Law

Courtroom drama in 1828 – courtesy of The Spectator

It’s a real pleasure looking through the first few editions of the Spectator from 1828, where the police reports and brief news items conjure up the England of Dickens and Trollope. There’s a man who comes before the court for throwing his wooden leg at people and is reprimanded by the judge. In a riotous atmosphere in court, the pauper explains that he can’t very well work with a leg that’s a foot and a half too short. Eventually, the Lord Mayor intercedes: ‘Defendant, I have prevailed upon the parish to put you once more upon your legs properly; and let me entreat you never to throw away an old

If we don’t want prisoners to have the vote, then we’re going to have to leave the European Court of Human Rights

David Cameron’s declaration that prisoners “damn well shouldn’t” have the right to vote is a reminder that this issue hasn’t gone away. Cameron was emphatic that the final verdict on this question should rest with the British parliament not the European Court of Human Rights. But this is not the current situation as Cameron admitted with his line that “we need to clip [the court’s] wings”. But it is hard to see how Cameron can do that while keeping Britain under the jurisdiction of the court. The attempt to reform the court that Ken Clarke launched as Justice Secretary didn’t get very far. So, it is hard to see what

The segregation of women and the appeasement of bigotry at Britain’s universities (part two)

On the Today programme this morning Justin Webb covered the decision by Universities UK to allow fundamentalist speakers to segregate women from men at public meetings. With a characteristic disdain for accepted standards of behaviour, Universities UK refused to go on air and answer his questions. Webb had to ‘put the other side of the story’ himself. He told a Palestinian woman demonstrating outside Universities UK headquarters in central London, [1hr 36mins in] ‘What Universities UK say is, if non segregated seating is also provided, it could be all right.’ Put like that it can sound just about all right. Men and women who want to sit apart can do

Are Parliament’s select committees working? – I say no

Our parliamentary select committees need to be taken seriously. Yet, for them to be so, we need to clarify their legal powers, use wider expertise and practice what we preach. Select committees have recently been in the spotlight, and Parliament’s liaison committee — made up of the chairs of all the select committees — has announced a detailed review as doubts over effectiveness have grown. Last week the Energy and Climate Change Committee examined the spiralling cost of energy; but, despite the fact that price hikes for millions of homes is a top political priority, only one of the big six energy companies thought the occasion worthy of sending their

Ed West

Should Saudi men be allowed to drive?

It’s important that newspapers make themselves sounding boards for unpopular opinions, especially in an age when identity is sacred and people are judged by having the right views rather than the right behaviour. But we still reserve the right to mock if they are badly argued, such as this Guardian piece arguing that since most Saudi women oppose lifting the driving ban, we should not be campaigning for it. It concludes: ‘People in Saudi Arabia have their own moral views and needs. What works in other societies may not fit in Saudi, and the reverse. In short, instead of launching campaigns to change the driving laws in the kingdom, the west

Is Sunny Hundal the best person to lecture on journalism?

Farewell then Sunny Hundal. The libellous blogger and tweeter has announced that he is no longer going to keep up his self-published website ‘Liberal Conspiracy’. One reason – far beyond satire – is that he is going to go to the University of Kingston to lecture on journalism. Sunny is perhaps not best placed to inform them on basic journalistic standards. As I have written here before, some years ago Sunny had to pay out and publish a wholesale apology to me after libelling me on his website. On that occasion he published outright falsehoods, though his more typical style has been to settle for selective quotation, misquotation and misrepresentation.

Sir Brian’s PR offensive continues

Sir Brian Leveson, who has ascended from his inquiry podium to President of the Queen’s Bench Division and Chairman of the Sentencing Council, seems to be getting a taste for public appearances. Last week he frustratingly stonewalled two parliamentary committees who had the temerity to ask for some post-publication thoughts on his report into the press, saying ‘I am a serving judge. It would be absolutely inappropriate for me to come back into the question of my report or regulation of the Press.’ A parliamentarian, Philip Davies, called him a ‘berk’ in consequence. Mr S has heard a few of the good judge’s learned friends express a similar view over the years.

