Weekly Notes: legal news from ICLR — 5 June 2017

This week’s survey of legal news and commentary includes global warming, the general election, terrorism, Brexit and legal services. It’s been a tumultuous fortnight and it isn’t going to get calmer for a while. Welcome to the Trinity law term, which begins on Tuesday 6 June.

Image for post
Image for post

Election law

Party Manifestos

Expenses offences

Last week the CPS announced that they would now be pursuing criminal charges in respect of that constituency.

“We have concluded there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to authorise charges against three people.

“Craig Mackinlay, 50, Nathan Gray, 28, and Marion Little, 62, have each been charged with offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and are due to appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 4 July 2017.

“Criminal proceedings have now commenced and it is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”

The Independent, reporting on this development, commented that

‘So tight are the polls that losing even a modest level of support as a result of these developments puts the Tories’ fortunes in even greater jeopardy.’

Terrorism

London Bridge incident

The incident follows less than two weeks after the Manchester attack, in which a suicide bomber blew himself up and killed 22 others and injured 116 others at a pop concert by the American singer Ariana Grande at the Manchester Arena (BBC report here). Indeed, it took place on the very eve of the “One Love” benefit concert for the victims, which Grande herself and a number of other famous performers were due to put on in Manchester on Sunday 4 June.

That concert went ahead. Political campaigning was suspended for a day by all parties except UKIP, whose leader Paul Nuttal said it would be giving in to terrorism not to carry on as normal.

The terror attacks (including earlier ones at Westminster) have prompted a good deal of discussion during the election about cuts in police numbers and funding. In fact a specific warning was given in 2015, following the Paris terror attacks: see Guardian, Police chiefs say cuts will severely affect UK’s ability to fight terrorism. Since Theresa May was Home Secretary at the time, it puts her in an awkward position as she campaigns for re-election as Prime Minister.

There were also concerns about international intelligence sharing and anti-terror cooperation after some American newspapers published details about the Manchester attack which must have been leaked by US officials (see Guardian report here).

One of the aims of terrorism is to generate publicity, as Des Freedman observed in a post on Inforrm’s blog entitled The Terror News Cycle, and by sensationalising each incident the newspapers do the terrorists’ work for them.

Coverage mostly consisted of commentators speculating on motives, along with a series of harrowing eyewitness accounts that helped to amplify the main objectives of terrorism: to create fear and to sow division.

He also discusses how certain commentators use terrorist incidents as a launchpad for their own, often extreme or obnoxious, agendas. (I won’t repeat the names but the ones identified seem very much the usual suspects.) He proposes a less hysterical and more responsible approach to coverage of such events.

It’s hard not to agree. The way foreign newspapers represent our cities as ‘paralysed’ and ‘reeling’ from attacks is often wildly exaggerated, and this should prompt us to take reports covering incidents elsewhere in the world with a pinch of salt too. We’re not the only ones who can ‘keep calm and drink tea as normal’ as we like to think.

Social media hysteria can also be unhelpful. Following the London Bridge attack the Metropolitan Police urged people not to share any images they might have from the attack on social media, but rather to pass it on to them, via the National Police Chiefs Council, to assist in their investigation. (You can do so here.)

Brexit

Dublin case discontinued

The problem is partly one of timing — the ultimate decision of the ECJ might not be given until October 2018, by which time the Brexit negotiations might be more or less concluded. Secondly, there is the considerable amount of the likely costs, and the uncertainty of funding to pay for them.

It was right to try; but, says Maugham, the money raised might still be applied in equally constructive ways, perhaps with other Brexit litigation.

Background:

Legal services

Bar training

The BSB had agreed in March that students should continue to be members of the Inns, and the inns should continue to call them to the Bar. But at a board meeting last week, the BSB said it wanted to review the Inns’ other roles in training, such as approving pupil supervisors and their training, providing training courses for pupils and student discipline.

