Category: Constitutional Law

The only ultimate solution to the problem of the Northern Irish Protocol may be a united Ireland

20th May 2022

Sensible conservative-unionists – and, no, that is not necessarily a contradiction-in-terms – used to abide by the maxim that politics was ‘the art of the possible’.

And one thing that the European Union did was make certain things possible, which otherwise were not possible.

With Gibraltar and Spain, for example, the border issue became less of an issue.

And with the island of Ireland, the border issue too became less of an issue.

Because both Ireland and the United Kingdom were both members of the European Union – and thereby both members of the internal market and customs union – a hard border, with infrastructure and bureaucracy, was unnecessary.

This created the conditions that made the Good Friday Agreement possible – though, of course, there were many other factors.

But now Brexit has come along, there is a problem.

There has to be a border somewhere where one entity is inside a pan-European internal market and customs union and the other entity is not.

Had Brexit not been so extreme – with the United Kingdom staying inside the internal market and/or the customs union (which is the position with some other non-EU states) – then the Irish border issue would be less of a problem.

But the Brexit which Theresa May insisted on, with the United Kingdom outside the internal market and customs union, meant there was going to be a problem.

May eventually realised this – and so she supported the ill-fated ‘backstop’ arrangement, which meant that – if there was no post-Brexit trade agreement – the cross-border arrangements of European Union membership would continue as a default.

But May’s proposal was rejected heavily by the House of Commons (including by ‘remain’ Members of Parliament).

That left one other option – the border in the Irish Sea, which was supported by the new Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and enshrined (ahem) in the Northern Irish Protocol.

And, as this blog has set out many times, Johnson here changed the policy, negotiated the Protocol, signed the withdrawal agreement containing the Protocol, fought a general election so as to get a mandate for the Protocol, and rushed the relevant legislation through parliament.

Johnson could have not done more, as Prime Minister, to have brought the Protocol into existence and to pass it into law.

But.

The Protocol is a solution to one problem but not to another.

It is a solution to the political problem of late 2019 where Brexit needed to be ‘done’ – and the Protocol was the only possible way to do so avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.

But it is not a solution to the deeper problem of how Brexit is compatible with the on-going existence of the union that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Either one has Brexit (at least without continuing membership of the internal market and the customs union) or one has that union, but one cannot easily have both.

This is not to say that a united Ireland is likely – there are many solutions to political problems that never are adopted.

It may be that the problem continues, and continues, and is never resolved.

But a united Ireland is the only ultimate solution to there not being a border somewhere in respect of the north of Ireland.

Of course, special arrangements would need to be made for the non-nationalists in Northern Ireland – and one would hope that those protections serve that community better than the (lack of) protections for the nationalists in the north of Ireland after 1922.

Having watched Brexit from the beginning, I am still bewildered why supposed unionists did not see this problem coming – and indeed strongly campaigned for Brexit.

The European Union provided a means by which Northern Ireland could have continued in the United Kingdom, regardless of demographic changes and the gradual fall in unionist support.

But some forgot that politics was the art of the possible, and they pursued the politics of the impossible instead.

 

**

Thank you for reading – and please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

 

Four possible consequences of Partygate

19th May 2022

Partygate, again.

Today the Metropolitan Police announced the end of their investigation.

This means that, in small part, the Partygate issue comes to an end.

But there are at least four things which may now flow from the circumstances of the unlawful gatherings at Number 10 during the pandemic.

*

The first, of course, is publication of the Sue Gray report.

This unseen report now has many expectations loaded onto it.

It is useful to remind yourself of her terms of reference.

Whatever is – and is not – in her published report, it is more likely than not to be in accordance with these terms of reference.

It is also useful to remind yourself of her truncated interim ‘update’.

That update indicated – though not in any definite way – where there may be problems for Downing Street when the final report is published (see this blog’s previous post here).

Two paragraphs of the update, in particular, are worth reminding yourself of:

“ii. At least some of the gatherings in question represent a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population at the time.

“iii. At times it seems there was too little thought given to what was happening across the country in considering the appropriateness of some of these gatherings, the risks they presented to public health and how they might appear to the public. There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times. Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.”

Whether the report leads to any political change – and whether it is, in fact, the timebomb suggested by the earlier post – is, of course, determined by politics and the remarkable capacity of the current Prime Minister to evade accountability.

*

The second consequence of Partygate is – on the face of it – potentially more significant constitutionally.

This is the House of Commons committee’s investigation into whether the Prime Minister misled parliament.

Here a difficulty for the Prime Minister is not so much whether he realised the parties he attended were unlawful gatherings, but when he knew.

This is important because, as this blog has previously set out, it appears that the Prime Minister is not only under an obligation to put the record straight, but also to do so at the earliest opportunity.

