Podcasts about High Court

Today, the Supreme Court ruled on two cases that deal with major political battles. The first deals with mail-in voting, which President Trump has criticized for years. The Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law that allows election officials to count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later.In another ruling, the High Court ruled that Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, can stay in her job for now.Both rulings are considered a loss for President Trump. But are they the final word on these two issues?For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.This episode was produced by Jeffrey Pierre and Vincent Acovino, with audio engineering by Ted Mebane. Our director is Alejandra Marquez Janse.It was edited by Benjamin Swasey, Patrick Jarenwattananon, and Tinbete Ermyas.Our interim executive producer is Courtney Dorning.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

ThePrintAM: Why did Manipur High Court order release of youth detained under both UAPA & NSA?

Sharon Lynch, our reporter has the latest from the High Court.

In Part 2 of our extended interview with retired Supreme Court judge Mr Justice Peter Charleton, Peter Leonard BL and Mark Tottenham BL continue a remarkable conversation about life at the Bar, life on the Bench, and life after the Supreme Court.Peter Charleton speaks about the reality of appearing in high-profile criminal cases, the discipline of addressing juries, why a good advocate must be able to hold attention, and why, in court, “your job is basically to stay on the horse”.He discusses the emotional weight of criminal work, the dangers of lawyers mistaking themselves for victims, the Morris Tribunal, the call to the High Court, the pressure of judgment writing, and the move from sitting alone in the High Court to deciding cases with colleagues in the Supreme Court.There is also a fascinating discussion on the length of modern judgments, why digital searches are different from physical searches, how Supreme Court judges deal with disagreement, and whether advocacy still matters in an age of written submissions.And, in a lovely final turn, Peter Charleton reflects on retirement, family, music, film, War and Peace, Clint Eastwood, and why music, in his view, is a higher form of reasoning than law.Before the interview, Mark and Peter discuss three recent cases from the Decisis.ie casebook, with thanks to the sponsor of the Decisis casebook discussion, Charltons Solicitors and Collaborative Practitioners of George's Street, Dún Laoghaire, who specialise in family law, civil litigation, property, wills and probate.LSRA v O'BrienA solicitor was prohibited from practising in his own right for 10 years following serious misconduct and repeated non-compliance with undertakings. The High Court stressed that its role in reviewing LSRA determinations is not a rubber-stamping exercise.LSRA v SalabiAn overseas lawyer seeking to practise in Ireland could not rely on Belgian professional indemnity cover. The court held that the foreign cover did not meet the Irish regulatory requirements.Foreign Births Register citizenship challengeA challenge to the requirement that foreign-born children be registered on the Foreign Births Register before acquiring Irish citizenship was rejected, with the court finding no particular injustice in the requirement.CHAPTERS00:00 Introduction and Part 2 preview00:48 Decisis casebook discussion, sponsored by Charltons Solicitors and Collaborative Practitioners03:49 Peter Charleton interview resumes04:31 High-profile criminal cases and staying on the horse05:15 Addressing juries and holding attention07:13 Worrying about cases and professional regret08:08 Criminal work, vicarious trauma and perspective09:03 The Morris Tribunal and Donegal10:37 The call to the High Court11:43 Why judging was not easier than being a barrister13:48 How to write a judgment15:46 Are modern judgments too long?18:07 Digital searches and privacy19:52 Moving from the High Court to the Supreme Court20:22 Keeping an open mind on appeal21:30 Overturning colleagues and why it is not personal23:45 Irish courts, US courts and the politics of judging26:26 Is great advocacy dead?28:38 Retirement from the Supreme Court30:41 Life after the Bench31:22 Music, law and philosophy32:47 Film and book recommendations34:45 Closing thanks Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Australia's High Court is being asked to consider a deceptively simple question with huge consequences: is crypto property, or merely information controlled by private keys?In this episode, Peter breaks down Poulton v Conrad, a dispute that began with Bitcoin purchased in 2013 and has grown into a major legal test for digital assets in Australia. The case raises questions about possession, control, conversion, taxation, custody, insurance, and what legal protection crypto holders actually have if assets are withheld, misappropriated, or stolen.This is not legal or financial advice. It is an educational discussion of the case and the wider implications for Australian crypto users.Key Takeaways:- Poulton v Conrad asks whether Bitcoin and other digital assets can be treated as personal property under Australian common law.- The dispute traces back to Bitcoin purchased in 2013 and later arguments over control, possession, forks, and damages.- One side argues crypto is not a physical object or bank-backed debt, but information accessed through private keys.- The other side argues crypto behaves like property because it is identifiable, transferable, rivalrous, and economically valuable.- A clear property ruling could strengthen civil remedies for stolen or misappropriated digital assets.- A ruling against property treatment could create major uncertainty for taxation, custody, insurance, and crypto platforms in Australia.Links & References:- https://link.learncardano.io/fdP2Aw- https://link.learncardano.io/6RvedE- https://link.learncardano.io/Nj84CxWebsite: https://link.learncardano.io/bQ68RcX/Twitter: https://link.learncardano.io/3a1QtvDisclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only. Nothing constitutes financial advice.DISCLAIMER: This content is for informational and educational purposes only and is not financial, investment, or legal advice. I am not affiliated with, nor compensated by, the project discussed—no tokens, payments, or incentives received. I do not hold a stake in the project, including private or future allocations. All views are my own, based on public information. Always do your own research and consult a licensed advisor before investing. Crypto investments carry high risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. I am not responsible for any decisions you make based on this content.

ThePrintAM: Why Bombay High Court's nod to Preity Zinta's AI deepfake suit against Google, Meta & X matters

