Cross Examination

In 1814, the United Kingdom gained control of Mauritius from France. That included a group of 60 islands about a thousand miles northeast of Mauritius. Today, those islands continue to be administered from London where they're officially referred to as the British Indian Ocean Territory, but you probably know them as the Chagos Islands. In 1965, the UK detached the islands from Mauritius before Mauritius gained independence a few years later. Around the same time, thousands of Chagossians were forcibly removed to places like Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the UK to make way for a new military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia.Much more recently, in 2019, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion that the UK's detachment of Mauritius had breached international law and that the UK was under an obligation to bring its administration of the Chagos to an end. In October 2024, the Starmer government announced that it had reached a deal with the Mauritian government to hand over the Chagos Islands.But almost two years on, those negotiations are still not complete, and some think may be dead in the water, after facing criticism from US President Donald Trump, and perhaps curiously at first glance, some Chagossians. So, what next for the Chagos Islands? Why do the opinions of the United States and another country, the Maldives, matter? And what does the Chagos story tell us about international law in today's geopolitical climate? On this episode of Cross Examination, Tom is joined by:Ian Park, international law specialist and  barrister practicing out of Essex Court Chambers. Before coming to the bar, he spent 23 years in the Royal Navy, where he served as the head of Navy Legal, leaving with the rank of Commodore. He was formerly a Harvard Law School Fellow and has advised the UK government, NATO, and UK allies and partners on a wide range of international law matters.Yuan Li Zhu , an assistant professor of international relations and international law at Leiden University, a senior fellow at Policy Exchange, and a research associate at the University of British Columbia. He's advised the British and Canadian governments on a wide range of legal and foreign policy issues. Bertrice Pompe, a Chagossian activist who was one of three to bring a legal challenge to the High Court, petitioning against the deal struck by the UK and Mauritius.Cross Examination is written and presented by Tom Cross KC. Produced by and Alex Rees and Kian Leong Tan ⁠https://www.crossexamination.co.uk/

Trying to persuade others to your own view of religion is no new phenomenon. But it's often done in the public spaces which we all share. Sometimes this creates problems, as Angus Cameron, a Christian street preacher, found out. While he was proclaiming his truth, specifically as set out in the first chapter of the biblical book of Romans, an anonymous complaint was made by a passerby to the police that something he had said was offensive, and he was arrested and made the subject of a so-called non-criminal hate incident. He was later to be released without charge and had the record of the incident deleted. How freely does the law in this country allow us to express ourselves in public spaces? Is the law favouring the expression of fashionable ideas over those which are not? And is it more difficult to express criticism of religion than to manifest religion? On this episode of Cross Examination, Tom is joined by:Bryn Harris, Chief Legal Counsel at the Free Speech Union, the largest free speech organization in the UK. Bryn coordinates the FSU’s legal work in a wide range of fields including crime, employment, defamation and public law.Stephen Evans, Chief Executive of the National Secular Society, a nonprofit campaigning organisation that advocates for secularism, including the separation of religion and state, freedom of religion or belief for all and an inclusive and fair society.Cross Examination is written and presented by Tom Cross KC. Produced by Basil Oxtoby and Alex Rees https://www.crossexamination.co.uk/

Justice, someone once said, is open to all, “like the Ritz”. But it's not just in getting into court where money counts. Some are worried that those with very significant resources can use litigation as a strategy to silence accusers and, in doing so, protect their reputation. Faced with such an opponent and the corresponding financial risk, the accuser is left with no alternative but to back down. For that reason, some people welcome rules combatting Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, which are now found on the statute book. But whether or not anti-SLAPP rules are on balance a good thing, and if so, their proper contours, remains the subject of vigorous debate.On this episode of Cross Examination, Tom is joined by: Dan Neidle, tax lawyer, journalist and commentator. Dan was subject to SLAPP litigation after his investigation into a fellow lawyer’s involvement in a tax avoidance scheme.Matthew Gill, defamation lawyer at Good Law Project, a not-for-profit that seeks to defend human rights and fight for equality through strategic litigation. Matt frequently represents activists and journalists who face legal claims after speaking out on issues of public interest. Iain Wilson, vice chair of the Society of Media Lawyers and the managing partner of Brett Wilson, a central London firm specialising in defamation and privacy law, as well as regulatory defence. His firm acts for claimants and defendants, both in litigation and pre-publication matters.Cross Examination is written and presented by Tom Cross KC, and produced by Alex Rees. https://www.crossexamination.co.uk/

