A Lawyer Talks

Joshua Rozenberg
  • 0.0 (0)
  • News Commentary
  • Updated Daily

Joshua Rozenberg KC (hon) is Britain's most experienced commentator on the law. This new podcast complements the daily updates he publishes on A Lawyer Writes. rozenberg.substack.com

  1. 1d ago

    Getting out of the cohabit

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com If two people live together for a while — and perhaps share a child — does that give them the same sort of rights as a married couple or civil partners? Most of my readers will know that the law of England and Wales does not recognise so-called common law marriage. But should it? You have three days left to tell the government whether you think ministers should introduce what a former justice secretary called “some of the biggest reforms to family law in decades”. As I pointed out in June, David Lammy’s consultation paper on cohabitation had been slipped out with little fanfare on a Friday afternoon earlier that month. Despite my best efforts, new research by the market research company Survation suggests that most people haven’t heard of his plans. Perhaps that’s what the Ministry of Justice was quietly hoping for. “The fact that some may think they have rights is no justification for taking away the liberty of others,” Baroness Deech DBE KC (hon) said in a House of Lords debate last month. Responding to the government consultation, the cross-bench peer said that reform should support needy people while preserving the equally important principles of consent, personal autonomy and legal certainty. Deech (pictured) explains her thinking on the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks. My regular podcast interview, as always, is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol on the graphic at the top of this page.

    Getting out of the cohabit

  2. Jul 28

    Cells for kids

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com Children aged from 10 to 17 are being arrested by the police and detained overnight in adult custody suites because more appropriate responses are not available in England and Wales, a major research project has found. The researchers recommend clearer guidance for police officers and a presumption in favour of less intrusive alternatives. Six out of 10 children arrested by response officers — even for something as trivial as a domestic tantrum — are released with no further action. But the researchers have found that, far from being a deterrent, detaining children in custody acts as a gateway to the youth justice system. The researchers conclude that the government’s commitment to a “child first” principle — treating young suspects as a children first and offenders second — will remain no more than a principle for as long as decisions on whether a child enters the criminal justice system are made by police officers who lack the training, guidance, information, institutional support and input from partner agencies needed to make decisions in a fully-informed way. Academics worked collaboratively on the study with Greater Manchester Police, the Metropolitan Police, Surrey Police and South Wales Police. Four forces have already accepted an earlier recommendation from the project about the length of time that children should be detained by the police. Although the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows adults and children to be detained for up to 24 hours, those forces now work on the basis of a 12-hour maximum for children aged from 10 to 17. In Surrey, this has reduced their average detention period from about 11 hours to just over 7½ hours. The research was led by Dr Vicky Kemp from the University of Nottingham and Dr Miranda Bevan of King’s College London. Their report — Children and Policing in England and Wales: Adopting a Child First Approach — is supported by the Nuffield Foundation and was published last week. I interviewed Kemp (pictured) yesterday for the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks. My podcast, in which you can also hear from children who spoke to the researchers, is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol on the graphic at the top of this page.

    Cells for kids

  3. Jul 22

    Helping with inquiries

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com Eleven years ago this month, Sir Christopher Pitchford formally opened the Undercover Policing Inquiry. It was expected to take three years and Pitchford was able to continue sitting as an appeal judge. Nearly two years later he stood down because of ill-health. The former High Court judge Sir John Mitting was appointed to replace Pitchford in 2017. Though the inquiry has not yet concluded, he too is planning to retire after publishing his latest interim report. According to the Home Office, this is “an opportune moment to reflect on whether the inquiry as currently structured remains the most effective means of achieving its aims”. Ministers are “concerned about the length and cost of the inquiry” — more than £138 million so far. But victims’ groups say they are deeply concerned by what they fear is an attempt to shut the inquiry down. It has yet to consider some of the most important evidence relating to abuses that took place under the existing regulatory framework, they add. “Police actions to disrupt and stall proceedings… prevented the inquiry from even starting to hear evidence for the first six years and continue to cause delays”. How much difference would a duty of candour and assistance have made? That’s what a government bill agreed by the House of Commons last week will establish once it becomes law. Andy Burnham said that “in passing this momentous piece of legislation, which will change the way this country thinks about and works towards justice, we are truly rewiring the state and passing power from the authorities to the hands of ordinary people”. Is he right? An an interview for A Lawyer Talks, I put that question to Andrew Williams (pictured), professor of law at the University of Warwick and author of a new report for the Nuffield Foundation called Public inquiries: are they fit for purpose? My podcast interview, as always, is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol on the graphic at the top of this page.

