March 2025 has delivered a series of substantive legal decisions that further illuminate the direction of contemporary English and Welsh jurisprudence, alongside significant developments from the UK Supreme Court. This month’s roundup offers an analytical examination of notable decisions across public law, criminal justice, planning, employment rights, and human rights. We also explore key matters scheduled for judicial consideration in April, with a focus on their legal, procedural, and societal implications.

I. MARCH 2025 – KEY JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

1. R (Palmer) v HM Coroner for the County of Nottinghamshire [2025] UKSC 12

– The Expanding Procedural Duty under Article 2 ECHR

The Supreme Court’s unanimous judgment in Palmer further consolidates the jurisprudential expansion of Article 2’s procedural dimension in the context of inquests involving state responsibility. The case concerned the death of a vulnerable adult in supported accommodation, where systemic failures were alleged.

The Court held that where there is an arguable breach of the state's operational duty under Article 2, a coroner is obliged to hold a Middleton inquest that satisfies the investigatory obligations of the ECHR. This decision reflects the Court’s ongoing commitment to a purposive interpretation of the Convention, aligning domestic procedural obligations with Strasbourg principles, particularly in contexts involving healthcare providers and local authorities performing public functions.

Legal practitioners engaged in inquests or public authority defence should anticipate a recalibration of when enhanced inquests are required, particularly in healthcare, social services, and custodial environments.

2. Tesco Stores Ltd v Birmingham City Council [2025] EWHC 581 (Admin)

– Judicial Deference in Planning Decisions and the Primacy of Local Plans

In this significant administrative law ruling, the High Court rejected Tesco’s challenge against the refusal of planning permission for a major redevelopment project. The central issue was whether the local planning authority had properly considered the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) against the backdrop of its Local Plan and the potential socio-environmental impacts.

Mr Justice Holgate underscored the discretion afforded to planning authorities in applying local policies where consistent with national guidance, reiterating the principle from Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] UKSC 37. The court gave considerable weight to cumulative environmental impacts and community objections, reaffirming that judicial review is not a vehicle for re-evaluating planning merits.

This case provides authoritative clarification for developers navigating complex planning environments, highlighting the need for detailed environmental assessments and robust community engagement.

3. R v Malik [2025] EWCA Crim 308

– Coercive Control and Sentencing: A Reaffirmation of Seriousness

The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 5 years for controlling and coercive behaviour, despite the absence of physical violence. The judgment reiterates the aggravating nature of coercive conduct and the statutory intent behind the Serious Crime Act 2015, particularly s.76.

The Court rejected arguments that non-violent abuse should attract lower culpability, stating that the psychological devastation inflicted through coercive patterns of control, manipulation, and isolation must be taken seriously within sentencing frameworks.

For criminal law practitioners, this case reaffirms the sentencing judiciary’s zero-tolerance approach to non-physical domestic abuse and may influence future prosecutorial decisions, particularly regarding early charge authorisation and evidential thresholds.

4. XYZ Ltd v Employee A (Employment Tribunal – March 2025)

– Gender-Critical Beliefs and Workplace Expression

Although the tribunal’s decision remains subject to anonymisation and potential appeal, its March ruling builds on the precedent in Forstater v CGD Europe [2021] and confirms that gender-critical beliefs fall within the protection of s.10 Equality Act 2010.

However, the tribunal drew a critical distinction between the existence of a belief and the manifestation of that belief. The employer was found to have acted lawfully in issuing warnings concerning the employee’s conduct, which included offensive social media posts unrelated to legitimate workplace discourse.

This nuanced interpretation reinforces the approach taken in Page v NHS Trust Development Authority [2021] EWCA Civ 255, providing further guidance on the careful balancing act between freedom of belief and maintaining inclusive workplaces.

II. LOOKING AHEAD – LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN APRIL 2025

1. Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Services v Ofsted – Supreme Court Hearing

This landmark appeal centres on the intersection of religious freedom and anti-discrimination law. Cornerstone, a Christian adoption agency, is appealing Ofsted’s decision to rate it inadequately due to its policy of only recruiting evangelical Christian carers.

At stake is whether such recruitment criteria constitute lawful expressions of religious ethos or unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The case will test the scope of the exemptions available under Schedule 23 of the Act and the extent to which charitable bodies may rely on the Human Rights Act 1998 to justify their practices.

2. New Sentencing Guidelines (Effective 1 April 2025)

The Sentencing Council’s updated guidance for firearms offences and disqualification from driving introduces elevated starting points for offences with aggravating public safety risks. Of note is the increased emphasis on intent, public fear, and contextual factors such as gang-related activity or incidents near schools.

Legal practitioners should update risk assessments and client advisories accordingly, particularly in light of the guidance’s increased use of mandatory minimums in particular offences under the Firearms Act 1968 and Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

3. R v Lee – Facial Recognition and the Common Law of Privacy

The Court of Appeal is due to consider the legality of live facial recognition (LFR) technology, previously upheld in Bridges v South Wales Police [2020] EWCA Civ 1058. The appellant argues that LFR breaches the common law right to privacy, the UK GDPR, and Article 8 ECHR.

This will be the first significant appellate-level reconsideration of LFR since the proliferation of AI-driven surveillance tools. A decision restricting or recalibrating LFR use would have broad consequences for policing, public space surveillance, and data rights.

4. Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill – Parliamentary Progress

Having cleared the House of Commons, the Bill enters the Lords in April. Its provisions aim to simplify the leasehold system, reduce ground rents, and make enfranchisement more accessible. The government’s stated goal is to abolish the “feudal” nature of the leasehold system.

Legal professionals in property, conveyancing, and housing law should prepare for significant changes to client advisory services, transactional documentation, and dispute resolution as the Bill advances.

Conclusion

March 2025 has further clarified the legal contours of state responsibility, personal autonomy, and community planning, while April promises high-stakes deliberations on freedom of religion, state surveillance, and criminal culpability. As always, staying ahead of doctrinal developments not only enhances legal practice but deepens our collective understanding of the shifting legal landscape in England and Wales.