Latest news with #DameVictoriaSharp
South China Morning Post
6 days ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Misuse of AI risks harming public confidence in the justice system
The risks of relying on artificial intelligence for research, without verifying the results, should by now be clear to all, almost three years after the groundbreaking launch of ChatGPT. Lawyers using generative AI tools to prepare material for court should be setting a shining example. But judges around the world, from Britain to the US, Canada and Australia, continue to be presented with arguments based on non-existent court judgments generated by AI. More needs to be done to prevent such abuses. Hong Kong is not immune to the problem. Secretary for Justice Paul Lam Ting-kwok used a ceremony for three new senior counsel to sound a warning last weekend. He said the city's legal profession faced the challenge of adopting new technology without compromising integrity. Lam then quoted from a UK court judgment delivered the previous day. The court had warned that AI tools are 'not capable of conducting reliable legal research'. Dame Victoria Sharp, one of two judges ruling in the case of Ayinde, pointed out that AI's 'apparently coherent and plausible responses' may be entirely incorrect or simply untrue.
Telegraph
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Private school families lose legal challenge against Labour VAT raid
Private school families have lost their High Court challenge against the Government over its decision to apply VAT on fees. Three separate challenges were heard together in a judicial review between April 1 and 3, using more than a dozen families as case studies. In a single written judgment issued on Friday, the three judges presiding over the case said they 'dismiss the claims'. Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said the VAT policy was 'proportionate' in its aim to raise extra revenue for state schools. The Independent Schools Council (ISC), which was part of the legal challenge and represents more than 1,400 private schools, said it was 'carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps'. Other claimants vowed to appeal the ruling, including three Christian schools supported by the Christian Legal Centre. Private school families sued the Government over its decision to apply 20 per cent VAT to fees, which came into force in January. Parent groups were seeking a 'declaration of incompatibility' under human rights laws. Even if successful, this would not have overturned the VAT policy in itself, but could have forced the Government to take a second look at the tax raid or hand out exemptions. The ISC's case was wrapped together with two others, using children as case studies to highlight the alleged unfairness of the policy. They included children with special education needs (SEND) who are not eligible for tailored care plans, religious families with children at faith schools, families at bilingual schools and a girl at a single-sex school. Claimants argued that the VAT raid inhibits their fundamental right to education for some pupils, and disproportionately affects lower-income families. 'Broad margin of discretion' In their ruling issued on Friday, the three judges accepted that Labour's VAT raid 'interferes' with the claimants' right to education under the Human Rights Act 1998, but insisted that the Government had a 'broad margin of discretion' in balancing this against its wider education aims. The High Court judges added that parts of the European Convention on Human Rights referenced in the case 'go no further than the right of access to whatever educational system the state chooses to provide... and the right to establish a private school'. They argued that none of the parents in the lawsuit are obliged to continue to send their children to private schools, and that ministers were right not to exempt such families, as this would squeeze the overall revenue gain from the policy. In their claim against the Government, private school families had also taken issue with ministers' repeated insistence that the levy was ending a 'tax exemption' or 'tax break', arguing that education has until now not been subject to VAT in Europe. The judges said such comments were 'in our view, more a slogan than a legally significant description', adding that Brexit may have even paved the way for the Government to enforce its tax raid on independent schools. Lawyers for the claimants had argued that the VAT policy made the UK an outlier in the Council of Europe, but the judges noted that 'most Council of Europe states are in the European Union – and EU member states cannot impose VAT except in accordance with EU law'. 'This is therefore one respect in which the UK's exit from the EU has increased the scope of Parliament's freedom to determine policy for the UK,' they said. 'Unprecedented tax on education' The decision has been met with backlash from private schools. Julie Robinson, the chief executive of the ISC, said: 'This is an unprecedented tax on education and it was right that its compatibility with human rights law was tested. 'We would like to thank the claimants who shared their stories on key issues: SEND, faith schools, bilingual provision and girls-only education. It showcased how vital independent schools are for many families and the broad, diverse community choosing what they feel is the right education for their child. 'The ISC is carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps. Our focus remains on supporting schools, families and children. We will continue to work to ensure the government is held to account over the negative impact this tax on education is having across independent and state schools.' Ben Snowdon, a headteacher at Emmanuel School, an independent Christian School in Derby that was part of the legal challenge, said: 'The consequences of this policy will be devastating for independent Christian schools and many other low-cost independent schools across the country. 'It is especially concerning to parents who are not from affluent backgrounds and who have children with special education needs. 'At Emmanuel School we share the Government's desire to ensure that all children have access to high-quality education, but we're deeply concerned that the Government's VAT proposals will hinder this aim.' Sir Keir Starmer has insisted that Labour's VAT raid will raise £1.8 billion a year by the end of the decade, which the party has promised to spend on raising state school standards. Court documents obtained by The Telegraph earlier this year revealed that the Government deliberately chose the 'most disruptive' start date for the VAT raid after being presented with a range of options. Ministers toyed with a later start date for the tax but ultimately decided to implement it in the middle of an academic year in order to 'maximise revenue'. In their judgment on Friday, Dame Victoria, Lord Newey and Mr Chamberlain said they 'do not consider that the decision to introduce the measure from January 2025 exceeded Parliament's broad margin of discretion'.
