Max McGiffen: Can English law regulate the metaverse?
UK Public Law Blog
by Max McGiffen
2M ago
“All of our products, including our apps, now share a new vision: to help bring the metaverse to life” Mark Zuckerberg, Meta Founder’s Letter (i) What is the ‘metaverse’? The OED defines “metaverse” as “a slang term used to describe a virtual representation of reality implemented by means of virtual reality software”. This definition is slightly dated when speaking about ‘virtual reality’. It seems we have moved from virtual reality, a simulated experience, to ‘augmented reality’, which aims to be an enhanced version of the real physical world. The move towards Web3, a decentralised version o ..read more
Visit website
Kieron Spoors – The ‘Colston 4’ and the Right to Protest: A Case Comment on Attorney General’s Reference [2022] EWCA Crim 1259
UK Public Law Blog
by Max McGiffen
2M ago
Introduction On 5 January 2022, a jury in Bristol Crown Court acquitted four defendants (the Colston Four) following their trial for allegations of criminal damage to a statue of Edward Colston on 7 June 2020. Following this, the Attorney General sought clarity in the law concerning the relationship between criminal law and a defendant’s rights to freedom of conscience, to protest and to gather under Articles 9-11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”). The Court of Appeal in Attorney General’s Reference on a Point of Law (No.1 of 2022) [2022] EWCA Crim 1259 (“AG’s Reference”) fou ..read more
Visit website
Jack Hollingworth: Why Basfar v Wong [2022] will not be the final word on Modern Slavery – Jurisdiction and Immunity in the Supreme Court and Abroad’
UK Public Law Blog
by Max McGiffen
3M ago
Basfar v Wong [2022] is exceptional in both result and method. It recognised an exception for diplomatic immunity where a diplomat subjects someone to circumstances of modern slavery. This was achieved by regarding employment in such conditions as a “commercial activity” under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (‘VCDR’). The Majority’s reasoning also clarifies judicial treatment of human rights arguments and comparative case law. The case has hence revolutionised both modern slavery and judicial methodology within public law cases more broadly. Nonetheless, Basfar contains a fi ..read more
Visit website
Alexi Norris – The Queen (on the application of (1) Friends of the Earth Limited (2) ClientEarth (3) Good Law Project and Joanna Wheatley v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin)
UK Public Law Blog
by Max McGiffen
6M ago
The High Court decided that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s Net Zero Strategy (“NZS”) breached its obligations under sections 13 and 14 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (“the Act”). The strategy sets out the Government’s policies and proposals for meeting carbon budgets set by Parliament. The case joined three legal challenges (judicial review) brought by ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth, Good Law Project and, environmental campaigner, Jo Wheatley in June. Interestingly, the judgment was published amid the first ever red alert for extreme heat (38 ..read more
Visit website
Alexi Norris: Mandatory Vaccinations & Vaccine Hesitancy – The Court of Protection [edited by Anna Dannreuther of Field Court Chambers]
UK Public Law Blog
by Max McGiffen
1y ago
Generally speaking, you cannot be forced to undergo medical treatment without your consent. However, there are exceptions to this rule. For people who lack the capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 allows other people to make the decision for them, if it is in their best interests. Under the Mental Health Act 1983, patients who are detained can also be treated without their consent in certain circumstances. This year, five cases have been brought to the Court of Protection regarding vaccinations for those who lack capacity with three being befo ..read more
Visit website
Kieron Spoors: A Case Note and Analysis – Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler and others [2021] UKSC 23
UK Public Law Blog
by Max McGiffen
1y ago
Introduction Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler and others [2021] UKSC 23 (“Ziegler”) concerned a protest against the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair, one of the world’s largest arms fairs. The Appellants were strongly opposed to the arms trade and the fair. They laid down on the road leading to the Excel Centre and attached themselves to lockboxes. The Appellants were arrested and charged with “wilful obstruction of a highway without lawful authority or excuse”, contrary to section 137(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (“HwA”). At trial, the first-instance judge ..read more
Visit website
Jack Hollingworth: The (Second) Highest Court in the Land? A Case Comment on Attorney General v Crosland [2021] and Supreme Court’s Right to Overrule Itself
UK Public Law Blog
by Max McGiffen
1y ago
Commonly referred to as the ‘Highest Court in the Land’, the Supreme Court holds a unique ability to declare the law with finality. However, the Appellant in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 58 successfully challenged this. The majority in this judgment declared that where an order for contempt of court is granted by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court itself has jurisdiction to hear an appeal on the same order. Thus, the Supreme Court has reviewed a former Supreme Court panel on the same case.  This challenges orthodox perceptions of the Supreme Court’s constitutional position wi ..read more
Visit website
Jason Galbraith-Marten QC: Uber and UTAG v TfL Interview Series (Part 2)
UK Public Law Blog
by Max McGiffen
1y ago
Introduction This post forms the second part of our series on Uber and UTAG v TfL. The High Court has determined that Uber and Free Now’s business model, of acting as an agent for its drivers is unlawful. Their model must be updated to be in accordance with the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. Uber and Transopco (trading as Free Now) must contract directly with passengers who book. This will affect all private hire operators in England and Wales, with very limited exceptions. The High Court has confirmed Lord Leggat’s obiter in Uber v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, and has given b ..read more
Visit website
Charles Streeten: Uber and UTAG v TfL Interview Series (Part 1)
UK Public Law Blog
by Max McGiffen
1y ago
Introduction The High Court has determined that Uber and Free Now’s business model, of acting as an agent for its drivers is unlawful. Their model must be updated to be in accordance with the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. Uber and TRANSOPCO (trading as Free Now) must contract directly with passengers who book. This will affect all private hire operators in England and Wales, with very limited exceptions. The High Court has confirmed Lord Leggat’s obiter in Uber v Aslam [2021] UKSC 5, and has given both drivers and passengers more protection when using private hire apps. Alexi Norris ..read more
Visit website
Robin White: Comment on R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 56
UK Public Law Blog
by Max McGiffen
1y ago
Today, the Supreme Court (UKSC) has handed down its judgement today in R (on the application of Elan-Cane) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2021] UKSC 56. We asked Robin White, barrister specialising in employment and discrimination law at Old Square Chambers, for comment. Her thoughts have been compiled by the Blog’s Assistant Editor, Lavanya Sridhar. Facts: R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department is a judicial review case seeking to challenge the Government’s passport policy. The appellant’s argument is that the Government’s refusal to ..read more
Visit website

Follow UK Public Law Blog on Feedspot

Continue with Google
OR