One of Germany’s most famous actors has claimed her TV presenter ex-husband spread deepfake pornographic images of her online – and triggered demonstrations demanding the government tighten up the laws on digital violence against women.

The case has gripped Germany, said the BBC and “exposed anger about what campaigners say are glaring gaps in criminal law”.

Secret online accounts

In bombshell allegations published under the headline: “You virtually raped me”, Collien Fernandes alleged in Der Spiegel last week that her former husband, Christian Ulmen, had secretly opened online accounts in her name and used them to share sexually explicit deepfake pornographic images of her with 30 other men. She also claimed he used computer-generated audio to impersonate her voice for phone-sex encounters with some of the men. Ulmen denies the allegations and has not been charged.

Fernandes had known about the fake images for many years, and in 2024, she’d talked about them, and the effect they’d had on her, in a documentary about deepfake abuse. That Christmas, after she’d reported the abuse to the police, she said Ulmen confessed to her that he was her abuser.

Ulmen has never “produced and/or distributed deepfake videos of Ms Fernandes or any other individuals. Any such claims are false,” his lawyers told the BBC. They also said Ulmen will be taking legal action against Der Spiegel for publishing “fake facts” and “inadmissible coverage based on suspicions”.

Call for tighter restrictions

Fernandes’ claims have shocked Germany, in a similar way that Gisèle Pelicot’s trial rocked France, said The New York Times. Crowds at rallies and demonstrations in several cities called for tighter legal restrictions on the creation and distribution of deepfake pornography. They said politicians had not done enough to prevent such digital abuse.

The scandal “is also putting political pressure on Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has long been accused of being out of touch when it comes to younger, female voters”, said the BBC.

Justice minister Stefanie Hubig has now announced plans to incorporate into German law an EU directive on banning non-consensual deepfake pornography, and to make both the production and distribution of it a specific criminal offence, punishable by up to two years in prison.

India has long recognised a “third gender” and was one of the first countries to allow people legally to self-identify as transgender. But its parliament has just passed controversial amendments to such laws, which remove the right to self-identification and narrow the definition of ‘transgender’.

The Bharatiya Janata Party-led government got the bill through both houses last week, despite a boycott by opposition parties and widespread protests by the LGBTQ+ community.

Virendra Kumar, minister for social justice and empowerment, says the amendments still protect people who “face severe social exclusion due to their biological condition”. But Congress party leader Rahul Gandhi called it a “brazen attack” on transgender rights.

‘Third gender’

People of a “third gender” have been recognised in India for thousands of years. They feature heavily in Hindu holy texts – the half-male, half-female deity Ardhanarishvara, for example – and were often revered under Muslim rulers of the Mughal Empire.

The most common third-gender group in South Asia are the hijras: often born male, they dress in traditionally female clothing, and many choose to undergo castration; others are born intersex. Hijras were traditionally “treated with both fear and respect”, said Harvard Divinity School but that “did not survive” colonial rule. The British, “shocked by third-gender people”, classified them as criminals in 1871. Criminalisation was repealed shortly after independence, but years of stigmatisation “took a toll”.

Hijras are expected to perform ritual roles at Hindu births and weddings but are otherwise “often treated with contempt” and “almost always excluded from employment and education”. They are “often stricken by poverty” and “victims of violence and abuse”.

But in 2014, India’s Supreme Court “officially recognised third-gender people as being citizens deserving of equal rights”. And that paved the way for the 2019 Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, which included the hijras and the kinnars, another third-gender group, along with transwomen and transmen in a more inclusive definition of transgender people. The act also affirmed the right to self-identify as transgender or non-binary.

‘A major reversal’

The new amendments to the 2019 law remove those rights to self-identify, requiring instead a medical certification of gender reassignment. It also limits the definition of transgender to intersex people and those from socio-cultural groups such as the hijras.

The government argues that the changes protect those facing “extreme and oppressive” discrimination, and strengthen laws against exploitation and trafficking. They say the definition of transgender is “too vague” and makes it difficult to identify the most marginalised; a narrower definition would help welfare benefits “reach those who need them”.

But critics say the new bill will exclude many, and that mandatory medical certification for those undergoing gender transition “undermines dignity and autonomy”. The amendments “appear to contradict the 2014 ruling”, which held that “requiring medical procedures for recognition was both unethical and unlawful”, said Delhi-based journalist Namita Singh in The Independent.

“It has shattered our identity,” transgender rights activist Laxmi Narayan Tripathi told reporters. India’s last census in 2011 recorded nearly half a million people in the “other” gender category. The true number is likely far higher; some estimates reach six million.

If India’s president signs the bill into law, it will be “a major reversal” of “hard-won rights”, said Jayshree Bajoria, Asia director of Human Rights Watch. It also puts people at risk by introducing additional offences of “coercing or alluring” people to be transgender. That’s “reminiscent of the colonial-era laws” that criminalised hijras.

This law, said N Kavitha Rameshwar in The Times of India, “seeks to be that one rogue wave that will wash away” a decade of progress in transgender rights, “as if it were all but a castle of sand”.

What happened

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) on Tuesday filed criminal charges against Kalshi, accusing the online prediction marketplace of “running an illegal gambling operation and taking bets on Arizona elections, both of which violate Arizona law.” The 20-count indictment alleges that Kalshi illegally accepted bets on sporting outcomes, political events and election results, among other “unlicensed wagering.”

Who said what

“Arizona will not be bullied into letting any company place itself above state law,” Mayes said in a statement. The criminal charges, the first filed by a state against Kalshi, mark a “new front in a high-stakes legal battle over whether prediction markets should be subject to the same rules as gambling companies,” The Associated Press said. President Donald Trump, whose son Don Jr. is a “strategic adviser” for Kalshi, has thrown his “support behind the multibillion-dollar prediction market industry.” Several other states have sued Kalshi and its rival, Polymarket.

The Arizona lawsuit “comes less than a week” after Kalshi filed a preemptive suit, asking a federal judge to rule that its wagers are “not gambling but instead something more akin to trading futures on commodities,” the Arizona Capitol Times said. The company argues its “contracts” can only be regulated by the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission, “out of reach of state authorities.” CFTC chair Michael Selig appeared to agree, calling the Arizona suit a “jurisdictional dispute” that is “entirely inappropriate as a criminal prosecution.”

What next?

The outcome of the legal actions in Arizona and “at least nine other states” could have “sweeping implications for how sports betting — which makes up roughly 90% of Kalshi’s trading volume — is regulated in the U.S.,” the AP said. Legal experts predict the dispute over prediction markets “has a good chance of making its way to the Supreme Court,” Axios said.

Businesses in the Australian state of Victoria will be “forced to allow staff to work from home two days a week” under what the state government described as “world-first” laws.

The “sweeping measures”, said The Times, will apply to employers of all sizes and put in place a “legal guarantee” that all Victorian workers who can “reasonably” work from home will be eligible.

However, the state government, which faces elections in November, has received concerns from small businesses that the law will restrict growth, and sparked fears that firms will move inter-state or abroad as a result.

Remote working no longer ‘under threat’

Working from home suits families because it “saves time and money and it gets more parents working”, said Victoria’s premier, Jacinta Allan. “If you can work from home for a small business, you deserve the same rights as someone working for a big bank.”

The government had previously indicated that small businesses “might be exempt from the laws”, but it was confirmed this week that staff working for this type of company would also be able to “benefit” from the measures, said The Times. The government had “insisted” that existing working-from-home rights “would be under threat” if new legislation were not introduced.

“More than a third” of employees “regularly” work from home, said the state government, and they can save on average A$5,308 “every year” from doing so. It also “cuts congestion” and “gets more people working: workforce participation is now 4.4% higher than before the pandemic”.

The law will come into effect on 1 September and be “enshrined” in the state’s Equal Opportunity Act, said Bloomberg. Businesses with “fewer than 15 workers” will have a delayed start of 1 July 2027 to “allow them to prepare for the change”.

Small business ‘backlash’

“It is hard to keep up with Australia,” said Pilita Clark in the Financial Times. It has recently passed “some of the toughest anti-vaping laws on the planet”, a “world-first ban on social media for kids under the age of 16” and banned “artificial stone used for kitchen worktops that is linked with lung disease”.

Even when the work-from-home law was in the planning stage, it was seen as “another groundbreaking move”; it is “shaking the politics of remote working in a way that governments elsewhere may find hard to ignore”.

Several business owners have been “calling for more staff to return to the office”, said the FT. For instance, Nuno Matos, chief executive of ANZ bank, said poor office attendance would be “reflected in lower bonus payments”.

In last year’s national election campaign the Liberal Party promised to “crack down on ‘unsustainable’ remote working patterns” to force staff back to five days a week in the office. That policy produced a “political spark” and Allan’s Labor Party has sought to benefit from it. Its working-from-home initiative will form a large part of her “re-election campaign” in November.

There has been a “backlash” from small business owners over the law, said The Guardian. It could place a significant “regulatory burden” on firms that “don’t necessarily have HR departments to engage with and to consult”, said Scott Veenker, acting chief executive of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. “It’s just another added impost”, which could lead to businesses “moving operations interstate or potentially overseas. If you make business too hard, they’ll go elsewhere and that’s the last thing we need in Victoria right now.”

This is already happening, said Sumeyya Ilanbey in the Australian Financial Review. Investors are “fleeing Victoria” because of the plans, believing they will “entrench the state’s reputation as anti-enterprise”.

Politically, the law aims to “wedge the coalition opposition”. They face the choice of “opposing a plan that Labor is convinced is popular with many voters or backing it and losing faith with business supporters”.

The arrests of Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have shone a spotlight on the centuries-old common-law offence of misconduct in public office. Neither man has yet been charged, and both deny wrongdoing, but should police investigations proceed to prosecution, this vague and complex offence could be challenging for lawyers to prove.

“Securing a conviction for misconduct in public office is a notoriously difficult task,” said The Telegraph. There are fewer than 50 convictions a year and none of those have involved “high-profile individuals”.

What is it?

The offence of misconduct in public office has been dated back to 1599. It’s a common-law offence, which means it was established by judicial precedent, rather than a specific Act of Parliament. It had fallen into disuse but was revived in recent times to catch corrupt police officers whose misconduct didn’t fall easily into other well-established offences. It carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The offence has four main elements, all of which must be proved:

· The individual is a public officer acting as such.

· The individual wilfully neglects to perform his or her duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself or herself.

· The conduct is to such a degree that it amounts to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.

· The conduct is without reasonable excuse or justification.

The widely acknowledged problem with these elements is their vagueness. What constitutes a public duty is not defined and “the meaning of public trust is fairly elastic”, said The New Statesman. “Few would say it’s a satisfactory area of law.”

The Law Commission “has proposed that the offence be abolished”, and the government has included “some replacement offences” in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, also known as the Hillsborough Law. But that bill is currently “stalled” in Parliament and “is not yet law (and may never be)”.

Who has been convicted for it?

The offence is clearly intended for charging those in trusted public office who have betrayed that trust. It was described by legal scholar Sir William Blackstone, way back in 1765, as “a crime of deep malignity”. In its modern incarnation, it has mainly been used to punish misconduct by junior and mid-ranking public officials, with police and prison officers accounting for 92% of convictions between 2014 and 2024, according to the Institute For Government.

In 2009, former MP Damian Green was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office but he was not charged. In 2016, former MEP Nikki Sinclaire was charged and tried but acquitted. Last year, independent MP Dan Norris was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, as well as sexual assault and rape, and investigations are still ongoing.

In 2019, former prime minister Boris Johnson was summoned to face a private prosecution for misconduct in a public office – over allegations that he has misled the British public about the cost of European Union membership in the run-up to Brexit. The High Court dismissed the case and the summons was overturned.

What could happen now?

As the law around the offence that both Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor are being investigated for is “famously vague”, it “complicates the task”, said Robert Hazell, a professor of politics and government at University College London, on The Conversation. If any charges are brought, lawyers “will have to devote more time and effort to understanding the elements of the offence, and then ensuring that they can prove each element.”

There are allegations that both men shared confidential government information with Jeffrey Epstein. Under this law, “if sensitive government material was shared without proper authority, the question would be whether that amounted to a deliberate breach of official duty”, said Simarjot Singh Judge, a managing partner at Judge Law. “Prosecutors would need to establish intent, seriousness, and whether the conduct crossed the threshold into criminal wrongdoing.”

Given the seriousness of this offence, convictions “typically result in an immediate custodial sentence”, said law firm K&L Gates in a briefing paper. Although the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, “sentences imposed to date have generally been lower”.

The “dangerous fanatics” of Palestine Action have been given a “free pass” to continue promoting hatred and committing acts of violent disorder, said The Sun. Last Friday, the High Court ruled that the government’s decision to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation had been unlawful.

Palestine Action had, the three judges accepted, carried out some acts of terrorism, said Alistair Gray in the Financial Times. But they ruled that the challenge to the ban – which was put in place last July, after activists broke into RAF Brize Norton and damaged two planes – was successful on two main legal grounds. The first was that the decision to outlaw the group amounted to “unjustified interference” with the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The second was that the decision, taken by then-home secretary Yvette Cooper, was “disproportionate”, because Palestine Action’s activities had not yet reached “the level, scale and persistence” to fall within the legal definition of terrorism.

‘Good intentions’

This ruling is “disturbing”, said Melanie Phillips in The Times. Between August 2024 and June 2025 the group was responsible for 158 “direct action events”, 28 of which caused damage to property exceeding £50,000, or required a significant police presence. In 2024, an activist allegedly attacked a police officer with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine. Are ministers just supposed to wait around “until more people are injured, or someone even gets killed by these activities”, before they’re allowed to ban the group?

“There were clearly good intentions behind the proscription, but the problems with such a blanket measure became apparent as soon as the police began putting it into practice,” said The Daily Telegraph. Among the more than 2,700 people arrested, were many who would generally never be considered terrorists, from priests to pensioners. To class these people, however “ignorant or misguided” they were, as terrorists, in the same league as militants from al-Qa’eda or Islamic State, threatened to “make the ban look ridiculous”, and those locked up look like martyrs.

‘Fundamentally unsound’

“One does not have to endorse the vandalism perpetrated by Palestine Action supporters” to understand that the proscription of the group was “fundamentally unsound”, said David Littlefair on UnHerd. It’s notable that “the same people who might become apoplectic at citizens being disciplined over social media posts have been remarkably sanguine in response to thousands of pensioners facing prison time for poorly defined crimes”. Many seem now to feel “that the value of free speech as a concept is contingent on how annoying they find the speaker”.

The ban will remain in place while the government prepares to appeal, said Haroon Siddique in The Guardian. But the debacle has already been a “humiliation” for Keir Starmer’s beleaguered government – and “has transformed Palestine Action from a little-known protest group to one that is on the front page of newspapers”.

Prince Harry has returned to London for a High Court case against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) in which he will allege that the publisher’s behaviour left him “paranoid beyond belief”. The prince’s claims relate to alleged unlawful information gathering used in 14 articles between 2001 and 2013, which ANL “strongly denies”.

‘Highly intrusive’ and ‘damaging’

The prince is one of seven high-profile claimants – including Elton John and Liz Hurley – against ANL, which owns the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, as well as Metro and The i Paper. Other claimants include John’s husband, David Furnish, former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes, actor Sadie Frost and Doreen Lawrence, mother of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.

ANL journalists are accused of “hacking mobile phone voicemails, tapping landline calls and ‘blagging’ personal information” about subjects without their knowledge or consent, said The Times. The trial is due to last nine weeks, and the total cost is “estimated to be about £40 million”.

