The Supreme Court’s recent judgment addresses fundamental legal principles and underscores the UK’s longstanding opposition to the death penalty. It does not go as far as it might but it has brought us a great deal closer to protecting the absolute right to life and underscores the serious and extraordinary scrutiny which must be applied in all cases involving the provision of assistance where there is a risk of the imposition of the death penalty.
Where a student has had an unfavourable outcome from a university disciplinary process, that need not be the end of the road. It may still be possible for them to appeal or otherwise challenge the higher education provider’s decision.
The Metropolitan police announced on 23 April that it had obtained a Forfeiture Order in the sum of €1.9m following a cross-border money laundering investigation. The order was obtained under provisions created by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which allow accounts to frozen by means of Account Freezing Orders (AFOs), and ultimately to be forfeit by means of a Forfeiture Order, if a Magistrates’ Court is satisfied that the funds in the account represent the proceeds of crime or are intended for use in crime.
The Competition and Market Authority’s annual report on concurrency, published on 15 April, assesses the effectiveness of the arrangements in place between regulators in terms of competition enforcement, covering the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. A key part of the competition landscape, these arrangements are designed to play an important role in enhancing competition and making markets work more effectively in the regulated sectors.
The temptation to approach the adjudication of a student complaint as merely an ‘internal process’, is one of the most common errors made by some higher education institutions. The process adopted must be capable of examination by an independent and external eye to ensure that at each stage of the process, the rights of all individuals involved are protected.