Stephen Grootes speaks to Dr Stavros Nicolaou, Chairperson of the Pharmaceutical Task Group about the High Court’s interim interdict against iDexis and what it means for the regulation of semaglutide-based weight-loss drugs in South Africa. In other interviews, Khaya Sithole, CA(SA) and Director at Corusca Consulting talks about the Public Investment Corporation’s decision to refer the controversial Acapulco-Lanseria empowerment deal to the Special Investigating Unit following a legal review of a forensic investigation. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Why Care?, Nadia Nagamootoo is joined by writer, broadcaster and campaigner Jamie Klingler for a conversation about accidental activism, women's safety, police reform and the institutional failures that still leave women carrying the burden of risk. Jamie reflects on the moment Sarah Everard's murder pushed her from behind-the-scenes media work into national campaigning, how Reclaim These Streets was formed at breakneck speed, and why the vigil and High Court fight became a turning point in the public conversation on violence against women and girls.From there, the conversation widens into what has changed, what has not, and what leaders still fail to understand. Jamie speaks candidly about consent, male entitlement, the emotional toll of becoming a public voice on women's safety, and why organisations cannot keep treating violence, harassment and misogyny as if they sit outside the workplace. The result is a powerful episode about courage, accountability and what it really takes to change culture rather than simply comment on it.Key TakeawaysThe public conversation on violence against women has moved, but institutions still lag behind.Consent education needs to go far beyond teaching girls how to say no.Men who want to help often need practical, behaviour-based guidance rather than abstract reassurance that they are “one of the good ones”.Organisations already know where the risks are. The issue is usually not awareness but whether leaders are willing to act early and decisively. Guest BioJamie Klingler became an activist and campaigner for women's safety and police reform as one of the founders of Reclaim These Streets, an organisation that was created after Sarah Everard, was abducted, raped and murdered by a serving police officer. The organisation tried to hold a vigil for Sarah, but the Metropolitan Police said they weren't allowed. In doing so and trying to silence them; Reclaim These Streets fought them in the High Court for violating their human right to assemble, and won. Jamie speaks on becoming an accidental activist and using her media and events expertise to create a real impact. Her TEDx talk on How to Reclaim Your Life is here: https://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_klingler_reclaim_yourself_the_most_valuable_investment_you_ll_makeLinks Jamie: ⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠ Nadia Nagamootoo:⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠ |⁠⁠⁠ Instagram⁠⁠⁠ | Buy ⁠⁠⁠Beyond Discomfort⁠⁠⁠Avenir Consulting: ⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/avenirconsultingservices⁠⁠⁠Produced by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Mauro Kenji Serra⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Kenji Productions⁠⁠⁠⁠

Stephen Grootes speaks to Dr Stavros Nicolaou, Chairperson of the Pharmaceutical Task Group, about the High Court’s interim interdict against iDexis and what it means for the regulation of semaglutide-based weight-loss drugs in South Africa. The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Reproduced from Deep Dive Perspectives with thanks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W66oExlFWzw A British surgeon prosecuted, suspended & arrested — not for malpractice, but for criticising Israel. Dr Ranjeet Brar & Ryan D expose how the IHRA definition is being weaponised to criminalise dissent. The IHRA definition of antisemitism was never about protecting Jewish people. According to guests Dr Ranjeet Brar— surgeon, Communist Party of Great Britain (ML) leader, and judicial review applicant — and independent analyst Ryan Dawson, it was designed to conflate a nation-state with an ethnic group, making criticism of Israel's policies legally and professionally dangerous. Brar details being arrested three times at demonstrations, suspended from surgical duties, and facing two General Medical Council fitness-to-practice investigations — all for speaking against Israeli state violence. Dawson documents a systematic pattern of social media de-platforming, financial censorship, and academic suppression coordinated through organisations like the ADL and Canary Mission across NATO and Five Eyes countries. This is not a debate about antisemitism. It's a forensic examination of how states weaponize the language of anti-racism to protect the commission of what both guests call genocide — and what happens to those who refuse to stay silent. ______________________________________________ Subscribe! Donate! Join us in building a bright future for humanity! http://www.thecommunists.org http://www.lalkar.org http://www.redyouth.org Telegram: https://t.me/thecommunists Twitter: / cpgbml Soundcloud: / proletarianradio Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/theCommunists Odysee: https://odysee.com/@proletariantv:2 Facebook: / cpgbml Online Shop: https://shop.thecommunists.org/ Education Program: Each one teach one! http://www.londonworker.org/education... Join the struggle! https://www.thecommunists.org/join/ Donate: https://www.thecommunists.org/donate/

Monday Headlines: National Cabinet to meet today to lock in fuel excise cut extension JD Vance says ‘great progress’ made as Iran talks kicks off in Switzerland UK Prime Minister could resign in next 24 hours Auction clearance rates hit lowest levels since the pandemic Socceroos 90% likely to reach next stage of World Cup Deep Dive:Last month, Australian neo-Nazi group White Australia, also known as the National Socialist Network, became a prohibited hate group. That means it is now illegal: it’s a crime to join, fund, or support the group. The NSN is challenging the government’s declaration, with a showdown scheduled in the High Court for September. In the meantime, it’s been revealed a $2.5m Victorian property the neo-Nazi group is currently using as their headquarters has been paid for by a millionaire backer. And it’s not just one millionaire, but a network of rich and influential sympathisers. In this episode of The Briefing, Sacha Barbour Gatt speaks with journalist Sherryn Groch from The Age, who has followed the money to find the neo-Nazis' mansion and the millionaire-backers supporting them. Follow The Briefing: TikTok: @thebriefingpodInstagram: @thebriefingpodcast YouTube: @TheBriefingPodcastSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to episode 260 of the Financial Crime Weekly Podcast. I am Chris Kirkbride. In this episode, a ship's captain is charged for allegedly breaching Russian sanctions, and there are the US Treasury's latest designations against Hizballah-linked officials. In the UK, Nigeria's former oil minister has been acquitted in a bribery case, while the High Court has imposed reporting restrictions in the Entain civil litigation. Furthermore, the episode covers new enforcement data highlighting a lack of prosecutions against professional enablers, and a warning from the NCSC regarding state-sponsored cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure. Finally, we discuss the growing "protection gap" in cyber insurance, and the rise of the converged criminal economy where digital fraud increasingly intersects with real-world exploitation.A transcript of this podcast, with links to the stories, will be available at www.crimes.financial. The photograph on the podcast cover art is by Sora Shimazaki at Pexels, and the stinger sample between each news section is ‘Ben Logo 1' by BenKirb from Pixabay.

Jeremy Kyle unpacks the latest as Oxfordshire's bid to ban roadside Union and St George's flags has reignited arguments over patriotism, safety and council priorities. The High Court challenge comes during England's World Cup campaign, prompting Conservatives and Reform to accuse Liberal Democrats of overreach. Meanwhile, revelations that pro-migration campaigners coached refugees for Question Time have intensified scrutiny of BBC impartiality on immigration.Wake up with Talk Breakfast in full on YouTube, DAB+ radio, Samsung TV Plus or the Talk App on your TV from 6am every morning. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this edition of our banking litigation podcast, we consider some recent cases that will be most relevant to in-house lawyers at banks and financial institutions. This episode is hosted by John Corrie, a partner in our banking litigation team, who is joined by Ceri Morgan and special guest Elina Kyselchuk. Speakers: John Corrie (Partner), Ceri Morgan (Knowledge Counsel), Elina Kyselchuk (Associate). This podcast can be listened to on SoundCloud, Apple and Spotify and don't forget to subscribe to the channel to receive updates on future episodes. You can find out more about the cases covered in this podcast on our blog at the following links: High Court dismisses injunction application to prevent current account closure on grounds of financial crime concerns https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-04/high-court-dismisses-injunction-application-to-prevent-current-account-closure-on-grounds-of-financial-crime-concerns High Court refuses to grant injunction against bank preventing payout under performance bond https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-04/high-court-refuses-to-grant-injunction-against-bank-preventing-payout-under-performance-bond Law Commission to consider introduction of opt-out consumer class actions regime https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-04/law-commission-to-consider-introduction-of-opt-out-consumer-class-actions-regime HM Treasury pitches base camp at the mountain of consumer credit reforms https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-04/hm-treasury-pitches-base-camp-at-the-mountain-of-consumer-credit-reform FCA to Review Claims Management Practices https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-04/high-court-dismisses-injunction-application-to-prevent-current-account-closure-on-grounds-of-financial-crime-concerns0 Creation of new Business and Property Division of the High Court announced https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-06/creation-of-new-business-and-property-division-of-the-high-court-announced Handy client guide to privilege – newly updated https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-05/handy-client-guide-to-privilege-newly-updated Biannual Banking Litigation Update (Spring 2026) https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2026-04/bi-annual-banking-litigation-update-spring-2026