The Independent
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Private schools lose High Court battle against Starmer's VAT raid on fees
It comes after six families last year launched a legal challenge against the government's controversial tax raid, which imposes 20 per cent VAT on private schools, claiming it is discriminatory against certain children, such as those with special education needs (SEN). Supported by the Independent Schools Council (ISC), which represents 1,400 independent schools, the families sought a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act, claiming the new tax is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. But Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said in a 94-page decision that while the legislation does interfere with some of the group's human rights, there was a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'. During a hearing in April, Lord David Pannick KC, representing one group of children and their parents, said that the needs of some children currently in private schools could not be met by state schools. The High Court was told that, as well as religious beliefs and SEN, some children are privately educated because of a need for a single-sex environment because of previous abuse, or because they are only temporarily in the UK and need to be educated in line with their home national curriculum. But Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Treasury, HMRC and the Department for Education, said abolishing the VAT exemption for private school fees was a prominent feature of Labour's manifesto at the last general election. While the legal challenge would not have been able to halt the VAT policy or reverse it even if successful, it would have been a major blow to ministers and piled pressure on them to consider further exemptions. The government has estimated the tax raid will raise £1.7bn per year by 2029-30, money which ministers said would be used to fund 6,500 new teachers for state schools. So far, private school pupil numbers have fallen by more than 11,000 in England following the tax hike, DfE data showed. In January 2025, there were around 582,500 pupils at English private schools, down from 593,500 at the same point last year. When the policy was introduced, Treasury impact assessments estimated that private school fees would increase by around 10 per cent as a result of the introduction of VAT, But in May, ISC figures showed that fees have increased by 22.6 per cent in the past year, with parents now paying out more than £22,000 a year on average. The Treasury predicts that 35,000 pupils would move into UK state schools 'in the long-term steady state'. A further 2,000 children would leave private schools, the department estimated, consisting of international pupils who do not move into the UK state system or domestic pupils who move into homeschooling. The ISC has been contacted for comment.
BBC News
03-06-2025
- General
- BBC News
MI5 lied 'deliberately and repeatedly' in neo-Nazi spy case, BBC tells High Court
MI5 lied "deliberately and repeatedly" as it tried to defend its handling of a neo-Nazi agent who abused women, the BBC has told a panel of High Court corporation argued the threshold for contempt of court proceedings against MI5 and three individual officers had been James Eadie KC, acting for MI5, issued an "unreserved apology" on behalf of the Security Service but said the "errors that had been made had not been deliberate".The three judges - England and Wales' most senior judge, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, President of the King's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain - reserved judgement on the case until a later date. The case, which began in 2022 with an attempt to block the BBC from publishing a story about the neo-Nazi agent, has become a major test of how the courts view MI5 and the credibility of its gave evidence to three courts, saying that it had never breached its core secrecy policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) that a man known only as X was a state in February, the BBC was able to prove with notes and recordings of phone calls with MI5 that this was MI5 officer had confirmed the agent's status as he tried to persuade me to drop an investigation into X, a violent neo-Nazi misogynist who used his Security Service role to coerce and terrify his former girlfriend, known publicly as "Beth".At Tuesday's hearing MI5 acknowledged that the NCND policy could no longer be maintained in this policy has meant significant amounts of evidence has been confined to closed hearings which neither the BBC nor Beth - who has brought a separate case complaining about MI5 - are permitted to Kilroy KC, representing Beth, said her client agreed with the BBC that the threshold for contempt of court proceedings had been met. There had been "copious levels of dishonesty" which had not been acknowledged in MI5's investigations into how it came to give false BBC's barrister, Jude Bunting KC, submitted to the court that it should consider contempt of court proceedings against MI5 itself, and three individual Security Service officers - including one who confirmed X's status as an agent on the phone to me and a senior officer known as Witness A who gave the false evidence to accounts of how it came to give false evidence "lack candour" and there is a "real concern" that the court has not been given a full explanation of what went wrong, Mr Bunting said an external review by the government's former chief lawyer Sir Jonathan Jones KC did not speak to two crucial James Eadie KC, representing the Attorney General for the Security Service, offered an "unreserved apology on behalf of MI5"."Everyone from the director general downwards acknowledges the seriousness caused," he said. MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum immediately informed Home Secretary Yvette Cooper as soon as the matter was drawn to his attention, Sir James has been "a full and comprehensive investigation" which came to the conclusion that "the errors that had been made had not been deliberate" and that "there had been no misleading or lying", MI5's barrister said that contempt of court proceedings "would not be appropriate".