On the second day of the trial, the claimants’ barrister, David Sherborne, claimed that the material the company obtained on Harry’s romantic relationships was “highly intrusive”, “damaging” and had “serious security implications”. Sherborne also alleged that ANL illegally obtained information about Hurley’s paternity battle with Stephen Bing, as well as “incredibly private” information about the surrogacy and care arrangements relating to John’s newborn son, said Sky News.

ANL has argued that the claims “should be dismissed”, owing to a six-year statute of limitations on privacy claims, said The Telegraph. The publisher believes the claimants “knew or should have known” about the existence of the articles in question “long before the cut-off date for claims to be brought”. The company denies using illegal means to obtain information, instead telling the court that Harry’s friends were a “good source of leaks” for journalists, divulging information about his private life.

Questions have also arisen over the reliability of witness evidence, said The Times. Private investigator Gavin Burrows, whose evidence is a “key part” of the claimants’ case, now maintains that he was “never instructed or commissioned by anyone at The Mail on Sunday or the Daily Mail to conduct unlawful information gathering on their behalf”.

‘Personal crusade’

This case is Prince Harry’s third “major court battle” accusing media groups of “unlawful behaviour”, said the BBC. In December 2023, he won 15 claims against Mirror Group Newspapers for “unlawfully gathering information for stories published about him”. In January 2025, The Sun agreed to pay “substantial damages” and issued an apology to the prince over claims of “unlawful intrusion into his life”.

This could be Harry’s final courtroom confrontation with the British press, but it is also his “biggest”, said Sky News. There are “reputations on the line” and “the stakes for all sides are high”. The duke sees this as his “personal crusade”, once saying that “changing the media landscape would be his life's work. That work is well under way.”

“For now, all parties are standing firm,” said The Guardian. The claimants are not backing down, despite the risk of having to pay ANL’s “enormous legal bill” if they fail to convince the court that the “evidence on which they rely is reliable for the purposes of their case”.

As for the defendant, while the Daily Mail banned the use of private investigators in its reporting in 2007, it still faces the “unedifying prospect of having 30 years of its journalistic practices examined in court”. Whatever the result, “the question is whether there really can be any winners”.

Chiara Ferragni, Italy’s most famous influencer, has been cleared of aggravated fraud following one of the country’s most high-profile celebrity trials, dubbed “Pandoro-gate”.

“The nightmare is over,” Ferragni said, after the “long-running scandal involving a charity Christmas cake” came to an end yesterday in a Milan courtroom, said the BBC.

‘Italian Kardashian’

Ferragni is an “O.G. fashion blogger turned influencer turned Italian Kardashian,” said Puck. Her blog, The Blonde Salad, which she started in 2009, “occupied an outsize portion of the industry’s collective consciousness”.

The first fashion influencer to “really make it”, Ferragni secured front-row seats at Milan Fashion Week, appeared on magazine covers and built a “multimillion-dollar business” selling her own products. In 2017, Forbes named her the world’s foremost fashion influencer.

However, more recently, Ferragni found herself in a harsher spotlight. She was accused of misleading her 28 million Instagram followers over a charity fundraiser involving pandoro, a brioche-style Veronese cake typically eaten by Italian families at Christmas.

In 2022 and 2023, “Ferragni partnered with Italian confectioner Balocco to market limited edition Pandoro ‘Pink Christmas’ cakes”, said CNN. The advertising campaign “suggested proceeds would go to the Regina Margherita children’s hospital in Turin” to support cancer research. However, it later emerged that the charitable donation was a €50,000 flat fee paid by Balocco to the hospital prior to the launch of the pandoro, while “the proceeds of the cakes would go directly to Ferragni”, in addition to a €1 million payment to two of her companies for sponsorship of the campaign.

When her fast-tracked trial began in November, prosecutors requested a 20-month prison sentence, alleging that the marketing of the campaign was deliberately misleading. Ferragni denied the charges, telling the court “everything we have done, we have done in good faith”, but she acknowledged that she had made a “communication error”.

Redemption arc

On Wednesday, she and two co-defendants were acquitted of criminal wrongdoing. But “most of the damage” had already been done before the case came to court, said Forbes. Ferragni has already paid a fine of €1.1 million to Italy’s antitrust authority, in addition to various other settlements , and her companies have been “bleeding millions”.

Pandoro-gate has already had legal ramifications. In 2024, the Italian government passed new legislation, dubbed the Ferragni law, imposing greater transparency requirements for influencers with more than one million followers promoting charity fundraisers.

The drama has “political” overtones, too, said Politico. Ferragni and her former husband, the rapper Fedez (real name Federico Lucia), were “famous for taking on progressive causes” and “pitting themselves against the more traditionalist Catholic mainstream” represented by conservative Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

As soon as the scandal broke, Meloni singled out Ferragni as the “wrong kind of role model”, criticising influencers “who make loads of money promoting expensive panettoni that are supposedly for charity”. Since his marriage to Ferragni “collapsed” under the “scrutiny” of the scandal, Fedez has “made an eye-catching lurch to engaging the political right”.

As for Ferragni, there could still be a “Martha Stewart–esque redemption arc in her future”, said Puck. The US lifestyle guru “did six months” in prison for her part in an insider trading scheme. She “emerged slightly humbled” and then “went on to amass more clout than ever”.

“Donald Trump loves a fight”, said Chris Blackhurst in The Independent. Despite having received an apology from the BBC over what he claims was a defamatory edit in an episode of the broadcaster’s “Panorama” series, the US president “can smell money”.

After much speculation, on Monday in Florida Trump filed a $10 billion (£7.5 billion) lawsuit against the BBC. The two counts, the first for defamation and the second for violating the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, are each worth $5 billion (£3.75 billion).

What is the lawsuit about?

A leaked BBC memo earlier this year raised questions over the editing of an October 2024 “Panorama” documentary entitled “Trump: a Second Chance?”, which took two sections of a speech he made prior to the insurrection on 6 January 2021 – and spliced them together. The two snippets: “we’re going to walk down to the Capitol”, followed by a promise to “fight like hell”, arguably gave the impression of Trump inciting his followers to create the scenes of disorder that followed.

A spokesperson for the president claimed that the episode, broadcast when Trump was on the campaign trail, was “intentionally, maliciously and deceptively” edited in a “brazen attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election”. The “formerly respected and now disgraced BBC”, they alleged in a statement, has a “long pattern of deceiving its audience”, particularly in its coverage of Trump, “in service of its own Leftist political agenda”.

What are the key points of contention?

The question of jurisdiction is “at the core of the case”, said the Financial Times. Trump has filed the lawsuit in his home state of Florida, because there defamation claims must be made within two years of the incident; in the UK the time limit is one year. But BBC lawyers have argued that because the documentary was not aired in the US, US citizens could not have been affected by the content.

Trump’s lawyers claim, however, that BritBox subscribers, or those with a VPN, could have access to the material. They also assert that the BBC “had an agreement with Blue Ant Media”, a Canadian company, to “distribute the documentary in North America”, said Tom Witherow in The Times.

The president’s team needs to prove the BBC acted with “actual malice”, meaning they “knew the depiction was false, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth”, said the FT. To prove defamation also requires evidence of “extensive harm”. Trump claims the edit damaged his “brand value” and caused “injury to his future financial prospects”. Against this notion, the BBC is likely to “point out that he won the election” and that he was “acquitted in impeachment proceedings for alleged insurrection”, said The Times.

How has Trump handled such lawsuits before?

“Up until this year, it was unheard of for a sitting American president to sue a news outlet,” said Brian Stelter on CNN. “In just a few months, President Donald Trump has managed to make it seem normal.”

This is the first time Trump has tried to sue a UK media organisation, but he has “had some success in securing settlements” in legal action against US outlets, said the FT.

This year, CBS, owned by Paramount, paid the president $16 million (£11.9 million) to settle a suit against the editing of an interview on “60 Minutes”. In 2024, ABC paid $15 million (£11.2 million) in a defamation lawsuit, following comments by news anchor George Stephanopoulos that Trump had been found “liable for rape”, when in fact he had been determined liable for “sexual abuse” under New York law.

He also has a pending lawsuit against The New York Times for $15 billion (£11.2 billion), after refiling a defamation case in October. Trump also sued the newspaper in 2021 and in 2020: both claims were dismissed. A case against The Wall Street Journal relating to evidence released from the Jeffrey Epstein files, is also ongoing.

How could this one play out?

“BBC executives can be fairly confident of winning a court battle with President Trump”, said Jonathan Ames in The Times. However, its financial position is “considerably weaker”: the organisation will need to have “difficult pragmatic discussions” regarding legal fees that could rise to between $50 million (£37.2 million) and $100 million (£74.8 million) .

Even if a settlement is reached, that payout could be in the region of $10 million (£7.5 million), said Colin Freeman in The Telegraph. Indeed, compensation “may be the greatest humiliation of all” outcomes. Whatever the sum, “the prospect of the BBC helping fill the Trump coffers is unlikely to go down well with licence payers”. For supporters of the broadcaster, this will be seen as yet another “vendetta” by Trump against the media; to its critics, “it may signal time to end the licence fee system altogether”.

Whatever the result, Trump can spin a positive outcome, said CNN. If he wins, or the BBC settles, the financial benefits are evident. But even if he loses, the president “wins headlines” that, to his supporters, will look like he is taking “bold action” to “combat media misdeeds”.

Justice Secretary David Lammy has unveiled a watered-down version of his plans to dispense with jury trials for all but the most serious offences.

Under his original plan, offences carrying a sentence of less than five years would have been heard in new judge-only courts. But following “cabinet feedback”, this has been scaled back to offences with a penalty of less than three years.

The current crown court backlog stands at around 80,000 cases, said the Ministry of Justice, and without urgent action could exceed 100,000 by 2028. “We must be bold,” Lammy said today in setting out the government’s plans, to rectify a court system on the “brink of collapse”.

What did the commentators say?

Trial by jury is one of the “central reasons” Britain’s legal system has “garnered such high levels of trust and respect around the world”, said The Times in an editorial. Lammy is correct that the “status quo cannot go on”, but “fundamental changes” towards a system of “secrecy” would face “grave public apprehension”.

Even if Lammy drives through his proposals, “scrapping jury trials alone might not be enough to clear the backlog”. If less serious offences could be overseen by a judge and two magistrates, as recommended in Brian Leveson’s judicial review, trial times could be reduced from “two days to a few hours”.

“Destroying jury trials because everything else is broken is a terrible idea,” said Tristan Kirk in London’s The Standard. Lammy’s proposal is an “act of pure desperation” from the Labour government. There is a “serious risk” that overhauling the system will cost “huge amounts of money and time” for “limited benefit”. Jury trials are “worth nourishing and investing in, instead of being constantly eroded”.

Had this come from a Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage government, Labour would “say we were on a rocky road, with something like fascism at the end of it”, said a Sunday Times editorial. Once gone, it is likely juries will “never come back”. Departing from centuries of tradition exposes the deputy prime minister’s “short-term” thinking, abandoning what many Britons see as a right “in the interests of expediency”. “Trial by jury is sacrosanct. Scrapping it is an affront to justice.”

This is out of character for Labour, said an editorial in The Telegraph. It “beggars belief” that a party “so obsessed with the artificial construct of the ECHR” would abandon such a “long-standing right”. The answer should be to “address the problems of capital and funding” in the criminal justice system, instead of “dispensing with the core principles of English justice”.

But “David Lammy is right to slash the use of juries”, said Simon Jenkins in The Guardian. “Archaic” and “inefficient”, they are “quaint relics of medieval jurisprudence”. We are falling behind many of our European neighbours, where judge-only courts have long been standard. Per 100,000 citizens, England and Wales imprison 145, compared to 71 and 54 in “jury-free” Germany and the Netherlands. “I do not believe that Britons are twice as criminal as Germans, or three times as Dutch.”

Labour’s reforms could be revolutionary for rape cases in particular, said The New Statesman. Currently, “women are being retraumatised for far too long” with delays of up to “half-a-decade” to have their cases heard in a system that “lets them down so badly”. Trying lower-level offences more efficiently will free up crown court time to make sure “the most serious crimes are heard quickly and fairly”. If reform isn’t enacted we risk perpetuating a system that “denies timely justice” and “fails to deter crime”.

What next?

Under the current proposals, magistrates will be allowed to hear cases with potential sentences of up to 18 months – as opposed to the current 12 – and this could still rise to two years, said The Telegraph.

The next stages of proposals aim to “create a new part of the crown court where there are no juries”, for sentences up to three years, said Sky News. This departs from the Leveson review, which proposed a panel of a judge supported by magistrates. Cases involving crimes that carry sentences of five years or more will still be heard in front of a jury.

Labour has been accused of breaking another manifesto pledge after a last-minute U-turn watering down a key protection in its flagship Employment Rights Bill.

Changes to the proposed legislation included the government ditching plans to give workers the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one of a new job. The decision has been described as a “complete betrayal” by one Labour MP and leaves the bill as a “shell of its former self”, according to Unite general secretary Sharon Graham. But it is hoped the compromise will be enough to win over sceptical peers in the House of Lords and get the bill passed into law by next April.

What protections does the bill offer now?

Protection against unfair dismissal, which currently only comes into effect after two years in a job, will now kick in after six months – in line with most European countries. A compensation cap on successful unfair dismissal claims imposed by the Tories will also be lifted.

Other rights, such as the right to claim sick pay and paternity leave, and to apply for flexible working, will be enshrined from day one, and zero-hours contracts will be banned. The threshold for calling a strike will also be lowered, with a union requiring only a simple majority of members who voted rather than at least 40% of those eligible to vote as the current law dictates.

The enforcement of employment rights will be overseen by a new Fair Work Agency, which will have the right to inspect workplaces, issue fines and bring legal action on behalf of employees.

What has the reaction been?

The TUC’s general secretary Paul Nowak said the bill is “essential to better quality, more secure jobs for millions of workers across the economy”. But opposition politicians and business leaders have warned the new provisions are likely to have the opposite effect.

With unemployment already at a near five-year high, “employers have stopped hiring, in part because a rising living wage and steep rises in their national insurance charges have made it too expensive, but also because the looming legislation makes it too risky”, said Matthew Lynn in The Telegraph.

“The measures could cost firms £5 billion a year and risk being passed on to staff through smaller pay rises and hidden taxes which reduce wages over time,” said The Sun.

“No company can plan, invest or hire with this level of uncertainty hanging over them,” Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said. Even the tweaked legislation is still “terrible for economic growth” – a key mission of the Labour government.

What happens next?

Despite anger in some parts of the party over the changes, the focus among Labour MPs is “keeping the rest of the package intact”, particularly the end of zero-hours contracts, said The New Statesman.

Former deputy leader Angela Rayner, who led the passage of the bill through Parliament before she was forced to resign, reportedly plans to lay an amendment tomorrow to speed up the bill so it can be implemented as early as next year.

Several Labour MPs told The Guardian that they “fear that the climbdown by the government will embolden peers and critics of the bill to push for further changes”. “This can’t be the thin of the wedge and we won’t let it be,” said one.

The US president has the absolute right to grant pardons. But Donald Trump’s spree of pardons for loyalists and business allies has raised not only political eyebrows but also legal questions about abuse of power.

Since he began his second term in January, Trump “has begun to expand the pardon power both in nature and in scale”, said Benjamin Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker. He has issued nearly 2,000 presidential pardons and commutations, compared to 238 in his first term.

On his very first day back in the White House, Trump pardoned hundreds of people charged with and convicted of storming the Capitol on 6 January 2021. Last month, he pardoned his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and dozens of others accused of trying to overturn the 2020 election. “More than any previous president,” Trump has “systematically deployed” pardons to “reward loyalists” and reassure “associates that they can violate the law with impunity”, said Thomas B. Edsall in The New York Times.

