SJ Interview: Joelle Grogan

How do you define the rule of law in a way that resonates with both legal professionals and the general public?

At its very simplest, the rule of law is the idea that nothing and no one—no person, no prince, no prime minister—is above the law. We are all subject to the law; we are all accountable to it; and if we fail to follow it, we should be held to account. Crucially, it also means that we are all equally entitled to the law’s protection.

Beyond that basic formulation, how I explain the rule of law depends very much on who I am speaking to. When I am speaking to members of the public, I tend to use practical examples. Would you expect the police to follow the law during an arrest? Would you expect a judge to be unbiased when deciding whether the law applies to you in a particular way? Most people instinctively answer yes to those questions, and those expectations are rooted in the rule of law.

When speaking to solicitors or legal professionals, I might be more technical and talk about things like delegated legislation or Henry VIII powers. But fundamentally, the rule of law comes back to the same core idea: that we are all subject to the law, accountable to it, and protected by it.

In your view, what are the most significant challenges facing the rule of law in the UK today?

I would say there are two challenges that run in parallel.

The first is what I would describe as a social and cultural challenge. We are seeing increasingly public attacks on the independence of the judiciary, on solicitors and barristers, and on the legal profession more broadly. Lawyers are accused of being biased or politically motivated simply for doing their job, and the very institutions of the law are being undermined.

Alongside this, there is a growing perception that certain groups are not being held accountable. We saw this with Partygate, Grenfell and the Hillsborough disaster, and we increasingly see it with concerns that certain crimes are not being prosecuted at all. This feeds into a broader narrative that the legal system is broken and no longer serves the public, which in turn fuels mistrust and faith in the rule of law itself.

The second challenge is more overtly legal and political. It relates to the kinds of laws we are seeing enacted and how they are drafted. Some laws are becoming extraordinarily complex and difficult for ordinary people to understand. The application of some rules can also be too obtuse or too intimidating for ordinary people to challenge. Fixed penalty notices and the single justice procedure are good examples, particularly given the latter’s role in the Post Office Horizon scandal.

We also saw, especially under the previous government, an enormous increase in delegated legislation and the use of Henry VIII powers allowing for limited or even no parliamentary scrutiny. These developments pose serious challenges to the rule of law, and importantly, these legal and cultural challenges reinforce one another.

How has public understanding of the rule of law changed in recent years, and what more needs to be done to improve it?

In the UK, there has traditionally been a very strong sense that we are a rule-of-law country, and that perception has served us well for a long time. We expect public institutions—our police, councils, hospitals, schools, and government—to be accountable to the law. That expectation is deeply embedded in public culture.

However, in recent years, we have seen that perception begin to shift. When very senior figures appear not to be held accountable, or are seen to ignore the law without consequence, it undermines that expectation. At the same time, we are seeing increasingly misleading media narratives about how the law works and how it is applied, particularly in areas such as immigration and human rights.

This kind of reporting creates a negative feedback loop. It erodes public understanding of the law and weakens rule-of-law culture. One of my major concerns is the increasing attacks on what I would describe as the UK’s basic constitutional guardrails: judicial review, international treaty obligations, and human rights protections.

There is a widespread misunderstanding of what these mechanisms actually do. They are not obstacles to democracy; they are safeguards that help ensure accountability within an executive-dominant system. When we attack these guardrails, we remove essential protections for the rule of law itself.

You’ve spoken extensively about government measures during emergencies. How can we ensure they respect fundamental rights without hampering effective response?

Emergencies, by their nature, are unpredictable. Legal frameworks for emergencies are always shaped by the last crisis, but the next emergency will inevitably be different. That makes this a particularly difficult area of law.

The key is to respond quickly and decisively, while also ensuring scrutiny and oversight. One of the major problems during the COVID-19 pandemic was that the law was often unclear and poorly communicated. Different police forces applied the law in different ways because they did not understand it themselves. Clear law, clearly communicated, is a foundational rule-of-law requirement.

Respecting fundamental rights is not in tension with effective emergency response. On the contrary, the most effective responses are those that consider how measures impact different groups, particularly those who are most negatively or disproportionately affected. That requires engagement with experts, communities, and affected populations as the emergency evolves.

Presenting this as a choice between rights and effectiveness is a false dichotomy. A rights-respecting approach leads to better outcomes precisely because it takes the whole population into account while remaining adaptable to changing circumstances.

