Total Crimes by District

When analysing the three-year reported crime rate for each district within Kent, Medway came out on top with 77,455 reported crimes over the last three years. This is most likely due to Medway having the largest population, with 279,800 residents according to the 2022 census, 2.3 times larger than the next most populous district in Kent.

The district with the lowest number of reported crimes is Sevenoaks, which is particularly impressive given that the town has a higher population than Dartford, Dover, and Folkestone & Hythe, all of which rank above Sevenoaks in the table.

Districts with the Most Crimes per 100,000 Residents

When reviewing which districts have the highest number of reported crimes per 100,000 people, the table shifts slightly. Thanet comes out on top with 10,118 crimes per 100,000 people, followed by Dartford with 9,478 and Medway with 9,230.

The bottom three remain the same: Tunbridge Wells records 5,983 crimes per 100,000, Tonbridge & Malling records 5,817, and Sevenoaks remains at the foot of the table with 5,221 per 100,000, making it 1.8 times safer than Thanet.

The Districts Where Crime is Declining the Most

Comparing reported crime figures for each district between 2024 and 2025, every area has seen a year-on-year decline. Gravesham recorded the steepest fall, with a 37.6% reduction in reported crimes. Sevenoaks came in second place with a 33.5% decline.

Canterbury saw the smallest reduction, with an 18.2% year-on-year decline in reported crimes.

The Streets with the Highest Crime Rate

This data is sourced from CrimeRate, which links each crime report to coordinates to count incidents, rather than relying on street names alone. The street with the highest crime rate is Wharf Road in Gillingham. Within the top ten, there are two hospitals, two police stations, and one prison — locations where heightened emotions and the presence of offenders make elevated crime figures unsurprising.

Most Common Crimes Reported in Kent

Analysing the three-year totals for each crime type, violence against the person was the most frequently reported offence with 189,337 incidents — 2.23 times more than the next most common category, theft, which recorded 84,944 crimes.

The least common crime types were robbery at 3,085 incidents, possession of weapons at 4,713, and miscellaneous crimes at 15,319.

The Crime Types Declining Most Rapidly

Every offence group saw a reduction in reported incidents between 2024 and 2025. Vehicle offences recorded the sharpest decline, falling by 41.70% year-on-year. This may be linked to funding secured by the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner from the Department for Transport for Operation Voice, which focused enforcement activity on driving offences in Ashford, Chatham, Gillingham, Margate, Ramsgate, and Dover. A number of offenders arrested as part of the campaign had histories of other crimes, including violence against women and girls and drug driving, enabling repeat offenders to be dealt with more comprehensively.

Public order offences fell by 34.30% and burglary declined by 31.90% year-on-year.

Speaking on the results, the Kent Police and Crime Commissioner said:

“I am very pleased with the progress made over the period of my plan. This is tremendous news for the people of Kent. From antisocial behaviour to violent crime, the force has made considerable improvements, and I’m confident they will continue to do so. Call handling has also been transformed: in April 2021 we were ranked 27th in the country for 999 wait times — now we are the second best in the country.”

How Does Kent’s Crime Rate Compare with the Rest of the UK?

Comparing Kent’s average crime rate per 1,000 people over the last 12 months, Kent sits roughly in the middle of the table at position 80, with a crime rate of 81.9. This is more than double the rate of the Isles of Scilly and around half that of some of the highest-ranking areas, such as Middlesbrough.

The post Kent Crime Statistics appeared first on Manak Solicitors.

A ‘litigant in person’ is someone who has gone to court without official legal representation from a barrister or solicitor.

The litigant in person in this instance was the defendant in the case of Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation v Hardy, Mark Hardy. Mr Hardy had faced a claim from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation after he made allegations including false accounting and fraud.

The court ruled that Mr Hardy’s requests for copies of documents under section 116 of the Companies Act and was not made for a proper purpose. At this point in the trial, the claimant sought to recover its legal costs, which were around £163,000.

Mr Hardy’s behaviour and conduct throughout the proceedings did not help his case. He insisted repeatedly that the remote trial should be streamed on YouTube, a request which was dropped before the trial without argument.

The judge continued that Mr Hardy’s behaviour was ‘well out of the norm’, citing the volume and nature of his correspondences. He had employed unprofessional and offensive tones, had attempted to submit large amounts of irrelevant material, and made unsupported accusations against the claimants.

After dragging proceedings on, the trial accrued larger and larger legal costs. When told he had to pay these, Mr Hardy was informed repeatedly that, just because he wasn’t being represented by a barrister or solicitor, he was not exempt from paying what he owed to the claimant and court. The judge reminded him that unrepresented people cannot expect special treatment.

The post Litigant in person hit with huge legal bills appeared first on Manak Solicitors.

The judges found the bulk interception regime violated the right of freedom and expression, and comprised inadequate protections for confidential journalistic records.

The legal challenge to GCHQ’s interception of online communication began in 2013 by Big Brother Watch and other following Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing revelations regarding the interception, processing and storing of people’s private communications. The case was later replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) in 2016.

The ruling confirmed there were three “fundamental deficiencies” in the regime. These included the authorisation of bulk interception by the secretary of state of opposed to a body independent of the executive; search terms defining the communications not having been included in the application for a warrant; and that search terms linked to an individual had not been subject to prior internal consent.

The chamber concluded that the decision to perform a bulk interception regime did not of itself violate the European convention on human rights, and that the GCHQ’s regime for sharing sensitive digital intelligence with foreign governments was not illegal.

Its judgment claimed: “In order to minimise the risk of the bulk interception power being abused, the court considers that the process must be subject to ‘end-to-end safeguards’, meaning that, at the domestic level, an assessment should be made at each stage of the process”. 

Liberty’s lawyer Megan Goulding stated: “Bulk surveillance powers allow the state to collect data that can reveal a huge amount about any one of us – these mass surveillance powers do not make us safer”

Acting legal director at Privacy International Ilia Siatitsa said it was “an important win for privacy and freedom for everyone in the UK and beyond”, but added: “It is not the end.”

The post Court rules GCHQ’s mass data interception violated right to privacy appeared first on Manak Solicitors.

Following additional analysis of the government’s meetings and proposals alongside officials, Chancery Lane announced this week that the ministry had ‘botched’ its reply to the independent criminal legal aid review.

Dominic Raab, Justice secretary has proclaimed that the government’s package coincides with the review’s central £135m suggestion. Critics including the Society maintain analysis of the consultation document and impact assessment shows it does not.

As well as recounting the government’s words as ‘spin’, the Society suggested criminal defence practitioners to think ‘long and hard’ about whether they want to continue carrying out publicly funded work since it no longer considers the work to be economically feasible.

In a statement this week, a spokesperson for the ministry commented: ‘We have accepted Sir Christopher Bellamy’s recommendation for an uplift in fees and our proposals will deliver an extra £135m a year in criminal legal aid – the biggest increase in a decade.

‘This is alongside our ambitious proposals to ensure professionals are better paid for the work they carry out, boosting pay for lawyers representing suspects in police stations, magistrates’ court and youth court by 15% and funding the training and accreditation of solicitors and solicitor-advocates.’

The ministry stated that it urged the legal sector to engage in its consultation ‘so we can guarantee this uplift will make the sector sustainable for the future as we build back a stronger and fairer society after the pandemic’.

The post MoJ supports legal aid offer preceding Law Society broadside appeared first on Manak Solicitors.