‘Rewarding partisan allies’

Over the past decade, the presidential pardon power has been subject to “grotesque abuses”, said Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times. In his first term, Trump pardoned “lackeys and war criminals”, then Joe Biden “issued blanket and pre-emptive pardons for his family”, and now Trump has “outdone” himself, pardoning “a rogue’s gallery of donors, partisan allies and people with business ties to him or his family”.

Take the recent pardoning of Changpeng Zhao. The crypto billionaire had allowed his Binance platform to be used by terrorists and criminal organisations and had pled guilty to money laundering. Yet he had “also worked assiduously to boost the Trump family’s crypto business, and it certainly appears that he got a pardon in exchange for services rendered”.

Trump is using his pardon power as “part of his effort to put the country on an authoritarian path”, Rachel Barkow, a law professor at New York University, told The New York Times. “He is rewarding his partisan allies”, instead of using the power “even-handedly, with a regular process that is available to all”.

‘Separate tier of justice’

It might be “quaint these days” to reference America’s founding fathers but, when they granted unlimited pardon power, “they anticipated at least a modicum of presidential restraint”, said The Wall Street Journal. As such, there are no provisions in the US Constitution to rein in a president who embarks on a pardoning spree.

Trump could still overreach. If, for example, he were to pardon his former friend Ghislaine Maxwell (currently serving a 20-year sentence for conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse minors), it would highlight – in a much more public way – the “separate tier of justice” he has built “for his allies and investors”, said Wallace-Wells in The New Yorker.

Congress can’t remove the presidential power of pardon without changing the Constitution, but it could seek to “circumscribe” it “around a few basic principles”, said Bloomberg. These could include barring self-pardons and pardons given “in exchange for anything of value”. And pardons “issued in conjunction with a case involving presidents or their family members should trigger the release of all relevant investigative materials to Congress, to ensure greater public transparency”.

Seeking to impose these principles “will surely invite legal challenges”. But it would be difficult “to oppose them on the merits. More to the point: doing nothing would be unpardonable.”

“Responsible Child”, the ripped-from-the-headlines story of a 12-year-old boy who stands trial for murder, is top of the Netflix film charts.

The TV movie, which first aired on the BBC in 2019, “explores the nuanced issue of what age children ought to be responsible for their actions in a legal context”, said Cosmopolitan. It is loosely based on the real-life story of Jerome and Joshua Ellis, who were 14 and 23 when they killed their stepfather in 2013.

Filmmaker Nick Holt had “started asking more questions about the age at which people can stand trial in front of a jury”, he told Radio Times in 2019, after witnessing the trial of a young boy first hand. “When it turned out it was 10, and I saw how it compared to other countries, I was even more surprised. It’s substantially out of kilter with the rest of the world.”

What is the age of responsibility in the UK?

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the age of criminal responsibility – defined as the minimum age a person can be held legally responsible for a crime – is 10 years old. This means children under 10 cannot be arrested or charged with a crime, although they can be given a local child curfew, child safety order, or – in extreme cases of repeated offending – taken into care. In Scotland, the age of criminal responsibility was raised to 12 in 2019.

Since 1963, when the law first recognised a minimum age of criminal responsibility and set it at 10, “our understanding of how the adolescent brain develops – and how that affects decision-making – has increased”, said the BBC.

Nicholas Mackintosh, who chaired a Royal Society study on brain development in 2011, told the BBC at the time that there was “incontrovertible evidence that the brain continues to develop throughout adolescence”. Some regions responsible for decision-making and impulse control do not fully mature “until at least the age of 20”.

The Royal Society’s report cited concern among some neuroscientists that the age of criminal responsibility in the UK was set too low. The age has not changed since then.

How are children handled differently?

Under the current law, children in England and Wales aged between 10 and 17 “can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime”, but are still “treated differently from adults”, said the UK government.

Most will have their cases heard in youth courts, which have “specific rules in place to safeguard the child’s welfare and maintain anonymity”, said Lawtons Solicitors. Sentences are “less severe”, with imprisonment “only being imposed as a last resort for the most serious offences”. Those found guilty are sent to special secure centres for young people rather than adult prisons, with a greater emphasis on rehabilitation and preventing reoffending.

However, for very serious offences, or crimes in which a child is charged alongside an adult, cases can be heard by a crown court. Between 1995 and 2020, it is estimated that more than 7,000 children aged 10-14 have been tried at crown courts in England and Wales.

How does the UK compare to other countries?

The United Nations has repeatedly called for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised to at least 12 by all member nations, with 14 the most common age around the world, said the National Youth Justice Network.

This means England and Wales are outliers, with the current age of 10 being lower than any other European country. Portugal, at 16, has the highest age of criminal responsibility in Europe.

Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson went against the grain last month by announcing plans to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 14. This came after an “increase in cases of crime gangs recruiting children via social media and using them as hitmen”, said Reuters.

For a self-styled “President of PEACE”, Donald Trump has been remarkably bellicose on the home front, said Susan B. Glasser in The New Yorker. He has ordered hundreds of National Guard troops into what he insists are the “war-ravaged” cities of Portland and Chicago, to the outrage of the Democratic elected officials who run these places.

In response to their vocal opposition, Trump called for the governor of Illinois and mayor of Chicago to be jailed. Meanwhile, federal agents working for ICE and Border Patrol are conducting increasingly aggressive raids, said Melissa Gira Grant in The New Republic. Hundreds of them recently stormed an apartment building on Chicago’s South Side, rappelling from Black Hawk helicopters and leading away “zip-tied” residents, including children. Trump is effectively “waging war” on Chicago.

Democrat leaders only have themselves to blame, said Rich Lowry in the New York Post. If they had stopped people rioting outside ICE facilities in Chicago, and harassing agents there, Trump wouldn’t have had the excuse that he wanted to send in troops. It was the same story in Los Angeles. These cities invest a baffling amount of energy in defending illegal immigration, said Byron York in the Washington Examiner. Chicago is a “sanctuary city”, which means it limits or denies cooperation with federal officials in enforcing immigration law. Now, its mayor has declared parts of the city an “ICE-free zone”. Yet polls show that a majority of the public support deporting illegal migrants. By enforcing federal law, “Trump is doing what most people want”.

There have been some protests outside ICE facilities, said Kimberly Atkins Stohr in The Boston Globe, but we’re talking crowds of dozens, not thousands. Local officials have been in no danger of being overwhelmed. Trump is now threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act if legal challenges obstruct troop deployments. But that law is meant only to suppress “rebellion” that local law enforcement can’t handle. In recent history, it has only been invoked once, in 1992, when California’s governor requested military help to quell the LA riots. Ultimately, “Trump wants a war”, and only the Supreme Court can stop him militarising our cities. Given that it has already granted him immunity from actions taken in office, I doubt it will “stand up to him now”.

MSPs’ decision to scrap Scotland’s centuries-old option of a “not proven” verdict in a jury trial has delighted many crime survivors but raised legal worries about justice and conviction rates.

The Victims, Witnesses and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill will abolish the “legal idiosyncrasy” that allowed Scottish juries to deliver a third possible verdict, along with guilty and not guilty, said the BBC.

The bill also introduces another major change to jury procedures: “raising the bar for guilty verdicts” to a “two-thirds majority”, instead of a simple majority, in an attempt to “allay concerns of some defence lawyers” that removing the “not proven” verdict could “make it harder for their clients” to get a fair trial.

Improve ‘shamefully low’ rape convictions

Politicians hope that removing the “not proven" verdict will improve “the shamefully low conviction rates for rape and attempted rape”, said The Scotsman. In 2022-23, only half (48%) of such cases resulted in a conviction – well below the “overall conviction rate of 88%”, said London’s The Standard

“Not proven” is technically a differentiated acquittal: although the jury may not be convinced enough of the accused’s innocence to agree on a non-guilty verdict, the accused is considered innocent in the eyes of the law. “This unique and archaic” verdict has caused “confusion and distress for victims, families and the wider public”, said The Herald. It carries a sense of “uncertainty and incompleteness” and has “often felt like a legal limbo, leaving emotional scars that can last decades”.

It is called by many a “bastard verdict”, because juries see it as a “compromise between guilt and innocence”, said The Times. “Pioneering” research using mock trials has shown that “people choose ‘not proven’ for sometimes very different reasons”. Some juries who use it are “sending a signal to the alleged victim in the case, particularly a sexual offence case” that they don’t disbelieve them but there “just wasn’t enough evidence”, the researchers told the paper. But, for other – often disputatious – juries, it’s as a way of “bringing discussions to an end without further deliberation”.

‘Act of self-harm’

Critics of the changes to the Scottish judicial system worry about potential miscarriages of justice. “Scotland will now have a system where a person can be convicted despite five members of the jury having significant doubts about their guilt,” Stuart Munro of the Law Society of Scotland told The Times. Other countries that allow only guilty or not guilty verdicts require juries to reach a unanimous or near-unanimous guilty verdict, he said.

It also “ironic” that the Scottish National Party has introduced reforms that bring its country’s legal system “more in line with England”, said The Times. It’s a “predictable act of self-harm” to abolish a “legal construct that sets the Scottish criminal justice system apart – and ahead of – every other criminal justice system in the world”, said criminal barrister Thomas Ross in Scottish Legal News. “It is a capitulation to influential advocacy groups, with little regard for the resultant increased risk of miscarriages of justice.”

Alongside “haggis” and “square sausage”, the “not proven” verdict was one of the few things “unique” to Scotland. “We really must do much better than this.”

Keir Starmer has often been accused of lacking core beliefs, said George Eaton in The New Statesman, but there's no doubting his earnest commitment to human rights law. He wrote a book on the subject back in 1999, and once claimed: "There is no version of my life that does not largely revolve around me being a human rights lawyer." Which is awkward given the current furore over irregular migration and the mounting calls for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

These calls are no longer just coming from Nigel Farage and the Tories. Two former Labour home secretaries have pitched in as well: David Blunkett says we should suspend parts of the ECHR to speed up the deportation of failed asylum seekers; Jack Straw has warned that "the convention – and crucially, its implementation – is now being used in ways which were never, ever intended when... it was drafted".

Britain's departure from the ECHR "is starting to feel inevitable", said Daniel Hannan in the Daily Mail. The only question is whether the PM accepts it, or is "swept away by the tide". Withdrawal wouldn't be such a big deal. The UK was an open, liberal society long before the ECHR came into force. Claims that leaving it would somehow destabilise the Good Friday Agreement are nonsense.

Yet there's no good reason to suspend our commitment to these universal rights, said Sean O'Grady in The Independent. For all the talk of an "emergency", irregular arrival numbers are lower today than they were in 2022 – and small in relation to the numbers settling here through legal migration. It's not as if leaving the ECHR will stop people trying to cross the Channel.

The ECHR is not the main problem with our overwhelmed asylum system, said Fraser Nelson in The Times. "Legally, Strasbourg only has as much power over our law as Parliament wishes to give it." If, for instance, politicians feel our judges are being too generous in their interpretation of the right to family life, they can legislate to tighten guidance. In practice, the ECHR's impact is modest. Although critics claim the convention stops ministers expelling foreign criminals, data from 2016-2021 shows that just 3.35% of successful appeals were on human rights grounds.

More troublesome than the ECHR is the Refugee Convention, which obliges Britain to settle everyone with a "well-founded fear of persecution" – a definition that "covers much of the world's population". This treaty doesn't present such a "juicy" political target "as it doesn't include the word 'European'", but it's the one the small-boat arrivals are mainly relying on – and the one that most needs updating.

A public inquiry is to examine the events surrounding the so-called "Battle of Orgreave" – where over 100 striking miners and police were injured in violent clashes and, after which, criminal charges against 95 miners were dropped amid allegations of police falsifying evidence.

Still one of the most contentious episodes in modern British history, what happened in June 1984 "cast a shadow over communities in Yorkshire and other mining areas", said Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. "The violent scenes and subsequent prosecutions raised concerns that have been left unanswered for decades."

What happened?

On the morning of 18 June 1984, about three months into a major strike over coalpit closures, 8,000 striking miners assembled for a mass picket at the Orgreave coking plant near Sheffield. They were met by 6,000 police officers from forces nationwide, led by South Yorkshire Police.

Things quickly turned violent. Miners threw stones and the police charged on horseback and hit miners with truncheons. Police snatch squads used batons and short shields – the "first time they had ever been used on the UK mainland", said The Guardian – and many miners were arrested.

"It wasn't frightening to start off with," Chris Skidmore, an "Orgreave veteran" turned campaigner told Sky News, "but then what I noticed was the amount of police officers who had no identification numbers on. It all felt planned."

"And it wasn't just one truncheon," said his fellow former miner and campaigner Carl Parkinson. "There were about 30, or 40. And it was simultaneous, like it was orchestrated."

Despite accusations of policy brutality and use of excessive force, it was the miners who were blamed for the violence, with then prime minister Margaret Thatcher talking of "mob rule". Charges of rioting and unlawful assembly were brought against 95 of the miners – but, the following year, all charges were dropped after police evidence was repeatedly discredited.

Why is this being revisited now?

South Yorkshire Police paid out more than £400,000 in compensation to some accused miners and their families in 1990, without any admission of wrongdoing. No police officer was disciplined and the events of the day, and its aftermath, were never officially scrutinised.

The Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign was formed in 2012 by ex-miners and trade unionists to expose "police violence, lies and cover-ups" surrounding the events of 18 June.

Its aim is to discover who was responsible for "organising and ordering the deployment of multiple police forces, including mounted police armed with truncheons, shields and dogs, against striking miners". It called for a public inquiry to find out how it was decided that "striking miners should be attacked and arrested at Orgreave and charged with riot and unlawful assembly, which carried heavy prison sentences". It's also demanded to know why key documents "and other evidence had been destroyed or embargoed until 2066 and 2071".

Responding to pressure from the campaigners, the government has announced that the inquiry – which is to be chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield, Pete Wilcox – will be a statutory one, meaning witnesses will be compelled to give evidence.

What has the reaction to the inquiry been?

South Yorkshire mayor, Oliver Coppard said the announcement of the public inquiry was a "landmark moment for justice and accountability. We owe it to the miners, their families, and our communities to ensure that the events of Orgreave are finally understood."

John Dunn, from the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, said he hoped the inquiry will get to the truth of what happened. "How did 6,000 police know to be waiting in full riot gear and why were they given the instructions to run rampant through innocent people?"

But police in South Yorkshire have reacted less optimistically. "This will be long and protracted," said South Yorkshire Police Federation chair Steve Kent. "And the associated costs of this inquiry will lead to there being even less money in the policing purse, which will only have a negative impact on the public of South Yorkshire."

When a car burst into flames just off the M61 near Bolton in January 2023, it was "impossible to predict the turbulence" and "tragedy" to follow, said Channel 4 News.

The occupants of that vehicle – aristocrat Constance Marten and her partner Mark Gordon, a convicted rapist – have this week been found guilty of the gross-negligence manslaughter of their newborn baby Victoria, after "a lengthy, emotionally charged ordeal" that included a nationwide manhunt and two chaotic trials.

What happened in 2023?

A manhunt was launched when police found Marten's passport in the burnt-out Peugeot, along with evidence that a baby had recently been born in the back seat.

After 54 days living off-grid and using nearly £50,000 withdrawn from Marten's trust fund, the couple were finally apprehended near Brighton. Officers later found the body of baby Victoria in a shopping bag at an allotment where Marten and Gordon had been living. It emerged that she had died in a freezing-cold tent in the South Downs while sleeping rough with her parents.

How did the trials unfold?

The court cases that followed were "extraordinary", said the BBC's Helena Wilkinson, who reported on both trials. Twice in the dock over the death of their baby, the couple "appeared to be completely in love and still fiercely united" and "yet they had utter contempt for the court process".

