Articles > Law Updates

Law Updates

Lord Chief Justice attacks the Lord Chancellor

Giving evidence to the House of Lords’ Constitution Committee this week, the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, launched a forthright attack on the justice secretary, Liz Truss, for her failure last year to defend judges who were branded “enemies of the people.”

Referring to the article 50 Brexit court case, he told the select committee Truss was “completely and utterly wrong” to say she could not criticise the media.

Last November, the ‘Daily Mail’ ran the headline “Enemies of the people” when the high court, on which Thomas was sitting, found against the government, forcing ministers to obtain parliamentary backing before triggering Brexit.

The lord chief justice told peers: “The circuit judges were very concerned. They wrote to the lord chancellor because litigants in person were coming and saying ‘you’re an enemy of the people…I don’t think it is understood either how absolutely essential it is that we [the judges] are protected because we have to act as our oath requires us without fear or favour.”

Referring to Gina Miller, the lead claimant in the Article 50 case, he went on to say:“It is the only time in the whole of my judicial career that I have had to ask for the police to give us a measure of advice and protection in relation to the emotions that were being stirred up.”

Lord Thomas’s intervention came after Truss told the Financial Times that judges should boost their image because they would come under greater scrutiny post-Brexit. She urged judges to “speak out about the important work they do to ensure that it is widely understood”.

Due to step down in the autumn after four years in office, Lord Thomas said he had intended to wait until a lecture he was planning to give in June to make public his opinions on the matter, but felt the need to do so now because of the lord chancellor’s comments and a newspaper interview she gave.

Pulling no punches he said: “I regret to have to criticise her as severely as I have, but to my mind she was completely and absolutely wrong. And I am very disappointed. I can understand how the pressures were on in November, but she has taken a position that is constitutionally absolutely wrong. It is Truss’s duty, as lord chancellor, to defend the judges.”

Truss said she supported freedom of the press and did not feel it was her role to tell newspapers what they should put on their front pages. She told the same committee earlier this month: “I think it is dangerous for a government minister to say, ‘this is an acceptable headline and this isn’t an acceptable headline,’ because I am a huge believer in the independence of the judiciary. I am also a very strong believer in the free press.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law and it is the duty of the Lord Chancellor to defend that independence. The Lord Chancellor takes that duty very seriously. She has been very clear that she supports the independence of the judiciary but that she also believes in a free press, where newspapers are free to publish, within the law, their views.”

Image by FruitMonkeyOwn work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

Enabling tax avoidance

According to the ‘Gazette’, solicitors, with the exception of those in-house, are among the main losers from last week’s spring budget. A combination of higher national insurance contributions and increased taxes on dividends will hit self-employed practitioners, partners and director shareholders.

In addition, accountants, lawyers, tax planners and advisers who provide advice on how to avoid tax will face tough penalties under new proposals being consulted on by the government. Under the plans set out in an HMRC consultation document enablers of tax avoidance could have to pay a fine of up to 100 per cent of the tax the scheme’s user underpaid. The fines are designed to be levied against accountants and lawyers who create tax avoidance schemes of the kind used by celebrities. Read the full story

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

Sentencing and the prison population

Justice secretary Liz Truss set out her views on sentencing and the prison population in an address to the Centre for Social Justice last week. She believes that “We should be proud that we live in a society that no longer shames victims of rape; that is prepared to confront child sex abuse, and has brought domestic violence out in the open.”

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 pointed out that the prison population has remained relatively stable since 2010, at around 85,000 people, and that it is not true that rates of imprisonment have gone up across the board. In 2015 courts handed out 9,000 fewer short-term sentences than they did in 2010.

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. “Since 2000 there has been a 29% increase in those sentenced to custody for robbery and a 75% increase for violence against a person. And there has been a 140% increase in the number of sexual offenders in prison,” she said.

She added: “This has led to a change in the make-up of our prison population – from two in five being prisoners convicted of violent, sexual or drug offences in 1995 to three in five now. There has been a huge difference in the people we send to prison. Compared with 2010, there are now 3,000 more sex offenders in prison.”

She pledged to take action to spare victims of sexual abuse the trauma of giving evidence in open court in criminal cases. In family courts “I will end the appalling practice of domestic abuse victims being cross-examined by their attacker” she said.

“I want to transform our prisons from places of violence and despair to places of self-improvement and hope where all prisoners are given the chance to lead a better life,” she said, “because I believe that everybody is capable of reform.” The Prison and Courts Bill, due to be published this month, will enshrine in law that reforming offenders is a key purpose of prison and that the Secretary of State has responsibility for delivery.

