Legal Awareness Newsletter - Edition 9
February 13th 2024
Dear all,
Welcome to the 9th edition of the LAN. We have articles on new evidence in the Lucy Letby case; El Savador’s mass prisons; an exploration of the US trade war and much, much more!
As ever, we have general and commercial articles, along with terms and links.
Have a great reading week!
All the best,
Jago Cahill-Patten
Publications Officer
General Section
New evidence in the Lucy Letby case: The role of medical experts in criminal cases
Mia Ramage
With English and Welsh magistrates’ courts receiving 1.37 million cases in 2023 alone, most cases manage to fall through the cracks of public conscience, unrecognised by the majority of the UK’s public. The same cannot be said of the convictions against Lucy Letby, a neonatal nurse who, on the 18th August 2023, was convicted of seven counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder, sentenced to serve 15 whole life sentences for crimes against 14 children. Almost overnight, the story took over every UK media outlet, with Letby becoming a household name as the UK’s most prolific child serial killer. Now, new expert medical evidence has shaken the strength of these convictions.
A panel of fourteen senior paediatric and neonatal experts was assembled by Dr Shoo Lee to independently and extrajudicially review the evidence in the Letby case. Their conclusion: the deaths of the children resulted from either natural causes or receiving poor medical care, as opposed to the air embolisms Letby has been convicted of inducing. Letby’s legal team have submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) on the basis of this evidence, which they have begun to assess. If the CCRC find a real possibility that the conviction will not be upheld or the sentence reduced on the basis of this evidence, they will refer it to the Court of Appeal for retrial.
The complexities of this case are multiple, not least because of the keen public interest in its outcome. At the heart of this application lies the issue of expert evidence within the proceedings of a criminal trial. It’s an issue the Law Commission has previously addressed in their 2011 paper, Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, highlighting the potential difficulties for a juror to interpret the reliability of such technical and complex evidence. Perhaps in no field is this more pertinent than in the medical field. The conclusion drawn from Dr Shoo Lee’s panel turned largely on his 1989 paper on air embolisms, which he posits was wrongly interpreted by the prosecution in the Letby case. The new evidence that seemingly disproves the prosecution’s case is reliant on a wealth of medical expertise which a juror is unlikely to possess, and highlights a serious flaw in the criminal court’s ability to assess cases within the medical field. If the outcome of medical criminal cases relies on an assessment of the validity and reliability of opposing medical evidence, it appears unlikely that jurors are best positioned to adequately assess this. Moreover, given the particular interest of the public in this case, it’s hard to envision the reality of an appeal. Certainly, any overturned convictions would be a devastating blow to the families of the victims, as well as a source of intense public debate, leaving it impossible for Letby to return to any semblance of her previous life.
The Letby litigation also sent shockwaves through the UK’s healthcare system, prompting the establishment of the independent Thirlwall inquiry to assess the conduct within the Countess of Chester Hospital itself. If Letby’s conviction is found unsafe, the implications about the UK’s healthcare system is guaranteed to cause public outroar and a demand to regulate and divert more public funding into neonatal care, and call into question the culpability of the NHS itself.
No matter the outcome of the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s decision, the independent review of the Letby case has highlighted the technical difficulties presented by criminal medical cases, and has guaranteed this case’s status as a matter of global infamy.
Bukele Proposes Detaining US Criminals in El Salvador’s controversial Mega Jail
Isabella North Amigo
El Salvador has offered to take in criminals deported from the United States, including those with US citizenship, and house them in its controversial mega jail. The move is part of President Nayib Bukele’s broader crackdown on gang violence, which has transformed El Salvador from one of the world’s most dangerous countries into one of the safest in Latin America.
El Salvador’s Gang Crisis and the Crackdown
For decades, gangs such as MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang terrorised El Salvador, committing murders, extorting businesses and displacing thousands. Previous governments failed to contain the escalating violence.
