the investigation into him, and the subsequent expansion of the terms’ scope.

The High Court heard the case alongside a related challenge by the chair of the West Midlands Police Federation, Richard Cooke.

The court’s decision
The Court found in favour of Mr Prior on every one of his pleaded grounds holding that the Federation’s decisions were ultra vires, procedurally unfair, irrational, disproportionate, and in breach of article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Key findings include:

1. Suspension was unlawful.

The Court held that the CEO had no power under Appendix 9 to suspend Mr Prior. That power rested exclusively with the National Secretary and could only be delegated in exceptional circumstances, which were neither identified nor recorded.

2. Appeal process was unfair

The Appeal Panel relied on undisclosed, inaccurate, and prejudicial material—including assertions about complainants and commentary about Mr Prior and the broadcaster to which he gave the interview, denying Mr Prior a fair opportunity to respond.

3. Investigation and the terms of references were unlawful

The PFEW unlawfully escalated the matter to a formal investigation, and expanded the scope of the inquiry to include issues never raised in any complaint. The court held that Appendix 9 was a closed, complaint‑led process that did not permit the PFEW to introduce new allegations of its own motion.

4. Failure to consider less intrusive measures

The court found that the PFEW consistently failed to consider obvious alternatives to suspension, such as undertakings or limited restrictions, which was an essential requirement where elected office and political speech were concerned.

5. Unlawful interference with freedom of expression

The court held that the PFEW’s restrictions on Mr Prior’s engagement with news media were not “prescribed by law” and amounted to an unjustified and disproportionate interference with his article 10 rights.

The High Court held at paragraph 168:

168. The errors… were not peripheral but fundamental. They include:

(i) an ultra vires suspension, contrary to Appendix 9 which vests the power exclusively in the National Secretary;

(ii) procedural unfairness arising from non-disclosure, curated appeal materials, and involvement of the original decision-maker;

(iii) misdirection in treating suspension as a “neutral act” and failure to conduct a genuine de novo review;

(iv) unlawful conditions restricting press and social media engagement in Mr Prior’s capacity as a PFEW representative, not “prescribed by law” and disproportionate to the elected role;

(v) escalation to a formal investigation without structured assessment of the “ serious breach” threshold; and

(vi) unlawful expansion of scope beyond the written complaint.

Significance of the decision
The judgment has major implications for Police Federation governance, internal disciplinary procedures, the rights of elected representatives, and the treatment of freedom of expression.

It further confirms that the Police Federation’s exercise of internal ‘Appendix 9’ suspension and investigation powers for elected Police Federation office holders have sufficient public character to bring them within the purview of public law and to be subject to judicial review.

Elliot practises in all areas of police law, including police pay, pensions, powers, policy and misconduct. He is a contributing author to the annual Blackstone’s Police Manual.

The judgment is here and here.

The order refusing permission to appeal is here.

News articles are here, here and here.