The Fifth Court marks Episode 150 with Part 1 of a wide-ranging conversation with recently retired Supreme Court judge, Peter Charleton.To mark Episode 150 of The Fifth Court, Peter Leonard BL and Mark Tottenham BL are joined by Mr Justice Peter Charleton, recently retired from the Supreme Court.In Part 1 of this extended interview, he reflects on republicanism and nationalism, growing up near Seán Lemass and Theodore Kingsmill Moore, music, Trinity, the King's Inns, devilling with Peter Sutherland, early years at the Bar, criminal law, defending accused persons, and the deeper questions of crime, morality and human nature.It is a thoughtful, personal and sometimes unexpectedly funny conversation with one of Ireland's best-known jurists.Before the interview, Mark and Peter discuss three recent cases from the Decisis.ie casebook.The Decisis.ie case-law section is sponsored by Charlton Solicitors and Collaborative Practitioners of Dún Laoghaire.Case 1: The High Court quashed a District Court judge's refusal to convict in speed-limit cases, holding that judges must apply the law rather than substitute their own views on whether limits are fair.Case 2: In DPP v O'Hara, the Court of Appeal upheld a murder and burglary conviction, rejecting challenges to DNA and search-warrant evidence.Case 3: In a Hague Convention child-abduction case, the court refused to return a child to New Zealand because of concerns about the mother's depression and risk of relapse.This is Part 1 of a two-part interview. Part II will be posted next week. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this edition of our banking litigation podcast, we consider some recent cases that will be most relevant to in-house lawyers at banks and financial institutions. This episode is hosted by John Corrie, a partner in our banking litigation team, who is joined by Ceri Morgan and special guest Elina Kyselchuk. Speakers: John Corrie (Partner), Ceri Morgan (Knowledge Counsel), Elina Kyselchuk (Associate). This podcast can be listened to on SoundCloud, Apple and Spotify and don't forget to subscribe to the channel to receive updates on future episodes. You can find out more about the cases covered in this podcast on our blog at the following links:High Court dismisses injunction application to prevent current account closure on grounds of financial crime concerns High Court refuses to grant injunction against bank preventing payout under performance bond Law Commission to consider introduction of opt-out consumer class actions regime HM Treasury pitches base camp at the mountain of consumer credit reformsFCA to Review Claims Management Practices Creation of new Business and Property Division of the High Court announcedHandy client guide to privilege – newly updated Biannual Banking Litigation Update (Spring 2026)

Richie is joined by Dr Tamara Ali and Dr Rehiana Ali. UK doctors are being investigated, suspended and silenced – not for harming patients, but for speaking out against genocide and for engaging in lawful political speech. Healthcare Workers Against Censorship (HAC) plan to take the government and the General Medical Council (GMC) to the High Court to stop it.https://chuffed.org/project/180354-stop-the-gmc-dhsc-now-end-political-persecution-of-uk-doctorsDr Tamara Ali is a GP in Scotland who has become the focus of a high-profile legal dispute after she says she faced disciplinary action for displaying a small Palestinian flag and wearing a Palestine pin while working in an NHS setting. She argues that she was subjected to discrimination and censorship because of her support for the Palestinian cause and has launched legal proceedings challenging the actions taken against her.https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/palestine-flag-terrorism-an-nhs-case/Joining her on today's show is consultant neurologist Dr Rehiana Ali, who was suspended by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service pending a General Medical Council investigation into her social media activity relating to Israel and Palestine. She has consistently maintained that her comments were protected political speech and has argued that she is being punished for exercising her right to freedom of expression. The interim suspension was later lifted by a tribunal.https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-the-general-medical-council-legislative-framework

