Mark Elliott

One of the highlights of one of the Covid lockdowns was the arrival of hard copies of the new edition of my textbook; the feline member of the household, who loves boxes rather than books, was also delighted.

Congratulations, Hester! I’m so pleased to see this.

The cover of a book. Text reads Textile Shakespeare. The lower part of the image is ink printed on linen and embroidery, black on white, with some silver thread, with flowers, fruit, insects, and animals. it is discoloured with age.

TEXTILE SHAKESPEARE is official-publication-date-minus-2-weeks (11 November) which is a LOT👀 (I can't remember feeling this wound up about other books, I have the concentration of a gnat at the moment🙄) but seems to be live as an e-book already so, available to your Kindle right now, apparently...

This latest "barrister meets AI" disaster is something all stage 1 law students should read. It is vital about the key skill of case reading - you mustn't use AI to substitute for the skill of being able to find cases and find key content in cases:

tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-202...

NEW - UPDATE POST

Did the CPS make a fundamental mistake with the charging decision in the Chinese spying case?

How the CPS may have asked the wrong legal question and so made a wrong charging decision

By me

emptycity.substack.com/p/did-the-cp...

Trying to make sense of the China spy case? Join @profmarkelliott.bsky.social, @ruthfox.bsky.social & @darcyxtip.bsky.social on our Parliament Matters podcast as they unpack the key issues and what they mean for Parliament.

🎧 New episode out tomorrow. Listen and subscribe here: pod.link/1714627828

Agree. But, as I say in my blogpost, the fact that they felt able to include (irrelevant) information about their current view undermines their argument that they considered themselves wholly bound by the previous government's view, and underlines that they could have, but chose not to, say more.

No winners in the China espionage blame game: Six outstanding questions for prosecutors and ministers Now-published Government witness statements submitted to prosecutors in the China espionage case cast only limited light on what happened. In this post, I outline six key questions that remain to b…

Many thanks. I agree with much of your analysis, although I think it was open to the DNSA to reflect in statements 2 and 3 the *current* government's view of the 2021-23 threat. Full argument here in a post reflecting on the witness statements: publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/10/16/n...

No winners in the China espionage blame game: Six outstanding questions for prosecutors and ministers Now-published Government witness statements submitted to prosecutors in the China espionage case cast only limited light on what happened. In this post, I outline six key questions that remain to b…

New post, following publication of the Deputy National Security Adviser's witness statements in the China case:

No winners in the China espionage blame game: Six outstanding questions for prosecutors and ministers

publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/10/16/n...

Arthur Rank Hospice media campaign left bad taste, says NHS CEO An NHS boss says the hospice beds that funding has been pulled from were

An extraordinary outburst—directed at a small hospice charity subject to devastating funding cuts—from the CEO of a major NHS trust. I doubt that Arthur Rank Hospices's patients and families share his assessment of the 'value' of the oustanding care provided. www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

🤣

Thanks Colin

Ultimately, while the witness statements move things on to a degree, much remains unclear, with outstanding questions for both the CPS and the government. 6/6

If so, was the decision not to do so taken without reference to the NSA or Ministers? If so, why, given the Deputy NSA’s witness statements are in part reflecting the current government’s policy that he cannot unilaterally formulate and for which Ministers are responsible? /5

When the CPS decided the three witness statements combined were insufficient, was the Deputy NSA told what the perceived gaps were so that he could decide whether to strengthen the language? /4

While the Deputy NSA does not in terms describe China as a threat to national security, the language is strong in places: harm to security of UK; threat to economy, resilience and democratic integrity of UK. Why did the CPS think this insufficient? /3

In the third statement, issued under the current government, the Deputy NSA describes this government’s China policy (co-operate, compete, challenge). How does that relate to PM’s insistence that only the previous government’s policy is relevant? /2

Witness statements in relation to alleged breach of Official Secrets Act on behalf of China As the Prime Minister said in the House, he has carefully considered this matter and, following legal advice, the Prime Minister decided to disclose the witness statements in full.

A few preliminary thoughts on/questions prompted by the China espionage case witness statements, which have now been published. /1 www.gov.uk/government/p...

Sorry to hear that!

World at One - 15/10/2025 - BBC Sounds News, analysis and comment from BBC Radio 4

I was pleased to speak with Sarah Montague on BBC Radio 4's The World at One today about the latest developments concerning the collapse of the China espionage trial.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/...

Excellent, forensic analysis of the many twists and turns (so far) of the China espionage case.

The more one knows about this case, the more confusing it becomes. The CPS insists on further evidence it does not require, and the government insists it could not give that evidence, even though it could. Neither side makes sense, and together they make no sense absolutely.

NEW

Trying to make sense of the nonsensical decision to drop the Chinese spying prosecutions

How the positions of neither the CPS nor the government stand up to scrutiny

By me

emptycity.substack.com/p/trying-to-...

Parliamentlive.tv House of Commons

I was pleased to hear my analysis of the China espionage case being relied on by the Leader of the Opposition in yesterday’s House of Commons debate. parliamentlive.tv/event/index/...

* ie his account taken at face value.

Yes, absolutely. (In post, I explain that I am trying to provide explanations that fit the Minister's factual account to the House of Commons, but I certainly don't discount your sixth possibility.)

Cock-up or conspiracy? The Security Minister’s statement on the China espionage case The Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, has made a statement to the House of Commons regarding the collapse of the prosecution of two individuals who had been accused of espionage contrary to section 1(…

New post, in which I argue the government's attempt to pin the blame for the collapse of the China spy trial on a single official will not wash constitutionally. Ministers must bear responsibility for an apparently deeply flawed decision-making process.

publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/10/13/c...

In the post, I reflect on the Security Minister's statement to the House of Commons on the collapse of the China espionage case. I conclude that if a single official really is responsible, Ministers cannot evade responsibility for an inadequate decision-making system. 2/2

Cock-up or conspiracy? The Security Minister’s statement on the China espionage case The Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, has made a statement to the House of Commons regarding the collapse of the prosecution of two individuals who had been accused of espionage contrary to section 1(…

New post | Cock-up or conspiracy? The Security Minister’s statement on the China espionage case /1 publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/10/13/c...

The principle of legality and heightened-scrutiny rationality review: The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Spitalfields case The Supreme Court’s judgment in R (The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2025] UKSC 11 traverses some important ground concerning the principle of legal…

The court's treatment of the principle of legality reflects aspects of the Supreme Court's recent approach in Spitalfields, which I criticised in this post for the unnecessarily 'all or nothing' approach adopted to the applicaation of the principle. 2/2 publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/03/28/t...

Conor Crummey: The Principle of Legality, the Definition of ‘Terrorism’, and Palestine Action Two judgments have so far been handed down in the matter of R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; the challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as …

A very helpful post on the Palestine Action judicial review so far. In particular, I agree with @conorcrummey.bsky.social that the court's approach to the argument concering ultra vires/the principle of legality was problematic. /1
ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/10/13/c...