Both defendants changed their legal representation numerous times, with Gordon eventually defending himself and even cross-examining his partner. The judge accused them of trying to "sabotage" and "manipulate" their second trial, which nearly collapsed a number of occasions.

The pair were found guilty in 2024 of concealing the birth of baby Victoria, of perverting the course of justice and of child cruelty. But the jury couldn't come to a decision about the most serious charge, so it was only this week that a second trial concluded with the guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence verdict. Marten and Gordon are due to be sentenced in September.

In his closing speech to the jury, Gordon claimed the couple were not on the run, but "were being chased". He told the court: "We were two vulnerable people, misunderstood and continuously persecuted due to racial and class stereotypes. But none of that stuff matters: love conquers all."

Why were the couple on the run?

Key to the couple's defence was the claim that they went on the run to avoid Victoria being removed from them once she was born; Marten's four other children, born between 2017 and 2021, had been placed into care in January 2022, after years of legal drama in the family courts. Marten claimed the children had been "stolen by the state" and her "number one priority" was to protect Victoria.

A key reason for the decision to place the children in care was a concern that Marten "was a victim of domestic violence at the hands of the convicted rapist and that the children were also at risk", said The Telegraph. In one incident, a judge ruled that Gordon had "caused her to fall out of a first-floor window when she was pregnant".

Eight months after the care ruling, Marten was pregnant again and "on the run from authorities" with Gordon, "beginning the fatal journey" that ended in Brighton, said the BBC.

A national review into Victoria's death has now been launched by the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel to look at how "agencies can better safeguard children in similar circumstances".

A bedrock of the English justice system is the right to be judged by a group of your peers – a jury. But it is far from the norm worldwide.

As the backlog in the criminal courts continues to impede justice, the government is under pressure to come up with solutions – a task given to a former judge, Brian Leveson. His recommendations include removing the right to be tried by a jury of peers in certain cases. "I don't rejoice in these recommendations, but I do believe they're absolutely essential," he wrote. There is "a real risk of total system collapse in the near future", which could "lead to a breakdown in law and order".

Lawyers argue that restricting jury trials isn't practical and could lead to discrimination against minorities. But jury trials themselves are controversial, and not without concerns of bias. Many democracies worldwide do not rely on them at all.

Italy

The criminal law system in Italy is "often referred to as a hybrid", said the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender. It's a "composite of the two dominant Western models of criminal procedure": the US-UK "adversarial", in which two sides, prosecution and defence, present their cases before a judge and jury; and the European "inquisitorial", in which a judge investigates a case, collects evidence and questions witnesses.

In certain courts, professional judges work alongside "lay" judges – non-professional members of the public – to make decisions. These giudici popolari are selected from a list of eligible citizens: there is a minimum age and education level, and they cannot be members of the armed forces, police or clergy or allow religious beliefs any influence.

In 2009, the jury that found Amanda Knox guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher provoked "intense criticism" in the US, said Italian studies professor Sarah Annunziato on The Conversation. Journalists blamed the (later overturned) guilty verdict on "rampant anti-Americanism, media bias, an allegedly corrupt prosecutor, and the Italian justice system itself".

Germany

Jury trials were abolished in Germany in 1924 and most cases are tried by a professional judge or a panel of "lay" judges known as Schöffen. Councils compile lists of members of the public "deemed suitable", who are then chosen by committee for a five-year term, said The Guardian.

They must be between 25 and 69 years old, and "religious ministers, certain politicians and health professionals working in the court system are among those excluded".

France

Similarly, only the most serious cases are heard by juries in France. A criminal trial court, or cour d'assises, is comprised of three judges who deliberate with six jurors to reach a verdict, but only in cases that carry the longest sentences.

Cases that carry a maximum sentence of 15-20 years – i.e. "nearly all rape trials", said The Guardian – are tried by a panel of five judges at "département criminal courts". Dominique Pelicot, for example, was found guilty of his crimes against his wife Gisèle by a panel of five judges.

India

Jury trials, introduced under British colonial rule, were abolished after a landmark ruling in the infamous Nanavati case. A navy commander, Kawas Nanavati, was acquitted by a jury of murdering his English wife's lover despite "overwhelming evidence" – and his own confession.

The judge declared the verdict "perverse", said the BBC. He referred the case to the High Court of what was then called Bombay, which found Nanavati guilty. The trial amplified decades of concern about the jury system and its failure to deliver independent or impartial verdicts. It "wrote the death warrant of jury trials in India"; they were phased out before being officially abolished in 1973.

Most of Asia's common law jurisdictions (countries such as Singapore, Pakistan and Malaysia) have also abolished jury trials, amid concerns that juries are susceptible to bias.

In the early hours of last Friday, two activists from Palestine Action climbed over a fence into RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, said Dominic Adler on UnHerd. They then filmed themselves riding unimpeded on scooters across the vast airbase – "a critical part of Britain's defence infrastructure" – and vandalising two Voyager air-to-air refuelling tankers. Reportedly, they smashed the aircraft with crowbars and sprayed paint into their engines.

Their aim, they said, was to "disrupt British military support for Israel". But their main achievement was to provoke the normally "glacial" Home Office into rapid action. By Friday evening, Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, had let it be known that she planned to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act; on Monday, she confirmed that it would be put to a vote in the Commons next week.

In a statement, Cooper said this "disgraceful" attack was just the latest in the long history of Palestine Action's "unacceptable criminal damage". And it's true that the group's tactics have become quite extreme, said Sian Bradley and Charlie Parker in The Times. It was set up in 2020 to take direct action against Elbit Systems, a weapons manufacturer it claims "profits from Israel's war crimes". Back then, its members limited themselves to scaling rooftops and vandalising factories. But since the start of Israel's offensive in Gaza, they have ramped up their actions. Last year, they were accused of assaulting two police officers at Elbit's Bristol site and causing millions of pounds worth of damage.

These extremists are not just hurling soup at paintings, said Tom Harris in The Daily Telegraph. They are sabotaging RAF aircraft and potentially undermining Britain's defence capability. If proscribing the group allows police to deal with this menace more effectively, "so much the better". It's a drastic step, though, said Karl Hansen in Tribune. It would place Palestine Action "in the same legal category as Isis, al-Qa'eda and neo-Nazi gangs", and criminalise anyone who belongs to the group, funds it, or publicly expresses support for it.

Cooper is setting a "dangerous precedent", said The Guardian. If the state can define a non-violent campaign "it disapproves of as terrorism, the boundary between civil disobedience and extremism becomes whatever a minister says it is". Palestine Action has caused a lot of damage, but its tactics do not include "threats to life". The Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti was right to ask: "When did criminal damage become terrorism?"

In its next term, the Supreme Court will take on a crucial case about a prisoner's ability to sue on the grounds of religious freedom. The basis of the case is a 2000 federal law that's supposed to protect the religious rights of incarcerated people, and now the court will determine just how far that law can go.

What is the crux of the case?

The lawsuit was originally brought by Damon Landor over his alleged mistreatment during a five-month prison term for drug possession in Louisiana in 2020. Landor is a "devout Rastafarian who pledged to 'let the locks of the hair of his head grow,' known as the Nazarite Vow," said CBS News, and had reportedly kept his hair long for almost 20 years.

During the first four months of his incarceration, the two prisons where Landor was housed "allowed him to keep his hair long," said CBS. But after he was transferred to a new site for the final three weeks of his term, guards allegedly "handcuffed Mr. Landor to a chair, held him down and shaved his head to the scalp," said The New York Times.

This occurred despite Landor reportedly showing "prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated," said USA Today. That ruling was based on a 2000 federal law related to religious freedoms in prison, and it is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether that law allows prisoners to sue prison officials.

What is the bigger picture?

When the Supreme Court hears the case, it could go a long way toward a final say on religious freedoms for prisoners. The Court's conservative majority has been taking up numerous faith-based cases and in "recent years has repeatedly sided with religious interests and expanded the role of faith in public life," said The Washington Post. But while this has become a trend, the justices have not always voted in favor of religion, and last month they notably "deadlocked, 4-4, leaving in place an Oklahoma ruling that rejected a proposal for the nation's first religious public charter school."

Attorneys for Landor say the case goes beyond him and could have "widespread implications," said The Hill. Over "one million people are incarcerated in state prisons and local jails. Under the prevailing rule in the circuit courts, those individuals are deprived of a key remedy crucial to obtaining meaningful relief," the case petition to the Supreme Court reads.

But some officials are worried that this case could open the floodgates for prisoners to sue prison workers. "Serious consequences would flow from petitioner's view, if adopted," the state of Louisiana said in court filings. The "current staffing shortage in state prisons would only grow worse if current staff and potential job applicants learned that they would be personally liable for money damages."

It is still unclear which way the Supreme Court could lean, as the court took on the case "only after a lower court 'emphatically' condemned the ex-inmate's treatment as he seeks financial relief," said UPI. The Court will hear the case sometime during its next term, which begins in October 2025 and runs through June 2026.

"When it comes to questions concerning the right to life, Westminster’s attention has been fixed on Kim Leadbeater's bill to legalise assisted suicide," said Fleur Meston on The Critic.

But there is a danger that "equally radical" proposals concerning the beginning of life "are going largely unnoticed". Indeed, "few commentators seem aware that we may be only weeks away from the de facto introduction of abortion up to birth in this country".

Labour MPs Tonia Antoniazzi and Stella Creasy have both tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. Their move "comes amid concern more women are being investigated by police on suspicion of illegally ending a pregnancy", said the BBC.

The MPs' amendments, in different ways, "decriminalise" abortion in all circumstances, said The Critic. Antoniazzi’s amendment "would remove any legal deterrent against women performing their own abortions at any gestation", while Creasy's proposal "would fully repeal the current underlying laws against abortion".

'Extreme' abortion laws

"Britain may soon have one of the most extreme abortion regimes in the world", said Miriam Cates, the pro-life supporter and former Conservative MP, in The Telegraph. The proposed amendments effectively decriminalise abortion "up to the moment of birth".

In Britain, abortion is currently legal until 24 weeks of pregnancy. "But for the pro-abortion lobby this isn’t enough," said Cates.

A YouGov survey revealed that 70% of MPs think women should not be liable for prison sentences if they have abortions outside current restrictions. "Yet this is wildly out of step with public opinion", with just 1% of British people supporting abortion up to birth. "How is such a wildly unpopular opinion on the verge of becoming law?"

The issue has only intensified since the 2020 Covid-19 lockdown, when face-to-face abortion services were suspended and women up to 10 weeks pregnant were allowed to access abortion pills by post.

But without in-person checks, they can easily be procured for pregnancies that have progressed beyond the legal limit. The pills-by-post scheme was meant to be a temporary measure, but "pro-abortion MPs hijacked an unrelated bill" in 2022 to make it permanent, despite warnings this would lead to "illegal abortions, dangerous late-stage terminations, coercion and undetected abuse".

'Traumatic' criminal investigations

Yet cases like Nicola Packer's, cleared last week of illegally terminating her pregnancy, expose the human cost of criminalisation, said The Guardian. "Already traumatised by discovering that she was 26 weeks pregnant, not about 10", as she believed when she took abortion pills prescribed through a remote consultation, Packer was then subjected to four years of "humiliating" criminal proceedings.

Packer's case is "an extreme one" but is "part of a growing trend". Around 100 women are believed to have been investigated over suspected illegal abortions in the last five years, with five cases coming to court in 2023 alone. "Before then, only three women were thought to have been prosecuted since abortion was made illegal in 1861."

And it is this surge in investigations, alongside an "influx of money and influence from anti-abortion activists invigorated by their triumph in the US", that has persuaded many people that "legislative change is now necessary".

"I am seeing first-hand, the implications of the sudden increase in prosecutions for abortion under these archaic clauses," said Dr Ranee Thakar, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, in The Independent.

Women are now "being criminally prosecuted on suspicion of ending their own pregnancies under a law passed before women even had the right to vote". Recent cases include a teenager "left completely broken" after going through the trauma of a stillbirth and then being forced to relive the events six years later at her trial.

Abortions that take place outside the processes enshrined in current laws usually involve "extremely vulnerable women – including victims of domestic abuse, women with a history of mental health problems, women not registered with a GP, and women who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or have difficulties accessing the health system", said Thakar.

"How can traumatic criminal investigations be the right course of action in a compassionate society that strives for equality, fairness and tolerance?"

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh in on a case that could open the floodgates for Americans to sue law enforcement, including the FBI, for mistakes made by officers. The case against the FBI, based on a wrongful raid on a home that occurred in 2017, was previously dismissed by lower courts, but now the plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to undo that ruling.

What is the crux of the case?

It stems from a single incident, but experts say it strikes at the heart of law enforcement issues within the United States. In October 2017, FBI and SWAT agents "armed with rifles battered down the door of an Atlanta home, detonated a stun grenade and rushed inside in search of a gang member," said The Washington Post. But the agents had broken into the wrong home, as the person they were looking for "lived four doors away, in a home with similar features."

Despite this, the occupants of the home were allegedly handcuffed and had guns pointed at them. The home "sustained $5,000 of damage from burned carpet, broken doors and fractured railings," said ABC News, and the "emotional trauma is harder to quantify." The homeowners sued the government for negligence, emotional distress, trespass, false imprisonment and assault and battery, but lower courts dismissed the case. The homeowners are now "urging the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court rulings," said the Post.

What could the case's outcome mean?

The FBI and the federal government have generally been shielded from lawsuits due to "sovereign immunity," but the family is attempting to circumvent this by suing under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This removes legal immunity from federal law enforcement officers who engage in "assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process or malicious prosecution," according to the statute.

The act "was amended in 1974, partly in response to two high-profile wrong-house FBI raids," said NPR. The main question currently before the Supreme Court is whether the "statute, as amended, now allows victims to sue, period" or if they can "sue only if the perpetrators of the raid were following government orders, here orders from the FBI."

The White House is standing behind the FBI and "argues sovereign immunity shields the government from damages claims," said ABC. Police officers are also largely standing behind the FBI. Cops "are human and they make mistakes," said Anthony Riccio, former First Deputy Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, to ABC. "A lot of times the mistakes that are being made are because there's not enough due diligence, there's not enough research going into it."

While the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has typically sided with law enforcement, appeals courts have "interpreted the law more favorably for victims of mistaken law enforcement raids, creating conflicting legal standards that only the nation's highest court can resolve," lawyers for the family said to The Associated Press.

Civil rights groups from "across the ideological spectrum also urged the court to clear the way for the lawsuit," said the Post. Bipartisan members of Congress have also supported the family, claiming that the Tort Claims Act was amended in "response to high-profile wrong-house raids." Many experts are hoping the Supreme Court sides with the family, as there is currently "no meaningful remedy for the trauma they suffered," said Gregory Sisk, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas, to USA Today.

Virginia Giuffre, who accused Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein of sexually exploiting her as a teenager, has died aged 41. She died by suicide at her farm in Western Australia on Friday, her publicist confirmed.

In a statement, her family said: "Virginia was a fierce warrior in the fight against sexual abuse and sex trafficking. She was the light that lifted so many survivors. Despite all the adversity she faced in her life, she shone so bright. She will be missed beyond measure."

The Epstein allegations

Giuffre became an advocate for sex trafficking survivors "after emerging as a central figure in Epstein's prolonged downfall", said The Associated Press.

She came forward publicly with her story after the initial investigation into Epstein's crimes ended in only an 18-month jail term for the late financier. He made a secret deal to avoid federal prosecution by pleading guilty to relatively minor state-level charges of soliciting prostitution.

In subsequent lawsuits, Giuffre said she was a teenage spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago, President Donald Trump's Florida home, when she was approached in 2000 by Epstein's girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Giuffre said Maxwell hired her as a masseuse, "but the couple effectively made her a sexual servant" for Epstein and his associates. That included Prince Andrew, whom she says she was forced to have sex with three times while she was 17 and 18. "Ghislaine said, 'I want you to do for him what you do for Epstein'," Giuffre told NBC's Dateline in 2019.