You can watch this episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/lq-8ZhnYjjkThe rocket of right thinking speeds around planet normal gathering the news tsunami of this week… Allison surprises Liam by AGREEING with Sir Keir Starmer's social media ban for under 16 year olds, as she states in her column this week. The addictive and toxic nature of smartphones has ruined children's attention spans and their “in real life" connections and this ban could help them reconnect with the elusive parchment joy of books.Liam strongly echoes Allison's stance, arguing that tech platforms expose children to "relentless bullying" and corporate exploitation. Shifting to finance, he forecasts an imminent rise in global interest rates, pointing to rising producer price inflation and rate hikes in Australia and Japan as clear indicators that borrowing costs are headed back up.Stowing away this week is return guest Bernie Spofforth, who tells us about her experience of being questioned by police due to a retweet she posted on X. She has released a book, out on the 25th June, to discuss how Government overreach, police and NGO's have worn down democracy…HighlightsPlanet Normal: The Social media ban will free our kids from the addictive and toxic smartphoneBernie Spofforth's Legal Fight: Detained for 36 hours over a Southport-related retweet, Spofforth reveals she is suing the police in the High Court this November for gross overreach.Institutional Failures: The hosts condemn public bodies for failing to protect victims in the Preston Davey and Nottingham tragedies due to a culture of "suicidal empathy".Sign up to our most popular newsletter, From the Editor. Look forward to receiving free-thinking comment and the day's biggest stories, every morning. telegraph.co.uk/fromtheeditor |Book your tickets to 'How to make Brexit a success' on 29th June in London: telegraph.co.uk/brexit-big-debate |Read Allison ‘Giving children smartphones is like handing them grenades. I should know‘: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/16/why-i-support-social-media-ban/ |Read more from Allison: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/a/ak-ao/allison-pearson/ | Read Liam ‘The UK's battered public finances are about to get even more stretched': https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/06/14/the-uks-battered-public-finances-about-even-more-stretched/ |Read more from Liam: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/liam-halligan/ |Read Liam's Substack: https://liamhalligan.substack.com/ |Need help subscribing or reviewing? Learn more about podcasts here:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/podcasts/podcast-can-find-best-ones-listen/ |Email: planetnormal@telegraph.co.uk |For 30 days' free access to The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/normal | Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us Fan Mail**Content warning: this episode contains discussion of domestic and sexual abuse and child removal see below for support links***This is the first in a two-part series, produced in partnership with the non-profit organisation Right to Equality, where we look into the shocking subject of child removal in private family proceedings in England and Wales. To help me understand more about this phenomenon I'm joined by three impressive guests:Dr Charlotte Proudman, women's rights barrister, Founder of Right to Equality, and author of the book “He Said, She Said” recalls how she represented a 15 year old girl we call “Florence”. Charlotte talks about Florence's remarkable courage in independently fighting to return to her mum in the High Court, after she was removed from her aged 10. “He Said, She Said” is out now in paperback. You can read more about Florence's case in an article by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism here. Professor Jo Delahunty KC is a leading silk in both public and private law cases. She was the winner of 2025 Family silk of the year for skills. She is also an author of two recent books, “We Set the Bar” and “Domestic Abuse and the Family Justice System”. Jo tells us about a recent groundbreaking case Re: Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) where she represented a 15 year old boy as he put forward his case to return to his mother, before the most senior family judge in England and Wales. The Victims' Commissioner for England and Wales, Claire Waxman OBE, also joins Sara's panel of guests to share how she came to learn about the phenomena of child removal and the role that unregulated experts have to play in these removals. She shares her personal experience and work in uncovering the harmful practices of experts and her hopes for imminent change. To learn more about the work of Right to Equality and read reporting from the family courts visit: www.righttoequality.org SupportI provide free weekly online group support sessions. You can find more about the Divorce Coach sessions here.For victims and survivors of abuse in England and Wales information on your legal options is available via: www.flows.org.uk and find out about support via he 24 hour domestic abuse helpline or via the 24 hour sexual violence helpline.For safe parents of children who have disclosed child sexual abuse help is available via We Stand.   For more information and resources, see my website available here: https://saradavison.coSupport the showFind more information and resources here: http://saradavison.com/Follow me on social media►Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/saradavisondivorcecoach/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SaraDavisonDivorceCoachTwitter: https://twitter.com/SDDivorceCoachLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sara-davison-742b453/

The owner of one of the last remaining abattoirs in the south east of England has said he's furious after a court ruled that the food regulator has been over charging for its hygiene and animal welfare checks. A number of abattoirs have been forced to close recently due to rising financial pressures. Earlier this month, a High Court judge said some of these costs, enforced by the Food Standards Agency, should never have been charged.A new study by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, published by Natural England, suggests that the release of millions of pheasant and partridge into the countryside for shooting does not have a significant impact on the insect population in the wider environment. However, campaigners claim the releases do have a detrimental impact. As Scotland's farmers get ready for the Royal Highland Show, we're taking a closer look at how the country has designed its own farming and rural policy post-Brexit, under its devolved powers. The changes won't be fully implemented until 2030. Like the policy of 'public money for public goods' in England, many of the changes in Scotland centre around including payments for enhancing the environment. Not all farmers have embraced the idea of including wildlife alongside food production, but farmer and writer Tom Bowser has done more than most, including releasing beavers on his farmland.Presenter: Anna Hill Producer: Rebecca Rooney

In this Boardroom Talk, BizNews editor Alec Hogg unpacks the political and practical unravelling of John Steenhuisen's tenure as South Africa's Minister of Agriculture. From the foot-and-mouth disease crisis that exposed a fatal mismatch between parliamentary skill and executive capability, to three damning High Court cost orders, Hogg traces how one of the DA's most respected figures ended up on the wrong side of the very accountability standards his party championed. But this isn't just a post-mortem. It's also a sharp-eyed assessment of what new DA leader Jordan Hill Lewis's decisive — and graceful — cabinet reshuffle reveals about the kind of leader he intends to be. Performance over loyalty. Outcomes over comfort. Is this the beginning of something different in South African politics?

BizNews editor Alec Hogg leads with a political signal investors shouldn't miss: the DA is moving to replace John Steenhuisen as Agriculture Minister after three High Court cost orders — and his proposed successor is an actual farmer. Then Dr. Duarte da Silva's third paper on South Africa's gold lands with force: the Witwatersrand holds as much gold underground as it has ever produced, Australia spends 70 times more exploring its endowment, and SA's share of African exploration budgets has collapsed from 35% to 7%. On the JSE: Premier Group is the standout — net profit up nearly 30% while digesting the RFG acquisition. Vukile raises R2.8 billion for Italy, heavily oversubscribed. Stor-Age quietly accumulates institutional buyers. Powerfleet's integration pain is finally paying off. And Brikor heads for the exit. The close ties it together: the political story and the gold story are the same story.

Headlines:Israel continues attacks on Lebanon in lead up to US-Iran ceasefire dealGaza and West Bank updatesFormer Don Dale detainees win High Court appeal over unlawful tear-gassingProtesters rally to prevent closure of Footscray's Foley HouseClimate change makes El Niño impacts difficult to predict Kelly and Spike, founding members of the Homeless Persons Union of Victoria, joined us for a critical conversation about Vinnies' CEO Sleepout, and shared reflections on self-determined radio programming by folks with lived and living experience of homelessness at 3CR. Tonight, the Homeless Persons Union of Victoria in collaboration with 44 Flats United and Flat Out, are hosting 'Winter Wildfire' at Birrarung Marr, a downhill event to the CEO Sleepout. You can attend Winter Wildfire in person at the Federation Bells, Birrarung Marr from 7-8PM, or join the live stream on Homeless Persons Union of Victoria's Facebook page.// Jeremy Poxon, member of Antipoverty Centre, unemployed antipoverty activist and former spokesperson for the Australian Unemployed Workers' Union, helped us unpack how Centrelink continues to systematically and unlawfully cancel payments. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has now suggested in Estimates hearings that over 100,000 people may have had their Centrelink payments unlawfully cancelled under the Targeted Compliance Framework (TCF) – roughly 10 times the number the Department has publicly admitted. Jeremy discusses the hearings, the TCF, the creation of a new complaints service, and how to get support if you are affected by payment suspensions or cancellations.// As part of 3CR's 50th anniversary celebrations, we dive into the station's archives to take you back 26 years to a pivotal protest against the World Economic Forum, 11-13 September 2000, at the Crown Casino Complex in Melbourne. The s11 protest brought disparate organising groups together into a broad coalition against globalisation and multinational domination. 3CR covered the massive public opposition to the WEF and compiled highlights of the broadcasts on an award-winning 12-part CD, Globalisation Unplugged.// Christine Carolan, a member of Save Community Health, joined us again to unpack the recently released 'Review of Cohealth General Practice and Related Services, Final Report March 2026'. The Review was provided to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, and the Victorian Department of Health in March and released publicly in June. Christine explains what the review found and recommended, why it is so significant, reactions to the report, and what comes next. Save Community Health is a community led campaign that receives no funding and is not affiliated with any political party or group. Contact them via email at savecommunityhealth@gmail.com and find out more on their website. Christine encouraged folks to email Health Minister Harriet Shing (contact details here) to demand that cohealth is appropriately resourced and governed to continue providing vital public health services to Melbourne's community.// Chris Ferric is a Naarm-based painter and portraitist whose artistic practice explores social change, collaboration, and developing accessible practices, as well as a member of Disabled People Against Cuts. They were of a group from Disabled People Against Cuts that addressed the public hearing for the Senate Inquiry into the NDIS Amendment Bill 2026 last week. We spoke with Chris about their experience at the public hearing, the dangers of using AI within the NDIS, and why the inquiry report has been delayed. Disabled People Against Cuts encourages people to meet with their local member and senators to ask them to insist on the withrdrawal of the bill. Disabled People Against Cuts also shared The Commons Social Change Library as a resource to assist in taking action.//

