Tag Archive | "eu"

Election manifestoes


Where there is an election there are manifestoes, and both the Law Society and the Bar Council have been quick off the mark.

The Law Society has called on the next government to put access to justice at the heart of Brexit Britain. Society president Robert Bourns said: “Early legal advice prevents difficult societal and personal situations escalating. So if you’ve a problem with housing, how immeasurably better it is to solve that before you and your family become homeless – which is also likely to cost the taxpayer far more than the initial legal advice.”

On human rights, the Society wants to retain the Human Rights Act, but says that if it is replaced by a British Bill of Rights this must protect and enhance rights currently enshrined in UK law.

Regarding Brexit, the Society calls for negotiation of reciprocal rights of practice, audience and legal professional privilege for UK solicitors across the EU and in its courts. The Law Society’s calls include:

  • Reinstate legal aid for early advice, particularly in housing and family law.
  • Negotiate access for UK lawyers to practice law across the EU, base themselves in the EU, and have rights of audience and legal professional privilege in EU courts.
  • Ensure civil justice co-operation is maintained with the EU in the interest of consumers, families and businesses.
  • Combat modern slavery by enforcing the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and allocating the necessary resources to protect victims.
  • Scrap the current employment tribunal fee system.

Echoing the Law Society’s manifesto, the Bar Council says the government must review the consequences of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, which greatly cut back the scope of legal aid. “The loss of nearly £1bn legal aid support has effectively disenfranchised a whole sector of society from obtaining access to justice. Government should reintroduce legal aid to assist vulnerable citizens who are currently left to fend for themselves…Justice is not a commodity and should never be a luxury available only to those who can afford to pay for it. Justice is not like any other public service.”

In a thinly veiled attack on Liz Truss, the Council stresses that the next lord chancellor must be someone whose “experience is combined with the requisite authority among ministerial colleagues to defend the independence of the judiciary.”

On Brexit, the Bar manifesto warns that: “Unless a strategic plan for the future of our legal services is devised and delivered, our exit from the EU will damage the international market value of the legal services sector, and undermine acquired rights and protections for our citizens and for our environment.” In exiting the EU, the government must develop a strategy for the legal services sector which recognises the value that Britain’s legal services contributes.

The Bar Council calls on the government to provide appropriate funding which recognises the value of the judiciary and those who work for the administration of justice so that standards of excellence can be achieved; and invest in infrastructure by making proper investment in the infrastructure of justice.

In addition, the government must remedy poor decision-making by those in authority who deal with vulnerable members of society. “For example, approximately half of those detained in immigration detention centres ought not to be there as is demonstrated by charities which provide legal assistance to those who cannot use lawyers.”

The Bar Council’s manifesto ‘The Value of Justice’ can be found at: http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/566731/manifesto_for_justicefinal.pdf

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

The Supreme Court has ruled


Parliament must vote on whether the government can start the Brexit process, the Supreme Court has ruled. The judgement means Theresa May cannot begin talks with the EU until MPs and peers give their backing, although this is expected to happen in time for the government’s 31 March deadline.

Reading out the judgement, Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger said: “By a majority of eight to three, the Supreme Court today rules that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorising it to do so.

“Withdrawal effects a fundamental change by cutting off the source of EU law, as well as changing legal rights. The UK’s constitutional arrangements require such changes to be clearly authorised by Parliament.”

Attorney General Jeremy Wright said the government was “disappointed” but would “comply” and do “all that is necessary” to implement the court’s judgement. The government had argued that, under the Royal Prerogative (powers handed to the government by the Crown), it could make this move without the need to consult Parliament.

The court also rejected, unanimously, arguments that the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly should get to vote on Article 50 before it is triggered.

Key points of the judgement include the fact that the 1972 Act that took the UK into the then EEC creates a process by which EU law becomes a source of UK law, and so long as that act remains in force, it means that EU law is an “independent and overriding source” of the UK’s legal system. Withdrawal from the EU makes a fundamental change to the UK’s constitutional arrangements because it will cut off the source of EU law. The UK constitution requires such changes can only be made by Parliament.

Dominic Casciani, BBC home affairs correspondent, writes: “”This momentous judgement is about one thing alone: the rule of law and how the UK, as a champion of that steady, calm form of government, gets on with the business of leaving the EU.

He added: “But what it also makes clear is that membership of the EU is messy in constitutional terms – so only Parliament has the right to pull us out. It can’t be done by the stroke of a minister’s pen.”

BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg detected “sighs of relief” in Whitehall for two reasons. The verdict from the justices doesn’t take away from the reality that having to go to Parliament before triggering Article 50 is a political inconvenience that Theresa May very much wanted to avoid. But “the justices held back from insisting that the devolved administrations would have a vote or a say on the process. That was, as described by a member of Team May, the ‘nightmare scenario’.”

She said: “Second, the Supreme Court also held back from telling the government explicitly what it has to do next. The judgement is clear that it was not for the courts but for politicians to decide how to proceed next.” Explicit instructions from the court about the kind of legislation they had to introduce would have made ministers’ lives very difficult.

David Davis stated that the government supported the right of the judges to come to their conclusion, after the ‘Daily Mail’ argued: “Yet again, the elite show their contempt for Brexit voters.” There followed a statement from the justice secretary, Liz Truss, who faced criticism for not defending the appeal court justices denounced by sections of the media as “enemies of the people” after they ruled against the government.

Truss said: “Our independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law and is vital to our constitution and our freedoms. The reputation of our judiciary is unrivalled the world over, and our supreme court justices are people of integrity and impartiality.”

The shadow attorney general, Shami Chakrabarti, argued that it was not enough, and that the prime minister should also speak out.

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament


The influential House of Lords constitution committee has published a report declaring that it would be “constitutionally inappropriate” for the prime minister to act on an advisory referendum without referring back to parliament.

Ian Lang, the Conservative peer and chairman of the House of Lords constitution committee, said:” Our constitution is built on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the decision to act following the referendum should be taken by parliament.

“Parliament should be asked to approve the decision to trigger article 50 – a decision which will start the formal process of the UK leaving the EU and set a deadline for the UK’s exit. Parliament’s assent could be sought by means of legislation or through resolutions tabled in both Houses of Parliament.”

The report says: “In our representative democracy, it is constitutionally appropriate that parliament should take the decision to act following the referendum. This means that parliament should play a central role in the decision to trigger the article 50 process, in the subsequent negotiation process, and in approving or otherwise the final terms under which the UK leaves the EU.”

The question of whether parliament or the prime minister has the authority to trigger article 50 is the central issue in a legal challenge against the government. Last week the High Court began a hearing of the legal challenge over Brexit in what has been described as the most important constitutional case in generations. Opponents are fighting to stop Theresa May triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to leave the European Union without a vote from MPs in Westminster.

Recognising the possibility of conflict with this legal action, the consultation committee said: “We do not intend therefore to express a view as to the merits or otherwise of the differing legal arguments…Rather we consider whether, and if so how, it would be constitutionally appropriate for Parliament to be involved, irrespective of whether the courts decide that parliamentary involvement is a legal requirement.”

The report goes on to say: “It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament… We consider it constitutionally appropriate that the assent of both Houses be sought for the triggering of Article 50.”

The committee goes on to recommend that: “Any legislation or resolution should clearly set out Parliament’s recognition and acceptance of the referendum result, but should seek to make clear the distinction between that acceptance and the decision as to when Article 50 should be triggered. Article 50 should be triggered only when it is in the UK’s best interests to begin the formal two-year negotiation process.”

For the future, the constitution committee concludes that: “The focus must now be on how Parliament and the Government will work together to that end. That co-operation should start now. Parliament and the Government should, at this early stage, take the opportunity to establish their respective roles and how they will work together during the negotiation process. The constitutional roles of each—the Executive and the Legislature—must be respected, beginning with parliamentary involvement and assent for the invoking of Article 50.”

The full text of the constitution committee report ‘The invoking of Article 50’ can be found at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldconst/44/4407.htm

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

Brexit


And the list grows. The relentless procession of those who fought for the UK to leave the EU and have since fled the field of battle. Johnson, Farage, Gove, Leadsom, Duncan Smith, Cameron, just to name a few. As if horrified by what they have achieved they cannot face the task of implementation. But here they are, like crows on a telephone wire, demanding that others carry out their legacy. Ironic that they are already haranguing Theresa May, a Remainer, to stick to the letter of Brexit.

As John Crace writes in today’s ‘Guardian’, “May says Brexit means Brexit though not necessarily if the man by her side, Chris Grayling, were to become minister for Brexit. Grayling has yet to find a job he can’t do slowly and badly.”

If you are one of the millions who signed the on line petition seeking a rerun of the referendum, you will have received an email stating that “The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected. We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations.” Even though the ‘outers’ campaign was based on misrepresentations of fact and promises that could not be delivered.

The email also refers to the European Referendum Act 2015, which is concerned mainly with who can vote, where, and (most importantly) who can claim expenses. The Act also makes clear, by default, that the referendum is consultative and not legally binding.