Prince Andrew has always vehemently denied the accusations, claiming in a now infamous 2019 Newsnight interview that he had "no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever". In 2022, he settled Giuffre's lawsuit out of court, agreeing to a "substantial donation" to her charity, though admitting no liability.

Unanswered questions

Giuffre's death "will leave questions that are now likely to remain unanswered", said the BBC. Her name will "always be associated with the scandals and criminality" surrounding Epstein and his associates. As a young woman "she had the strength to stand up to a toxic mix of power, money and privilege in the circle surrounding Epstein, who sexually exploited so many girls".

"In the end, the toll of abuse is so heavy that it became unbearable for Virginia to handle its weight," her family said in a statement issued on Saturday. But there will now be suspicions that "the long shadow of Epstein's poisonous misuse of wealth and influence has indirectly claimed another victim".

Giuffre's passing "will weigh heavily on all involved in this most shameful of episodes", said The Telegraph, and the accusations against Prince Andrew, though "unproven", will be "linked to him for life". For Prince Andrew, Giuffre's death "draws the most tragic of lines under a period of his life he hoped would end in redemption, and now will not".

If the story of Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine's arrest had broken a few days later, "you'd think it was an April Fool", said Toby Young in The Times. In late January, six uniformed police officers turned up at their house in Borehamwood, Hertfordshire. They detained them in front of their three-year-old daughter, then took them to a police station and locked them in a cell for 11 hours.

The reason for all this? Their elder daughter's primary school, Cowley Hill, had lodged a complaint after the couple criticised its recruiting process for the new head. The school also complained that the pair had been "casting aspersions" on the chair of governors in a WhatsApp group. "Instead of telling the school that this was not a police matter – or, indeed, just guffawing", Hertfordshire Police questioned the couple on suspicion of harassment, sending malicious communications and causing a nuisance. After a five-week investigation, the couple were told that no further action would be taken.

Following a recent review, Hertfordshire's chief constable found that the arrests were "lawful", but could have been better handled, said Fintan McGuinness in the Watford Observer. The school had accused the couple of a campaign of harassment, and banned them from the premises last June. Even so, teachers claimed, harassment continued via email; so the police were contacted. Officers asked the couple to desist in December, to no avail – hence the arrest. The police ultimately found no offences had been committed; but said they'd had a duty to investigate.

Whatever the complexities, it is "outrageous" that the school reacted to parental grievances in this way, said the Daily Mail. And it's absurd that the police response was so "Orwellian". Hertfordshire Constabulary has "the worst burglary clear-up rate in the country". It should stick to solving real crimes. Some may dismiss this as a mere skirmish in the culture wars, said Matthew Syed in The Sunday Times. I disagree: I think it's "a symptom of a disease". We have "lost sight of the wisdom that a bit of suffering, stress and criticism is part of the human condition". These things don't require intervention by the state – or anything except a little "inner resilience".

Jury selection just began for a lawsuit filed against Greenpeace in Morton County, North Dakota, kicking off a trial for a grievance that began nearly a decade ago. Environmentalists say the $300 million lawsuit filed by a pipeline company is an attack on First Amendment rights.

An attempt to silence a movement?

The protests at the center of the lawsuit began in 2016 after the approval of the Dakota Access pipeline. The Standing Rock and other Sioux tribes protested the pipeline, which runs below a reservoir on the Missouri River. The affected population's fear was that the pipeline would pollute their water with leaked oil.

Thousands of demonstrators, staying at a camp in a remote area near the Cannonball and Missouri rivers, stood with the protesting tribes. Greenpeace showed up to assist the organizing Indigenous groups and support the Indigenous People's Power Project, a "nonprofit group that teaches protesters nonviolent direct action tactics," said Truthout. The pipeline received federal approval from the first Trump administration in 2017 but continues to be subject to ongoing litigation.

The Dallas company Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace in 2017, accusing the organization of inciting and orchestrating the protests. Energy Transfer, which operates the 1,100-mile pipeline that carries oil from western North Dakota to Illinois, alleges that Greenpeace encouraged violence to damage Energy Transfer's profits and reputation. Greenpeace and Indigenous movement organizers "expressed outrage at the narrative woven by the pipeline company," Truthout said. "It's history repeating itself," Indigenous NoDAPL (No Dakota Access Pipeline) organizer Waniya Locke said to the outlet. It is "discomforting that they're trying to erase the Indigenous narrative straight across the boards, from education to big media, down to this lawsuit."

Many environmentalists see the lawsuit as a clandestine intimidation tactic "intended to instill fear throughout the broader movement," said The Washington Post. Activists say they are being increasingly targeted by what they call a "strategic lawsuit against public participation." Critics have historically defined these cases as "meritless defamation lawsuits brought by major companies to silence critics and force them into years of expensive litigation."

A 'critical test of the future of the First Amendment'

Unfortunately, North Dakota is among 15 states that do not have anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation laws, which "make it easier to get such cases dismissed and recover costs from plaintiffs that file them," NPR said. So even if Greenpeace wins the lawsuit, it would cost the organization significant money for attorney fees and other costs. If the organization loses the case, it could "face financial ruin, ending over 50 years of environmental activism," Greenpeace USA said. Beyond the potential financial blow, the trial will be a "critical test of the future of the First Amendment, both freedom of speech and peaceful protest under the Trump administration and beyond," Greenpeace's interim director, Sushma Raman, said in public remarks.

If Energy Transfer wins against Greenpeace, "it would not only be devastating to Greenpeace, but it would inspire other companies to take more actions against their opponents," said Michael Gerrard, the director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, to the Post. "It could have a real chilling effect."

In the meantime, Greenpeace is fighting against Energy Transfer in other ways. The European Union has a directive against these types of strategic lawsuits, one that offers some protection to groups within the E.U.'s borders. Citing that directive and other Dutch laws, Greenpeace International filed a countersuit against Energy Transfer in Amsterdam, where Greenpeace is based, to recover costs incurred during the lawsuit. The first hearing for the countersuit is set to be held this summer.

Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, has been barred from entering the US, becoming the first person to be hit by Donald Trump's sanctions against the beleaguered tribunal.

The US president has accused the ICC – formed in 2002 to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in member states – of abusing its power and threatening national security by taking "illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel".

An executive order signed by Trump last week imposed sanctions on designated ICC personnel that included freezing their US assets and barring them and their families from entering the US.

In December, ICC President Tomoko Akane warned that such measures "would rapidly undermine the court's operations in all situations and cases and jeopardise its very existence", said The i Paper.

What did the commentators say?

Trump's "vicious assault" on the Netherlands-based ICC is "no surprise", said The Guardian, but "goes even further" than sanctions imposed in his first term, "attacking the fundamentals of the court and endangering its functioning".

The EU has stated the US sanctions represent a "serious challenge" to the work of the ICC, which is currently investigating alleged crimes in 12 ongoing situations, including Darfur, Ukraine, Venezuela, Afghanistan and Myanmar.

The US – along with China, India, Russia and Israel – has never been part of the ICC but in recent years even its members have increasingly ignored its rulings amid a fracturing of the post-Cold War international rules-based consensus. Last year, Mongolia failed to execute an international arrest warrant against Russia's President Vladimir Putin after he landed in the country for an official visit, citing the country's energy dependence on its powerful neighbour.

While it has issued 33 unsealed arrest warrants – ranging from Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Putin to Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony – the court is "currently without a single trial ahead for the first time since it arrested its first suspect in 2006", said Time.

If nothing else, this shows how international humanitarian law "needs instruments that better reflect the nature of contemporary conflict, institutions which can apply them dispassionately, and the acquiescence of sovereign states to their jurisdiction", said Stephen Daisley in The Spectator.

To this end, "it is possible to be a liberal internationalist, concerned with the humanitarian dimension of conflict, and to welcome Donald Trump's intervention".

What next?

Banning Khan, a British citizen who was designated by Washington on Friday, "will be seen as retaliation" for the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, said The Times.

But Human Rights Watch (HRW) has warned Trump's executive order appears "designed not only to intimidate court officials and staff involved in the court's critical investigations, but also to chill broader cooperation with the ICC".

The BBC reported the court's "technical and IT operations – including evidence gathering – could also be affected", while "observers have voiced fears that victims of alleged atrocities may hesitate to testify".

US sanctions could have a particularly "chilling effect" on banks and companies outside the US that do business with the court, HRW said.

One way to safeguard against this would be through an EU Blocking Statute, "regulation that aims to protect companies and individuals from the bloc from the effects of extra-territorial sanctions imposed by third countries", said Middle East Eye.

The ICC, which has received the backing of dozens of member states in recent days, could go further and charge Trump and other US officials behind the sanctions with obstruction of justice. This would mean the US president and senior members of his administration would not be able to travel to ICC member states, including most European countries.

With the process of bringing war criminals to justice being "slow, painful and often unsuccessful at the best of times", many have long "wondered how effective the ICC can really be", said The Guardian.

Trump's sanctions are a "perverse recognition of the importance of the court, and of international law more generally".

Police surveillance operations targeting political activists over a period of at least 40 years using highly questionable tactics are now the subject of a public inquiry, the Undercover Policing Inquiry (UCPI).

Some 139 police officers from at least two units – the National Public Order Intelligence Unit and the Metropolitan Police's Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) – were given fake identities infiltrate more than 1,000 predominantly left-wing political groups, from 1968 on.

Some lived with, and even had sexual relationships with, members of the groups they had infiltrated. Four undercover officers are known (or alleged) to have fathered children while living under aliases.

Why was the SDS formed?

To gather intelligence about anti-Vietnam War protests. In the late 1960s there were violent clashes between police and protesters; on one occasion, in 1968, protesters had almost gained entry to the US embassy in Grosvenor Square, London. Plans for further campaigns by hard-left activists had sparked concern at the highest levels of government.

The only way to gather intelligence on these demonstrations, the police concluded, was to attend preparatory meetings undercover, posing as supporters of the protests. In the event, subsequent protests passed relatively peacefully. But in the following decades, undercover officers infiltrated political groups ranging from the Socialist Workers Party to hunt saboteurs and animal rights groups, to anti-racist activists. Few were planning to commit serious crimes.

How did they infiltrate these groups?

Officers adopted fake identities – including those of about 80 dead children – and were issued with fake passports. They fabricated cover stories and immersed themselves in the groups, claiming to be sympathetic to their causes. Some moved into shared houses, living side-by-side with their targets.

Tactics varied according to the group they were targeting, but some of the methods used can be found in a 1995 "Tradecraft Manual", which was written by former undercover officer Andy Coles (brother of the broadcaster and priest Richard Coles). It suggests techniques for blending in with activists, whom it refers to disdainfully as "wearies": that officers should grow their hair long and wear "big sloppy jumpers", for instance.

"Being a little untidy, smelly and rumpled is a natural state for many of [them]", it states, adding that "the smell of fresh clothing from the suburban washing line" could arouse suspicion. The manual suggests that officers should "try to avoid" sexual relationships, and gives detailed instructions about how to go about adopting a dead child's identity.

How was all this exposed?

Initially, through a chance discovery during a holiday in Italy. Lisa Jones (a pseudonym) found a passport belonging to her boyfriend of six years, who went by the name Mark Stone. Inside it, she saw her boyfriend's photo beside a stranger's name: Mark Kennedy. She discovered that Mark wasn't the environmental activist he had been posing as for seven years, but an undercover police officer with two children.

The discovery set in motion a chain of events that led to the collapse of a major trial of environmental activists accused of conspiring to break into a power station; and to further revelations about such relationships. In 2015, the then-home secretary, Theresa May, ordered a public inquiry, following revelations that Scotland Yard had infiltrated the family of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.

What has the inquiry revealed?

The UCPI is one of the most complicated, often-delayed and expensive public inquiries in British legal history. Chaired by Sir John Mitting, it finally got under way in 2020. Three years later, it published an interim report, covering the period from 1968 to 1982, that was highly critical of the police. Mitting said that undercover operations to infiltrate left-wing groups, though carried out with government approval, were unjustified, and should have been rapidly shut down.

The report found that police infiltration was legally justified on grounds of public safety in the case of only three groups – (Provisional) Sinn Féin and two unidentified organisations – out of hundreds targeted. It also revealed the human costs of the undercover operations.

What sort of human costs?

Officers collected a "striking" and "extensive" amount of information about the personal lives of political activists, ranging from their body size and holiday plans to their bank details. Police targeted trade unionists, some of whom suffered years of unemployment as a result.

And at least six undercover officers had sexual relationships with women while on deployment between 1968 and 1982. Since then, the inquiry has heard evidence covering the 1980s and 1990s, including testimony from multiple further women who said they had been deceived into relationships with officers. It has also heard claims that crimes were committed or incited by serving undercover officers.

Is this still going on?

The police have sought to paint the scandal as largely historical: barristers acting for the Met Police apologised for the "indefensible" use of undercover officers to infiltrate political groups in the past.

Police guidelines have been rewritten to ensure that undercover officers stay within the law: intrusion must be proportionate to the perceived crime or harm; it is "never acceptable" to have sexual relationships while undercover. Since 2016 there has been an oversight body. But when Mitting asked, in 2020, whether police are still infiltrating political groups, he received no answer. He made clear that he expects the questions to be answered before the inquiry ends; it is expected to report by late 2026.

One of Donald Trump's first acts as the 47th president of the United States was to signal an end to "birthright citizenship".

As part of a "sweeping crackdown" on both undocumented and legal immigrants, Trump signed an executive order to end the right to citizenship for some children born in the US, said The Guardian, but implementing his plan will not be straightforward.

What is birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship, also known by the legal term jus soli – "right of the soil" in Latin – is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which rules that all persons born in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens.

The 14th Amendment is already understood to exclude children born to invading armies or foreign diplomats, who are considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. But a minority of constitutional scholars argue that unauthorised immigrants or those on temporary visas should not be considered as subject to the jurisdiction of the US, either. Such a reading "conflicts with the clear text and a legal interpretation more than a century old", said CNN, but it has nonetheless gained ground in some conservative circles.

Trump has argued that birthright citizenship is a "magnet for illegal immigration", said Newsweek, and he believes that denying citizenship to children born to parents without legal status would deter unauthorised migration and enhance national security.

What does Trump want to do?

Trump's executive order wants children born in the US but without at least one parent who is a lawful permanent resident or US citizen to be no longer automatically handed US citizenship.

Federal agencies would be banned from issuing or recognising documentation proving US citizenship for such children, and his executive order targets children born to both unauthorised immigrants and people legally in the US on temporary visas. The order does not suggest that the new restrictions would apply retrospectively.

Will he succeed?

The president can "probably not" actually end birthright citizenship, said The Guardian. As a constitutional amendment, removing or changing it would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress. And Trump could face "significant legal hurdles", said the BBC, because 18 states, along with the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia, have already sued the federal government and challenged the executive order.

Ultimately, the question is likely to go to the Supreme Court. The highest court of the land has not made any ruling connected to the 14th Amendment since 1898, but "a new conservative supermajority has given Trump supporters hope", said CNN.

A pregnant woman living in Massachusetts with temporary protected status is the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit against Trump, accusing him of mounting a "flagrantly illegal" attempt to "strip citizenship" from millions of Americans "with a stroke of a pen", said The Independent.

How many people would it affect?

By 2022, the latest year for which data is available, there were 1.2 million US citizens born to unauthorised immigrant parents, according to the Pew Research Centre, but "as those children also have children", the "cumulative effect" of ending birthright citizenship would increase the number of unauthorised immigrants in the country to 4.7 million in 2050, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

What happened

ABC News said Saturday it will donate $15 million to President-elect Donald Trump's future "presidential foundation and museum" to resolve a defamation lawsuit Trump filed in March against the network and its anchor George Stephanopoulos. ABC also agreed to pay $1 million in Trump's attorney fees.

