Today’s roundup takes in the second report of the Fisher review of disclosure and fraud offences, new family listing guidance in force from 31 August, a Court of Appeal ruling on when environmental information is “held”, and a High Court decision stopping councils relabelling section 20 accommodation as section 17 support.
What does Fisher part 2 recommend?
The Home Office has published Fraud in the Digital Age, the second report of Jonathan Fisher KC’s Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences, alongside the government’s response to part 1 on criminal disclosure. The 280-page report, dated December 2025 and published in late July, argues for a shift from reactive enforcement to prevention and disruption of fraud, which now accounts for over 40% of all offences in England and Wales, and makes 47 recommendations. Among them: retaining jury trials for complex fraud cases, legislating for a whistleblower reward scheme with a consultation to design it, a deferred prosecution agreement regime for individuals, and strengthened accountability for online platforms whose services carry fraudulent content. Ministers have said only that they will consider the recommendations carefully and respond in due course, so the report is currently a direction of travel rather than a legislative programme, and criminal and regulatory teams should treat it as the agenda for the next round of economic crime reform.
When does the new family listing guidance take effect?
Updated Family Listing Guidance issued by the President of the Family Division, Sir Stephen Cobb, comes into force on 31 August 2026. As reported in this week’s practitioner digests, the revisions update the principles governing remote hearings and limit first hearing dispute resolution appointments to four per day, a listing cap with obvious consequences for how quickly private law children work moves through busy court centres. The guidance lands four months into Sir Stephen’s presidency, following the combined allocation and gatekeeping guidance that took effect on 5 May, and practitioners should check the judiciary’s guidance pages for the full text before the in-force date. It arrives alongside news that the UK Supreme Court is informally consulting on cutting the permitted length of written cases from 50 pages to 30, which advocates in every jurisdiction, not just family, will want to track. Our explainer on rule 25.5A and regulated experts covers the last procedural change of comparable reach in children proceedings.
EIR information is “held” at the date of the request
The Court of Appeal in Information Commissioner v O’Hanlon [2026] EWCA Civ 838 has allowed appeals by the Commissioner and the Health and Safety Executive, holding that the duty to disclose environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 applies only to information held at the date the request is received. The regulation 12(4)(a) exception for information not held is therefore judged at the point of the initial request, not at the refusal or the regulation 11 internal review, reversing the Upper Tribunal’s conclusion that material coming into an authority’s hands before the review had to be brought into the public interest balance. The decision restores the position set out in the ICO’s guidance, which had flagged its disagreement with the Upper Tribunal, and it simplifies life for any firm advising public authorities on EIR and FOIA handling: the snapshot date is the request, and later-created documents belong to a later request. Our piece on the HMCTS court data licence covers the adjacent question of what happens to court information once it is disclosed.
Councils cannot side-step section 20: R (FZW) v Bristol
In R (FZW) v Bristol City Council [2026] EWHC 1956 (Admin), the High Court held that the council should have recognised the claimant, a homeless 16-year-old who had come to the UK to join an older sibling, as a child appearing to require accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, and that a local authority cannot avoid the duties that follow by labelling the support it provides as assistance under section 17. The distinction is not academic: section 20 accommodation confers looked-after status and, in time, the care-leaver support package, while section 17 assistance does not, so the label attached at 16 determines the entitlements available at 18. The judgment stresses that the reality of the support provided, not the authority’s characterisation of it, governs, and that authorities must engage with an older child’s wishes and feelings before deciding which route applies. The decision lands in a sector already under strain, as our report on community care legal aid supply set out last week.