In the UK, all people have a legal right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998. But this right is not absolute, and is limited in the workplace to prevent harm and to protect others. Employers must strike a careful balance between the need to prevent discrimination, harassment and disruption to the workplace, and an individual's right to express their view, even ones that are considered controversial. So how far does the law protect the expression of controversial beliefs in the workplace? On this episode of Cross Examination, Tom is joined by: Robert Lewis, partner in the Employment Department of legal firm Mishcon de Reya, and head of its education group specialising in legal issues around academic freedom, safeguarding students and staff, discrimination and crisis investigations in universities and schools. Robert is also a school governor, former teacher and has just finished a term as co-chair of the Industrial Law Society. James Murray, higher education and professional rights partner at Doyle Clayton Solicitors. He's also a member of Kellogg College at the University of Oxford, having been an academic visitor there last year, and is currently writing a book on academic freedom and free speech on campus for Cambridge University Press.Cross Examination is written and presented by Tom Cross KC. Produced by Basil Oxtoby and Alex Rees https://www.crossexamination.co.uk/

In 2022, a group of healthcare professionals were prosecuted for criminal damage against the investment firm JP Morgan. They argued that by drawing attention to the issue, they were preventing future harm. The judge directed the jury that they have no defence in law, but they were still acquitted. Their case is being used by some as an illustration of the value in trial by jury and by others as an illustration of its flaws. Meanwhile, the government has introduced legislation into parliament which would substantially curtail the right of a criminal defendant to choose jury trial. But what exactly are juries? When are they used? How do they work? And why do we use them? On this episode of Cross Examination, Tom Cross KC is joined by: Flora Page KC, a barrister at 23 Essex Street Chambers. In recent years, she's acted for a group of prominent sub-postmasters in their criminal appeals. Just days ago, she quit the Legal Services Board over what she calls a “tyrannical” plan by the government to restrict trials by jury. Sarah Vine KC, a criminal barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, whose practice involves defending in the most serious allegations, and has a particular expertise in the areas of sexual consent, deception and gender identity in the criminal law.Cross Examination is written and presented by Tom Cross KC, and produced by Alex Rees.https://www.crossexamination.co.uk/

In her early 20s and freshly moved to London, “Jodie” had it all ahead of her. Nothing could have prepared her for what happened next.She came to discover that images of her were being used without her consent on online dating apps and on social media. And it didn't stop there. She was tipped off by an anonymous source that she'd been “deepfaked,” her face transposed onto the body of a woman having sex in pornographic videos. She had to fight for the serious attention of the police, and could secure only partial justice. So how far does the law protect women who have faced abuse through the use of their images online without their consent?On this first episode of Cross Examination: Series Three, Tom is joined by: Claire McGlynn, Professor of Law at Durham University and member of the Judicial Appointments Commission. She's worked closely with politicians, civil society, and survivors to strengthen laws tackling online abuse, such as ensuring women and girls were included in the Online Safety Act, and more recently working on the new law criminalising the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes.Emily Harman, an online safety advisor and criminal attorney. Her background is in defending and prosecuting serious sex offences and violence against women and girls. She's previously advised tech companies on their obligations relating to safeguarding users online and collaborated with law enforcement and civil society on projects aimed at combating online sexual abuse and exploitation.Cross Examination is written and presented by Tom Cross KC. Produced by Basil Oxtoby, Alex Rees and Jelena Sofronijevic. https://www.crossexamination.co.uk/