Who said what

Trump sued after Stephanopoulos said on "This Week" that the former president had been found "liable for rape," misstating a jury's finding that he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversaw Carroll's civil lawsuits against Trump, said the jury did find that "Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape,'" but not under New York's "far narrower" legal definition. Trump is appealing the verdict.

ABC News posted a note on its website expressing "regret" for "statements regarding" Trump on the March 10 broadcast.

What next?

It is "notoriously difficult for public figures" like Trump to "win defamation lawsuits," The New York Times said, and ABC's deal was criticized by "those who perceived the network as needlessly bowing down" to Trump, emboldening him to "intensify" his use of defamation threats and other intimidation tactics to "crack down on unfavorable media coverage."

An influencer has filed a US lawsuit, claiming that a rival social-media star has been copying her neutral "vibe".

Sydney Nicole Gifford and Alyssa Sheil are fighting a vicious battle of the beige, and other influencers are "watching closely", said The Independent, because their own incomes are also "tied up with the image they 'sell' online".

'Mental anguish'

Gifford, 24, who has 900,000 followers on TikTok and Instagram, met Sheil, 21 (440,00 followers on the same two channels) in Austin, Texas, in 2022, and they agreed to team up – or "collab" – on some content, said the Daily Mail. But, in early 2023, after a dispute over a photo shoot, Sheil blocked Gifford, and then Gifford's followers began to tell her that Sheil's content looked the same as hers.

In a legal complaint filed earlier this year, Gifford accused Sheil of duplicating her "neutral, beige and cream aesthetics" and mimicking everything from her Amazon product recommendations to her poses, outfits, tattoos, "and even her manner of speaking", said The Independent.

Or, to put it in influencer-speak, she accused Sheil of copying her "vibe": a "clean girl" aesthetic, based on a "minimalist wardrobe, organised lifestyle and neutrals galore", said the Daily Mail.

Gifford claims this alleged mimicry has cut into her influencer earnings and that she's owed as much as $150,000 (£117,000) in damages "for mental anguish and lost sales commission from Amazon", said The Independent.

She told US news site The Verge that she hopes her legal action will make all influencers "more mindful", adding that there are "so many instances of other creators" getting their content "completely replicated by people".

But an emotional Sheil, speaking to the same news site, said there are "hundreds of people with the exact same aesthetic", and what Gifford is doing was "coming across very gatekeep-y".

'Owning' the vibe

Experts are divided over how likely it is that Gifford's legal case will succeed. Her "kitchen-sink intellectual property complaint" could hold up in court, Jeanne Fromer, a professor of intellectual property law at New York University, told the The New York Times.

But it's open to question whether Sheil "carefully imitated" Gifford's content as a way to "siphon off some of her sales" or not, said The Verge, and the answer is probably impossible to prove without "combing through" Sheil's browsing history on TikTok, Instagram and Amazon.

The "clean girl aesthetic" is very popular on social media, so it’s "possible to argue" that it's "sheer coincidence" that the two influencers' content is so similar, said The Independent. And, even if it were established that their posts are "too similar for legal comfort", it's still unclear whether US copyright law has actually been breached.

Similar court cases have had "surprising outcomes" in the past, said The New York Times, with courts ruling different ways for different cases. There doesn't seem to be a test for copyright infringement that is "mathematically precise in any way", said Professor Fromer.

The case may not even make it to court, of course. "I suspect there will be discussions," Rose Leda Ehler, of the Los Angeles law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson, told the paper, and the two women will "probably figure out or resolve the matter" without a hearing.

But the case still poses an important question for the influencer industry, said The Independent: "what happens when another photogenic, algorithm-friendly aesthetic comes along" and, "when it does, who will own" the vibe?

Benjamin Netanyahu appeared in court on Tuesday to testify in a corruption trial that could see him imprisoned for up to a decade if he's found guilty.

The long-running legal troubles of Israel's prime minister "bitterly divided Israelis and shook Israeli politics through five rounds of elections" – even before the 7 October attack by Hamas, and the regional turmoil it sparked, "swept Netanyahu's trial off the agenda", said Reuters.

Now he has the dubious honour of becoming "the first sitting prime minister of Israel" to testify "in a criminal court", a "low point in the career of a man who has dominated his nation's politics for three decades", said The Times.

What is Netanyahu accused of?

Netanyahu was first indicted in 2019 on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. His trial, which began in 2020, involves three separate criminal charges.

Case 1000 centres on charges alleging that Netanyahu and his wife wrongfully received almost 700,000 shekels (£150,000) in gifts – including champagne and cigars – from Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan and Australian businessman James Packer.

Case 2000 involves allegations that Netanyahu negotiated a deal, with the owner of Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, for better coverage in return for legislation to slow the growth of a rival newspaper.

Case 4000 brings charges alleging that Netanyahu granted regulatory favours, worth around 1.8 billion shekels (£395 million), to Bezeq Telecom Israel in exchange for positive coverage of himself and his wife Sara.

Netanyahu denies all charges and has pleaded not guilty in each case.

He has already been cleared in Case 3000, which centred on charges concerning the government's procurement of German-made submarines.

What has Netanyahu said about the trial?

Netanyahu has denounced the charges as an "ocean of absurdity", said The Times.

"I took criticism and attacks, insults, libel and lies, in a scope that very few people, and no one in Israel has ever faced," the Israeli PM said in court.

The trial is "at the heart of a deep political rift among Israelis about Netanyahu's character, and has led to half a decade of political instability", said The New York Times.

Netanyahu's supporters blame a "liberal deep state" that's "trying to oust him by judicial means, after failing to do so at the ballot box". His opponents, meanwhile, accuse him of "prolonging both the war and the trial to keep himself in power and out of jail".

The defence team has repeatedly sought to postpone proceedings since the trial began, nearly five years ago, citing Israel's precarious defence situation since the 7 October Hamas attacks. This week, however, judges rejected renewed calls to delay Netanyahu's testimony, following the fall of the Assad regime in Syria.

In 2022, in what some believe was a move directly linked to the trial, Netanyahu's far-right government "sought to curb the power of the court". This "sparked mass protests in Israel, and fears among Western allies for the country's democratic health", said Reuters.

Netanyahu "largely abandoned" this plan after war broke out, but he recently "revived some anti-judiciary rhetoric", as the date of his testimony approached.

"The Bibi Files", a new documentary, directed by Alexis Bloom and produced by Alex Gibney, that looks into the charges against the Israeli PM "exposes not only Netanyahu's tangled web of media, politics and money, but also a devastating connection between the drive for political survival and a willingness to jeopardise the country's population and dismantle its institutions", said the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

What happens if Netanyahu's found guilty?

Netanyahu’s testimony is expected to continue, on and off, for several weeks.

The charges carry a maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment, but Israel's legal system is "notoriously sluggish" and "a verdict is not expected until 2026 at least", said The Associated Press.

While opponents have called for Netanyahu to stand down, under Israeli law, a prime minister "is under no obligation" to do so "unless convicted". And, even then, "they could keep their office throughout an appeals process", said Reuters.

At the height of the first Covid lockdown in April 2020, an elderly war veteran set himself the target of walking 100 laps of his daughter's garden before his 100th birthday. Captain Tom Moore's determination and spirit touched the nation's heart, and he raised an unprecedented £38 million for NHS charities.

When he died just nine months later, his daughter Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband vowed to carry on his good work, via a charitable foundation set up in his name. But whereas Captain Tom is remembered as a national hero, said Marianka Swain in The Daily Telegraph, the Ingram-Moores are now in danger of being regarded as a national disgrace. The Charity Commission began investigating their activities in 2022. Last week, its report was published, and it makes for depressing reading. The report says the couple repeatedly benefitted from The Captain Tom Foundation by blurring the distinction between its interests and theirs, said Jan Moir in the Daily Mail.

For instance, people who bought Captain Tom's memoir were led to believe that it was in support of good causes. And its publisher did offer to pay a slice of the £1.46m advance for the three-book deal to charity. But the couple declined and all the money was paid to Club Nook, a firm they had set up in April 2020 to manage Captain Tom's intellectual property. Hannah Ingram-Moore took an £18,000 fee to present an award on the Foundation's behalf, on top of the £85,000pa salary she was paid to run it. The charity's website was used to promote merchandise that was being sold by another company controlled by the Ingram-Moores; and then there was the building in the couple's garden. They let council planners believe it would be used by the Foundation, but it turned out to be a £200,000 spa for them.

It's sad that this affair should risk tarnishing Captain Tom's legacy; but what worries me is its impact on the charitable sector, said J.J. Anisiobi in Metro. Charities are already battling growing scepticism about how donations are spent. Scandals like this further erode vital public trust. The Ingram-Moores say the report is unfair; but they have a way out. To restore their reputation, and public faith in the sector, they could just donate the money they made to the charity

What happened

A federal judge in Baton Rouge Tuesday blocked Louisiana from ordering all public schools and universities in the state to prominently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Louisiana in June became the first state to attempt such a requirement since 1980, when the Supreme Court struck down a similar Kentucky law, ruling it violated the First Amendment.

Who said what

U.S. District Judge John deGravelles agreed with a religiously mixed group of plaintiffs that Louisiana's law, set to take effect Jan. 1, was unconstitutional. The law is "coercive to students, and, for all practical purposes, they cannot opt out of viewing the Ten Commandments," he wrote in his ruling. There were "any number of ways" the state could "advance an alleged interest in educating students about the Ten Commandments that would be less burdensome."

Louisiana leaders, including Gov. Jeff Landry (R), "defended the law, stating the displays can create teachable moments that show how the Ten Commandments played an important role in American history," The Wall Street Journal said. Plaintiff Darcy Roake, a Unitarian Universalist minister married to a Jewish man, said that "as an interfaith family, we expect our children to receive their secular education in public school and their religious education at home and within our faith communities, not from government officials."

What next?

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) said the state would "immediately appeal" deGravelles's ruling. The law's supporters essentially "invited a lengthy legal fight," The New York Times said, and they "expect a friendlier reception" from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, "considered to be one of the nation's most conservative courts." Some conservatives also "hope the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority would uphold such laws," Reuters said.

Assisted dying is a broad term, which encompasses both assisted suicide and euthanasia. Assisted suicide is facilitated by another person, usually a physician providing a lethal medication so that a terminally ill person can end their own life (though it can also encompass helping a person to travel to another jurisdiction to die there). Euthanasia is the act of a medical professional actually administering drugs in order to end a person's life.

What is the law in the UK?

In the UK, both assisted suicide and euthanasia are illegal. In England and Wales, euthanasia is considered murder or manslaughter, and "encouraging or assisting" a suicide is illegal under the Suicide Act 1961. The CPS uses complex charging guidelines that mean people will mostly not be charged under the Suicide Act if they are motivated by compassion, and if the person they assisted had made a "clear decision" to die; but some prosecutions still occasionally occur. (The law in Scotland is broadly comparable.) Withdrawing or withholding care, or using strong sedatives that advance death, are regarded as legally distinct, if ending life is not the main aim.

Where is assisted dying currently legal?

It is legal, to some extent, in 11 nations, as well as in 11 US states and all but one of Australia's jurisdictions. The first country to legalise assisted dying was Switzerland, which made assisted suicide legal in 1937 on the proviso that those assisting do not have a "selfish" motive. No other jurisdiction followed suit until 1997, when the US state of Oregon passed a law legalising physician-assisted suicide in limited circumstances. In 2002, the Netherlands legalised both assisted suicide and, in a world first, euthanasia.

Since then, more jurisdictions have followed: besides the above, assisted dying is now legal in countries including Austria, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain; in total, at least 200 million people have access to it. As well as in the UK and Jersey, parliaments in France and the Isle of Man are considering such laws.

How do the regimes differ?

Mainly, in two respects: whether they allow euthanasia, or just assisted suicide; and how tightly drawn are the conditions in which they are permitted. Among the strictest is Oregon. There, a person seeking the right to die must be over 18, terminally ill and likely to live for less than six months; he or she must also be capable not just of making decisions, but of administering lethal drugs prescribed by a doctor.

At the other end of the spectrum is the Netherlands, where both assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal, if the patient is either terminally ill or enduring "unbearable suffering" without prospect of relief, including from mental illness; anyone over 12 can request it, though parental consent is required for minors under 16. Belgium has a similar law.

How widely used are these laws?

It depends on how liberal they are. In Oregon, in 2023, 560 people, mostly cancer patients, received prescriptions under the Death with Dignity Act; a reported 367 died from the drugs prescribed – about 0.8% of total deaths in the state. In California, which has similar laws, the rate was even lower (about 0.3%). By contrast, in the Netherlands, assisted dying accounted for 9,068 deaths in 2023 – around 5.4% of total deaths. Canada, meanwhile, has gained a reputation as the "world capital" of assisted dying, and is seen by many as a cautionary case. In 2022, the last year for which full figures are available, there were 13,241 "medical assistance in dying" (Maid) deaths, 4.1% of the total.

Why is Canada regarded as a cautionary case?

It's a classic instance of the "slippery slope". When Canada's first euthanasia bill, limited to those with terminal illness, was passed in 2016, ministers predicted "perhaps 100" deaths a year. Since then it has been extended to physical illness and disability which "cannot be relieved"; and deaths have risen to a level more than 100 times that predicted. In a 2022 survey, most of those ending their lives under Maid cited the "loss of ability to engage in meaningful life activities" as their reason; but more than a third said their decision was, in part, informed by a sense that they were a burden on family, friends or caregivers; 17% cited "isolation or loneliness". In some high-profile cases, people with disabilities have been reportedly pushed towards suicide; euthanasia has arguably been used in the place of a social safety net. One woman was offered Maid instead of an access ramp for her wheelchair.

What do defenders of the Canadian system say?

Advocates of the right to die view the increase in uptake in Canada as evidence of a system working as it should, effectively meeting demand; and they note that in the 2022 survey, 96.5% of people choosing to die faced terminal illnesses or imminent death. Only 463 chose to die because of a chronic condition, in a nation of 40 million. Banning euthanasia, advocates argue, prevents those who are physically unable to end their own lives from doing so.

How might the law change here?

On 29 November, a private members' bill put forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater will be debated by MPs. Full details of the bill have not yet been published, but it is expected to be similar to one proposed in the House of Lords earlier this year, which cleaved to the Oregon model: terminally ill adults with six months or less to live would be able to get medical help to end their lives. The last time MPs debated such a bill, in 2015, they voted against it by 330 to 118. It seems likely that there is a majority in favour today, though private members' bills are vulnerable to derailment. And it would certainly be controversial: Oregon's laws, though less contentious than Canada's, are still much criticised.

Keir Starmer has announced a review into how fatal police shootings are investigated after a police officer was cleared of murdering an unarmed man during a police stop in south London two years ago.

Sergeant Martyn Blake, 40, shot Chris Kaba, 24, in the head during a "hard stop" in Streatham Hill in September 2022. Kaba was driving an Audi Q8 "linked to a non-fatal shooting in Brixton the previous night", said The Times. Blake denied intending to kill Kaba, who was not carrying a firearm, and told the trial he believed that one of his colleagues could be killed by Kaba's car as he tried to flee.

Reacting to the verdict, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said no police officer was above the law but expressed concern over "the lack of support officers face for doing their best".

How many UK police officers carry firearms?

In Britain, firearms are issued only to specially trained personnel within the police, known as Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs). The rules are different in Northern Ireland, where all police officers are authorised to carry firearms.

In England and Wales, only about 4% of police are armed, amounting to 6,473 officers as of 31 March 2024.

