‘Hold your nerve’ was a sentiment echoed by many while giving evidence to the Renters (Reform) Bill Committee in November 2023. I, along with other lawyers, representative bodies and interested parties, had been asked to give evidence on the long-awaited bill, currently going through parliament. Earlier in the day, Polly Neate, CEO of Shelter, had urged the government to hold its nerve and not delay the implementation of the bill to wait for court reform, as has now been proposed (see also this month’s ‘Housing: recent developments’). The no fault ground of eviction – Housing Act 1988 s21 – is the main cause of homelessness and we have a chronic housing crisis. It needs reform now.

The civil court does not have the same backlog as the Crown Court. We have a county court that handles possession claims, experienced housing judges and duty solicitors. It needs more funding, as does the whole of the justice sector, but it doesn’t warrant any delay to housing reform.

Other fundamental concerns regarding the bill relate to the additional mandatory grounds of possession that have been included, enabling the landlord to get the property back if they want to sell or if they or a relative need it to reside in (Grounds 1 and 1A). The worry is that unless the evidential burden is tightened or the grounds made discretionary, then this will be a ‘back door’ s21. It has always been my view that all grounds should be discretionary – why wouldn’t you want a judge to decide on whether to take someone’s home away?

November also saw the second in LAG’s series of Rough Justice events sponsored by Garden Court Chambers, which highlighted the Birmingham Four miscarriage of justice case. The men were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2017 after being found guilty of terrorism offences. The key prosecution witness was an undercover officer known only as ‘Vincent’. There was standing room only at the event but I admit that it was a case that I knew little about until now.

The Four’s legal team accuse the police of planting evidence and fabricating their notebooks. Stephen Kamlish KC said that the case stood out in more than 40 years at the Bar. ‘In many miscarriages of justice, you get one small piece of evidence which over the years gains significance and then you can crack the case. But here all the evidence, from the beginning right to the end, has so many features which are palpably false, made-up, fake … Any open-minded observer knowing the evidence would have realised that this case was a fit up organised by a small number of police officers.’1Jon Robins, ‘An utterly Islamophobic verdict by a jury who didn’t care the evidence was bent’, The Justice Gap, 17 February 2023.

We are going fully digital in 2024. I know some of you will be sad to see the paper magazine go but continuing with it in paper form is no longer economically viable for LAG. I have fond memories of Legal Action magazine arriving in the Law Centre office and being the first to peel back the wrapper and pore over the content. I would photocopy (I know, I know) the housing section for my updates folder and put the magazine in my bag to read on the tube on the way home. It often stayed there (I confess sometimes many weeks) until someone asked: ‘Has anyone seen this month’s Legal Action?’

Although times have changed we want to replicate that feeling of having Legal Action available to read whenever you want it, only now it will be on your phone or laptop. For those yet to be persuaded about LAG’s digital-only decision, I offer the same words of advice I made to the government last week, ‘Hold your nerve’ – we will ensure it continues to be the brilliant, authoritative source it has always been.