The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
The Metropolitan Police has won an appeal against a High Court decision that ruled that the controversial kettling tactics used by police officers in two respects during the G20 protests in 2009 was unlawful.
The original case dates back to April 2011 and was won by student Hannah McClure and Josh Moos, a campaigner for Plane Stupid.
Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, sitting in the Court of Appeal with Lord Justice Hughes and Lord Justice Sullivan, ruled that the High Court decision was flawed.
Overturning the High Court’s previous ruling in Hannah McClure and Joshua Moos v Metropolitan Police, Neuberger MR said that the decision to contain the demonstrators was the least drastic way of preventing what would otherwise be an “imminent and serious breaches of the peace”.
Monica Carss-Frisk QC
However, he added that the kettling tactic should only be considered in “extreme and exceptional circumstances”.
This is a victory for Blackstone Chambers’ Monica Carss-Frisk QC, who was instructed by the Metropolitan Police.
Blackstone Chambers’ Michael Fordham QC, instructed by Bindmans partner John Halford, acted for the respondents.
Commenting on the ruling Halford said: “This judgment is very difficult to reconcile with the principle that the law protects peaceful protest and the stark facts of what the police did on 1 April 2009.
“There’s no hint of contrition for the injuries protestors suffered at the hands of many officers involved; instead there is merely the triumph of the known wrongdoer who has unexpectedly evaded censure for their actions.”
It is understood that the Supreme Court will be asked to examine the case.