JOINT STATEMENT OF THE FOREIGN MINISTERS OF CANADA, DENMARK, GERMANY, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, THE NETHERLANDS, UNITED KINGDOM "As committed supporters of the ICC we regret and strongly disagree with the announcement of sanctions to be imposed upon the Court by the United States."

Bad times ahead.

The issue is when in a trial for attempted murder where D, who was voluntarily intoxicated on drugs, admits he was able to form and had formed the specific intent necessary for GBH with intent, must the judge direct on voluntary intoxication in accordance with R v Sheehan & Moore (1975) 1 WLR 739?

In extremely exciting news, my case of R v Bottarelli has been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court! I represent the prosecution, led by the superb Sean Larkin KC, having appeared in both the Court of Appeal and at first instance in the Crown Court trial.

Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay is a welcome recognition of an astonishing lifetime in international human rights law. But the symbolism of awarding it to a former ICC and ICTR judge is unlikely to go unnoticed in the US. Does it make increased US sanctions on the ICC inevitable?

𝗧𝗵𝗼𝗺 𝗗𝘆𝗸𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗞𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗠𝗰𝗜𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘁𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗮𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗶 𝗠𝗣 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗵𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆

Today in memory-holing news: the government appears to be scrubbing dockets from military commissions cases at Guantánamo Bay. One important 2023 ruling from the ongoing Al Nashiri case is now redacted in full in one spot on the OMC website...and available in full in another.

For anyone interested in this topic, I can highly recommend Matthew Connolly’s book, ‘The Declassification Engine’.

One of the more frustrating aspects of the Guantánamo litigation is the Office of Military Commissions website. After it was released in 2023, Judge Acosta's ruling in the Al Nashiri case, suppressing statements obtained from torture, was available for several years on the OMC website (AE467CCC).

acquired the status of an unassailable shibboleth within the profession, it is high time for the courts to bring some much-needed clarity to the issue of jury equity.” 4/4

constitutional significance. Although contempt proceedings against barristers are unusual, they are by no means unheard of. Where there is a question as to whether a court order has been disregarded, it is right that courts are able to make a determination. Whilst Bushell's Case has 3/4