10 years since the Brexit Referendum

Ten years ago today the UK held a referendum at which the voter had the choice to say Leave or remain. The ballot paper did not set out the form that Brexit might take and the type of Brexit was hardly mentioned in the campaign preceding the referendum.

Obiter J - who then authored this blog - was personally opposed to Brexit because he thought that it severely limited life opportunities for the young. In his extensive "blogging" on the topic, he avoided seeking to persuade anyone either way. His choice was to present factual information, look at the twists and turns of the campaign, and comment on the notable legal cases that arose along the way.

ObiterJ's numerous posts about Brexit remain on this blog - please see

Law and Lawyers: Brexit Library - Key materials

As we know, the referendum result was close (overall 52% to 48%) with Scotland and Northern Ireland - two key parts of the UK - voting Remain. 

Rajiv Menon KC - in the matter of potential contempt proceedings

On 22 June, Mr Justice Johnson decided that a different High Court judge should determine whether contempt proceedings should be instigated against Rajiv Menon - see Re Rajiv Menon KC. 

The background to this matter is set out in an earlier post - Law and Lawyers: In the matter of contempt proceedings against Rajiv Menon KC - Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2026] EWCA Civ 573

Garden Court Statement: Rajiv Menon KC | Garden Court Chambers

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

Communications Act 2003 section 127

Doughty Street Chambers have published - Brighton woman acquitted on charge of persistent emails to cause annoyance to Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and local MP about Israel’s conduct in Gaza |

The article states - 'A Brighton woman, CK, was charged with a single offence under s. 127(2)(c) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003, for emails she sent on 10 and 11 June 2025 to senior politicians. The charge concerned emails sent by CK to the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and her local MP Peter Kyle MP, expressing concerns about the conflict in Gaza.' 

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