Nemo the Dolphin

20-year-old Ava Rahmani-Rad was murdered by the Islamic regime in Iran while protesting for a free Iran on the streets of Tehran on January 9th 2026. She was shot in the neck. Security forces kept firing on anyone trying to run up to her to stop the bleeding.

@CrimeLineLaw @JudiciaryUK The worst thing is even seeing solicitors and barristers criticise the judge on social media. Post the Proudman BSB case, they’re unlikely to be disciplined. How far have we strayed from basic professional conduct standards?

Because judicial comms has gone silent this weekend, a void has been filled and goes unchallenged. @JudiciaryUK the issue by the way isn’t whether the sentence is right or wrong, I make no comment on that, it’s the paucity of information that is allowing a Circuit Judge, who properly cannot comment, being hung out to dry. I think it’s disgraceful.

At the Venice Biennale, pro-Palestinian protesters screamed “murderer” and “Fuck Israel” at Eyal Waldman - one of Israel’s most prominent advocates for peace and coexistence, who deliberately built parts of his high-tech business in Judea & Samaria and employed Palestinians alongside Israelis. On October 7, Hamas terrorists murdered his daughter Danielle and her boyfriend at the Nova music festival. They went there to dance. They never came home. Watch what happens the moment the protester realizes Eyal is Israeli.

This video is less than two minutes long and I implore everyone to watch it. It is indeed rather extraordinary. As Holocaust Awareness Ireland says, Patrick Kielty exhibits utter callousness with respect to the attacks on the Jewish community, astonishingly saying ‘the backdrop of that is obviously the horrors in Gaza, this is a complex thing.’ Boy George remains calm and says ‘if you don’t know any Jewish people maybe that’s the problem.’ He then asks the audience ‘do you know any Jewish people?’ Boy George is visibly taken aback by the ensuing silence, and vocalises his shock twice, remarking that it is ‘weird’ and ‘surprising me a little bit.’ Patrick looks uncomfortable and ends puts an end to the topic with a dismissive ‘mmm’. Extraordinary viewing. Just extraordinary.

@familylaw What is the justification for anonymising a judge simply because his or her judgment has been successfully appealed?

E v D [2025] EWFC 512 (B) (06 November 2025): Appeal by Children's Guardian against provisions of order for father to have interim contact with the child. Appeal allowed. bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/…

@Joanna__Hardy @BarristerSecret A major cause of the delays in trials for sexual offences is lack of judges who have done the sexual offences training course. Either get rid of the course (as it’s doing more harm than good by driving huge delays) or put all judges through the training

Evening all. As we sail ever closer to the abyss of losing jury trials for thousands of citizens - I’d like us to examine something difficult. Sexual assault. 🪡 🧵

@michael__hayden @TheCriminalBar @MAMBarLife Public office holders are not supposed to misuse their positions as a platform for making public statements of their personal views outside their parameters of their responsibilities. There’s something distasteful about the CCRC Chair being wheeled out to do just that.

@MAMBarLife I'm baffled beyond belief that the Chair of the CCRC is arguing so hard to water down the right to a full and fair trial, and to appeal if necessary.

It’s not a “demand” but the legal right to “elect” to have a case tried at the Crown Court usually after taking legal advice. “Smaller” ? To the person who has not been in trouble before & possibly faces a career end or family break up if convicted, it’s not small at all.

On Monday, I had Dr Proudman & her henchpeople calling me (and my unrelated namesake) misogynist, & a menace to clients & rape victims because I defended tweets made by Daniel Sawyer before he was a judge. FYI, here are some of those Tweets, as curated by CP herself.

@SBarrettBar I’m surprised to see you write this. If anyone is the victim of harassment, it’s the Judge, who is being publicly pilloried but can’t answer back

This man is clearly unfit to be a Judge The way that we appoint Judges was broken by Blair. The way that we discipline Judges was broken, by Blair. Britain is Broken.

A Crown Court judge, HHJ Daniel Sawyer, was investigated after being accused of running an anonymous X account that criticised barrister Dr Charlotte Proudman. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office reviewed the complaint and ultimately found no breach of the disciplinary standards and no action was taken. Despite that finding, Proudman and campaigning groups are now running a public campaign questioning whether the judge can be trusted to hear certain cases. That raises an obvious question. If the original complaint centred on criticism and online targeting, how is a public campaign asking “would you trust this judge with your rape case?” fundamentally different? The allegation that the tweets were misogynistic also appears to rely largely on interpretation rather than any clearly reported gender-based remarks. It is also worth remembering that when a disciplinary ruling previously went in Proudman’s favour — in the “boys’ club judge” case — she welcomed the decision as an important vindication. Now that a different investigation has reached a conclusion she disagrees with, the regulator itself is being publicly criticised. Fair debate about the justice system is important, but it should apply consistently, regardless of which side of the argument benefits from the decision.

