Tag Archive | "Michael Gove"

New Lord Chancellor


In the past two years we have been privileged to serve four holders of the post of Lord Chancellor – Chris Grayling, Michael Gove, Lyn Truss and now, David Lidington.

All four have one thing in common. None is legally qualified.

The demotion of Lyn Truss to Chief Secretary to the Treasury stands out as the only senior casualty in the mini reshuffle following the general election. She has paid the price of the fury caused by her lacklustre defence of a judiciary dubbed ’Enemies of the People’ by the right-wing press over the Article 50 case.

David Lidington was elected Member of Parliament for Aylesbury in 1992 and has held a number of positions including Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from 2003 to 2007 and Shadow Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from 2007 to 2010
He served as Minister of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) from May 2010 until July 2016, the longest-serving Europe Minister in British history. He was Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Council from July 2016 to June 2017. He was a staunch member of the Remain campaign.

Lidington has generally voted against laws to promote equality and human rights. In May last year he voted in favour of repealing the Human Rights Act 1998. He has also consistently voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance to end their life. He has generally voted against gay rights and voted against allowing same-sex couples to marry.

Lidington has also consistently voted in favour of restricting the scope of legal aid, and for allowing national security-sensitive evidence to be put before courts in secret sessions.

His voting record also shows support for stronger enforcement of immigration rules and mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities.

Commenting on Sunday Lidington said: “Democracy and freedom are built on the rule of law, and are protected by a strong and independent judiciary. I look forward to taking my Oath as Lord Chancellor, and to working with the Lord Chief Justice and his fellow judges in the months ahead, to ensure that justice is fairly administered and robustly defended.”

In May 2009, the Daily Telegraph revealed Lidington had claimed nearly £1,300 for his dry cleaning and had also claimed for toothpaste, shower gel, body spray and vitamin supplements on his second home allowance. He decided to repay the claims for the toiletries, saying: “I accept that many people would see them as over-generous.” He was also criticised by local newspaper the Bucks Herald for claiming £115,891 in expenses in one year, almost double his salary.

Posted in Law Updates, Legal AidComments (0)

So who is next?


No tears were shed when, following the 2015 election, Chris Grayling was removed from the role of lord chancellor. There were nevertheless raised eyebrows when his successor was announced – Michael Gove, another unqualified incumbent.

But many fears were allayed when he set about righting the mean-minded Grayling rulings, such as the severe restriction of reading material in prisons. He also promised a review of ongoing criminal legal aid reforms and said there were no plans for further cuts on top of those already announced.

Speaking of the “dangerous inequality at the heart of our system” he said: “There are two nations in our justice system at present. On the one hand, the wealthy, international class who can, for example, choose to settle cases in London with the gold standard of British justice. And then everyone else, who has to put up with a creaking, outdated system to see justice done in their own lives.” He also grasped the nettle of prison overcrowding with far reaching proposals for ‘new prisons for old.’

On civil justice he said: “The current system adds to stress at times of need, and restricts access to high quality resolution of disputes by simply being too complex, too bureaucratic and too slow.”

Then came the upheaval following the referendum, with the change of prime minister and the ministerial reshuffle which consigned Gove to the wilderness. His replacement, Liz Truss, completed a hat trick of non legally qualified lord chancellors.

She set out her views on sentencing and the prison population in an address to the Centre for Social Justice. She said that the problems boil down to four distinct areas: sentences are too long; prisons are too overcrowded to work; the wrong people are in prison; and the management of the prison population at the moment isn’t good enough.

She identified the biggest driver for prison growth in the last twenty years as the exposure, pursuit and punishment of sexual offences and crimes of violence, and a toughening up of sentences for these crimes.

In family courts “I will end the appalling practice of domestic abuse victims being cross-examined by their attacker” she said. She herself took flak from the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who launched a forthright attack for her failure last year to defend judges who were branded “enemies of the people.”

Introducing the Prisons and Courts bill, she said: “I want our prisons to be places of discipline, hard work, and self-improvement, where staff are empowered to get people off drugs, improve their English and maths to get a job on release,” she said.

The bill hopes to pave the way for the biggest overhaul of prisons in a generation and the delivery of a first class court system. Protection of victims and vulnerable witnesses in the courts, along with a commitment to reform offenders in prison, are laid out in law for the first time. The bill will provide a better working environment for judges, with modern court facilities and better IT that will help manage cases more efficiently.

Across the country more than 2,000 new senior positions are being created for experienced prison officers on promotion. She concluded: “The answer to overcrowding is not to cut prisoner numbers in half. It is to make sure we have the right resources, the right workforce, the right buildings and the right regimes to reform offenders and turn their lives around (then) we will see our society become safer and our prison population will reduce.”

Now we have another hiatus caused by the election. How many of the enlightened proposals will survive? I will leave the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, to spell out the number of extra police officers required and the cost thereof.