Since taking office in 2019, President Nayib Bukele, who has described himself as the “cool dictator,” has led an aggressive crackdown on gang violence. In March 2022, after a surge in gang killings, Bukele declared a state of emergency. He suspended constitutional rights and allowed security forces to arrest suspects without warrants and detain them indefinitely without formal charges or legal defence. To date, authorities have detained over 75,000 people.
Central to Bukele’s anti-crime strategy is the Terrorism Confinement Centre (Cecot), often referred to as the mega jail. It is one of the largest prisons in Latin America, with a capacity of 40,000. Conditions inside are severe, cells hold up to 70 inmates, who have no access to rehabilitation programmes, education, or outdoor time. Prisoners remain inside windowless cells 24 hours a day, except for 30 minutes of group exercise in a corridor.
Bukele’s policies have drastically reduced crime rates, despite concerns about arbitrary arrests and human rights abuse, helping him secure re-election with over 84% of the vote.
The US Agreement
Bukele’s mega-jail has attracted international attention, especially from the United States. Bukele has offered to accept convicted criminals deported from the US into the mega prison, including US citizens, for a fee. During a visit to El Salvador, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio praised Bukele’s crackdown and welcomed the offer, calling it "extraordinary" and suggesting it could serve as a model for tackling transnational gangs like MS-13 and Tren de Aragua.
Donald Trump, a longtime advocate of mass deportations, expressed support for the idea but acknowledged potential legal barriers. He stated that if it were legally possible, he would implement the policy immediately.
Legal experts highlight significant challenges to such an agreement. Under US law, natural-born citizens cannot be deported. Naturalised citizens can lose citizenship if they concealed gang or terrorist ties, making them eligible for deportation. However, there is no precedent for sending US citizens to a foreign prison, which would likely require a court ruling and face legal challenges.
Legal and Human Rights Concerns
Human rights organisations have condemned conditions at Cecot, citing inhumane treatment, overcrowding, and indefinite detention without trial. Amnesty International has accused Bukele’s government of replacing gang violence with state violence, while families of detainees say thousands of innocent people have been swept up in mass arrests.
Bukele’s administration has also been accused of undermining democratic institutions by appointing loyalist judges and bypassing constitutional limits on re-election. Critics warn his policies set a dangerous precedent that weakens democratic safeguards.
While Bukele’s tough stance on crime has won him significant support at home and admiration abroad, his methods remain highly controversial. The plan to house deported US criminals in El Salvador’s mega jail raises complex legal, ethical, and diplomatic questions, leaving the agreement uncertain.
Legal Challenges in the DR Congo Crisis: ‘Blood Minerals’, Sovereignty Disputes and Human Rights Abuses
Aykhan Allahveranov
The most recent crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has led to significant legal challenges, particularly concerning international accountability, corporate responsibility, and violations of sovereignty and human rights. The resurgence of the M23 rebel group, allegedly backed by Rwanda, has resulted in major territorial seizures in eastern DRC, exacerbating long-standing legal and geopolitical tensions. This has forced the Congolese government and international legal bodies to confront complex legal questions surrounding armed conflict, economic exploitation, and regional stability.
A key legal issue arising from the crisis is corporate complicity in the trade of conflict minerals. The DRC has accused multinational corporations of indirectly financing armed groups through mineral supply chains. In one of the most significant developments, Belgium has launched a criminal investigation into claims that Apple knowingly sourced minerals from areas controlled by armed groups in eastern Congo. This case underscores the legal difficulties in enforcing corporate due diligence obligations and determining liability under international law, particularly when minerals pass through multiple intermediaries before reaching global markets.
Another major legal challenge concerns Rwanda’s alleged involvement in the conflict. The DRC has accused Rwanda of waging a proxy war through M23, which raises serious questions about violations of Congolese sovereignty and international law. If proven, Rwanda’s actions could constitute an act of aggression under international law, potentially leading to diplomatic and legal consequences at forums such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the African Union. However, enforcing accountability remains difficult given the political dynamics of the region and Rwanda’s strategic alliances with global powers.