Defendants ‘priced out of justice’ by cuts to jury trials Read Andrew Thomas KC, CBA Vice Chair, explain how more cases being heard in the magistrates will mean more defendants being ineligible to legal aid, more having to self-represent and more delay. thetimes.com/article/3ca53e…

I disagree with Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney General. I don’t accept that international law requires our Prime Minister to deliver a pusillanimous statement setting out the UK’s position whose first point is “We did not participate”. I’ve set out the gist of my approach below. ⬇️   The Prime Minister has refused publicly to support the US and Israel strikes, and also refuses to allow the US to use UK bases, because of international law advice he has reportedly received from Lord Hermer.   International law ought to provide a mechanism to restrain and, if necessary, end despotic and tyrannical regimes such as that in Iran. If the doctrines of international law prove unable to restrain Iranian terrorism and mass murder, and tie the hands of democracies while forcing them to stand and watch Iranian atrocities, international law will have failed. It will have become a fundamentally immoral system of law, and one which is worse than worthless in the modern world.   To be clear: I don’t believe that it is. I think international law is important, and both can and should provide a just legal order. I do, however, have serious questions as to the moral attitudes of some of its expositors; too many international lawyers serenely promote an analysis which ultimately protects tyrants.   Seven points, and some questions:   1 The inherent right to use force in the face of an imminent attack from a hostile nation which is responsible for a pattern of hostile actions exists for good reason: a country cannot be expected to remain idle and just wait for the next attack.   2 Iran has repeatedly threatened to attack the UK’s bases and personnel. Those threats come in the context of persistent Iranian attempts to launch attacks on UK soil, too; the Director General of MI5 has stated, and the PM confirmed last night, that the UK has responded to tens of Iranian-backed plots, presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents. There is also a constant barrage of cyberattacks; while not all cyberattacks are armed attacks in sense of Article 51 of the UN Charter, some may be, and all confirm not just hostile intent but action pursuant to such intent.   3 The UK’s long-standing allies, the US and Israel, were right to consider that they faced further attacks prior to their recent military action, given that (i) Iran has previously attacked both states directly and also through its many proxies; (ii) Iran has repeatedly stated its intent to destroy Israel; (iii) Iran was assessed to be on the brink of acquiring a nuclear capability with uranium enrichment at 60% (which can only be for military use); and (iv) Iran already possessed – as demonstrated by its recent attacks – a sophisticated and effective long-range delivery capability which Israel cannot fully neutralise with defensive weapons.   4 The acquisition of a nuclear capability by Iran represents a genocidal risk for Israel and its people. Iran’s repeatedly stated aim is to wipe the State of Israel, and its inhabitants, off the face of the earth. The slogan of the proxies through which Iran has often attacked Israel is: “God is greater, death to America, death to Israel, curse to the Jews, victory to Islam”. In these circumstances, whether they are characterised as part of an ongoing armed conflict with Iran or as a new use of force based on self-defence, Israel’s actions are justifiable.   5 The UK (and also the US) is permitted under international law to use force to aid another state which is acting in self-defence. Moreover, the UK is under an obligation in international law is to prevent genocide, not just to stop it: stopping an on-going genocide is required, but it necessarily means that action was taken too late. 1/2

If you claim to support human rights yet can’t bring yourself to show solidarity with those fighting for their liberty in Iran, you’ve revealed yourself. You don’t give a damn about people being oppressed and brutalised so long as it’s being done by the enemies of your enemies.

“This is an affront to justice.” Andrew Thomas KC, vice-chair of the Criminal Bar Association, said the bill would mean “ordinary people will be priced out of justice”. He said trials with unrepresented defendants could actually take longer, adding: “So much for swift justice.” Today’s @thetimes by Sunday Times special correspondent @emilydugan He said: “This is an affront to justice. It risks miscarriages of justice for middle-income people from hardworking families who earn too much to qualify for legal aid but not enough to afford to pay a lawyer to represent them in a three or four-day trial. It also means that complainants will face being cross-examined by the very people who they allege abused or assaulted them.”

The sentencing marks the end of an era for Hong Kong. This is life under the People’s Republic of China. on.wsj.com/3ZXKHME

The ⁦@TempleChurchLDN⁩ in the heart of legal London is seeking an experienced priest, pastor, liturgist and theologian to fill the office of Master, once occupied by Richard Hooker. Please circulate to anyone who might feel called to this ministry. templechurch.com/vacancies

A few days ago, David Lammy wrote a letter to the Justice Committee answering some questions about his proposals to restrict jury trial. This is a welcome step. It’s a telling letter. But not for the reasons you might think. 🪡 🧵

Allow me to add a little context. The maximum capacity that the Crown Courts can sit is 130,000 days a year. The government is - for reasons of money - forcing courts to close on 19,000 days per year. At a time when the backlog is so bad, the govt wants to remove jury trial.