Tom looks with barrister Margherita Cornaglia and solicitor Sahil Kher at the law on climate change. What exactly is "climate change law" and what are its elements? If the issue is international, how do domestic legal systems cope; and is it right that UK courts have recently shown a greater willingness to scrutinise Governmental decisions on climate? Tom also talks to the disability rights campaigner Doug Paulley about the effect of climate change on the disabled and his litigation against the UK Government. Sahil Kher is a senior associate at Kingsley Napley working on a range of public law but with particular expertise environmental and climate change judicial reviews, having worked on some of the highest-profile recent cases before the English courts. In a previous role at a prominent non-governmental organisation, he worked closely with community groups impacted by the effects of climate change, as well as journalists and NGOs at the frontline of advocacy on climate change and environmental issues. Margherita Cornaglia is a barrister specialising in climate and environmental law and litigation. Her practice spans both public law and private domestic and transnational environmental law. She currently acts as junior counsel to Doug Paulley in litigation against the UK Government; represents a State and various NGOs in climate advisory proceedings respectively before the international court of justice and the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights; and still manages to find the time to work with lawyers, scientists and journalists in Italy, her home country, where she hopes to incentivise greater public and legal engagement with the climate crisis.

Tom explores how employment law is dealing with the gig economy. He listens with guests to the story of James Farrar, Uber driver turned campaigner, about the case he took to the Supreme Court to establish worker rights, considering it alongside the subsequent case involving Deliveroo which went the other way. Is the greater flexibility enjoyed by those working in the gig economy a good thing, and what is the still new Labour government going to do about it?  Colin Leckey has been a Partner in Lewis Silkin's employment team since 2012. He advises employers from a wide range of industries on all matters under the employment law sun, but has a particularly keen interest in employment status issues and the rapid rise of the gig economy, and acts for a number of platforms, most notably Deliveroo.  Paul Jennings is a Partner and the Head of employment at Bates Wells. Most of his time is spent advising employers and senior executives, but his team has been involved in a number of the leading gig economy cases, including successfully representing the test claimants against Uber in the Supreme Court. His recent work has involved cases involved AI and automated decision-making.

Tom and guests, Michael Brotherton and Emma Swann, discuss the law on school inspections. In the wake of the terrible death of Ruth Perry, a headteacher who took her own life in January 2023 knowing that a report labelling her school “Inadequate” was going to be published, they reflect on where matters stand legally.  They listen to a headteacher about his own experience of feeling powerless to challenge an inspectorate threatening to fail his school.  And then ask how far the so-called “Big Listen” being undertaken by Ofsted in the wake of Ruth Perry’s death is capable of changing the legal and regulatory regimes applying to schools. Michael Brotherton is a partner in the Education Team at leading law firm Stone King. He focusses predominantly on operational aspects of school life, including pupil/parent issues, equality act claims and governance, as well as acting on challenges against Ofsted. Emma Swann is an Education partner and Head of Academies at HCR and has been advising schools on pastoral, governance and commercial matters for over 20 years. She is also a Trustee and sits on the Board of the Institute of School Business Leadership.

The timing of the Prime Minister’s announcement of the election last month took many people by surprise, but the conduct of parties, candidates and others may be turning out to be rather more predictable. The familiar accusation that the other party is “lying” has already been made with force; questions of misinformation (or disinformation) abound; and interest has been reinvigorated in the question – what can be done to challenge breaches of the rules?  In this special episode, recorded in mid June 2024, Tom and guests answer head-on questions from members of the public about the law surrounding these and other issues. James Roochove is a solicitor and director at Astraea Linskills. He's a recognised expert in election law having represented countless MPs and other office-holders over the years. Suhan Rajkumar is a senior lawyer at Bates Wells, specialising in campaigning and election law. He represents the full range of political parties, candidates, charities, and other campaigners.