R v Charlotte Head and others / Criminal Damage at Elbit's Bristol premises in 2024

The Judiciary has published the sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Johnson in the criminal damage case for which four individuals were convicted.

The remarks and a press summary may be read at R -v- Charlotte Head and others - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. There is also a judgment addressing the question of whether the defendants’ offence of criminal damage had a “terrorist connection.” The judge held that the criminal damage did have such a connection.

As explained in a previous post, the finding that there was a terrorist connection entitled the judge to increase the sentences - Previous post on section 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

The defendants were Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio, Fatema Zainab Rajwani. Each of them was convicted by a jury of an offence of criminal damage. Samuel Corner, was also convicted of an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm - (serious spinal injury to a Police Officer).

The sentences were - 

Proscription of Palestine Action is lawful - Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) has held that the proscription of Palestine Action is lawful.

The judgment and a Press Summary may be read at - Home Secretary -v- Huda Ammori - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

The Court concluded - ' The proscription of an organisation like Palestine Action is highly controversial. But it is a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism. It is not a direct action civil disobedience protest group operating transparently in the open. It is a covert organisation which avoids the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury. The Home Secretary had the institutional competence and the democratic accountability to make the decision. The Proscription Decision was consistent with the Home Secretary’s Proscription Policy and was proportionate. It was not unlawful.'

Previous post (14 February 2026) noting the High Court's judgment - Law and Lawyers: Palestine Action ~ judicial review. The quashing order made by the High Court is set aside.

Endangering another during a sea crossing to the United Kingdom

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 2 December 2025 but most of its provisions come into force when commenced by Regulations issued by the Secretary of State.

Section 21 of the Act created a new offence of endangering another during a sea crossing to the United Kingdom.  In fact, section 21 amended section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 so it is to that Act that we now look for the detail of the offence. The new offence was brought into force on 5 January 2026.

In the Crown Court at Canterbury, two men are to be sentenced for the offence - Tajik Mohammad (an Afghan aged 32) and Alnour Mohamed Ali (a Sudanese age 27). They both

R v J, N and E - Transcript published of judge's remarks

The sentencing, for rape, of young offenders resulted in an enormous volume of critical public comment. 

Previous post 26 May - Law and Lawyers: Court of Appeal to review sentences imposed on young offenders

Previous post 31 May - Law and Lawyers: Youth Justice and sentencing for very serious offences

The Prime Minister said that he was "appalled" at the sentences - Starmer 'appalled' by case of boys spared jail after raping teenage girls - BBC News.  Several other politicians could not resist the lure of Twitter (X) - The Independent ()22 May). There was no

Supreme Court, by a majority, overrules the Cheshire West test for Deprivation of Liberty

In A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 [2026] UKSC 16, a seven member Panel of the Supreme Court has unanimously overruled the 2014 majority decision in Cheshire West.   The judgment is long and detailed.  A summary by the Supreme Court can be found here, and a more detailed summary prepared by members of 39 Essex Chambers is here. 

There is no ‘grace period’ for implementation of the judgment and so the approach in Cheshire West must not be followed with immediate effect. The many guidance documents which refer to it need to be read in that light. 

Links:

R v Vickrum Singh Digwa ~ Sentencing remarks

The judiciary has published sentencing remarks in the case of R v Vicrum Singh Digwa -

R -v- Vickrum Singh Digwa - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

This case has proved to be particularly controversial because of Police conduct at the scene of the murder.

On 3 December 2025, Digwa murdered Henry Nowak (aged 18). Digwa was aged 22 at the time.

The sentence was one of Life Imprisonment. A minimum term of 20 years and 190 days was set before there can be any consideration of release. 

Release is far from automatic and is a matter for the Parole Board and Secretary of State.

It should be noted that the minimum term for murder is set by Act of Parliament and not by sentencing council guidelines. The judge applied Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020. I

The High Court's Chancery Division to be replaced by a new Business and Property Division

The government, in a written statement to Parliament, has said - 

'The Government is pleased to support a judiciary-led initiative to modernise the structure of the High Court through the establishment of a new Business and Property Division. This historic modernisation will ensure the UK remains a global hub for corporate litigation.

It will bring together the current Business and Property Courts into a single division, which will replace the Chancery Division.

The Business and Property Courts are