Photo courtesy of mrgarethm on flickr

Posted in Law Updates, UncategorizedComments (0)

Imprisonment for public protection


Peter Clarke, the chief inspector of prisons, has produced a report on the 3,859 imprisonment for public protection (IPP) prisoners currently held. He said justice secretary Liz Truss needed to take decisive action to reduce the numbers of those still in prison years after the end of their tariff.

The sentence was introduced in 2005, designed for those who had committed specified ‘serious violent or sexual offences’ and who were deemed to pose a ‘significant risk of serious harm’ in the future. Under the sentence, high-risk individuals would serve a minimum term in prison (their tariff), during which time they would undertake work to reduce the risk they posed. When sufficient risk reduction had been achieved, they would be released by the Parole Board.

The sentence was abolished in 2012. Between 2005 and 2012, a total of 8,711 sentences were issued by the courts. As of September 2016, 3,859 of those prisoners sentenced to an IPP were still in custody, and 87% or 3,200 of these prisoners were beyond their tariff expiry date. Over a third, 42% or 1,398 prisoners, are five or more years over tariff.

Peter Clarke said it was “completely unjust” that offenders serving IPP terms were “languishing in jail”. He warned that these sentences were having a serious effect on prisoners’ mental health. He said “It is widely accepted that implementation of the sentence was flawed and that this has contributed to the large numbers who remain in prison with this sentence, often many years post-tariff.
“Some people with IPP sentences remain dangerous and need to be held in prison to protect the public. Others, however, present much lower levels of risks but system failures have impeded their progress.”

He added that, as the only person “who’s got the authority to get a grip on the way things happen,” the justice secretary needs to act quickly to ensure the consequences of mistakes made in the past do not continue to resonate for many years to come.

Nick Hardwick, Parole Board Chairman, said he very much welcomed the publication of the report. He said: “The Parole Board has recently published its strategic plan to take it to through the next four years to 2020, and one of the 5 over-arching aims is directly focused on the progression of IPP prisoners where it is safe to do so.”

Former lord chancellor and secretary of state for justice Michael Gove was the speaker at this year’s Longford Lecture, delivered last week. His speech highlighted the dire state of UK prisons with instances of violence and unrest in HMP. 200 prisoners rioted at HMP Bedford, and prison officers tried to stage a protest against the unprecedented levels of violence until the High Court declared their actions unlawful.

Gove waded into the subject in strong support of Clarke, saying: “I would recommend using the power of executive clemency for those 500 or so IPP prisoners who have been in jail for far longer than the tariff for their offence and have now – after multiple parole reviews – served even longer than the maximum determinate sentence for that index offence.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said the chief inspector’s report rightly highlighted concerns around the management of IPP prisoners. “That is why we have set up a new unit within the ministry of justice to tackle the backlog and are working with the parole board to improve the efficiency of the process.”

The full text of Peter Clarke’s report ‘Unintended consequences: finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection’ can be found at

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Unintended-consequences-Web-2016.pdf

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

Poisonous prisons


The chair of the parole board and former chief inspector of prisons, Prof Nick Hardwick, said last month that violence inside jails was now at its worst ever level. He described the recent murder in Pentonville prison as “the most extreme example of the decline in safety”

The latest prison safety figures show that assaults on staff and inmates had risen 40% in the past year to 65 a day, while there are record levels of prison suicides and self-harm. Prisons are so overcrowded and cells so filthy that many have become places of “violence, squalor and idleness.” Read the full story

Posted in Criminal JusticeComments (0)

The Lord Chancellor


When appointing a Lord Chancellor what was once rare is now almost routine.

The Coalition government in 2010 appointed Chris Grayling to the post, which is also that of Secretary of State for Justice. He was the first non lawyer to be given the job since the middle ages. It showed.

In the reshuffle following the 2015 election Michael Gove got the job. He also is not legally qualified. He made a promising start, clearing up some of the mess left by Grayling, and promising reforms. He became one of the more sensational casualties of the post referendum chaos as he was cast into the political wilderness.

Now Liz Truss has got the job. Also not legally qualified, she is the first female Lord Chancellor in the thousand-year history of the role. 41 today, she has been MP for South West Norfolk since 2010. Rapid promotion saw her appointment as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State from 2012 to 2014, with responsibility for education and childcare. She became a member of the Cabinet as Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2014. On 14 July 2016 she was appointed Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor by new Prime Minister Theresa May.

According to George Monbiot in the ‘Guardian’, interviewers have said that she is “indissolubly wedded to a set of theories about how the world should be, that are impervious to argument, facts or experience. She was among the first ministers to put her own department on the block in the latest spending review, volunteering massive cuts.”

She set courts reform as one of her top priorities during the traditional swearing-in ceremony. She also stressed she was a great supporter of reform and modernisation through the courts and tribunals system. “That urgent task will be high on my agenda in the months ahead, as I know it is for senior members of the judiciary,” she added.

Her appointment has not met with a uniform welcome. As one disgruntled contributor to the ‘Gazette’ plaintively wrote “Why do the Tories persistently want to pee off the profession by making non lawyers Lord or Lady Chancellors. It is frankly insulting.” More officially, the Tory chair of the Commons justice select committee, Bob Neill, has become the latest senior political figure to question her credentials.

