Freedom of Information/Environmental Information

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and digital tools are rapidly transforming the accountancy sector with promises of enhanced efficiency, insight and audit quality. Embracing this innovation wave however, does not come without risk, and regulators are increasingly alert to the ethical implications. The FRC has very recently issued new guidance on the use of AI in audit, coinciding with the ICAEW’s new technology-centred revisions to its Code of Ethics, which came into force on 1 July 2025. Responsible and ethical use of AI is now therefore no longer optional, but a regulatory expectation. 

In Darwall and another v Dartmoor National Park Authority [2025] UKSC 20 (21 May 2025), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the public’s right to “wild camp” on the Dartmoor Commons (“the Commons”). Although the judgment only concerns Dartmoor, which is subject to specific legislation, it has rekindled a wider debate about public rights of access to nature across England and Wales.

Freedom of speech in Parliament is a key element of parliamentary privilege, protecting MPs and Lords from legal consequences for what they say in debates.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life, an independent body which advises the Prime Minister on arrangements for upholding ethical standards of conduct, has marked its 30^th anniversary by issuing a report relating to the need for better recognition by public sector bodies of early warning signs. 

The success or failure of a Government seldom turns on a legal principle, but there is a question as to whether this could happen in the case of this Labour Government.  Why?  Because the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, both eminent lawyers, have drawn a line in the sand with their absolute commitment to compliance with the ‘rule of law’. 

Following on from Kingsley Napley’s event in January which discussed the recent House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee’s report, the Government has now published its eagerly-awaited response.

Hardly a day goes by without Artificial Intelligence dominating the headlines. Much ink has been spilled about the deployment of AI and algorithmic decision-making tools by the state. As programmes continue to be rolled out, it seems inevitable that some will start to be rolled back as a result of legal challenges. Concerns have already been raised about tools being used in immigration investigations and decision-making, the criminal justice system, and the welfare system.

This case concerned the lawfulness of mandatory extra charges levied by private nurseries on parents accessing free childcare through the government’s Free Early Education Entitlement (“FEEE”) scheme. 

Last night, Kingsley Napley welcomed Joshua Rozenberg to its offices to chair an expert panel to discuss a highly topical issue: “Making Public Inquiries Work”. It was a fascinating event which underlined the need for reform, innovation, and fresh thinking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public inquiries.

In October, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous judgment providing guidance on the approach to be taken where a regulator who is subject to judicial review proceedings contends that the claim should be dismissed due to an “alternative suitable remedy”.  

On 16 September 2024 the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee (“the Committee”) published its report looking into the efficacy of the law and practice relating to statutory public inquiries held under the Inquiries Act 2005. The Committee, with Lord Norton of Louth as its chair, conducted oral sessions and considered written evidence from a selection of individuals and organisations including academics, experts, government officials, former Ministers, former inquiry chairs, secretaries, solicitors, barristers, representatives from campaign organisations and other interest groups.

Statutory public inquiries have strong legal powers to compel witnesses to participate. How these are exercised depends on the circumstances and reflects the reality that public inquiries are part of the political process rather than the legal process, or a hybrid of the two.

Labour have hit the ground running on energy policy issues with several significant announcements in the days after coming into power. Ahead of the Kings Speech tomorrow (17 July), we look at the key developments in the last two weeks and what we might see going forward. 

Lord Carter of Haslemere writes about Labour’s proposed review of sentencing and why this may be one possible solution to our prisons overcrowding problem. 

A year on from hearing a ground-breaking challenge concerning the duty on planning authorities to consider “downstream” emissions when deciding planning applications, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in R(Finch) v Surrey County Council and ors [2024] UKSC 20 on Thursday morning (20 June 2024).

In his leading judgment in Secretary of State for the Home Department and another v R (on the application of IAB & others) [2024] EWCA Civ 66, [2024]All ER (D) 128 (Mar), Lord Justice Bean
 branded the government’s routine practice of redacting civil servants’ names from documents for disclosure in judicial review proceedings ‘inimical to open government and unsupported by authority’.

We are in unprecedented territory, writes Lord (Harry) Carter of Haslemere. So what will our courts do next?

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has delivered its much-awaited judgments in three high-profile climate change cases.

This article was first published by New Law Journal on 4th August.

Measures introduced in the Queen’s Speech risk fuelling legislative bad habits.