As a result, more than 1,000 barristers have signed a letter to the prime minister urging him (now her) to allow parliament to decide whether the UK should leave the European Union. The barristers argue that there must be a free vote in parliament before article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon treaty can be triggered.

According to the ‘Guardian’ the letter states: “The referendum did not set a threshold necessary to leave the EU, commonly adopted in polls of national importance, eg, 60% of those voting or 40% of the electorate. This is presumably because the result was only advisory…The parliamentary vote should take place with a greater understanding as to the economic consequences of Brexit, as businesses and investors in the UK start to react to the outcome of the referendum.”

The barristers call for the establishment of a royal commission or an equivalent independent body to receive evidence and report, within a short, fixed timescale, on the benefits, costs and risks of triggering article 50. The parliamentary vote would not take place until the commission has reported.

Philip Kolvin QC, who coordinated this action,is reported as saying that Parliament is sovereign and the guardian of our democracy, which is what Brexiters have been demanding. “MPs are elected to exercise their best judgment on the basis of objective evidence, to safeguard the interests of the country and their constituents for this and future generations,” he said. “At this time of profound constitutional, political and possibly social and economic crisis, we look to them to fulfil the responsibility placed upon them,”.

A legal challenge to David Cameron’s assertion that he or his successor as prime minister can begin the withdrawal procedure is due to be heard in the high court next week.

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

Protecting Privacy in the digital age


This column has banged on at some length in recent times about the dangers to civil liberty and privacy caused by unlimited surveillance, and now the EU is weighing in with the same concerns. “Europeans must have the right to control how their personal information is used” said Viviane Reding, Read the full story

Posted in Civil LibertiesComments (0)

This Sporting Life


In the mid nineties, as a very mature University student, my research for an assignment on the implications of European law on British life led me to a forthcoming hearing before the European Court of Justice of the case of Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman. Read the full story

Posted in Civil LibertiesComments (0)

Snooper’s Charter?


The Home Office recently published a consultation document and draft regulations to implement a European Directive requiring the retention of electronically generated data. The consultation document states that this is “to enable public authorities to undertake their lawful activities to investigate, detect and prosecute crime Read the full story

Posted in Civil LibertiesComments (0)