The attempted murder case against Vusimuzi "Cat" and his co-accused has been postponed to the 30th of this month in the High Court in Johannesburg. This is for accused number one in the matter - Musa Kekana - to sort out his funding issues with his legal representative. Matlala and his co-accused are facing charges of attempted murder for the botched assassination attempt of socialite Tebogo Thobejane, businessman Joe Sibanyoni and music producer DJ Vettys. Kekana's attorney Joe Strauss told the court that he had not received part of his payment for him to continue with the trial. Judge William Karam has cautioned Kekana that any delays to the trial will prejudice his co-accused.Sakina Kamwendo spoke to SABC News Reporter Neria Hlakotsa

In 2014, it looked like a picture-perfect dynasty. Hotelier and multimillionaire Noel O'Callaghan stood beside his sons, Paul and Charles, at Royal Ascot. They were dressed in top hats and morning suits, celebrating a major win for their filly Anthem Alexander. It was a moment that seemed to capture everything: wealth, success and a powerful family empire decades in the making. But 12 years later, that image has been replaced by High Court filings, allegations of betrayal and a bitter row over control of a family fortune. Noel O'Callaghan says he handed over an empire worth more than €400m to his sons out of love and trust. Now, he claims he has been frozen out of the business he created, claims strongly disputed by his sons. On today's Indo Daily, Tessa Fleming is joined by Irish Independent legal affairs editor Shane Phelan to look at how a family succession plan became one of Ireland's most bitter corporate feuds. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A spectacular legal brawl – between sitting judges. Federal Court judge Ian Jackman is attacking some of his own colleagues, saying their tardiness in handing down decisions is threatening the rule of law. Read more about this story at theaustralian.com.au and see the video by subscribing to our YouTube channel. Judge slams fellows over ‘egregious’ delays What’s behind the High Court silence on Beech-Jones? Just do your job, top silk tells judge This episode of The Front is presented by Claire Harvey, produced by Kristen Amiet and edited by Tiffany Dimmack. Our team includes Lia Tsamoglou, Joshua Burton and Jasper Leak, who also composed our music. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The High Court is quashing earlier court directions to return gang patches to some members. Open Justice reports two men caught wearing patches in separate incidents were prosecuted, and in each the presiding judge ruled they could get back their insignia. The Solicitor-General appealed those directions. Newstalk ZB senior political correspondent Barry Soper outlined the terms of the ruling. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The headlines of the day by The Indian Express

This is the 37th episode of our series of commercial litigation update podcasts, which is a special edition focusing on force majeure. As well as outlining the legal landscape for force majeure under English law, it gives practical guidance on both drafting force majeure clauses and dealing with force majeure scenarios. This episode is hosted by Maura McIntosh, a knowledge counsel in our commercial litigation team, who is joined by Julian Copeman, a disputes partner, and Richard Mendoza, an of counsel in our disputes team. They are also two of the editors of a recently published book on Force Majeure: Force Majeure - An International Comparative Analysis. Below you can find links to our blog posts on some of the developments and cases covered in this podcast, and previous materials published on force majeure. • Force majeure: general assertions as to impact of Covid-19 and Brexit not sufficient to defeat summary judgment application https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2023-05/force-majeure-general-assertions-as-to-impact-of-covid-19-and-brexit-not-sufficient-to-defeat-summary-judgment-application • High Court decision considers force majeure and sanctions issues https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2024-01/high-court-decision-considers-force-majeure-and-sanctions-issues • Force majeure: Supreme Court finds no obligation on party seeking to rely on force majeure clause to accept counterparty's offer of non-contractual performance https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2024-05/force-majeure-supreme-court-finds-no-obligation-on-party-seeking-to-rely-on-force-majeure-clause-to-accept-counterpartys-offer-of-non-contractual-performance • Global trade tariffs: Impact on contractual arrangements https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-04/global-trade-tariffs-impact-on-contractual-arrangements • When events intervene: Force majeure, frustration and material adverse change https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2020-10/when-events-intervene-force-majeure-frustration-and-material-adverse-change • 'A board-level issue': the resurgence of force majeure - The Global Legal Post https://www.globallegalpost.com/news/a-board-level-issue-the-resurgence-of-force-majeure-132016115 See podcast episode transcript here: https://marketing.hsfkramer.com/20/36058/landing-pages/commercial-litigation-podcast-ep37-transcript.pdf