    Helping with inquiries

  4. Jul 16

    LeO tamed

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com LeO “needs to transform”, his handler said this month. LeO, in this context, is the legal ombudsman and his handler is the chair of the Office for Legal Complaints — which, in turn, reports to the Legal Services Board. One enhancement — if not quite a transformation — is suggested in a report today by Blind Justice UK, a small charity that bases its research on published data. I’ve covered two of its reports so far. One in April accused law firms of selectively promoting their consumer reviews and another in May suggested that regulators could do more to identify potential defaults. Its latest research credits LeO for a policy of naming all service-providers involved in complaints that have been resolved by an ombudsman’s final decision. But the report criticises Leo for removing these names after a year. Blind Justice UK has identified nearly 11,500 deleted decisions but it estimates the total to be between 24,000 and 28,000. Only 939 can currently be found online. Why does that matter? To find out, I thought it was time to interview Edward Romain (pictured), the charity’s founder and chief executive, for any episode of A Lawyer Talks. I’ll be putting his concerns to the legal ombudsman and the Office for Legal Complaints chair after the summer holidays. In the meantime, LeO and his handler have provided me with this comment: We are currently consulting on a number of proposals covering our scheme rules, case fees and the principle of publishing ombudsman decisions in full. The consultation seeks views on whether publication of all ombudsman final decisions would help consumers make more informed choices, encourage learning and improvement across the legal sector and align LeO with best practice across other ombudsman schemes. We welcome responses from all interested stakeholders and will carefully consider the feedback received before reaching any decisions. As that work progresses, we will also consider the wider issues that flow from any changes to our publication approach, including how decisions are made available and for how long. My podcast interview, as always, is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol on the graphic at the top of this page.

    LeO tamed

  5. Jul 3

    Inspecting the inspectors

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com The Criminal Cases Review Commission is not a failing institution, inspectors said in a report published yesterday. In the 60 cases they examined, caseworkers had reached the right decisions in their recommendations to commissioners. But in too many cases staff investigating suspected miscarriages of justice went down unnecessary avenues that led to drift, delays and wasted resources. Dame Vera Baird KC, who became chair of the commission just over a year ago and commissioned the report from HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, told me yesterday that she had accepted all its recommendations. Interviewed for A Lawyer Talks, she discussed the steps she had been taking to bring together a team of caseworkers, team managers, executives and commissioners who had notoriously worked from an office that was almost completely empty every day. In my column for today’s Law Society Gazette, I examine how things went wrong and analyse Baird’s plans to put them right. My podcast interview, as always, is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol on the graphic at the top of this page.

    Inspecting the inspectors

  6. Jun 30

    Justice for the unmarried

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com “This consultation,” wrote David Lammy just over three weeks ago, “proposes some of the biggest reforms to family law in decades — bringing the law into the 21st century, helping families feel better off and increasing protections for millions.” Top marks if you already know what he’s talking about; family lawyers need not apply. If you haven’t heard about the justice secretary’s consultation paper on cohabitation, don’t be too hard on yourself; his proposals were slipped out on a Friday afternoon with little fanfare. Because, perhaps, the government was nervous about being seen to undermine marriage? That was the first question I put to Professor Sharon Thompson (pictured) when I interviewed her yesterday for the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks. As she explained, the consultation paper is not just about cohabitants; the government is also planning to put nuptial agreements on a statutory footing and to codify the law on financial remedies following marriage or civil partnership. Will we see legislation along these lines? Or should ministers take another look at the details? Thompson is professor of law at the University of Cardiff and author of a well-timed new book called The Road to Equal Partnership: Reforming the Financial Consequences of Divorce, just published by Bristol University Press. As you can hear, she has some interesting views on the government’s plans. My regular podcast interview, as always, is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol on the graphic at the top of this page.

    Justice for the unmarried

  7. Jun 24

    Not working

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com The employment tribunal system is broken, lawyers dealing with workplace disputes will tell you. It can take three or four years to get a hearing and the delays are expected to get much worse next year. Throwing money at the problem is unlikely to work, even if there was any to spare. But a new academic study of the problem may have some of the answers — both for people who use the tribunals and for those who run them. Reimagining Employment Dispute Resolution and Enforcement has three authors: Dr Maayan Menashe, who’s senior lecturer in law at City St George’s, University of London; Sarah Fraser Butlin KC who practises from Cloisters chambers; and Catherine Barnard, professor of European Union and employment law at the University of Cambridge. Barnard (pictured) is an old friend and I was delighted to interview her yesterday for the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks. My podcast interview — recorded at breakfast time, as you may hear — is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol on the graphic at the top of this page.

    Not working

  8. Jun 9

    Suing the Kremlin

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com There can’t be many compensation claims with legal costs in the millions and damages in double-digit billions. Perhaps one of them is Trump v BBC — I have updated yesterday’s piece to include the judge’s threat to throw out the case after the president’s lawyers missed a deadline. But not even Donald Trump is claiming as much as arbitrators have awarded the former majority shareholders in Yukos Oil — which was Russia’s largest privately owned energy business until the Putin government appropriated its assets between 2003 and 2007. With interest, the amount they are now owed is more than $66 billion. Risking millions in the hope of recovering billions is not for the faint-hearted. I wrote a detailed account of the Yukos claim at the beginning of 2008 and returned to it in 2016, then in 2021, in 2024 and once again in 2024. But it was not until I read Suing the Kremlin, a new book by the former BBC Moscow correspondent Martin Sixsmith, that I began to understand how a few individuals acquired unimaginable wealth and why some if them paid for it with their lives. Sixsmith shared his insights into the case — and gave me his view of the outcome — when I recorded this week’s episode of A Lawyer Talks at his home in London. My podcast interview, as always, is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol on the graphic at the top of this page.

    Suing the Kremlin
See All (92)

About

Joshua Rozenberg KC (hon) is Britain's most experienced commentator on the law. This new podcast complements the daily updates he publishes on A Lawyer Writes. rozenberg.substack.com

Information

  • Creator
    Joshua Rozenberg
  • Years Active
    2020 - 2026
  • Episodes
    92
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Joshua Rozenberg
  • Show Website
    A Lawyer Talks

You Might Also Like