David Lawson successfully represented Hertfordshire County Council in the case of R & RK v Hertfordshire [2025] UKUT 381, an appeal about the complex and much disputed boundary between educational provision and healthcare provision. The issue has come before the courts and tribunals regularly since at least the 1990s. Education and health care provision fall under different statutory regimes, only one of which has an appeal mechanism.

The Upper Tribunal suggested that “the classification depends on how closely connected a provision is to the delivery of education” but noted that educational provision may also fulfil the function of treatment, meaning that a clear boundary is likely to be hard to find. The Upper Tribunal considered the order in which the various subsections of section 21 CFA 2014 should be applied, finding that the order in which they are considered might matter (at [42]-[43]) and suggesting practical ways to deal with the issue.

The decision can be found here.

Sarah is highly recommended in the Client Choice – Business Crime Defence category.  She is also recommended for Criminal Fraud, Investigations and Business Crime Defence.

For more on Sarah’s award-winning practice please see her profile here.

Many thanks to our clients and contacts for all their support.

The Court of Protection Bar Association (CPBA) and Advocate have been working hard to launch a free advice and representation service for unrepresented family or partners at urgent COP health/welfare hearings. Requests (through Advocate) can be made to a specialist Court of Protection barrister (at junior or silk level, depending on the complexity of the case) who will advise or represent the applicant pro bono.

Requests for a CPBA barrister who can provide free urgent COP advice or representation should be sent to: courtofprotection@weareadvocate.org.uk

Please see full details, please see here.

The Administrative Court (Foxton J) has upheld a Coroner’s decision not to leave critical findings against the police made by a Coroner investigating the circumstances in which Sabina Rizvi came by her death following a shooting near Bexleyheath police station in SE London. SR was shot and killed and her boyfriend gravely injured when gunmen shot at their car following a dispute with a local criminal, Paul Asbury, who was subsequently convicted of SR’s murder. The Court concluded, albeit at the permission stage, that the Coroner had applied the correct test for leaving findings of fact to a jury in an Article 2 inquest namely whether there was sufficient evidence to support them, applying the well known criminal authority of R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039, not whether any such findings were arguable.

The judgment can be found here.

Kevin Baumber acted for the two principal police officers
Cecily White acted for the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Laura Bramall has written a blog about the case. See here.

On 22 May 2017 the terrorist Salman Abedi detonated a bomb in Manchester Arena complex at the end of an Ariana Grande concert. The bombing involved the murder of 22 people and resulted in personal injury and psychological injury to many more.

Over 350 bereaved families and survivors intimated civil and human rights claims against SMG (who operated the Arena), Showsec (who provided event security), British Transport Police (who provided policing on the night of the bombing) and Greater Manchester Police (who provided counter terrorism security advice in the years prior to the bombing).

Those claims were compromised in a global settlement on 16 December 2025.

The settlements in the 16 claims requiring approval were approved by HHJ Bird sitting as a High Court Judge in Manchester in hearings on 17-18 December 2025 which James Berry KC appeared in.

An agreed press statement can be found here.

The case has attracted media coverage including, please see here and here.

John Beggs KC, James Berry KC and Cecily White acted for Greater Manchester Police in these mass claims.

Dr A, a prominent consultant in a leading teaching hospital, faced an allegation that he conducted a sexually motivated examination of a young female patient. None of the disputed facts was found proved. Accordingly, there was no finding of misconduct/impairment.

Dr A was represented by Andrew Hockton, instructed by Alistair Hewitt and Saima Haq of Weightmans.

Over a three-week period, four members of Chambers have appeared in R (A Child). Described by the Court of Appeal as  “utterly heartbreaking”  the case concerned whether a 12-year-old child receiving intensive care in hospital should be declared dead. Four urgent hearings were held in three weeks starting in the High Court on 7 November.

On 19 November, the Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance decision, due to procedural unfairness, after accepting a key ground of appeal that:

• the hearing was procedurally unfair because R’s parents (who were not legally represented) had no feasible opportunity to read the medical records, understand the legal issues, adduce evidence, or prepare to question witnesses, when the urgency did not preclude an adjournment.

Although the Court of Appeal dd not agree that the child should have been joined as a party and represented by CAFCASS “as the court was not engaged in a best interests decision” the case was then sent back to the High Court.   Hayden J reached a final decision on 27 November 2025, declaring the child to be dead [2025] EWHC 3140.   The Court of Appeal developed the principles established in Re A (Withdrawal of Treatment: Legal Representation) [2022] EWCA Civ 1221; [2023] 1 FLR 713, a case in which David Lawson also appeared.

Claire Watson KC, represented Barts Health NHS Trust, instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP.

The child’s parents were represented by Katie Gollop KC, Bridget Dolan KC, and David Lawson each at different stages of the application, all instructed by Irwin Mitchell.

For the judgments, please see here and here.