BBC News
03-06-2025
- General
- BBC News
MI5 neo-Nazi spy: Judge had 'no confidence' in Security Service's account of false evidence
MI5 is facing fresh scrutiny in the case of a violent neo-Nazi agent after a High Court judge said he had "no confidence" in the Security Service's account of how a senior officer gave false of a court hearing on Tuesday, the BBC can reveal Mr Justice Chamberlain ordered MI5 to hand over secret documents about the also said there was a further issue about the "correctness" of new evidence provided by a very senior MI5 hearing comes four months after the BBC revealed MI5 had lied to three courts about a misogynistic agent known as X. The agent used his MI5 role to coerce and terrorise his girlfriend, attacking her with a machete. The most senior judge in England and Wales, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Sue Carr, and the President of the King's Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp, will now join Mr Justice Chamberlain to consider what, if any, action should be taken about MI5's false are a range of potential options, from accepting the conclusions of MI5's investigations to initiating contempt of court proceedings against MI5 itself or individual officers - or contempt of court proceedings are referred to the Attorney General, currently Lord Hermer, but in this case, he is technically representing about MI5's internal investigation into how it came to give the false evidence, which were included in the secret documents given to the court, may also be made public on gave the evidence in 2022 after then-Attorney General Suella Braverman sought an injunction to stop a BBC investigation about X. She won him legal anonymity but failed to prevent the story being published. During that case, a senior spy known only as Witness A said MI5 had stuck to its policy to "neither confirm nor deny" (NCND) that X was an MI5 agent during conversations with me in 2020, when I was investigating X's in February this year, the BBC was able to reveal Witness A's evidence was fact, MI5 had disclosed X's status in phone calls to me, which I had made notes of and recorded, as the Security Service tried to persuade me to drop my false claim was repeated in two other courts considering a legal claim against the Security Service by X's former girlfriend, known publicly as "Beth".During hearings in recent weeks, Mr Justice Chamberlain raised the new concerns regarding MI5's account of how it came to give the false concerns centred on accounts of the two investigations launched after the BBC exposed MI5's false claims in February this year - an internal one, and an external review by the government's former chief lawyer Sir Jonathan Jones KC, commissioned by Home Secretary Yvette April, the court and the BBC were provided with a witness statement by the very senior MI5 officer - known as Witness B - purporting to summarise the investigations. They were also given an open, non-secret version of Sir Jonathan's external the court can receive sensitive information - and had security-cleared barristers, known as special advocates, acting on behalf of the BBC - it was not given a secret, closed version of the external review, nor a copy of the internal investigation report and its underlying a request by the special advocates, Mr Justice Chamberlain made clear he wanted disclosure of the closed version of the external review. During a later hearing he ordered that MI5 also hand over the internal investigation report described by Witness B, as well as policy documents and interview notes with MI5 officers. He also raised concerns about whether the open, non-secret documents originally provided to the court and the BBC were an accurate reflection of the closed said Witness B had claimed the original open version of the report was a "fair and accurate" reflection of the closed version. But, having read the closed report, Mr Justice Chamberlain gave his provisional view that: It contained "potentially significant material" not in the open version of the reportThis material "raises real questions about whether Witness B could properly rely on the open version as a fair and accurate report of the closed report"Because of "the piecemeal way this has come to light", he had "no confidence that the court has been given the full picture of how Witness A came to give false evidence"New material raised "a separate issue about the correctness of Witness B's recent evidence in these proceedings" The court will also hear on Tuesday whether MI5 will be able to continue to apply its policy of NCND in relation to the agent status of X within the legal case itself, despite publicly accepting it had departed from the policy in phone calls to NCND policy has allowed MI5 to withhold material from the BBC as well as the separate case brought by X's former girlfriend had complained about MI5 to a specialist court, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), and then sought a judicial review in a third court of an IPT ruling that allowed MI5 to apply meant that material confirming X's agent status has been confined to secret hearings, where she was represented by the tribunal's own barristers and her lawyers were excluded.