This point was well explained by Alexander Horne in this thread:

Even if the Prime Minister did not realise at the time the gatherings were unlawful, he no doubt knew once he saw the Sue Gray report and/or was advised in response to the Metropolitan Police investigation.

The committee may perhaps find that Boris Johnson did tell parliament at the first available opportunity, or it may hold the rule somehow does not apply, or it may censure him.

Again, the political consequences of any censure – or sanction – are not predictable with the current Prime Minister.

But misleading the House of Commons and not correcting the record as soon as one can are still serious matters, even in this age of Johnson, Brexit and 2022.

*

A third possible consequence of Partygate is the worrying normalisation of politically motivated reporting of opponents to the police.

This blog recently set out this concern – and the concern has also been articulated by newspaper columnists:

This is an issue distinct from the obvious truth that politicians should not be above the law.

This issue is about when there is political pressure for there to be police intervention in respect of opponents, where such pressure would not be applied in respect of one’s own ‘side’.

Unless a report would be made to the police in the same circumstances when it was a political ally rather than an opponent, the report is being made on a partisan basis.

And routine goading of police involvement – and their coercive powers – on a partisan basis is not a good sign in any political system.

*

The fourth possible consequence is more optimistic.

The covid regulations were an exercise in bad and rushed legislation, where – even accounting for it being a pandemic – insufficient care was given to the rules imposed and to how they were enforced.

This was pointed out at the time – by this blog and many other legal commentators.

The fact there was a pandemic was used as an excuse for shoddy drafting rather than it being the reason.

And part of the shoddiness was, no doubt, because these were seen by those in the executive as being rules for other people – that is, for the rest of us.

One perhaps positive thing about Partygate is that senior officials, politicians and advisers in the government now are aware that such rules can apply to them.

This may mean that in the event of another pandemic requiring similar rules, the provisions will have more anxious scrutiny before being put in palce and enforced.

That said, of course, it is perhaps also possible that the government will just make sure that future rules expressly do not apply to Whitehall.

But we have to take what possible positives that we can from this gods-awful governmentally-self-inflicted political, legal and constitutional mess, known as Partygate.

**

Thank you for reading – and please do support this blog, so that it can carry on for you and others.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week-day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The outlaw ministry

12th May 2022

From time to time on social media you will get people asking about the difference between something being ‘unlawful’ and being ‘illegal’.

And whenever this happens you will invariably get some wacky funster replying that the difference is that one means someone is acting outside the law and the other is a sick bird.

Ho ho, every time.

But.

The real problem with this government is not that it acts unlawfully or illegally.

The problem is that it acts as if it is an outlaw – that for the government, law does not apply in the first place.

It is not so much that the government cares about breaking any law, or about whether it has any legal basis for what it does.

Instead, the government does not see law as even applying to it.

To use a lovely Scottish word – the government acts as if it is ‘outwith’ the law.

The law applies to little people, and not this government.

‘Law and Order’ is a campaigning slogan, but not a principle of government.

As this blog has previously averred, this government engages in three types of lawlessness.

First, it often conducts itself without any lawful basis.

Second, it seeks to introduce legislation that will enable it to freely break the law.

Third, it permits law-breaking at the highest level.

It is difficult to imagine a government with less respect for law, and for the rule of law.

This is not so much a government of law breakers, but a government of outlaws.

The law is an inconvenience which can be disregarded as and when it is inconvenient.

Such an approach has its hedonistic attractions, but it cannot end well.

Brace, brace.

 

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

This is not a proposal for “a Bill of Rights” – this is semi-waffle in support of vanity legislation

10th May 2022

Today it was announced in the Queen’s Speech that there will be a “Bill of Rights”.

Some are alarmed at this proposal – and warn darkly (and perhaps correctly) that this will be a fundamental attack on the Human Rights Act 1998 and on the protections we have under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which that Act gives effect in domestic law.

One plausible consequence of the proposal is that there will no longer be a a law called ‘the Human Rights Act’ in our statute books.

This post, however, will take a sightly different approach.

This post is one more of derision than of alarm.

For the proposal set out today is all rather pathetic.

*

Let us start with the Queen’s Speech.

The relevant portion of the speech was this:

“My Government will ensure the constitution is defended. My Ministers will restore the balance of power between the legislature and the courts by introducing a Bill of Rights.”

There is already a Bill of Rights – at least in the law of England and Wales.

That law from 1688 or1689 (depending on how pedantic you affect to be) is famous and significant, and it is one of few ancient pieces of legislation that those with an interest in such things can name.

Any government bringing forward a new (or revised) Bill of Rights would presumably be proud, promoting the legislation as a highlight of its new parliamentary schedule.

