Private economic actors wield unprecedented influence over the enjoyment of human rights, yet legal systems remain uneven in their regulation of corporate responsibility. Against this backdrop, this article examines a largely underexplored post‐Brexit trajectory, the regulatory divergence in the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). While the broader effects of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU have been extensively scrutinised, little attention has been paid to how each jurisdiction has sought to prevent and mitigate corporate human rights abuses. Situating its analysis within the UNGP framework, the article offers a comparative examination of the EU emphasis on preventative regulation and the UK reliance on a largely minimalist adjudicative framework. It argues that the UK risks being shaped by external legal pressures while lacking a coherent domestic agenda. Northern Ireland, partially aligned with EU law, is presented both as an example of this fragmented approach to business and human rights regulation and as a hybrid space where the effects of ongoing regulatory developments might be traced and assessed. Ultimately, the analysis situates this divergence within a wider contest over the legitimacy of transnational human rights governance, where state apathy remains a critical but neglected factor in addressing corporate accountability.

Of all the reforms to parole in England and Wales that were introduced after the furore surrounding the 2017 decision to direct the release of the so‐called ‘Black cab rapist’, John Worboys, perhaps the most important was the creation in 2019 of a reconsideration mechanism which obliges the Parole Board (on application) to take a second look at provisional parole decisions after they have been made. In 2022, a second scheme was introduced which permits final parole decisions to be set aside. This article – the first of its kind – considers the fruits of the author's analysis of every reconsideration and set aside decision that was published as of the end of December 2024: more than 1,300 cases in all. It offers a window not just onto how the two schemes are working but onto parole decision‐making generally. The article considers the structure and scope of the schemes; how applications are assessed; the success rates; the grounds presented; and the relationship with judicial review. It asks whether these new mechanisms have achieved what was wanted from them and concludes that, although incremental improvements are warranted, they serve an important function and ought to be allowed to continue to mature.

In R (Finch) v Surrey County Council , the Supreme Court held by a 3:2 majority that Surrey County Council's decision to grant planning permission for an onshore crude oil extraction project was unlawful. The environmental assessment accompanying the application for planning permission – a legally required assessment of the ‘direct and indirect effects’ of a project on the environment – did not consider the greenhouse gas emissions that would arise from the inevitable combustion of the extracted oil. This note analyses the legal reasoning in the case and argues that the Supreme Court's decision does not provide a neat or simple story about climate change adjudication. The dispute was not a legally straightforward case to resolve and entailed deep and detailed engagement with the legislative framework, administrative law and the factual reality of climate change problems. Engaging with this legal complexity is critical to any argument about the proper role of courts in responding to climate change.

This article examines the emerging legal rationalities of EU's green industrial policy, questioning if they represent a departure from the neoliberal paradigm that prioritised safeguarding the competitive order. I argue that the European Green Industrial Plan signals a new role for law in the orchestration and balancing of public purpose and private accumulation. This shift can be understood through a dual thesis of ‘market instrumentalism’ and ‘political capitalism’. Market instrumentalism denotes the emergence of a regulatory regime that casts off value neutrality, seeking to shape markets in alignment with politically determined objectives. Political capitalism captures how public power politicises private accumulation, particularly through strategies of derisking that ensure private profitability while socialising investment risks. These two theses provide a framework to assess whether and to what extent elements of a post‐neoliberal European order are emerging. While the turn to market instrumentalism promises a demystification of markets, which are relegated from ends to means, the politicisation of private accumulation constrains this dynamic by conditioning instrumentalism on the preservation private profitability. The article concludes with a reflection on how the space opened by green industrial policy could be harnessed to democratise the political economy of the green transition.

Both the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act (REULA) and its Regulations 2023/1417 significantly reform UK data protection and raise tensions with the UK's Council of Europe commitments. Whilst including a non‐binding incompatibility mechanism, REULA generally prohibits overriding other law for inconsistency with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Since key UK GDPR standards overlap with Convention 108+, Convention 108 and even the European Convention on Human Rights, there is an increased danger that contrary law will remain unremedied. Even if the Data (Use and Access) Bill partially reverses this, it would still immunise Data Protection Act 2018 exceptions such as those concerning immigration as successfully challenged twice in the Open Rights Group litigation. The Regulations 2023/1417 narrow the meaning of fundamental rights to European Convention rights alone, whereas both Convention 108 and 108+ adopt an open‐textured and fully horizontal understanding which explicitly recognises a right to privacy (and, for Convention 108+, even data protection). There is a danger that these rights will be underweighted in domestic law. However, not only is the UK only a signatory of Convention 108+, but none of the discrete duties or specific rights included in or under any of these instruments, or required under the EU's data adequacy standard, are directly nullified.