According to the Metropolitan Police, an authorised firearms officer's duties typically include: responding to high-risk incidents and assisting in proactive policing operations where firearms support may be required, as well as providing "public reassurance" at events.

How common are police shootings in the UK?

Fatal police shootings are rare. In 2022/23, three people were fatally shot by police in England and Wales. Since 1990, police in England and Wales have shot and killed 83 people, according to Inquest, an independent organisation that monitors and records fatal police shootings.

When are police allowed to open fire? 

Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, officers have the right to use "reasonable force" when necessary. More generally, police officers share the right to self-defence or the protection of others upheld by common law and Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

More specifically, the Police Conduct Regulations 2020 for England and Wales state that officers should only discharge firearms to "prevent a real and immediate threat to life". The guidance is to aim for a target's torso, when possible, but if it is "imperative the subject is immediately incapacitated", officers are allowed to aim for the person's head. In all circumstances, officers must not use excessive violence and must ensure medical aid is provided as soon as possible.

Police shootings are investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, an independent watchdog. But officers can also face prosecution in the courtroom.

How are police shootings handled in court?

Under English law, police "theoretically have no greater protections than the ordinary subject when using force," said The Guardian; it must be proportionate, reasonable, and based on an honestly held belief of necessity. But the "received wisdom" is that juries are often "reluctant to convict cops 'standing up' for themselves".

No police officer in England and Wales has ever been convicted of murder after a shooting, although there have been a small number of criminal prosecutions.

Police officers can also be prosecuted under civil law. However, many officers want the burden of proof to be the criminal test: what the officer honestly believed as chose to act, rather than the lower burden of proof used in civil court, said BBC legal correspondent Dominic Casciani. Police chiefs argue that using the criminal burden of proof only would "end confusion".

Concerns about press freedom in Afghanistan are growing after the Taliban vowed to impose a law banning news media from publishing images of all living things.

State media outlets in the provinces of Kandahar, Takhar and Maidan Wardak have been advised "not to air or show images of anything with a soul – meaning people and animals", said Arab News, months after warnings that the Taliban's severe morality rules were creating a climate of fear.

Climate of fear

After it seized power in 2021, the Taliban set up a ministry for the "propagation of virtue and the prevention of vice". A 114-page document, published in the summer, set out morality laws that "cover aspects of everyday life like public transportation, music, shaving and celebrations", said Associated Press.

A UN report said the ministry's role was expanding into other areas of public life, including media monitoring, with controversial news rules for journalists including a ban on putting out any content seen to contradict the Taliban's extreme interpretation of Islamic law.

A spokesperson for the Taliban ministry said the prohibition on publishing images of living things will be introduced gradually because "coercion has no place in the implementation of the law". Efforts have already started to implement the law in the southern Taliban stronghold of Kandahar, the neighbouring Helmand province and northern Takhar, said the spokesperson, but the process "has not started in all provinces".

Dragged into darkness

Even before the new law was announced, Taliban officials in Kandahar were banned from taking photos and videos of living things. "Now it applies to everyone", said the ministry spokesperson. He added that the prohibition is currently "only advice", and the ministry would focus on "convincing people these things are really contrary" to sharia law and "must be avoided”.

Afghan journalists said they have been assured that they would be able to continue their work. One told AFP that the ministry has advised journalists to take photos from further away and film fewer events "to get in the habit".

The news is "sparking concerns about the consequences for Afghan media and press freedom", said ABC News. The rules are "bizarre", said The Independent and "no other Muslim-majority country imposes similar restrictions", including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

It is "dragging Afghanistan into darkness", said Shabnam Nasimi, the former policy advisor to the Minister for Afghan Resttlement, on social media, and remembering how the Taliban banned television between 1996 and 2001, she said it was "shameful that we stand by, watching history repeat itself".

The UK is on the brink of legalising assisted dying, a historic change that would have far-reaching ethical and legal implications.

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's private members' bill, introduced to the House of Commons today, would permit assisted dying for terminally ill people in England and Wales. At a second reading next month, MPs will be given a free vote, as euthanasia is considered a matter of conscience. When the subject was last considered in 2015, members voted 330 to 118 against legalising assisted dying.

About three-quarters of the British public are in favour of legalising assisted dying, according to the largest survey of opinion on the issue, of over 10,000 people, published by Opinium Research on behalf of Dignity in Dying, a pro-assisted suicide group, in March. But when the perceived "right to die" is sanctioned by the state, it "does not stand alone", said The Times. It becomes "part of a web of other difficult choices and questions, which extend beyond any individual to alter the whole of society".

What is assisted dying and how does it differ from euthanasia?

Assisted dying is a form of euthanasia where a terminally ill person receives "lethal drugs from a medical practitioner, which they administer themselves", said the BBC.

It differs from assisted suicide, which is helping another person end their life (whether they are terminally ill or not). Under English law it is illegal to encourage or assist suicide; similar laws are in place in Northern Ireland. In Scotland, helping someone to die could lead to prosecution for culpable homicide. That includes helping them "travel to another jurisdiction to die".

How would the bill work if it becomes law?

The Choice at the End of Life for Terminally Ill Adults Bill is "expected to have strict eligibility criteria", said The Guardian. These would include confirmation of a patient's mental competence, assessment by two independent doctors and likely a requirement for drugs to be self-administered.

The proposed new law would apply only to patients in England and Wales with a medical prognosis of six months or less to live. Doctors may be able to opt out of participating in assisted dying if they believe it clashes with their religious beliefs, but others may find their roles fundamentally changed.

The Isle of Man currently stands to become the first British territory to legalise assisted dying, for patients who have less than a year to live and who have been a resident on the island for at least five years. The residency requirement is integral, according to Alex Allinson, a GP and politician leading the bill. It would ensure the Isle of Man does not "become a suicide tourism hotspot similar to Switzerland's Dignitas clinic", said The Daily Telegraph. A separate bill is under discussion in Scotland, which would allow adults who have been resident in Scotland for at least a year to seek assistance to end their life.

Why is Canada being cited as a warning?

Canada introduced assisted dying for terminally ill people in 2016, and in 2021 extended legislation to those with an incurable illness or a serious chronic health condition, even if it isn't life-threatening: "a far more nebulous definition", said The New Statesman. By 2027, it may also include those in severe mental distress.

Opponents of the UK's bill have cited Canada's expanding permissiveness as an example of a "slippery slope". There are concerns about the danger of people feeling pressured to end their lives, especially the elderly, vulnerable and poor. About 36% of Canadians who applied for medically assisted death said they believed they were a "burden on family, friends or caregivers", according to a report by Health Canada.

Campaign groups believe that the UK government's focus should be on improving access to proper palliative care to minimise that pressure. "Palliative care is in a desperate state," said The New Statesman. "The hospice sector's finances are the worst they have been in 20 years."

That position is echoed by the health secretary, who said: "I do not think that palliative care, end-of-life care in this country is in a condition yet where we are giving people the freedom to choose, without being coerced by the lack of support available."

This country is on the brink of profound change, said Catherine Pepinster in The Daily Telegraph – "a change to how we view life and death". 

Next week, legislation on assisted dying will be tabled in the Commons by the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater (who topped the ballot to introduce a private members' bill). And it has every chance of passing. 

'Compassion and common sense'

The law ought to pass, said The Independent, but it must include strong safeguards against abuse. It should specify that at least two doctors agree that the patient's medical condition is terminal, and that all reasonable treatment options have been exhausted. And, given the potential financial issues at stake, there must be legal checks that the patient hasn't come under undue pressure from family members. 

But the principle that terminally ill people – "in intolerable pain and suffering, physically and mentally" – should be permitted to choose how and when they die is surely right, "on the grounds of compassion and common sense".

The argument that individuals should have this choice is "powerful, so long as it stands alone", said The Times. However, if the "right to die" is sanctioned by the state, it "does not stand alone: it becomes part of a web of other difficult choices and questions" for society as a whole.

The role of doctors and nurses would be fundamentally changed. Disabled or elderly people might well find themselves under "insidious pressure" to end their lives rather than become a "burden" on family or society. Many fear that the scope of legalised assisted dying would expand beyond the terminally ill, as has happened in Canada and the Netherlands. And if the real aim is to allay the "terrors of the terminally ill", it would surely be far better to "improve specialist palliative care for all".

'We deserve to hear all perspectives'

Will MPs vote for assisted dying? It's likely, but not certain, said Katy Balls in The Spectator. In the last Commons vote, in 2015, the motion was easily defeated. "This time around, the political landscape looks rather different": the Commons is "stacked with Labour MPs and new blood". 

Keir Starmer – who voted in favour in 2015 – has made it clear that, since this an issue of conscience, there will be a free vote, with the Government remaining neutral. 

It's disappointing that Cabinet ministers have been officially instructed not to engage in the debate, said The Daily Telegraph. The question of assisted dying, and the efficacy of safeguards, is a profoundly important one. No doubt MPs on both sides are approaching the issue with the best of intentions. But we need a proper national conversation, not a "rushed parliamentary debate" – and "we deserve to hear all perspectives".

A long-running battle to recover a "holy grail" shipwreck and claim its billion-dollar treasure is intensifying.

The "fabulous cargo of gold, silver and precious stones" of the "San José", which sank off the coast of Colombia in the early 18th century, has "long been the stuff of treasure hunters' dreams", said Le Monde, and that has put it at the heart of a tug of war.

Three-way battle to stake claim

The multi-decked sailing ship faced disaster in 1708 as it sailed towards Cartagena, in northern Colombia. The crew was planning to cross the Atlantic to Spain, but a British warship intercepted it. The British wanted to seize the vessel and its treasure, but they accidentally fired a cannonball and sank the galleon.

In the 1980s, a US salvage company said it had located the remains of the "San José" and tried to split any proceeds with the Colombians, but the two sides couldn't agree on shares and a legal battle began.

In 2015, Colombia claimed it had found the ship separately from the US company. Colombia "has no doubts about its rights to the wreck", said Le Monde, as it "has been lying at a depth of 600 meters in its territorial waters for three centuries".

But Spain has also "staked its claim", said the BBC, arguing that the "San José" and its cargo remains state property, while Indigenous groups from Bolivia and Peru also say they are entitled to "at least a part of the booty", which might have been mined by their ancestors.

Earlier this year, Colombian officials began a $4.5 million (£3.4 million) recovery process, starting with what they describe as a "characterisation phase", with remote sensors and deep-diving robots exploring what is available on the seabed.

The matter is also now before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague. As part of its case at the court, the US salvage company, Sea Search Armada, has commissioned its own study of the cargo.

With so many competing claims, ownership of each item recovered will "probably have to be decided by independent experts", said Dr Ann Coats from the University of Portsmouth.

The holy grail of shipwrecks

The Colombian Minister of Culture, Juan David Correa, said that recovering the ship within the next two years is a priority for President Gustavo Petro. "The president has told us to pick up the pace," he said.

The question is what will be found. Describing the potential haul as "the biggest treasure in the history of humanity", Rahim Moloo, the lawyer representing Sea Search Armada, said it will include seven million pesos, 116 steel chests full of emeralds and 30 million gold coins. The company estimates its value at $7-18 billion.

But Carla Rahn Phillips, a historian who has written a book about the "San José", told the BBC it's "almost meaningless to try to come up with a number now", so "the estimates of the treasure hunters" are "laughable".

Although the "San José" is "often described as the holy grail of shipwrecks", the UN believes it's "just one of around three million sunken vessels on our ocean floor", said the BBC. "There is often very little clarity over who owns them" and their treasure.

Texas is set to become the first state in the country to execute someone convicted for causing a brain injury commonly known as "shaken baby syndrome." Its highest criminal court declined to stop the Oct. 17 execution of a man named Robert Roberson, even after his team argued that the cause of his victim's death, now known as abusive head trauma (AHT), was based on since-debunked pseudoscience. And while Texas passed a first-of-its-kind "junk science law" a decade ago for situations like this, Roberson will not benefit from it.

Questioning the validity of shaken baby syndrome

Roberson has maintained his innocence from death row ever since he was convicted of killing his two-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis, in 2002. His attorneys said they have uncovered new evidence in previously hidden medical records that indicate she died from severe pneumonia. Also, in the decades since Roberson's trial, the theory behind AHT has "been entirely exposed as devoid of any scientific underpinnings," his team said in the recently denied motion for a stay of execution.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals previously halted his execution in 2016 and sent his case back to trial court after the "scientific consensus around shaken baby syndrome diagnoses came into question," said the Texas Tribune. That appeal came three years after a state law passed allowing Texas courts to overturn convictions if the "scientific evidence used to reach a verdict has since changed or been discredited." But in 2023, the court reversed its decision and set his new execution date for this past July.

Child abuse specialists previously assumed that bleeding in the brain, brain swelling and retinal hemorrhages were unequivocal proof that someone violently shook a child. However, several studies in the 2000s and 2010s "challenged the assumption that the triad of AHT symptoms was conclusive evidence of child abuse," said Reason. Research indicated that the AHT diagnosis, previously focused on the triad of symptoms, "now contemplates a wide range of nontraumatic possibilities," said a 2009 Washington University Law Review article summarizing the findings.

Even Norman Guthkelch, the pediatric neurosurgeon who first popularized the diagnosis in 1971, expressed doubts about how prosecutors and child abuse specialists used AHT in courtrooms. In a 2012 paper published in the Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy, Guthkelch urged members of the medical and legal professions to have more restraint when considering if abusive head trauma occurred. He was "struck by the high proportion" of cases where there was a significant history of previous illness, "suggesting that the problem was natural or congenital, rather than abusive," he said. "Yet these matters were hardly, if at all, considered in the medical reports."

A law that 'systematically fails to provide relief to innocent people'

Roberson's case has illuminated the paradox of Texas passing a law allowing people to appeal their convictions based on outdated or debunked forensic methods that no one has successfully been able to use. His ordeal is "typical of Texas courts' failures to implement the law as intended," The Intercept said, according to a new report from the Texas Defender Service. After a comprehensive review of the junk science writ, the Texas Defender Service said that the "law systematically fails to provide relief to innocent people convicted based on false forensic evidence." Roberson is one of 25 people on Texas death row who have challenged their convictions under the law since it passed in 2013. No one has been successful.

"The legislative solution is useless if the courts don't honor it," said Gretchen Sween, one of Roberson's lawyers. The fact no one has successfully appealed under the law is "statistically alarming."

When a newly elected Keir Starmer stood outside No. 10 promising a politics that would "tread more lightly on your lives", it was a promise he seemed certain to break, said Fraser Nelson in The Daily Telegraph. It didn't take long: the PM has now unveiled plans not just to revive Rishi Sunak's age-phased smoking ban – but to extend it, as soon as possible, to anyone lighting up in outdoor spaces such as pub gardens and small parks.

It's an illiberal and unnecessary move, and politically an "unforced error", said Sam Leith in The Spectator. There are no real health or fiscal benefits; it will harm the hospitality sector; and there "isn't a great constituency of people out there who have been passionately campaigning for it to be illegal to stand outside a pub having a fag". It will also only burnish Starmer's reputation as a joyless, "finger-wagging bossy-boots".

I'm normally a fan of the "nanny state", said Martha Gill in The Observer. I support the incremental smoking ban, and want tougher laws on gambling and junk food. But for goodness' sake, let's leave outdoor smokers to "puff away in peace". Britain's tough anti-smoking tactics – indoor bans and sky-high taxes – are working well; smoking rates have plummeted to historic lows. There's no need now to tip over into "neurosis". The whole point of pubs is to provide people with "somewhere comfortable to gather and nurse unhealthy habits" – booze as well as fags, said Kuba Shand-Baptiste in The i Paper. Ejecting smokers completely, by stopping them nipping outside for a cigarette, would be like banning the sale of fizzy drinks at fried-chicken shops: it's pointless and nonsensical.