A more systematic, nationally consistent approach is needed to provide quicker and more certain access to mental health treatment for offenders. Early intervention by the courts is vitally important in stopping women offenders from ending up in prison. “We will be announcing our strategy for women later this year and have already announced a new director for women in custody and the community – Sonia Crozier,” she said. “Early intervention is not a ‘nice to have’ added extra to the justice system, it is vital if we are ever to break the cycle of crime, punishment and more crime.”

She acknowledged that: “We also have to deal with the levels of violence and self-harm in our prisons. That is why as well as investing in reform and giving more powers to governors and creating a new frontline agency – Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service – we are putting an extra £100m a year into the frontline and will take on 2,500 more frontline officers.”

So much for former justice secretary Grayling’s mismanagement, subservient to Chancellor Osborne’s austerity programme, conceding dangerous cuts, all the while denying that there was crisis in the prison service. Liz Truss knows different. Since this speech was delivered she has offered substantial – and divisive – pay rises. Never was there such a clear example of the false economies of the austerity programme.

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.” Let us hope so.

Posted in Criminal Justice, Law UpdatesComments (0)

Driving Consultation

The Ministry of Justice’s consultation on whether to increase the current maximum custodial sentences available for causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs closed this week.

In the foreword to the consultation last December, justice minister Sam Gyimah said: “While the UK has one of the best road safety records in the world, deaths or serious injuries on the roads cause devastation to victims and their families, for whom the sentence of the court can never adequately reflect the loss of a loved one. The Government is committed to ensuring that deaths or serious injuries continue to fall, and that where they are the result of criminal behaviour, the right tools are available to deliver justice.”

The introduction to the consultation stated: “As a general principle, the criminal law needs to take into account not only the harm caused, but also the level of blame of the offender, and sentences must be a matter for the judge to determine in individual cases, based on the full facts of the case and of the offender before them. The Government is however committed to ensuring the legislative framework that the courts operate within reflects the seriousness of offending and the culpability of the offender. The proposals in this consultation are intended to offer a proportionate response to these crimes.”

The consultation sought views on whether the current maximum penalties available to the courts for the existing offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs should be increased from 14 years’ imprisonment to life. It also asked for views on whether there is a gap in the law relating to careless driving that results in serious injury.

Dangerous drivers who kill are set to face life sentences under plans put forward by ministers. Dangerous drivers causing death by speeding, street racing or while on a mobile phone are among those now facing the same sentences as those charged with manslaughter.

Other proposals included creating a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, with a maximum sentence of 3 years, and increasing minimum driving bans for those convicted of causing death.

The consultation did not cover offences such as speeding, drink-drive limits, the ‘basic offences’ of careless or dangerous driving, and driving while using a mobile phone. But the consultation paper stated that such behaviours are relevant where they are a factor in the driving that led to a death or serious injury.

The Law Society, in its response, observed that the government’s concern for road traffic accidents victims was “belied somewhat by its proposals to increase the small claims limit which will, in effect, make it much more difficult for victims of traffic injuries to obtain professional legal representation because of the non-recoverability of costs.”

The Society did not think the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving should be increased from the current level of 14 years to life, stating that: “It is important for the law to maintain a distinction between driving offences causing death and injury, and other offences against the person and homicide where there is intent.” The suggestion that the maximum penalty should be imposed in all cases of death by dangerous driving was “contrary to the well-established principle of judicial discretion”, it added.

With more than 9,000 responses to its proposals this was one of the biggest the department has received. The ministry will set out its plans “in the coming months.”.

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 Brexit Papers

Brexit could undermine London’s status as a highly profitable international legal centre, according to the Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales.

The Government must put the public interest at the heart of its Brexit strategy, the Bar Council has warned as it publishes the Brexit Papers, written by members of the Brexit Working Group set up by the Bar Council to examine the range of complex issues arising from Brexit and to help the Government identify the legal and constitutional priorities.

Led by the Chair of the Brexit Working Group, Hugh Mercer QC, the group has drawn on the combined expertise and experience of the profession across a wide range of practice areas. Mercer said: “EU law currently impacts nearly all areas of life. We need a plan to make sure that people do not suffer from uncertainty and ultimately end up worse off. If we are going to minimise the adverse impacts on UK citizens, a huge number of highly technical areas of law need looking at in fine detail.”

The Bar Council did not take a position on leaving or remaining in the EU. Chairman of the Bar, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC said: “There has not been a more profound legal and constitutional challenge in living memory with which the UK Government has had to grapple, in terms of legal complexity, or significance for the long-term health and stability of the economy…Our interest is in helping to ensure that Brexit delivers the best deal possible for Britain.”

The report refers to cases in which claimants are being advised not to choose English jurisdiction clauses in their contracts where previously they would have been almost an automatic choice. Some cases that would normally be launched in England are being started in other EU jurisdictions due to uncertainty over the ultimate enforceability of English judgments.