But this latest “Bill of Rights”?

It was 800 words into a 940-word speech

Even in the accompanying briefing for journalists, it made only page 118 of a 140-page document.

The Bill is not so much an initiative, but an afterthought.

*

And now we turn to content.

There is no real content.

The government has not published the proposed legislation, and indeed the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is not in a position to publish the proposed legislation.

The MoJ told me today that the consultation on the reform only closed on 19 April and the responses are still being reviewed.

This lack of content can also be seen in the briefing note:

“The purpose of the Bill is to:

● Introduce a Bill of Rights which will ensure our human rights framework meets the needs of the society it serves and commands public confidence.

● End the abuse of the human rights framework and restore some common sense to our justice system.

The main benefits of the Bill would be:

● Defending freedom of speech by promoting greater confidence in society to express views freely, thereby enhancing public debate.

● Curbing the incremental expansion of a rights culture without proper democratic oversight, which has displaced due focus on personal responsibility and the public interest.

● Reducing unnecessary litigation and avoiding undue risk aversion for bodies delivering public services.

● Tackling the issue of foreign criminals evading deportation, because their human rights are given greater weight than the safety and security of the public.

The main elements of the Bill are:

● Establishing the primacy of UK case law, clarifying there is no requirement to follow the Strasbourg case law and that UK Courts cannot interpret rights in a more expansive manner than the Strasbourg Court.

● Ensuring that UK courts can no longer alter legislation contrary to its ordinary meaning and constraining the ability of the UK courts to impose ‘positive obligations’ on our public services without proper democratic oversight by restricting the scope for judicial legislation.

● Guaranteeing spurious cases do not undermine public confidence in human rights so that courts focus on genuine and credible human rights claims. The responsibility to demonstrate a significant disadvantage before a human rights claim can be heard in court will be placed on the claimant. 

● Recognising that responsibilities exist alongside rights by changing the way that damages can be awarded in human rights claims, for example by ensuring that the courts consider the behaviour of the claimant when considering making an award.”

*

These three groups of bullet-points – ‘purpose…main benefits…main elements’ – indicate padding, and indeed the bullet-points are interchangeable between the sections.

Almost none of the bullet-points are concrete.

If anything they are almost all talking-points.

Some are semi-meaningless waffle – “restore some common sense” and “responsibilities exist alongside rights” are slogans rather than thoughts.

And to the extent any of these bullet-points do have meaning, their import is not to protect rights but to limit rights.

This is not a “Bill of Rights” but a Bill to, as far as possible, remove or restrict rights.

Only one bullet-point – and you can check if you doubt me – is even positive about substantive rights: “● Defending freedom of speech by promoting greater confidence in society to express views freely, thereby enhancing public debate”.

*

Most significant of all – and this is what the government wants you to miss – is that this Bill of Rights will not substantially affect the position of the ECHR in the United Kingdom.

And this is because the Good Friday Agreement requires the United Kingdom to give effect to the ECHR in Northern Ireland.

If you look carefully at the proposals, there is mention of making sure the courts do not go further than the ECHR – “UK Courts cannot interpret rights in a more expansive manner than the Strasbourg Court” – but there is not (express) mention of getting rid of the ECHR in domestic law or any (express) suggestion that the United Kingdom follow Russia in leaving the Council of Europe.

So this proposal is, in part, an exercise in misdirection – an attempt to make it look like the government is ending the Human Rights Act but pretty much keeping the ECHR in domestic law.

*

Perhaps the government will put forward a Bill with more concrete proposals.

Perhaps the Lord Chancellor – facing chaos and crises in the court and prisons systems – will achieve his own political priority of replacing the Human Rights Act with some law that does much the same with a different name, but with added (and pointless) tinkering.

Perhaps any of this is worth the effort of new primary legislation – where (if needed) any changes could be done by amendment to the existing legislation.

Perhaps.

But.

The impression given by this proposal is that the new “Bill of Rights” is legislation for the mere sake of legislation.

None of the bullet-points – you can check – individually or together add up to the need for a new statute – let alone something with as hallowed and grandiose a title as a “Bill of Rights”.

On the face of today’s proposals, this is mere vanity legislation.

**

Thank you for reading – and please do support this blog, so that it can carry on for you and others.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week-day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

 

Russia’s flimsy constitution and the USA’s rigid constitution, and the notion that codified constitutions are necessarily a good thing

5th May 2022

From time to time this blog (and my commentary elsewhere) is accused of being against a codified constitution for the United Kingdom.

(A codified constitution is often also known – inexactly – as a ‘written’ constitution, but uncodified constitutions are usually written down, just not in one place.)