How serious is the problem of legal misinformation in 2025, and what role does the media play in shaping legal literacy?

Legal misinformation is a critical problem, and the media plays a central role in shaping public understanding of the law. Most people will never read legislation or judgments themselves. Their perception of the legal system is almost entirely mediated through news reporting and commentary.

Research I was involved in at Oxford’s Bonavero Institute examined media reporting on ECHR cases in the context of migration. What we found was deeply concerning: the majority of reporting was misleading or factually inaccurate. Sensational headlines often bore little resemblance to the actual judgments.

The “chicken nuggets stops deportation” story is a classic example. It continues to be cited at senior political levels, despite the fact that the judgment was misreported and the decision itself later overturned by the Upper Tribunal. Yet the false narrative persists.

Responsible media reporting means accurately conveying what courts have decided, correcting errors when judgments are misreported, and resisting clickbait distortions. Given that this is where most people learn about the law and legal practice, the stakes could not be higher.

Do you think the UK’s constitutional framework is still fit for purpose in 2025?

No legal system is immune to a rule-of-law crisis, and the UK is no exception. In fact, aspects of the UK’s constitutional framework make it particularly vulnerable. We have an executive-dominant system, where a strong parliamentary majority can, in principle, legislate almost without limit.

The ultimate safeguard in our system is not legal but political: the assumption that the electorate will remove a government that behaves unacceptably. That is a fragile safeguard.

That said, the UK also has important sources of resilience. Backbench rebellion is common. Civil society and the media remain strong. Most importantly, we still have an independent judiciary and a legal profession deeply committed to the rule of law. As long as there is a strong cultural expectation that the rule of law matters, those features provide real, if imperfect, protection.

What role can the law play in maintaining honest media, and how do we balance freedom of speech with countering misinformation?

I am very cautious about using law to regulate media reporting. Any legal restriction on free expression can be dangerously misused in the wrong hands. We saw during the pandemic how laws ostensibly aimed at combating misinformation were used in some countries to silence any criticism of government action.

The better response is political and public challenge. Senior figures, politicians, lawyers, public commentators, should be willing to call out misleading reporting and demand corrections. Fact-checking plays a vital role here. The more visible and authoritative fact-checking is, the better.

As many have said before, we need “facts, not vibes”. Too much legal reform is currently driven by emotion and narrative rather than evidence, and that is deeply damaging to the rule of law.

What advice would you give to solicitors seeking to influence policy or contribute to public legal debates?

Solicitors are the first line of defence for the rule of law. Most people will interact with a solicitor long before they ever encounter a barrister, judge, or academic. The way solicitors engage with clients shapes public perceptions of how the legal system works.

Solicitors are also exceptionally good communicators. When I am researching new legislation or proposed reforms, I often turn first to what solicitors have written. They explain legal developments clearly, quickly, and with an eye to real-world impact.

Writing blogs, publishing analysis on firm websites, and engaging on social media are powerful ways for solicitors to influence public debate. Clear, accessible explanations of how the law actually works in practice are invaluable.

Looking ahead, what legal reforms would most strengthen the rule of law in the UK?

Court delays and legal aid must be the immediate priorities. Criminal cases being listed now for 2030 is profoundly unjust and corrosive to public trust. Access to justice is central to the rule of law, and long delays undermine it entirely.

Funding is crucial, but so is clarity. Fixed penalty notices are a good example of how opaque legal processes deter engagement. Many people simply do not respond because they are afraid of the law or do not understand it. That fear leads to escalating consequences.

The rule of law requires that law be clear, accessible, and understandable to ordinary people, not just as an academic ideal, but as a lived reality.

What developing area of law should solicitors focus on to stay ahead of emerging challenges?

Rather than a specific doctrinal area, the key challenge is how legal practice is changing in response to AI. There is growing reliance on AI for legal research, despite well-known problems with accuracy and AI hallucination.

There is also a structural concern. Clients are increasingly unwilling to pay for junior lawyers’ time, believing AI can replace that work. But today’s juniors are tomorrow’s partners. If we stop training lawyers properly now, we will face a serious skills deficit in the future.

AI could ultimately be developed to help produce the best average answer. However, solicitors are needed to provide the very best answer. Ensuring that lawyers develop the judgment, reasoning, and expertise to do that is one of the defining challenges of the profession in the years ahead.