The fallout from the shocking attempted beheading of a man on the streets of Belfast, a stunning blow in the High Court today for the Albanese government. Plus, One Nation has launched a funding drive calling on Australians to "fire the liar".See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The High Court has ordered ASB Bank to pay $6.731 million for breaching anti-money laundering laws. The penalty is the largest ever imposed by a New Zealand court under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Act 2009. NZ Herald Wellington business editor Jenee Tibshraeny explained the case further - and whether it sets a precedent. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bloomsday Special: The secret political life of James Joyce — and Frank Callanan's final masterpieceWas James Joyce really apolitical?For decades, many scholars claimed Ireland's greatest writer stood apart from politics.Frank Callanan disagreed.Before his untimely death, the renowned barrister, historian and Parnell scholar spent 25 years researching what became his final work: James Joyce: A Political Life.In this special Bloomsday episode of The Fifth Court, Bridget Hourican joins Peter Leonard and Mark Tottenham to discuss Frank's extraordinary final book, his lifelong fascination with Joyce, Parnell, Irish nationalism, exile, censorship and the political forces that shaped modern Ireland.The conversation also becomes a moving tribute to Frank himself — one of the most beloved and intellectually gifted members of the Law Library.Among the topics discussed:Why Frank spent 25 years researching JoyceThe political meaning hidden inside Ulysses and DublinersJoyce's obsession with ParnellWhy Dublin publishers burned copies of DublinersJoyce, censorship and Irish respectabilityWhy Joyce left Ireland and never truly returnedFrank Callanan's remarkable legal and academic careerThe challenge of completing a 900-page masterpiece after his deathFor anyone interested in law, literature, Irish history or Bloomsday, this is a fascinating conversation.Book recommendation:James Joyce: A Political Life by Frank CallananDecisis casebook section sponsored by Charlton Solicitors & Collaborative Practitioners.1. The runaway truck caseDuggan v Logan (Mr Justice Oisín Quinn)A driver was seriously injured when a truck rolled out of a filling station and into traffic with nobody behind the wheel after the driver failed to apply the handbrake.Why it matters:The High Court awarded damages of approximately €128,000 and provides a reminder that leaving a vehicle unsecured can create liability even when the driver is physically absent from the vehicle.2. Turkish worker wins immigration rights challengeOzek v Minister for Justice (Mr Justice Simons)A Turkish migrant worker successfully challenged the Minister's refusal to properly backdate an immigration permission.Why it matters:The Court found that EU-derived worker protections had not been correctly applied, reinforcing the importance of protecting migrant workers' rights under European law.3. Mother and Baby Institutions Redress SchemeKiernan (otherwise John Duncan Morris) v Minister for Children (Mr Justice Owens)A claimant challenged a decision that certain institutions were not covered by the Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme.Why it matters:The Court held that the legislation should be interpreted more broadly and that the applicant was entitled to seek redress under the scheme. The decision may affect how eligibility is assessed in future claims. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

June 3rd is Mabo Day in Australia. The day commemorates the life of Torres Strait Islander activist Eddie Mabo. According to his daughter Gail, he fought for 15 years to finally win land rights for indigenous people in 1992 in the historic ruling of the High Court of Australia. - Der 3. Juni ist in Australien Mabo-Day. An dem Tag wird an das Leben des Torres-Strait-Islander-Aktivisten Eddie Mabo erinnert. Nach Aussagen seiner Tochter Gail kämpfte er 15 Jahre lang, um 1992 im historischen Urteil des High Court of Australia, endlich Landrechten für Ureinwohner zu erringen.

One of the main opponents of a proposed data centre on the outskirts of Ennis has accused its backer of the equivalent of "purchasing indulgences to wipe away sins". The High Court has dismissed the leave to appeal application by objectors to the controversial development, thus clearing the way for the project. Outling his decision, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said it was "inherently implausible" to condemn the plans as non-climate consistent when the developer has pledged to purchase renewable energy to offset the energy used by the project. Ennis-based physicist Colin Doyle doesn't believe the environment is being prioritised.

This week, Defra confirms England’s Sustainable Farming Incentive will reopen for applications on 30 June – but only for some farmers, and with questions over budget. Farm business adviser Katie Hilton explains the key changes in SFI 26, including land use caps, no-till rules and revised payment rates. We also examine a High Court ruling which could mean lower meat inspection charges for abattoirs, processors and livestock producers. And royal recognition for Open Farm Sunday which celebrates its 20th anniversary – we find out why even small events can help reconnect the public with farming. Podcast guests: * Katie Hilton, director, Cheffins* John Royle, NFU chief livestock policy adviser* Rachel Risdon, Devon farmer and Open Farm Sunday host Chapters 00:53 – Sustainable Farming Incentive12:59 – High Court ruling on meat inspection charges17:18 – Why small abattoirs matter to livestock farmers24:19 – Listener feedback on Red Tractor reform27:32 – Farmers Weekly Podcast Live at Cereals30:23 – Sainsbury’s white eggs and trailer safety33:53 – Market prices36:16 – Open Farm Sunday celebrates 20 years40:23 – Why public engagement matters43:11 – Closing remarks Useful links Sustainable Farming Incentive guidance Cheffins National Farmers Union Association of Independent Meat Suppliers British Meat Processors Association Food Standards Agency Open Farm Sunday LEAF Tilly Pass trailer safety Farmers Weekly stage at Cereals This episode of the Farmers Weekly Podcast is co-hosted by Johann Tasker, Louise Impey and Hugh Broom. Edited and produced by Johann Tasker. We love to hear from you: - Contact or follow Johann: linkedin.com/in/johanntasker/ Contact or follow Louise: linkedin.com/in/louise-impey-95470b20b/ Contact or follow Hugh: linkedin.com/in/hugh-broom-9b11906a/ For Farmers Weekly, visit fwi.co.uk or follow linkedin.com/company/farmers-weekly To contact, sponsor or advertise on the Farmers Weekly Podcast, email podcast@fwi.co.uk. In the UK, you can also text the word FARM followed by your message to 88 44 0. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A judgement from the High Court yesterday ruled that the Food Standards Agency has been 'unlawfully' charging abattoirs too much and that it wasn't transparent enough about what it was charging for. The ruling comes after a legal challenge by the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers.Developers of small-scale hydro-energy projects say the industry's missing out on investment because of a heavy focus on wind and solar. Scotland in particular has long been a pioneer of cheap hydro-electricity, but companies say the current contracts to supply power are squeezing them out of the market. All week we're hearing about the current challenges facing upland farmers right across the UK and how they're dealing with them. Farming in the hills can be an isolated, even lonely, business. But a group of farmers scattered across the uplands of Shropshire have joined forces to pool ideas.Presented by Caz Graham and produced by Beatrice Fenton.With thanks to British Pathé Archive.

Headlines: Trump rebuked by Congress over war powers, as Iran and Lebanon agree to new ceasefire Elderly man was stabbed before shooting home invader in rural NSW Melbourne Neo-Nazis convicted over ANZAC Day boos, as High Court dismisses hate group challenge Mary the Tassie Devil is still on the loose Follow The Briefing: TikTok: @thebriefingpod Instagram: @thebriefingpodcast YouTube: @TheBriefingPodcast See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics and committed to preserving the Constitution by deciding on complex legal issues. Critics of the High Court, especially on the left, say that is no longer the case. But Sarah Isgur writes in "The Last Branch Standing" SCOTUS is holding to its charge.