Human rights violations committed during the conflict add another layer of legal complexity. Reports of unlawful killings, sexual violence, and the recruitment of child soldiers by various armed factions have sparked calls for international investigations and prosecutions. However, holding perpetrators accountable is challenging due to the weak judicial system in the DRC and the involvement of multiple actors, including non-state groups. While international bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) could intervene, issues of jurisdiction, evidence collection, and political will pose significant obstacles.
In addition, the legal ramifications of historical injustices continue to influence the crisis. A recent Belgian court ruling found the country guilty of crimes against humanity for the kidnapping of mixed-race children during its colonial rule in the Congo. This case has set a precedent for addressing past abuses, potentially strengthening ongoing discussions about reparations and legal accountability for colonial-era crimes. While not directly linked to the current conflict, this ruling could shape future legal efforts to address historical grievances that still impact Congolese society today.
Overall, the latest crisis in the DRC has triggered a range of legal challenges that extend beyond the immediate conflict. Whether through corporate investigations, state-level disputes, or human rights prosecutions, the legal responses to these issues will have significant implications for the country’s stability and the broader international legal order.
Backlash From MPs Sends Chagos’ Future into Uncertainty
Lucas Connor
Prime Minister Keir Starmer made headlines last October after finally reaching a deal to cede the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Formally known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, their ownership had been at the heart of a contentious dispute between the UK and Mauritius for just over five decades. However, the future of the deal now seems uncertain following confusion over its final cost and disapproval from the US.
Between 1968 and 1973, the UK expelled over 1000 Chagossians to Mauritius. This was done to make room on Diego Garcia, the largest island in the archipelago, for the construction of a military base. Since its completion in 1976, it has been jointly operated by the UK and US.
Since then, the pressure on the UK to make a deal to rectify their actions had been mounting, with international legal and diplomatic bodies playing a crucial part. In 2017, the UN General Assembly voted to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue an advisory opinion on the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius before the country's independence in 1968. Two years later, the ICJ concluded in favour of Mauritius, arguing that the UK had wrongfully evicted the residents of the island and that it should relinquish control of Chagos as a result. This ruling was officially welcomed by the UN General Assembly later that year and confirmed in 2021 by the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas.
The cumulative impact of this international pressure forced the UK government to officially enter talks regarding the status of the islands in November 2022. These seemed to come into fruition in October last year when Keir Starmer announced jointly with Mauritian Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth that a deal had been made to hand over sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius, where most Chagossians currently live. Crucially, the deal contained an agreement where the UK would enter into a 99-year lease agreement with Mauritius to retain control over Diego Garcia and the military base in it for a reported £9 billion.
However, the deal reached its first major setback the following month when Navin Ramgoolam was sworn in as the new Prime Minister of Mauritius. His government has said that the deal is not in Mauritius’ best interest and has submitted counter-proposals to the UK government. Additionally, Starmer has come into fire this past week over reports that the true cost of the deal is closer to £18 billion, something he denies. Despite this, the Conservative and Reform parties have used this revelation to attack the Prime Minister for supposedly “shovelling money to Mauritius” whilst the UK is in a period of economic difficulty. Matters have only been further complicated by President Trump’s ascension to the White House last month. As co-operators of the Diego Garcia military base, they have yet to approve the deal, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying it posed a threat to US security given China’s influence in the region.
As of now, no formal agreement has been officially signed, meaning the fate of the islands is unclear. Starmer is still confident of a deal being reached, with David Lammy being sent to meet with Marco Rubio a week ago to try to ease his concerns over Chinese influence. However, with opposition from the US, Mauritius, and even within the House of Commons, any successful deal now needs to overcome far more hurdles to be achieved.
Commercial Section
Tariff:
A tariff is a tax or duty that a government imposes on exported or imported goods. This term is vital in international trade law. One of the key influences that tariffs have is to impact a nation’s trade policies or retaliate against other countries’ trade actions. Trump’s imposition of tariffs is intended to pressure Canada, Mexico and China on border security and drug controls.
