Question Correct answer 1. What is slavery? (e) all of the above 2. Which of these could alert you to the fact that someone may be a victim of slavery and human trafficking? (e) all of the above 3. What, in particular, should organisations play close attention to in order

How to use this test These questions are designed to test your understanding after your attendance at training on anti-slavery. After you have completed this test, please return it to [insert name]. General Name of person completing test [Insert name] Role [Insert role] Date [Insert date] Multiple choice questions Circle the correct answer. Question Multiple choice answers 1. What is slavery? (a) the obligation to provide services is imposed by the use of coercion(b) exercising powers of ownership over a person(c) arranging or facilitating the travel of another person with a view to their exploitation(d) work or services are exacted from

Please click for an Excel version of this register. General Course name/description [Insert course name/description] Reason

Reform of anti-social behaviour powers (2014) The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014) has reformed the tools available for dealing with anti-social behaviour (ASB). The aim was to consolidate remedies and to make the process simpler and more effective. In July 2014, the government issued new statutory guidance Reform of anti-social behaviour powers: statutory guidance for frontline professionals. This guidance was updated in August 2019, in January 2021 to include the Sentencing Code, introduced by the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020) which repealed and replaced ABCPA 2014, Pt 2, in June 2022 to include the Expedited Public Spaces Protection Orders, and again in March 2023 to coincide with the launch of the ASB Action Plan and to promote greater consistency of the powers and tools. The first part of the statutory guidance is focused on putting the victim first by putting them at the centre of the response to the anti-social behaviour; whereas the second part of the guidance focuses on the use of the legal powers provided to local agencies

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The Crime and Policing Act 2026 will increase the maximum fixed penalty notice for breach of a Community Protection Notice, Public Spaces Protection Order or Expedited Public Spaces Protection Order from £100 to £500. It will also enable accredited persons to be given powers to issue fixed penalty notices for these breaches and require new guidance on their issue to be provided to chief officers of police and local authorities. These changes are due to come into force on 26 October 2026. This content will be updated as the changes come into force. For more information, see: Crime and Policing Act 2026 (Commencement No 3 and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/960. This Practice Note explains the powers available to deal with anti-social behaviour in an environmental context, in particular those introduced by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014). Community Protection Notices What is a Community Protection Notice and what is its purpose? The purpose of a Community Protection Notice (CPN) is

Reform of anti-social behaviour powers (2014) The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014) received Royal Assent on 13 March 2014. It has reformed the tools available for dealing with anti-social behaviour (ASB). The aim was to consolidate remedies and to make the process simpler and more effective. The government has issued statutory guidance, which is updated and revised regularly, ‘Anti-social behaviour powers: statutory guidance for frontline professionals’. In July 2022, the Home Office published the Anti-social behaviour principles developed by the Anti-social Behaviour Strategic Board to describe a consistent approach to understanding and addressing ASB in local communities. The web of formal powers available to the police and local authorities and other agencies to tackle ASB is streamlined to several key remedies: • civil injunctions. See Practice Note: Anti-social Behaviour—the Civil Injunction • criminal behaviour orders. See Practice Note: Anti-social behaviour—the criminal behaviour order (CBO) • dispersal powers. See Q&A: What powers of dispersal are available to the police and/or a local authority

Reform of anti-social behaviour powers (2014) The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ABCPA 2014) has reformed the tools available for dealing with anti-social behaviour (ASB). The aim was to consolidate remedies and to make the process simpler and more effective. In July 2014, the government issued new statutory guidance ‘Reform of anti-social behaviour powers: statutory guidance for frontline professionals’. This guidance was updated in August 2019, in January 2021 to include the Sentencing Code, introduced by the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020) which repealed and replaced ABCPA 2014, Pt 2, and has been revised regularly since. The first part of the statutory guidance is focused on putting the victim first by putting them at the centre of the response to the ASB. Overall a very strong emphasis is put on ensuring that the powers are used appropriately and proportionately to the specific behaviour causing harm or nuisance. In July 2022, the Home Office published the Anti-social behaviour principles developed by the Anti-social Behaviour Strategic Board to describe a consistent approach

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore High Court dismissed the claimant’s application for a permanent anti-suit injunction restraining the pursuit of foreign legal proceedings commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement between parties. It found that the claimant had unduly delayed the commencement of its application and that considerations of comity militated against the grant of anti-suit relief. In addition, the court found that the injunction sought was in substance an anti-enforcement injunction seeking to enjoin the defendant from relying on or enforcing the foreign judgements issued, and would be an indirect interference with the execution of those foreign judgments. The court further held that the claimant failed to make disclosure of material facts, in breach of the duty on litigants to make full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications. Written by Rob Palmer, partner and Shi Jin Chia, senior associate at Hogan Lovells Lee & Lee.

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: On 29 November 2016, LaMia Flight CP 2933 ran out of fuel and crashed into mountainous terrain in Colombia, killing 71 of its 77 passengers. LaMia were found to be at fault. The crash survivors and deceased’s personal representatives (the ‘Individuals’) sued LaMia and others in Florida, securing a US$844m default judgment following which they sought to join Bisa (LaMia’s insurer), TMK and others (the ‘Reinsurers’) and to file a Third-Party Complaint against those entities and Aon. Aon and the Reinsurers in turn applied for anti-suit injunctive relief against the Individuals in the English Commercial Court and were granted that relief on an interim basis. On the return date, Simon Salzedo KC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) determined that the original injunction in favour of Aon should continue but the interim injunction in favour of the Reinsurers was discharged, the judge disagreeing that the Florida proceedings were vexatious or oppressive. Charlotte Eborall of 3VB Chambers in London explains the reasons given by the judge for his decision and comments on the useful summary provided in the judgment of the legal principles relating to non-contractual and quasi-contractual anti-suit injunctive relief.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) granted an anti-suit injunction (ASI) to restrain foreign proceedings seeking to challenge a decision by an arbitral tribunal. The seat of the arbitration was Singapore, and the Singapore courts had exclusive jurisdiction to determine any such challenge. The court summarised the principles applicable to the issue of ASIs and concluded that the requirements for an ASI were met and there was no good reason not to grant it. Although the defendant was linked to a foreign government, it did not enjoy sovereign immunity because it was a ‘separate entity’ and the contract was a ‘commercial transaction’. Written by Rob Palmer, partner, Shi Jin Chia, senior associate, and Hugo Petit, associate, at Hogan Lovells.

This Precedent claim form, with accompanying Drafting Notes, is for making an anti-suit injunction application to restrain or discontinue litigation

Claim No: [Insert details] In the high court of justice business and property courts of england and wales Commercial court (KBD) OR Claim No: [Insert details] In the high court of justice business and property courts in [insert location] [specify division] [specify specialist court] Before justice [Insert name] In the matter of AN arbitration And in an arbitration claim Between: 1 [CLAIMANT’S NAME] Claimant and 2 [DEFENDANT’S NAME] Defendant Draft order Upon the application of the Claimant dated [insert date] And upon reading the evidence submitted, including