As reported in the ‘Gazette’, he said “My concern is this: while it’s not necessary for the lord chancellor to have a legal background, they have a specific role under the Constitutional Reform Act to represent the interests of the judiciary and to represent the judiciary, including its independence within government.

“It helps if the person in charge has been a lawyer or has been a senior member of the cabinet. I have a concern, with no disrespect to Liz, that it would be hard for someone without that history to step straight in and fulfil that role.”

Neill’s comments follow a claim by former shadow lord chancellor Lord Falconer that prime minister Theresa May broke the law in appointing Truss. Writing in the ‘Times’, Falconer said: “The lord chancellor has to be someone with the weight and stature to stand up to the prime minister or the home secretary when, for instance, they want to compromise on complying with the law in an attempt to placate the public. Or when the politicians are determined to blame the judges when their policies go wrong.”

Lord Faulks said last week that he resigned as Lords justice spokesman over fears that Truss would not have the necessary leverage to challenge the prime minister over crucial issues such as judicial independence.

Posted in Civil Law, Criminal JusticeComments (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)

Crime Contingency Contracts


Following justice secretary Michael Gove’s January decision to scrap a controversial ‘two-tier’ contracting regime, for which firms competed to secure one of 527 duty provider contracts, replacement contracts were expected to come into force later this year.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) is now offering to extend current contingency contracts, which were due to expire on 10 January 2017, to 31 March 2017. Providers have until 30 June to accept the offer.

The LAA said: “This extension is needed so that we can:

  • allow the tender process and mobilisation period to be completed so providers can prepare for a new crime contract in 2017
  • ensure continuity of crime services from 11 January 2017 to the start date of the replacement crime contract Letters will be issued to all Crime Contingency Contract holders shortly. Providers will have until 23.59 on 30 June to accept the contract extension. “Any providers who do not accept the extension will retain a contract to the current end date of 10 January 2017.”

The LAA also announced that it had entered into a three week consultation with representative bodies on the content of the 2017 Standard Crime Contract on 8 June 2016. A spokesperson for the agency confirmed that the representative bodies are the Law Society, Bar Council, Legal Aid Practitioners Group and Advice Services Alliance.

As reported in the ‘Gazette’, a Law Society spokesperson said: “We are expecting the contract to be largely uncontroversial, mainly reflecting changes proposed in the draft 2015 contracts when the Legal Aid Agency drafted “own” and “duty” contracts for the two-tier arrangements.

“The Society has been working with the practitioner groups and the LAA to try to find a mechanism to mitigate the problem of “ghost” duty solicitors by tightening up the rules to ensure that only those currently active in criminal law can act as duty solicitors.”

Also quoted in the ‘Gazette’, Zoe Gascoyne, chair of the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association, regretted the fact that the CLSA and the LCCSA were not statutory consultees. LCCSA president Greg Foxsmith said the association has “made the case for duty solicitor slots to remain with individual solicitors, rather than firms,” adding “with over 1,000 members in London desperate to know what the provisions of the proposed new contracts [are], it is bizarre that the LCCSA is not consulted but instead the Bar Council is invited to comment.”

One may ask why this last minute rush to deal with a well flagged matter. Could it be that the all consuming hustings for the referendum has led politicians, of all colours, to take their eyes off the ball of routine government business. Be grateful that we have a diligent, highly professional civil service to see that essential business is maintained.

Posted in Criminal Justice, Legal AidComments (0)

“Access to justice should be considered a fundamental right” – Corbyn


Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called on the government to initiate an immediate review of cuts to civil legal aid.

The coalition government reduced the scope of civil legal aid through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (Laspo) and has committed to a review of the policy by April 2018.

The reforms reduced spending on civil legal aid by £300m a year, but the National Audit Office last year said the wider costs to the public sector had not been factored in because the Ministry of Justice did not anticipate how people would respond to the changes.

Read the full story

Posted in Civil Law, Legal AidComments (0)

Any chance of compensation?


Following Michael Gove’s announcement that he was abandoning a new contracting regime for criminal legal aid, some criminal defence firms are considering whether to seek compensation from the government.

While welcoming the decision not to go ahead with the introduction of the dual contracting system, shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter told the House of Commons: “This has been an appalling use of taxpayers’ money. It has posed an existential threat to a fundamental part of our legal system, and it has caused uncertainty, failure and distress to thousands of hard-working small businesses throughout the country.” Read the full story

Posted in Criminal Justice, Legal AidComments (0)

Legal aid contracts: what now?


For the past couple of years the Legal Aid Agency has been fighting a fruitless battle with the legal profession over the legal aid contracts system. Right up to the last minute the Agency was stubbornly protesting that the legal actions that finally buried the contract nonsense would be stoutly pursued.

Then Michael Gove pulled the rug from underneath them, leaving the Agency to put out the following sad little statement:

Read the full story

Posted in Criminal Justice, Legal AidComments (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

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