Jessica Li
The Trade War 2025 - the US and China’s tussle for global hegemony.
Muyiwa Oladokun
“This could become the beginning of this phase of the trade war.” “This could become a very, very bad situation.”
These were the chilling words of Zhang Yanshen, an expert at the China Centre for Economic Exchange, on the escalating economic tensions between the US and China.
After his inauguration on January 20, Trump has been stern in imposing the one thing he is known for, economically: tariffs. Although currently halted, the President signed an executive order to place extra 25% tariffs to all imports from Canada & Mexico. Trump has also imposed an additional 10% tariff on all Chinese goods. He has hinted at tariffs on the EU.
Retaliation, however, was abrupt. Just three days after the US’ tariffs took effect, China hit back, announcing an additional 10-15% tariff on US energy imports. In fact, China has formally launched a dispute at the WTO over the tariffs imposed by the US. While these tariffs were halted, Canada was hasty to hit back. Trudeau announced a 25% tariff on goods including US alcohol and clothing.
What was the reason for the tariffs?
But so far it seems we are missing the all-important question: what was the rationale underpinning Trump’s initial tariffs? Issues like fentanyl and immigration are said to be “main justifications.” On Truth Social, Trump stated that he has used emergency powers to issue the tariffs because of the “major threat of illegal aliens and deadly drugs killing our citizens, like fentanyl”
However, I believe this is not convincing enough to explain Trump’s relentless imposition of tariffs. Why impose tariffs on the EU and China, in particular, due to concerns of Fentanyl and immigration? It seems fentanyl is being used as a pretext to justify Trump's highly protectionist economic policy.
And so, it appears that fentanyl and national security concerns are a mere constituent part of the reason for tariffs. It seems the principal reason for tariffs is this: a scramble by the US and China for global hegemony and for economic and technological monopoly.
We have already seen this through the two superpowers’ scramble over AI innovation. While the US government funded a promising $500 billion AI project named ‘Stargate’, China was hasty to launch its ‘DeepSeek’ - an AI platform which directly rivals Open AI, despite using far less semiconductor chips. These tensions were exacerbated by the allegedly US-caused cyber-attacks on Deepseek, and suspicions that Deepseek is being used against the US for intrusive surveillance.
What impact might this have on commercial law firms?
I believe it would be remiss to not consider how this trade war might impact law firms. It is logical that Trump’s increase in tariffs on Canada, Mexico, the EU and China, may likely have a negative domino-effect on law firms. This is because tariffs from country to country will likely heighten the price of cross-border transactions like global M&A deals. Accordingly, this could mean commercial law firms may have less transactional work. Instead, it is viable that they may focus more on providing advice for clients on geopolitical risk, so client’s do not suffer monetary loss from the ongoing trade war and disputes between the US and China.
Conclusion – Implications of the Trade War on Global Peace
A renowned political scientist Waltz argued that a bipolar world, where two nations dominate, would be the key for global peace. However, the incessant trade war of 2025 and US and China’s tussle for global hegemony leads me to believe otherwise.
Commission Demands Shein Provide Data on Illegal Products
Simone Liang
The European Commission has taken decisive action against fast-fashion giant Shein, demanding that the company provide detailed information regarding its handling of illegal and non-compliant products in the European market. This move is part of the Commission’s broader efforts to enforce stringent consumer protection and product safety regulations under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the General Product Safety Regulation (GPSR).
Legal Framework and Regulatory Concerns
The European Union’s consumer protection laws impose strict obligations on e-commerce platforms and retailers, particularly those operating in cross-border trade. The Digital Services Act, which came into effect in 2022, requires online platforms to take proactive measures against the sale of illegal and counterfeit goods. Similarly, the GPSR mandates that all products sold in the EU must meet rigorous safety standards to protect consumers from hazardous or substandard merchandise.