Real feminists stand up for women

As Edmund Burke wrote: ‘Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure, the laws depend.’ Testify, brother – and if our lawmakers have no manners, then we are really up a creek. As Spectator columnist James Forsyth noticed yesterday: ‘Quite remarkable that no MP has offered Jo Swinson, who is seven months pregnant, a seat. Really shocking manners and decency.’ Swinson didn’t help matters when, according to the Mail, she said it would have been ‘quite sexist’ to suggest she was not capable of standing. I wonder how damaging that sort of attitude is to feminism in general? One of the persistent grumbles I hear

Britain’s abortion laws are inherently absurd

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, yesterday declared that it was right not to prosecute doctors who authorised abortions which, according to a Telegraph investigation, were requested because of the gender of the foetus. It seems that the women mentioned more than one reason for the abortions so it wasn’t possible to isolate the gender selection element from the other factors. ‘The only basis for a prosecution would be that although we could not prove these doctors authorised a gender-specific abortion, they did not carry out a sufficiently robust assessment of the risks,’ he said. And just what might a ‘robust’ assessment of risk amount to? As Mr Starmer made clear it’s

Ed Miliband ducks the question. If squaddies are victims, who or what is threatening them?

A country’s laws say much about its people’s character, though not in the way its lawmakers intend. Perhaps the oldest written law in English history, dating back to King Ethelbert of Kent, decreed strict punishments for anyone who attacked Church property, which suggested that either they were very pious folk or, more likely, quite a few people were stealing from churches. The idea of sacrilege predates Christianity; in ancient Rome violence against some officials was punished more severely because their positions were sacred. The modern advent of hate crimes has reinvented this idea, with certain people granted protection because of group victim status, victimhood being the closest thing we now

We must revisit the Equality Act to stop vexatious court cases

What have the Churchill £5 note, the Home Office ‘racist vans’ and the ‘Bedroom Tax’ got in common? All were alleged breaches of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which provides that public authorities are under a duty to have ‘due regard’ to preventing discrimination and advancing equality. Dropping Elizabeth Fry from banknotes was said to be a breach of s149 by the campaign to bring a judicial review. They quickly secured the £10 note for Jane Austen. But as litigants, they would have been in good company. Section 149 was used by the Fawcett Society to challenge the 2010 Budget’s impact on women. It was also the legal

Why bikers need a better deal from the EU

Since I was elected to Parliament in 2010, I have taken every opportunity to push back against the EU’s move towards ever closer union. I have also been a long-time supporter of offering the people a say on our membership of the EU and was delighted when the Prime Minister led the way in pledging to hold that referendum after renegotiation before 2017. I am proud to be a member of the only party offering that choice. Now that the Prime Minister has taken the bold step of pledging a referendum, he must be no less ambitious in the renegotiation he seeks. When we talk about our membership of the

When is corruption not corrupt? When the establishment says it isn’t

Mr Justice Tugendhat delivered a ferocious verdict last week. Undercover reporters from the Sunday Times claimed they had found Peter Cruddas, co-Treasurer of the Conservative Party, offering influence in return for wodges of cash. With damning language, the judge found against the paper, leaving it with costs and damages of around £700,000. I don’t want to discuss the merits of the case. Cruddas, who had to resign when the story came out, may have been unjustly maligned. Conversely, the Sunday Times is going to the Court of Appeal, so it may be that the paper is the true victim. I want to look at the judge’s reasoning instead, because it