Be first to get Legal News

Full Name
Email *
Enter the following to confirm your subscription *
advert

Follow Us on Twitter


Archives

Article Categories

Tags

PHVsPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb19hZHNfcm90YXRlPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gdHJ1ZTwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2FkX2ltYWdlXzE8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lndvb3RoZW1lcy5jb20vYWRzLzEyNXgxMjVhLmpwZzwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2FkX2ltYWdlXzI8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lndvb3RoZW1lcy5jb20vYWRzLzEyNXgxMjViLmpwZzwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2FkX2ltYWdlXzM8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lndvb3RoZW1lcy5jb20vYWRzLzEyNXgxMjVjLmpwZzwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2FkX2ltYWdlXzQ8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lndvb3RoZW1lcy5jb20vYWRzLzEyNXgxMjVkLmpwZzwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2FkX21wdV9hZHNlbnNlPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fYWRfbXB1X2Rpc2FibGU8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSBmYWxzZTwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2FkX21wdV9pbWFnZTwvc3Ryb25nPiAtIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYW55YWRlc2lnbnMuY28udWsvdXBwZXJjYXNlL3dwLWNvbnRlbnQvdXBsb2Fkcy9pbGF3LTIwMTUtc29mdHdhcmUtZm9yLWxhd3llcnMucG5nPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fYWRfbXB1X3VybDwvc3Ryb25nPiAtIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWxhd3NvZnR3YXJlLmNvLnVrL2luZGV4LnBocDwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2FkX3RvcF9hZHNlbnNlPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fYWRfdG9wX2Rpc2FibGU8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSB0cnVlPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fYWRfdG9wX2ltYWdlPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gaHR0cDovL3d3dy53b290aGVtZXMuY29tL2Fkcy80Njh4NjBhLmpwZzwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2FkX3RvcF91cmw8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lndvb3RoZW1lcy5jb208L2xpPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb19hZF91cmxfMTwvc3Ryb25nPiAtIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cud29vdGhlbWVzLmNvbTwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2FkX3VybF8yPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gaHR0cDovL3d3dy53b290aGVtZXMuY29tPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fYWRfdXJsXzM8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lndvb3RoZW1lcy5jb208L2xpPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb19hZF91cmxfNDwvc3Ryb25nPiAtIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cud29vdGhlbWVzLmNvbTwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2FsdF9zdHlsZXNoZWV0PC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gZGFya2JsdWUuY3NzPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fYXV0aG9yPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gdHJ1ZTwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2F1dG9faW1nPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gdHJ1ZTwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2N1c3RvbV9jc3M8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSA8L2xpPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb19jdXN0b21fZmF2aWNvbjwvc3Ryb25nPiAtIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYW55YWRlc2lnbnMuY28udWsvdXBwZXJjYXNlL3dwLWNvbnRlbnQvd29vX3VwbG9hZHMvNC1mYXZpY29uLmljbzwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2ZlYXR1cmVkX2NhdGVnb3J5PC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gU2VsZWN0IGEgY2F0ZWdvcnk6PC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fZmVhdF9lbnRyaWVzPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gNjwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2ZlZWRidXJuZXJfaWQ8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSA8L2xpPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb19mZWVkYnVybmVyX3VybDwvc3Ryb25nPiAtIDwvbGk+PGxpPjxzdHJvbmc+d29vX2dvb2dsZV9hbmFseXRpY3M8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSA8c2NyaXB0IHR5cGU9XCJ0ZXh0L2phdmFzY3JpcHRcIj4NCnZhciBnYUpzSG9zdCA9ICgoXCJodHRwczpcIiA9PSBkb2N1bWVudC5sb2NhdGlvbi5wcm90b2NvbCkgPyBcImh0dHBzOi8vc3NsLlwiIDogXCJodHRwOi8vd3d3LlwiKTsNCmRvY3VtZW50LndyaXRlKHVuZXNjYXBlKFwiJTNDc2NyaXB0IHNyYz1cJ1wiICsgZ2FKc0hvc3QgKyBcImdvb2dsZS1hbmFseXRpY3MuY29tL2dhLmpzXCcgdHlwZT1cJ3RleHQvamF2YXNjcmlwdFwnJTNFJTNDL3NjcmlwdCUzRVwiKSk7DQo8L3NjcmlwdD4NCjxzY3JpcHQgdHlwZT1cInRleHQvamF2YXNjcmlwdFwiPg0KdHJ5IHsNCnZhciBwYWdlVHJhY2tlciA9IF9nYXQuX2dldFRyYWNrZXIoXCJVQS01MzUwNDc2LTFcIik7DQpwYWdlVHJhY2tlci5fdHJhY2tQYWdldmlldygpOw0KfSBjYXRjaChlcnIpIHt9PC9zY3JpcHQ+PC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29faG9tZTwvc3Ryb25nPiAtIGZhbHNlPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29faG9tZV90aHVtYl9oZWlnaHQ8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSAxMDA8L2xpPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb19ob21lX3RodW1iX3dpZHRoPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gMTAwPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29faW1hZ2Vfc2luZ2xlPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gZmFsc2U8L2xpPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb19sb2dvPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5hbnlhZGVzaWducy5jby51ay91cHBlcmNhc2Uvd3AtY29udGVudC93b29fdXBsb2Fkcy8xMC04LWhlYWRlci11cHBlci1jYXNlMjAxMi5qcGc8L2xpPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb19tYW51YWw8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSBodHRwOi8vd3d3Lndvb3RoZW1lcy5jb20vc3VwcG9ydC90aGVtZS1kb2N1bWVudGF0aW9uL2dhemV0dGUtZWRpdGlvbi88L2xpPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb19yZXNpemU8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSB0cnVlPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fc2hvcnRuYW1lPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gd29vPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fc2hvd19jYXJvdXNlbDwvc3Ryb25nPiAtIHRydWU8L2xpPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb19zaG93X3ZpZGVvPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gZmFsc2U8L2xpPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb19zaW5nbGVfaGVpZ2h0PC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gMjcwPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fc2luZ2xlX3dpZHRoPC9zdHJvbmc+IC0gMjcwPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fdGFiczwvc3Ryb25nPiAtIHRydWU8L2xpPjxsaT48c3Ryb25nPndvb190aGVtZW5hbWU8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSBHYXpldHRlPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fdXBsb2Fkczwvc3Ryb25nPiAtIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYW55YWRlc2lnbnMuY28udWsvdXBwZXJjYXNlL3dwLWNvbnRlbnQvd29vX3VwbG9hZHMvMTAtOC1oZWFkZXItdXBwZXItY2FzZTIwMTIuanBnPC9saT48bGk+PHN0cm9uZz53b29fdmlkZW9fY2F0ZWdvcnk8L3N0cm9uZz4gLSBTZWxlY3QgYSBjYXRlZ29yeTo8L2xpPjwvdWw+