According to the ‘Guardian’, the UK legal services market generates £25.7bn a year in revenue and employs 370,000 people. It produced £3.3bn of net export revenue last year. In the short to medium term Brexit may benefit lawyers whose legal advice is sought in a period of uncertainty, but the long-term prospects are not as good.

Peter Wilding, the man credited with inventing the term Brexit in 2012, said “This is not stopping Brexit, this is shaping it. The country demands a win-win, smart Brexit, not a lose-lose ideological hard Brexit which will damage the UK, damage Europe and for which there is no need and no mandate.”

The Law Society welcomed the bar’s Brexit Papers publication, which it said echoes positions set out by Chancery Lane in the wake of the referendum vote. Law Society president Robert Bourns said that: “Throughout this year the bar and the solicitor profession have been engaging with the government to examine the ramifications of Brexit, and put robust information before ministers, parliamentarians and officials.”

Hugh Mercer said “There is a great deal of work to be done. The resources of the Brexit Working Group, as well as those of the Bar Council and the Bar as a profession, are being made available to the Government, parliamentarians and the media, as well as to the public, so that Brexit delivers the best deal possible for Britain.”

The full text of The Brexit Papers can be found at:
http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/508513/the_brexit_papers.pdf

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

How went the battle?

It is quite something when the deliberations of 11 very senior judges is the hottest ticket in town. There should be twelve judges but at the moment there is one unfilled vacancy. Nevertheless this is the first time that that all Supreme Court members have convened to decide a case.

There was standing room only as the battle for Brexit began. At issue is whether the government, through its executive powers, or parliament, can trigger article 50 of the treaty on European Union. The four-day hearing on the divisive constitutional issue was broadcast live. The High Court had ruled that parliament was sovereign in this case and the government was appealing that decision.

Emotions are running high. Ukip has accused those behind the claim of being “arrogant federalists” intent on blocking Brexit, the Daily Mail has branded the high court judges who found against the government in the first round as “enemies of the people”, and individual challengers – such as Gina Miller – have received death threats.

Before legal argument began the president of the Court, Lord Neuberg, stressed the court’s determination to assert its impartiality in the proceedings. He went on to say “various individuals have received threats of serious violence and unpleasant abuse on emails.” He warned that there are “legal powers designed to ensure that access to the courts is available to everyone.”

Labour’s shadow attorney general, Shami Chakrabarti, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “the political aspect of the case had been hyped in parts of the media.” She said: “This is about process. It is not about outcomes.” She said it was unfair for newspapers to delve into the personal lives or supposed opinions of the judges.

Opening the government’s submission, the attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC and MP, said that royal prerogative powers were an essential part of the UK’s unwritten constitution and the high court had been wrong to rule last month that article 50 could only be triggered following a vote in Parliament.

Wright was followed by James Eadie, known as the Treasury Devil, but he ran into a barrage of queries from the justices in the court challenging the source of the royal prerogative.

Lord Pannick, QC, opening the argument on behalf of the lead claimant of the case, Gina Miller, dismissed as “inherently implausible” the government’s assertion that it was entitled to deliver notice of the UK’s intention to leave the EU under article 50. He described the referendum as “plainly an event of considerable political significance”, but was not a matter for the court because “it was irrelevant to the legal issue of whether ministers enjoy prerogative powers to set aside the 1972 Act.”

‘Guardian’ sketch writer John Crace had fun with the performing personnel. Of Lord Pannick he said: “Seldom has a man been less well named…a Pannick attack is a thing of zen like beauty.” Lord Keen, for the Scots, was described as being “breathless in a way that only a tortoise could ever know. Glaciers move more quickly than Lord Keen.” John Larkin, attorney general for Northern Ireland “dropped his bundles and lost his place to deliver one of the more hapless performances ever witnessed by the supreme court. Still his job was done. By making himself appear so useless, he might just have made Eadie and Keen look a little better.”

Judgement is expected mid- January.

Posted in Case Law, Law UpdatesComments (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)

Enemies of the people

As the ‘Observer’ rightly said, “Our judges do not do politics. They do law. They are selected to be judges on their legal ability.”

The high court’s ruling on article 50 sent the clear message that the government does not have free rein to sweep away any legislation it finds disagreeable.

But the quality and impartiality of this judgment finds no favour with the Brexit media, led by the ‘Daily Mail’, which, under the infamous headline “Enemies of the people”, mounted a vicious assault on the three high court judges who ruled in the case. The government appeared to be fuelling this attack. Sajid Javid, the local government secretary, described the judges as seeking to “thwart the will of the people”. Read the full story

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

Parliament alone has the power to trigger Brexit

The High Court has ruled that Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU. This means that the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on its own.

One of the most important constitutional court cases in generations, it has created a nightmare scenario for the government. The decision has huge implications, not just on the timing but also on the terms of Brexit. Read the full story

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (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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