*/
Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that although the applicant did not have capacity as defined in s 2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make decisions regarding his treatment, he had not satisfied the best interests requirement. There was a less restrictive option than the continued use of the standard authorisation. On that basis, the standard authorisation would be terminated.
Mental health – Court of Protection. The Court of Protection held that although the applicant did not have capacity as defined in s 2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make decisions regarding his treatment, he had not satisfied the best interests requirement. There was a less restrictive option than the continued use of the standard authorisation. On that basis, the standard authorisation would be terminated.
Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights some of the key achievements at the Bar Council this year
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
Providing bespoke mortgage and protection solutions for barristers
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
Tom Cosgrove KC looks at the government’s radical planning reform and the opportunities and challenges ahead for practitioners
From a traumatic formative education to exceptional criminal silk – Laurie-Anne Power KC talks about her path to the Bar, pursuit of equality and speaking out against discrimination (not just during Black History Month)
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series
Yasmin Ilhan explains the Law Commission’s proposals for a quicker, easier and more effective contempt of court regime