Yet it's popular, said Simon Kelner in the same paper. The "commentariat" may be largely united in disapproval, but the public is supportive: YouGov's snap poll shows a 58% to 35% split in favour. And that's not surprising, when smoking causes some 75,000 annual deaths in the UK. Adults should be free to partake in whatever legal activity they choose, but the state can also use its powers to nudge us into looking after ourselves better.

This seems to be Starmer's big idea, said George Eaton in The New Statesman: not that old cliché the "nanny state", but "the preventative state". Whether it's blocking junk food outlets outside schools or offering "health MOTs" to curb obesity, Labour is planning interventions designed to prevent ill health and save money in the long run. It's a laudable mission, but it might help Starmer if he supplemented these "negative interventions" with a few "positive ones".

The Free Speech Union has condemned a local authority in Kent for imposing a "draconian" new order that threatens on-the-spot fines of £100 for swearing in the street.

Thanet District Council has adopted a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) that bans "language or behaviour causing or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any other person".

A long and colourful history

Swearing was made a criminal offence in Britain in the 1600s, when legislation described such words as "detestable sins". Then the Profane Oaths Act 1745 introduced a hierarchy of fines for the "horrid, impious, and execrable vices of profane cursing and swearing".

Bad language has also been the subject of curious etiquette. In "olden times", wrote Tanya Gold for the Evening Standard, "taverns would have a public bar, where you could swear", and "a lounge bar, where you could not".

A great deal changed during the 1960s. The abolition of censorship in that decade "gave free expression" to many words and phrases that "previously had been deeply taboo", said the BBC. 

Appearing on a late-night live satire programme called "BBC-3" in 1965, Kenneth Tynan becomes the first man to say "f**k" on TV. The same decade also saw swearing begin to "make its way into the recording booth" of pop music, said Slate.

The word "c**t" first appeared in a British newspaper in 1987, recalled Unherd. It cropped up in the unlikely context of a cricket match report in The Independent after the word was used in a disagreement between England captain Mike Gatting and umpire Shakoor Rana.

More recently, there has been a backlash against swearing in public. In 2011, Peter Foot, chair of the National Campaign for Courtesy, told the BBC that if you want to swear "in your own room, that's fine" but "if you're in a place where you're in earshot of other people" it can be "very distressing".

The same year, officers in Barnsley were told to monitor the language of people out and about in the town centre. If any overheard profanity was judged to be potentially causing offence or intimidation, the officers could advise the individual to moderate their language; if that was unsuccessful, the officer was allowed to fine the person up to £80.

Thanet hits back

Flouting the new rule in Thanet will cost "sweary locals" £100 and must be paid within 28 days, said Your Local Guardian, but if the fine is paid in 14 days it will be reduced to £60.

But how successful the rule will be is open to debate. In July, when it was discussed at a Thanet District Council cabinet meeting, Cllr Rebecca Wing said "the police have told us they won't enforce it".

The Free Speech Union told The Telegraph that Thanet's PSPO was "the worst" it has seen, because it "effectively imposes a strict liability speech offence", with "none of the safeguards".

Make Thanet safe again

A local resident told Mail Online that it was "a bad idea because freedom of speech is very important" and another said a £100 fine is "a bit harsh". But another said that although "free speech is free speech", that "shouldn't include being abusive to people, horrible behaviour or swearing".

Commentators have spoken out against the development. "It just makes me want to go up to Thanet and swear", said Bev Turner on GB News, adding that she wanted to "walk up and down the street swearing”.

Noting that a council spokesman, said that banning swearing would make Thanet safer, Gold said that "he doesn't understand human nature".

But Labour councillor Heather Keen said that "antisocial behaviour can have a detrimental effect on people's enjoyment of the place where they live if it isn't dealt with".

Making Thanet "a safer and cleaner place to live in, work in or visit" is "a top priority for residents", she added, and the new PSPO is "a positive step towards this ambition".

Katie Price has denied reports she left the UK to avoid a court hearing over £750,000 in unpaid tax, saying she is "away working for a documentary on corrective surgeries".

An arrest warrant was issued for the former glamour model after she failed to attend a court hearing regarding her bankruptcies yesterday. Price, 46, was due to appear at the Insolvency and Companies Court in London after being declared bankrupt in November 2019 and again in March this year over an unpaid tax bill totalling more than £750,000.

Judge Catherine Burton told the court Price "has no real excuse in failing to attend today's hearing", adding: "The reason for her absence today is irrelevant".

"Her liberty is on the line, but unfortunately we are at the end of the road," said barrister Darragh Connell, representing the trustee for the bankruptcies. 

The court was shown evidence suggesting Price had left the UK, including "a now-deleted Instagram story showing what appeared to be her eating a crisp sandwich on a flight", said the BBC.

She is thought to have travelled with boyfriend JJ Slater, who "shared a snap of inside the Sheraton Istanbul Atakoy Hotel in Istanbul, Turkey, on his Instagram story", said the Mirror.

In a message shared to her Instagram account, Price confirmed she was "away" working and said she was trying her best to "rectify things during extremely challenging times".

"I have to continue in my work in order to satisfy these bankruptcy orders, which is all I am trying to do right now", she said, adding that her legal troubles "will be addressed after my return from work".

Price has said she missed the previous court hearing in March because she was "dealing with serious stuff". She failed to attend another hearing in May, but claimed on her "The Katie Price Show" podcast that she had been "signed off for any kind of activity for court" due to her mental health, the Daily Mail reported.

The active arrest warrant means that Price can be taken into custody on her return to the UK and detained to make sure she attends a future hearing.

"Finally", a judge who "has the guts to do what the British people have long wanted the judiciary to do", said Carole Malone in the Daily Express: "throw the book at those loony eco-activists who bring whole cities to a standstill". 

At Southwark Crown Court last week, judge Christopher Hehir doled out the longest-ever prison sentences for peaceful protest, to five Just Stop Oil protesters. Roger Hallam, who co-founded the movement, was given a five-year term for conspiracy to cause public nuisance. His co-defendants, Daniel Shaw, Lucia Whittaker De Abreu, Louise Lancaster and Cressida Gethin, got four years. 

In November 2022, they had organised a demonstration in which more than 45 protesters climbed onto gantries on the M25 motorway, bringing it to a standstill. People could have been killed. As it was, some of those affected missed flights and funerals. An estimated 700,000 vehicles were delayed. The economic cost was calculated at £769,966, not counting the £1 million cost of policing.

Mass disruption of a different kind

If you think the M25 protest was disruptive, just wait until climate change really kicks in, said George Monbiot in The Guardian. Consider "what a sea surge, a flash flood, a windstorm or a rail-buckling, road-melting, bridge-jamming heat event can do to transport infrastructure". 

The right to protest is the wellspring of democracy. Yet these people were tried "as though they were mindless vandals", and given sentences "of the kind you might expect in Russia or Egypt" – much longer than the average given for violence against the person (1.7 years). It would be shocking even if our prisons weren't so full that they're being emptied of violent criminals. 

These sentences are "a logical outcome of Britain's authoritarian turn against protest", said Graeme Hayes and Steven Cammiss on The Conversation. In the past, protesters were treated leniently. But in recent years, new crimes have been created and crucial legal defences have been shut down. There is no lawful defence to the statutory offence of conspiracy to cause public nuisance, created by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which these five faced. So they were not allowed even to explain their motives to the jury.

'Quests for sainthood'

"Protesters have a right to protest," said Tony Dowson in The Critic. "They do not have a right to cause massive inconvenience and harm", which environmental protesters are increasingly doing. Besides, the sentences weren't that stiff, bearing in mind that all the defendants had prior convictions. Hallam had 13; in April, he received a suspended sentence for plotting to close Heathrow with drones. 

The judge called him a "fanatic", said Will Lloyd in The Times. And he is. Hallam compares himself to Gandhi. He believes that a "global carbon elite" is planning to kill billions, and that Western societies will collapse within a decade. 

Such views are, however, widespread on the environmental Left. We can expect many other Britons to end up on their own "Hallam-like quests for sainthood".

The EU's pioneering legislation to regulate AI is set to come into force next month, despite criticisms that it is incomplete, ambiguous, and stifling to the tech industry. 

The first law of its kind anywhere in the world, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act aims to protect citizens from potentially harmful uses of AI by regulating companies within the EU, without losing ground to AI superpowers China and the US. 

While EU lawmakers are "mostly concerned" about consumer safety and the dissemination of deepfakes, which could mislead voters in elections, the tech community has raised "gripes" with the legislation, said Euronews. Officials are now "frantically trying to plug the holes in the regulation before it comes into force", said the Financial Times.

What does the act do?

The act, which will be implemented in stages over the next two years, classifies different types of AI by risk. 

Minimal risk uses – AI-powered video games and spam filters, for example – will not be subject to regulation. Limited risk activities, such as chatbots and other generative AI platforms, will be subject to "light regulation", including transparency requirements to inform consumers that they are interacting with a machine.

The "high-risk" category includes AI systems used by law enforcement like biometric identification, as well as systems used to access public services or critical infrastructure.

A further "unacceptable risk" category bans all AI systems that "threaten citizens' rights", said The Verge. This includes AI used to deceive or manipulate humans, or profile them as potential criminals based on behaviour or personality traits.

What are the criticisms of the legislation?

Progress on the legislation, which has been in the works for three years, was "upended" in 2022 when OpenAI released ChatGPT, said the FT. The emergence of "generative AI" models, which create text or images based on user prompts, "reshaped the tech landscape" and had parliamentarians "rushing to rewrite the rules" to regulate the large language models that underpin such apps.

"Time pressure led to an outcome where many things remain open," a parliamentary aide involved in drafting the "rather vague" law told the FT. Regulators "couldn't agree on them and it was easier to compromise" on what the unidentified aide called "a shot in the dark".

Some critics say the text lacks clarity – especially on whether systems like ChatGPT are acting illegally when they use sources protected by copyright law. There is also confusion over who is responsible for content generated by AI, or what "fair remuneration" might look like for those who create the content it draws from. The act also does not specify who might enforce the rules in individual member states, or how, which could lead to patchy implementation across the continent.

The cost of compliance is also a problem, particularly for small companies. It could make it "very hard for deep tech entrepreneurs to find success in Europe", Andreas Cleve, chief executive of Danish healthcare start-up Corti, told the FT. Many believe that cost will hinder those European companies competing with the US and China. "We will be hiring lawyers while the rest of the world is hiring coders," said Cecilia Bonefeld-Dahl, director general for DigitalEurope, which represents the bloc's technology sector. 

What's still to be done?

Tech companies have until February next year to comply with the "unacceptable risk" rules or face a fine of 7% of their total global annual revenue, or €35 million (£29.5 million), whichever is higher. 

Developers of systems that fall in the "high risk" category will have until August 2027 to comply with rules around risk assessment and human oversight.

By some estimates, the EU needs between 60 and 70 pieces of secondary legislation regarding the details of how the act will be implemented and enforced, and those must be in place by May next year. "The devil will be in the details," a diplomat who took a leading role in drafting the act told the FT. "But people are tired and the timeline is tight."

What happened

The Senate on Wednesday passed the Federal Prison Oversight Act, bipartisan legislation that boosts monitoring and transparency at the troubled federal Bureau of Prisons. The House passed the bill in May. 

Who said what

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), who sponsored the legislation with Sens. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), said its passage was a "major milestone" after Senate and Associated Press investigations "revealed an urgent need" to tackle "corruption, abuse and misconduct in the federal prison system." The bill was backed by a broad coalition including prison employee unions and advocates for incarcerated people.

The legislation empowers a new independent ombudsman to collect, investigate and report complaints from staff and inmates amid "dozens of escapes, chronic violence, deaths and severe staffing shortages," the AP said. In April, as the bill advanced in the House, the Bureau of Prisons announced the closure of its "women's prison in Dublin, California, known as the 'rape club'" due to "rampant staff-on-inmate sexual abuse."

What next?

Once President Joe Biden signs the bill into law, the Justice Department's inspector general will conduct an initial assessment of all 122 federal prisons, assigning each facility a risk score and reporting the findings and recommendations to Congress and the public. Higher-score facilities would get more frequent inspections.

Passengers and crew of a British Airways flight held hostage in Kuwait during Iraq's invasion in 1990 are launching legal action against the company and the UK government.

More than 300 people were on board the flight to Kuala Lumpur that made a scheduled stop in Kuwait a little after 1am on 2 August 1990 "as Iraqi armed forces were invading" the nation, said the Evening Standard. The plane was evacuated amid rocket fire around the airport, and the passengers and crew detained under armed guard by invading Iraqi forces.

During the ordeal which followed, the hostages were transferred between various sites in Kuwait and Iraq, used as human shields during the Gulf War and "subjected to torture, rape, mock executions, starvation and other abusive practices", said The Guardian.

The final hostages were not released until December 1990, after more than four months in captivity.

Some 94 former detainees have joined a lawsuit claiming the airline and the government "knew Iraq had invaded Kuwait before the plane they were travelling on landed in the country", said the BBC. 

A long-running allegation, denied by the government, is that the plane was allowed to land because it was carrying "a special forces team who could carry out reconnaissance" on the ground.

Passengers and crew later described how nine "military-looking" men on board the plane were "allowed first off the flight on landing at Kuwait Airport and were not seen again by their fellow passengers", The Telegraph said.

"Previous attempts" to sue have been unsuccessful, but in 2021 "secret files" were released by the National Archive suggesting that that the Foreign Office would have had time to divert the flight, but that BA were not informed of the risk.

The claimants also accuse BA of "failing to appreciate the trauma caused by their experiences", arguing that the airline's refusal to offer adjustments for affected employees forced some to retire on medical grounds.

The lawsuit says the claimants "suffered severe physical and psychiatric harm" as a result of the decisions made by the government and BA. Matthew Jury of law firm McCue & Partners, which is behind the claim, said the "off-the-books military operation" put civilians at risk and that there "must be closure and accountability" to truly move on.

What happened

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday rejected one attempt by Donald Trump to suppress evidence that he unlawfully retained classified documents. But in a win for Trump, who appointed her, Cannon ordered an evidentiary hearing to consider whether prosecutors should have been allowed to pierce the confidentiality of communications between Trump and one of his lawyers — a question already settled by a more experienced chief federal judge in Washington last year.

Who said what

Winning the right to depose former Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran under the "crime-fraud exception" to attorney-client privilege was a "hugely consequential legal victory" for prosecutors, The New York Times said. Reversing the D.C. judge's ruling "could deal a serious blow to the obstruction charges" against Trump.

Cannon's latest ruling "continues her pattern of siding with special counsel Jack Smith on fundamental questions" while also "sharply critiquing prosecutors" and signaling she may yet "back some of Trump's myriad efforts to dismiss the case," Politico said. It's also typical of her "tendency for wanting to decide legal questions" in the case that have "already been settled," the Times said.

What next?

Cannon has not scheduled the hearing yet. Nor has she set a date for the trial, originally due to begin in May.

What happened

The Supreme Court said Monday it would hear arguments in a case backed by the Biden administration that challenges a Tennessee law restricting puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender minors, even with parental permission.

Who said what

South Carolina recently became "the 25th state to adopt a law restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, even though such treatments have been available in the United States for more than a decade and are endorsed by major medical associations," The Associated Press said. But the Tennessee case "will be the first time the high court weighs in directly" on the constitutionality of such laws, The Wall Street Journal said. Its decision "could be a landmark precedent on the scope of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees people equal treatment under the law."

What next?

The Supreme Court will likely hear arguments in the fall and hand down its decision next summer. If the court rules for Tennessee, it would likely allow similar laws in other states to take effect.