Government fights misinformation over shale planning process

The government is busy quelling worries about the planning process for exploratory shale drilling, following this disobliging article in yesterday’s Observer. The government stresses that its planning guidance document, which was published last month, contains a list of environmental risks that planning officers ‘should address’, together with an explanation of the competences of other relevant government departments and agencies. The government rejects any insinuation that it is placing shale above renewables. Indeed, aides have taken the opportunity to reiterate the coalition’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, paragraphs 97 and 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework suggest that, despite the government’s commitment to a varied energy supply, renewables and low carbon alternatives

The “bedroom tax” judgment has implications far beyond bedrooms

The High Court has rejected the “bedroom tax” claimants’ case. In a ruling issued earlier this morning, Lord Justice Laws said that ‘the PSED [Public Sector Equality Duty on the benefit reforms] was fulfilled; and the effects of the HB [Housing Benefit] cap were properly considered in terms of the discipline imposed by the requirement of proportionality.’ On the point of the government providing additional help for disabled people affected by the cap, the judge wrote: ‘provision of extra funding for DHPs [‘discretionary housing payments’] and advice and guidance on its use cannot be said to be a disproportionate approach to the difficulties which those persons faced.’ Laws added that certain arguments of the claimants

The judicial review row should not be about lawyers – it is about democracy

The stooshie over judicial review is not about lawyers, although one should be forgiven for thinking otherwise given much of today’s coverage and reaction. Really, it is about the rule of law and representative democracy. So much of the debate around legal reform (not just judicial review) has been skewed by familiar obsessions with ‘human rights’, ‘lefty lawyers’ and ‘right-wing bastards’. Such media tropes are not created ex nihilo. Public administration has become highly politicised, and all sides play the game. I’ve heard government-types talk about the need to break ‘lefty lawyers’’ perceived monopoly over legal aid and some corners of the judiciary. And I’ve heard said ‘lefty lawyers’ talk in

Boris the ironist treads a careful path through immigration row

Boris Johnson’s Telegraph columns are often works of mischief, but today’s is a carefully constructed piece of politics. His subject is immigration – about which the political nation has been warring over the weekend. Boris is, famously, pro-immigration – as one would have to be to win elections in London, irrespective of whether one was a Conservative. And his attitude to illegal immigration is pragmatic: illegals need to be brought into the fold or deported. Boris treads this line again today. First, he writes a paean to the runner Mo Farah – who personifies a ‘sermon as to what immigrants can achieve if they work hard’. Then he says that illegal immigrants

Employment tribunal changes a prelude of what’s to come over legal aid

Changes to the legal system come into force today, with workers being charged for bringing cases against their bosses to employment tribunals. Employees will pay £150-£260 initially, and then there will be a further charge of between £230 and £950 for the hearing. You can read all of the guidance here. The politics of this are relatively clear: business groups, especially those representing small businesses, welcome the effort to tackle ‘vexatious claims’, which impede their operation and confidence. Trade unions say that there are no reliable figures on the number of vexatious claims; and they point out that the number of cases being brought is declining. The government talks of

Soldiers’ right to protection remains, and so it should

Last week’s Supreme Court ruling in the Snatch Land Rover / Challenger II cases, which allowed the families of four soldiers who lost their lives while serving in Iraq to sue for damages, has provoked some strong opinions. Some say that the MoD is in all ways different from other employers and that it should not therefore be held accountable in the courts. Of course soldiering is not ‘just another job’, but surely it does not follow that we should tolerate the deaths of young British citizens if those deaths are caused by the Government’s failure to provide adequate training or equipment. Soldiers should be no less entitled than the

Ancient and modern: Cicero on tax havens

David Cameron wants the international community to do something about big business avoiding paying tax. If only it were as simple as that. Ancient philosophers, beginning with Aristotle (4th C BC), made a distinction between man-made law, which was peculiar to a state that made it and derived its validity simply from its adoption by that state, and natural law, which was universally valid. One could say that the former was right because it was law, the latter was law because it was right. Cicero (1st C BC) called this universal ‘world’ law ius naturale, identified it with divine reason and associated it with another concept, that of the ‘law of nations’, ius