Shein, a China-based e-commerce platform known for its rapid product turnover and low-cost fashion, has faced criticism over allegations of facilitating the sale of non-compliant products, including those containing hazardous chemicals and counterfeit goods. The European Commission’s latest demand seeks to determine the extent of these violations and assess whether Shein has implemented adequate measures to prevent the circulation of such products within the EU.
Commission’s Demand for Transparency
The European Commission has formally requested Shein to provide detailed data on the number and nature of illegal products identified on its platform. The inquiry specifically seeks information on:
1. The total number of illegal or unsafe products listed on Shein’s platform over the past two years.
2. The company’s internal mechanisms for identifying and removing such products.
3. The steps taken to notify consumers and prevent further distribution.
4. Compliance measures adopted in response to EU regulatory standards.
5. Cooperation with regulatory authorities and consumer protection agencies.
If Shein fails to comply with the Commission’s request, it may face severe financial penalties and potential restrictions on its operations within the European market. Under the DSA, non-compliance with transparency and safety obligations can result in fines of up to 6% of the company’s global annual turnover.
Impact on E-Commerce and Consumer Protection
The Commission’s scrutiny of Shein reflects a growing regulatory focus on online marketplaces that fail to uphold product safety standards. This development signals a broader trend in commercial law where regulators are intensifying oversight of digital platforms to ensure they adhere to stringent safety, environmental, and intellectual property laws.
Legal experts suggest that Shein’s case could set a precedent for other e-commerce giants, prompting stricter enforcement actions against platforms that fail to curb the sale of illegal goods. If the Commission’s demand leads to substantive changes in Shein’s compliance framework, it may serve as a model for improving accountability in the global fast-fashion industry.
Conclusion
The European Commission’s demand for Shein to disclose data on illegal products underscores the increasing regulatory pressure on digital marketplaces. With the DSA and GPSR providing a robust legal framework for consumer protection, Shein and similar platforms must prioritize compliance to avoid significant legal repercussions. As authorities continue to crack down on non-compliant products, businesses must adapt to a more stringent regulatory environment to maintain access to key markets and protect consumer trust.
NI Hike:
National Insurance (NI) hike refers to an increase in National Insurance contributions (NICs), which are mandatory payments made by employees, employers, and the self-employed in the UK to fund state benefits like the NHS, state pensions, and welfare programs. A National Insurance hike can fall under several areas of law such as tax law, employment law etc.
Jessica Li
Links:
Jessica Li
Bank of England cuts interest rates and slashes growth forecast:
The Bank of England halved its 2025 growth forecast to 0.75% (from 1.5%) and cut interest rates to 4.5%. Governor Andrew Bailey warned of uncertainty and inflation risks, with higher energy and water bills pushing inflation up to 3.7%. As a result, business confidence is low due to rising employment costs from the National Insurance hike (13.8% to 15% from April 2025). Critics argue the government’s budget may limit further rate cuts and worsen economic pressures.
EU pushes ahead with enforcing AI Act despite Donald Trump warnings:
The European Union is advancing with the enforcement of its Artificial Intelligence Act, issuing new guidance on prohibited AI applications, such as scraping the internet to create facial recognition databases. This move comes despite warnings from U.S. President Donald Trump about potential retaliation against the EU's actions targeting American tech companies. The Act, enacted in 2023, is recognised as the world's most comprehensive AI regulatory framework. While some Big Tech companies argue that stringent regulations may hinder innovation, the EU remains committed to becoming a global leader in trustworthy AI.
Norwegian oil giant cuts green investment in half:
Equinor is halving renewable energy investment ($10bn → $5bn), while increasing oil and gas production by 10%. This is due to low profitability in renewables and a slow transition to clean energy. CEO Anders Opedal remains confident in the Rosebank oil field despite legal challenges. Equinor follows BP & Shell in scaling back renewables, while Opedal sees Trump’s pro-drilling stance as positive but warns of long-term net-zero challenges.