The3million, British in Europe, ILPA and other legal and advocacy organisations have written to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, requesting changes to Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules. The letter addresses the situation of non-EEA family members of British citizens who entered the UK under the Surinder Singh route and have lived in the UK for extended periods.

the3million, British in Europe, and Immigration Law Practitioners' Association (ILPA) have written to Parliamentary Under-Secretary Mike Tapp MP requesting postponement of Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) enforcement beyond 25 February 2026 and implementation of transitional measures for British dual nationals. From the enforcement date, British citizens holding another nationality will be unable to travel to the UK without a valid UK passport or certificate of entitlement, whereas previously they could use their other nationality passport if not visa-exempt. The organisations propose seven transitional measures, including temporary authorisation costing no more than £16 (matching ETA fees) for dual nationals whose British citizenship can be verified through naturalisation certificates or previous UK passports. They cite Canadian precedent, where similar enforcement was delayed by eight months and special authorisation remains available for dual Canadian citizens. The letter highlights cases where British dual nationals already hold ETAs on non-UK passports and have experienced complex passport renewal issues due to name alignment requirements between different nationality documents.

• Is the statement within the meaning of Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003)? Hearsay is: ◦ a statement made by a person (but not a machine), including in a sketch, photofit, or other pictorial form ◦ out of court ◦ relied on for the truth of any matter stated ◦ the purpose of the maker of the statement was to cause another person to believe or act, or machine to operate, on the basis that the matter stated was true ◦ See: Identifying hearsay in criminal proceedings • If it is not hearsay: ◦ identify the proposed gateway and set out why the

Evidence of bad character • identify the evidence of bad character Check: ◦ whether the evidence falls within the meaning of bad character under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) (if not, the statutory gateway(s) of admissibility will not apply) ◦ if the evidence is not bad character, why the evidence may be relevant • summarise the grounds on which the evidence ought to be admitted Identify: ◦ the appropriate statutory gateway(s) (CJA 2003, ss 101–106) ◦ the purpose(s) for which the evidence is relevant ◦ whether it is proposed to rely on the fact of a previous conviction and/or the circumstances of it ◦ if it is proposed to rely on the circumstances of a previous conviction, the critical facts and how they are to be proved ◦ if the misconduct consists of unproven allegations or an offence for which the defendant has been acquitted: ‣ the relevant facts ‣ if these are in dispute, the areas of dispute

This Checklist summarises the main issues which need to be considered when seeking to make an application to introduce hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) and should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. • Identify the hearsay statements sought to be relied upon • Identify the gateway(s) under which the statements are said to be admissible • Make submissions on the grounds for admissibility relevant to the appropriate gateway(s) • If an application is made under CJA 2003, s 116 (unavailable witness), ensure: ◦ the maker of the statement has been identified to the court’s satisfaction, and ◦ oral evidence by the unavailable witness would otherwise have been admissible (ie it is relevant) and ◦ the

Evidence of bad character • Identify the bad character objected to. Check: ◦ does the evidence of bad character fall within the meaning of 'bad character' under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003)? • Summarise the grounds on which it is said the evidence ought not to be admitted. Identify: ◦ the statutory gateway(s) in dispute ◦ any other reason why the evidence should be excluded, eg on grounds of unfairness under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and/or CJA 2003, s 101(3) (exclusion of evidence under gateway 101(1)(d) (propensity) or s 101(1)(g) (attack on another person's character) or s 103(3) (unjust to admit convictions by reason of the age of the conviction) ◦ why the evidence is not relevant • Deal with the grounds of objection in sequence by reference to the appropriate statutory gateway(s) (CJA 2003, ss 102–106). See Practice Notes: Admissibility of defendant's bad character in

A member of the Faculty of Advocates (the Scottish Bar) able to appear in all courts within Scotland, the UK Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

A member of the Scottish Bar appointed by Her Majesty's Advocate to prosecute criminal cases.

EU Law analysis: In one of the rare design cases before the Court of Justice, Advocate General (AG), Emiliou, recently had the opportunity to clarify some fundamental requirements of protection for EU designs (Deity Shoes v Mundorama Confort and Stay Design, Opinion of 19 June 2025). Written by Mareike Hunfeld, counsel at Hogan Lovells.

IP analysis: The Advocate General (AG) has given an opinion in relation to requests for a preliminary ruling in the context of a dispute between the Amazon group and Christian Louboutin. Louboutin alleged direct liability for trade mark infringement on the basis that, by displaying advertisements for red-soled shoes relating to goods which had been placed on the market without his consent, Amazon had used a sign that was identical to his trade marks for goods or services which were identical to those for which the trade marks were registered, and, in particular, that the advertisements at issue formed an integral part of Amazon’s commercial communication. However, the AG opined that the specific features of Amazon’s business practices did not support the finding that a sign had been ‘used’ by Amazon within the meaning of EU law.

IP analysis: Under EU law, a trade mark may be revoked if its use by the proprietor will mislead the public as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the concerned goods. This rule has previously been interpreted in the context of the use of trade marks consisting of the surname of the designer who initially produced the applicable goods, in circumstances where that designer’s involvement in the company that owns those trade marks has ended. In Emanuel v Continental Shelf, Case C‑259/04, it was held that the mere severance of the link between a designer and the proprietor of a trade mark does not result in the trade mark being deceptive and therefore vulnerable to revocation. Some interpreted this to mean that the revocation of a patronymic trade mark was precluded in a scenario such as that described above. However, in this case, the Advocate General has gone further and opined that it should be possible to bring a revocation action against a trade mark for the original designer’s name which has been assigned to a third party, on the grounds that it is used in a manner which causes consumers to believe that the designer is still involved in the production of the applicable goods, when that is no longer a reality. Written by Amanda McDowall (partner) and Sophie Anim (senior associate) at Lee & Thompson LLP.

IP analysis: The case of CG, YN v Pelham GmbH, SD, UP examines whether a two-second sample from the claimant’s song which is used in a hip-hop track qualifies for the pastiche exception under Article 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29/EC (the EU InfoSoc Directive). Advocate General (AG) Emiliou opined that, to fall within the pastiche exception, the work at issue must be noticeably different from the source material and must be intended to be recognised as an imitation. The definition of pastiche has not yet been considered by the Court of Justice, potentially making this an important case for creatives industries.