Matthew Ridge is one of New Zealand's most recognisable sporting figures - All Blacks captain, NRL star, television personality. But behind the swagger and the highlights reel is a story most people have never heard.Originally released in 2024 and one of our most popular episodes, we're bringing this one back because it deserves to be heard again.Ridgey sits down with Steve and Seamus to tell it all. At 16, he was wrongfully convicted of aggravated robbery - three High Court trials, a 14-year sentence hanging over his head, and a sports career that nearly never happened.He talks about growing up without his father, finding mental toughness through tennis, and the moment he got a voicemail from Graham Lowe asking if he wanted to play rugby league for Manly.He opens up about the NRL years, the TV relationship with Marc Ellis - and he talks honestly about his meth use, functioning as an addict while the cameras rolled, and the moment he looked at a photo of himself and saw no light in his eyes.This is Matthew Ridge like you've never heard him before.Between Two Beers is proudly brought to you by One New Zealand. We believe that One NZ connects New Zealand, while Between Two Beers connects New Zealanders. And together, we are NZ's most trusted connection platform.Steve and Seamus are proud to be dressed by Barkers Clothing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Actor and Hollywood stuntman Erik “All Day” Audé joins The Connect for one of the most intense stories ever told on the channel. In 2002, Erik was arrested in Pakistan after unknowingly being used as a drug mule and accused of attempting to smuggle narcotics through the airport. What followed was a nightmare: a death sentence, years inside one of Pakistan's most dangerous maximum-security prisons, brutal conditions, riots, violence, corruption, and the constant fear that he would be the next prisoner executed. Erik breaks down how he was deceived, what life on death row was really like, how he survived the prison system, and how he eventually fought his way back to freedom after proving his innocence. He also talks about his career as a stuntman, the importance of safety on film sets, and the lessons he learned from surviving the unimaginable. This is a story about betrayal, survival, faith, justice, and what it takes to keep fighting when the entire system is against you. Go Support Erik! Book: https://www.amazon.com/Years-Pakistan-Erik-Aud%C3%A9-Story/dp/B0D1YFHP5X Movie: https://www.amazon.com/Years-Pakistan-Erik-Aud%C3%A9-Story/dp/B07FSRBWGL Aude's Ice Cream Bar: https://www.instagram.com/audes_ice_cream_bar/ Tipsy Cow Bar and Grill: https://www.instagram.com/tipsycowshermanoaks/ Wine Bar: https://www.instagram.com/buvettela/ This Episode Is #Sponsored By The Following: Betterhelp! You don't have to be on this journey alone. Find support and have someone with you in therapy. Sign up and get 10% off at https://betterhelp.com/connect Lucy! Find LUCY near you at https://lucy.co/stores or save 20% on your first online order at https://lucy.co/CONNECT with promo code CONNECT. Join The Patreon For Bonus Content! https://www.patreon.com/theconnectshow 00:00 Erik Audé's Nightmare: Pakistan Death Row 01:39 Introducing Erik's Story & Book 03:11 Hollywood Stunt Work & Industry Dangers 07:53 On-Set Injuries & Stunt Safety Culture 13:32 Behind the Scenes: Drug Smuggling Logistics 16:08 Exploiting Drivers & Realities of US-Mexico Smuggling 18:29 Deception Schemes: Mules, Tragedy & Innocent Couriers 20:15 This Episode Is Sponsored By Betterhelp 21:24 How Eric Became a Dupe in the Drug Trade 29:34 Pakistan's Corrupt Justice System & Bribery in Courts 33:24 This Episode Is Sponsored By Lucy 34:56 Erik's Recruitment—A Glamorous Leather Industry Cover 46:14 Erik's First Suspicious Smuggling Trips 55:02 The Trip to Pakistan: Red Flags and Arrest 01:03:54 Jailed in Pakistan: Culture Shock and Danger 01:14:17 Abuse, Survival, and Corruption Inside Prison 01:25:27 Violence, Survival, and Learning the System 01:41:09 Erik's Survival Tactics and Prison Power Plays 01:54:28 Prison Riots, Boxing, and Navigating Pakistani Jail Hierarchy 02:15:33 Appeals, Pakistani Lawyers, and Winning Respect 02:35:07 Fighting for Freedom: Legal Maneuvering from the Inside 02:57:06 High Court, Vindication, and Leaving Pakistan 03:02:39 Return Home, Civil Suit, and Final Justice 03:11:00 Erik Today: Lessons, Life After Prison & Reflections 03:13:33 Final Thoughts & Where to Find Erik's Story Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

There have been more than 390 suspected cases and more than 80 reported deaths from the new species of Ebola, according to the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. The infection has already spread from the Democratic Republic of Congo to neighbouring Uganda, while Rwanda and South Sudan are now on "high alert". Health officials are warning that the variant is deadlier than previous outbreaks. Also: International efforts to contain the Hantavirus are ongoing, as the cruise ship at the centre of the outbreak arrives in the Netherlands for disinfection. The Ukrainian military claim Russian forces are preparing for a major offensive in the summer. Spain's High Court has acquitted the Colombian singer Shakira of tax fraud and ordered her to get almost $65,000,000 in fines she had paid, plus interest. We get the latest on the Italian tourists who went missing whilst scuba diving in the Maldives. Why Swatch's Royal Pop collaboration with the Swiss luxury watch brand Audemars Piguet is causing chaos at shops around the world... and the drink that's putting an end to France's long-term love affair with wine.The Global News Podcast brings you the breaking news you need to hear, as it happens. Listen for the latest headlines and current affairs from around the world. Politics, economics, climate, business, technology, health – we cover it all with expert analysis and insight. Get the news that matters, delivered twice a day on weekdays and daily at weekends, plus special bonus episodes reacting to urgent breaking stories. Follow or subscribe now and never miss a moment. Get in touch: globalpodcast@bbc.co.uk

On today's Legally Speaking Podcast, I'm delighted to be joined by Sam Grimley. Sam is a Barrister at One Essex Court. He specialises in commercial, competition and intellectual property litigation and has appeared in disputes before the High Court, IPEC and UKIPO. Before pursuing a career at the Bar, Sam worked with artists including Sir Tom Jones, Ed Sheeran and Jessie J. So why should you be listening in? You can hear Rob and Sam discussing:- Career Transition from Music to Law- Transferable Skills and How to Use Them Well- Resilience Through Hardship and Academic Challenges- The Importance of Seeking Feedback and Mentorship- Current Practice and Specialist Legal Work at One Essex CourtConnect with Sam Grimley here - https://uk.linkedin.com/in/sam-grimley-47105224