Late court sittings petition

It is unfair and discriminatory for Court staff, Judges, Barristers, Solicitors, and court users, particularly those with children. It will have a detrimental impact on well-being and diversity at the Bar and Judiciary. […] It is impractical and fails to take account of the cab-rank rule, listing practices, and that lawyers need time to prepare their cases and travel to and from court.

The Association of Women Solicitors (AWS) is among the organisations who have expressed their opposition to the idea, in a press release issued last month. As well as the objections about the unequal impact the plans might have on women and families, it points out that late night courts should not be necessary in a properly resourced justice system:

The pilots are unnecessary — the government has closed many courts since 2011. The pilots, it is assumed, are partly initiated to deal with a backlog created by the closure of such courts. Rather than introduce night courts with all the difficulties and potential gender imbalance that causes, the AWS asks the government to re-open the courts it has closed so as to deal with the backlog.

The petition currently has over 4,000 of the 5,000 signatures needed: you can sign it here.

Judiciary

Lord Neuberger slams retirement age of 70

the situation is demonstrably illogical as judges who must retire at 70 are able to sit as part-time judges until reaching 75, and people can be jurors until 75.”

He made the remarks in an article for the Times Law Brief Premium, which you have to pay for over an above a subscription to the The Times, but which was flagged up in the (free) daily Brief.

Law (and injustice) from around the world

Image for post
Image for post
Global temperature anomalies for 2015 compared to the 1951–1980 baseline. Image: NASA via Wikimedia Commons.

America

Trump decision to exit Paris climate change accord

The Italian, German and French leaders expressed their regret at Trump’s decision, and dismissed his suggestion that the global pact could be revised or renegotiated more favourably to suit American businesses, which Trump said would suffer from the “draconian” financial and economic burdens imposed by the deal.

Downing Street defended Theresa May’s reluctance to join in the European statement, pointing out that other G7 nations Japan and Canada had also chosen a different path to express their disappointment. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, accused May of a “dereliction of duty to our country and our planet” for failing to issue a stronger condemnation, according to The Guardian.

Bangladesh

Lady Justice statue reinstated

Denmark

Blasphemy offence abolished

Only a handful of blasphemy trials have taken place in the past 80 years, and several high-profile cases have been dropped, including one involving a caricature of the prophet Muhammad published in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005.

Blasphemy offences remain in force elsewhere: not long ago the broadcaster Stephen Fry was at risk of being roasted over the crime of being rude about religion in Ireland (see Weekly Notes — 8 May 2017).

Sweden

Assange rape investigation dropped

“Westminster Magistrates’ Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange following his failure to surrender to the court on the 29 June 2012. The Metropolitan Police Service is obliged to execute that warrant should he leave the Embassy.”

The Met said it would continue to provide “a level of resourcing which is proportionate to that offence”, adding that

“The priority for the MPS must continue to be arresting those who are currently wanted in the Capital in connection with serious violent or sexual offences for the protection of Londoners.”

Which is a bit like saying, if the Swedes are going to be chill about this, why should we get hot and bothered?

Assange himself, while maintaining his innocent of the Swedish allegations, has made clear that what he is really afraid of is being extradited to the USA, where he is wanted in connection with the leaking and publication on Wikileaks of hundreds of thousands of secret US military and diplomatic documents. While tweeting repeatedly about being kept in “detention” in this country, he is in fact a fugitive from justice, who happens to have incarcerated himself voluntarily, and with their consent, at the Ecuadorian embassy.

See: BBC report

Tweet of the Week:

This post was written by Paul Magrath, Head of Product Development and Online Content at ICLR, who also tweets as @maggotlaw. It does not necessarily represent the opinions of ICLR as an organisation. Comments welcome on Twitter @TheICLR.

Written by

The ICLR publishes The Law Reports, The Weekly Law Reports and other specialist titles. Set up by members of the judiciary and legal profession in 1865.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store