As Donald Trump leaves Beijing after meeting Xi Jinping, how much did this diplomacy accomplish? Plus, does Dr. Marty Makary's resignation at the FDA signal an agency turn? And the High Court halts an appellate ruling against mail-order mifepristone, the abortion pill, with no liberal dissents about the "shadow docket." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 2026 primary season is in full swing, and this year, many sitting lawmakers face challenges from both the left and the right. One Republican incumbent fighting to keep his seat is Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA). He faces multiple primary challengers this Saturday, including Louisiana Congresswoman Julia Letlow, who has been endorsed by President Trump. Senator Cassidy joins the Rundown to discuss his upcoming primary and his controversial vote to impeach President Trump during his first term. He also weighs in on rising gas prices and Louisiana's ongoing redistricting fight. This year, America celebrates 250 years of independence. While many complain about how polarized the country has become, someone with a front-row seat to the inner workings of American government says the United States has overcome much greater challenges than those it faces today. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joins the Rundown to discuss how early patriots risked their lives for freedom, his judicial approach on the High Court, and why he hopes to educate younger generations through his new children's book, Heroes of 1776: The Story of the Declaration of Independence. PLUS, Commentary by New York Post Columnist Karol Markowicz on older generations' use of phones and an alarming rise in screen time. PHOTO CREDIT: ASSOCIATED PRESS  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The U.S. Supreme Court has, in the words of the Native American Rights Fund, diluted Native Americans' “ability to secure good schools, adequate infrastructure, health care access, environmental protections, and economic opportunity.” Louisiana is moving fast to redraw voting districts to further minimize the political power of Native Americans and other minorities. Other states are preparing similar changes. The High Court's recent invalidation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act follows the 2013 decision striking down the Act's Section 5. That eliminates the most powerful tools Native voters had in challenging the long history of demonstrated efforts to exclude Native voices from political dialogue. We'll examine the looming implications of the Court's decisions and examine the strategies Native voting advocates have going forward. We'll also discuss some important indicators for Native candidates in pivotal races, including the potential for history to be made in the upcoming Midterm Elections. GUESTS Patty Ferguson-Bohnee (Pointe-au-Chien), professor of law at Arizona State University and Native Vote Election Protection coordinator for the State of Arizona Torey Dolan (Choctaw), assistant professor of law at the University of Wisconsin Law School Samantha Blencke, senior staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund Mark Trahant (Shoshone-Bannock), journalist and former editor of ICT Marjorie Childress, managing editor of New Mexico In Depth Break 1 Music: Fool's Paradise (song) Samantha Crain (artist) Gumshoe (album) Break 2 Music: Fearless I Live (song) Courtney Yellow Fat (artist) The Lost Songs of Sitting Bull (album)

It's EV News Briefly for Wednesday 13 May 2026, everything you need to know in less than 5 minutes if you haven't got time for the full show.Patreon supporters fund this show, get the episodes ad free, as soon as they're ready and are part of the EV News Daily Community. You can be like them by clicking here: https://www.patreon.com/EVNewsDailyBYD PLANS EUROPE-BUILT CARS FOR EUROPEBYD will design and develop a series of purpose-built models for European consumers over the next three years, starting with the Dolphin G PHEV — set to debut in June and making its UK public appearance at Goodwood in July. Executive VP Stella Li has directed engineers to keep European variants under 4.3 metres, with separate B- and C-segment standards, as BYD stops adapting China-market models and instead builds vehicles tailored to dense European cities.MAZDA DELAYS DEDICATED EV TO 2029Mazda has pushed back its first dedicated EV platform by two years to 2029 and cut EV investment by nearly half, shifting resources toward hybrids and China-sourced electrified products. Before 2029, Mazda will sell China-built EVs — effectively rebadged Changan Automobile models — in Europe, Australia, and Southeast Asia.AUTOMAKERS SEEK NEW EU CO2 CONCESSIONSVolkswagen Group, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz met EU officials in Brussels on 13 May to press for further flexibility on the bloc's 2035 emissions targets, despite having already won concessions just months ago. Germany's VDA lobby warned that the country's auto sector could shed up to 125,000 additional jobs by 2035 without meaningful improvement in competitiveness.OPEL PREVIEWS 207 KW CORSA GSEOpel has revealed the all-electric Corsa GSE, which it claims will be the fastest-accelerating production Opel ever built, with a 0–100 km/h time of 5.5 seconds from a front-mounted 207 kW permanent magnet motor. The car rides on Stellantis' e-CMP platform and features a Torsen limited-slip differential, Alcon four-piston brakes, lowered sports suspension, and uprated battery thermal management.AUSTRALIA DELAYS FEDERAL EV ROAD CHARGEAustralia's federal government has paused its EV road user charge, opting to first develop a coordinated policy with state and territory governments following the High Court's 2023 ruling that struck down Victoria's version. The budget also restructures EV fringe benefits tax support, narrowing the full FBT exemption from April 2027 to EVs priced at A$75,000 or below on novated leases, before shifting to a 25% FBT reduction for all EVs under the luxury car tax threshold from April 2029.GERMAN OPERATORS BACK ELECTRIC TRUCKSA German study by the Institute for Applied Ecology found that 93% of transport companies already running electric trucks are satisfied or very satisfied, citing high reliability, driving comfort, and low operating costs. The same share expect electric trucks to become the standard fleet vehicle by 2030, though operators flagged high upfront costs and depot grid connection complexity as the main barriers.AI CHARGING METHOD CUTS EV BATTERY WEARResearchers at Chalmers University of Technology have developed an AI-driven fast-charging method using reinforcement learning that extends EV battery life by 23% without adding to charge times. The system adapts charging current to each battery's state of health and electrochemistry in real time, reducing internal wear and the risk of lithium plating compared to current one-size-fits-all charging protocols.FIRST BUS TESTS DEPOTS AS GRID ASSETSFirst Bus has launched a trial using its electric bus depot infrastructure to support the National Grid, intelligently scheduling charging to absorb surplus Scottish wind power that would otherwise be curtailed. The UK's largest electric bus operator, with over 1,400 zero-emission vehicles, argues the scheme can cut wasted renewable energy, support grid stability, and improve the economics of fleet electrification.LUCID PUTS UK LAUNCH BACK TO 2028Lucid has delayed its UK market entry to early 2028 — the third such postponement — with European President Lawrence Hamilton saying the firm must sequence its expansion carefully after entering seven or eight more continental European markets in 2026 first. Lucid will skip bringing the current Air and Gravity models to the UK, instead launching only on its new mid-size 800-volt platform with the Cosmos coupé-crossover and Earth SUV variants, built on the Atlas drive unit that cuts manufacturing costs by 37%.UK E-VAN RULES EASE FROM 2026From June 2026, the UK government will remove regulatory barriers for electric vans weighing between 3.5 and 4.25 tonnes, aligning them with equivalent diesel and petrol vehicles under the Class 7 MOT framework with a first MOT due after three years rather than one. Driver hours rules will also change, removing mandatory tachograph use and base-distance restrictions, with operators set to save up to 60% on MOT costs under the new regime.UK USED EV SALES HIT Q1 RECORDUK used EV sales hit a record 86,943 units in Q1 2026, up 32% year on year, with around one in 23 used car buyers choosing an EV compared to one in 30 in the same period last year. The surge is being driven by growing used EV supply from strong prior new car sales, lower prices, and improving buyer confidence in battery longevity.