This accusation of being against a codified constitution for the United Kingdom is, in my view, unfair and incorrect.

A codified constitution for the United Kingdom may be a good and welcome thing.

Or it could be a horrible and unwelcome thing, entrenching domestic executive power yet further.

It all depends.

This is because codified constitutions can be good things or bad things.

The view of this blog (and my commentary elsewhere) is that a codified constitution of the United Kingdom is not necessarily a good thing.

And it rejects the casual plea ‘and this is why we need a written/codified constitution’ that often follows some political outrage.

A codified constitution is not a liberal panacea.

It is not even necessarily better than our current constitutional arrangements – so the alternative plea of ‘at least it would be a step in the right direction’ is also misconceived.

A codified constitution could be, from a liberal perspective, very much a step in the wrong direction.

*

Codified constitutions are relevant to two of the current main international news stories – the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the likely overturning in the United States of Roe v Wade.

As this blog has previously set out, there are few constitutions which on paper are as liberal and wonderful as that of Russia.

And yet the Russian president had unlimited illiberal powers at home and no check on what he orders to be done (or attempted) abroad.

In the United States, the fundamental right of a woman of access to the means of aborting a pregnancy may no longer be a constitutional right, and thereby enforceable in all the states of the union.

This is because its status as a constitutional right rests only on mere case law, and not on the express provisions of the constitution itself.

And that, in turn, is because the constitution of the United States is difficult to amend generally, and it is practically impossible to amend on the issue of abortion – and so the constitutional right depended on litigation rather than on any formal enactment.

Other rights that seemed significant in the eighteenth century are set out in writing and cannot (easily) be removed.

Americans have the right to a well-regulated militia, but not a right to regulated and safe abortions.

But…. but….

…those are different, will come the defiant response of the constitution-mongers.

A codified constitution of the United Kingdom would be just right – not too flimsy, and not too rigid.

Perhaps this ideal codified constitution will be drafted by Goldilocks.

*

Again, nothing on this blog should be taken to mean a codified constitution will necessarily be a bad thing.

But one should be critical, and one should not even presume that a codified constitution would tend to be a liberal panacea.

The government – backed by the considerable resources of the government legal service and the treasury panel of barristers – would seek to game any written constitution in the executive’s favour.

And against such a concert, mere wishful thinking will be no match

But…. but….

…this should be different, will come the response of the gamed constitution-mongers.

But.

Be careful what you clamour for.

A liberal constitutional order is not easy to achieve.

And that it may be the current arrangements without codification are more liberal than anything that the government would permit to be put in place as a codified constitution.

**

Thank you for reading – and please do support this blog, so that it can carry on for you and others.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week-day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

Fundamental rights vs legal rights vs constitutional rights – the case of abortion and the United States Supreme Court

4th May 2022

Those with too much interest in law or politics will talk about different sorts or rights – fundamental rights, legal rights, constitutional rights, and so on.

Some of those people will even know what they mean by each of these (similar) terms.

Others, however, may find the feast of terms confusing.

This post is for those who want to better understand such terms.

And for the purpose of exposition, I will take the topical issue of abortion in the United States (which this blog covered yesterday)

*

First, what is a ‘right’?

A right is the absolute ability to elect to do something in a given situation.

If that ability can be withdrawn by another, then it is better understood as a privilege, and not as a right.

If you need to obtain the prior consent of another before exercising that ability then it is not a right but a permission.

What makes it a right is that no prior permission is required and it cannot (easily) be withdrawn.

Sometimes these rights are expressly articulated and set out in a formal code.

And sometimes they arise by implication because of a certain legal state of affairs.

The right to an abortion under Roe v Wade in the United States is an example of the latter.

The Supreme Court held that it would be unconstitutional for there to be certain legal prohibitions on abortion.

This rested on a right to privacy, which is not expressly stated in the constitution, but was implied into the constitution by the court.

The right to abortion therefore is the implication of it being unconstitutional for there to be certain legal prohibitions in respect of people’s private lives.

And because Roe v Wade was decided by the Supreme Court on the basis of what was constitutional, the right is a ‘constitutional right’ .

This means that it is not open to Congress (on a federal level) or individual states to interfere with the right.

A lower level of right would be a legal right – for example, a right to an abortion as provided for in laws made by Congress or an individual state.

But such legal rights are subject to the constitution, and so if they do not conform with the constitution then they can be quashed.

This means that, if the Supreme Court holds that it is a matter for individual states to regulate access to abortions, but Congress purports to enact a nation-wide right to abortion, such a legal right may be struck down by the Supreme Court.

(Legal rights are useful, but constitutional rights are stronger.)

A third category of rights are ‘fundamental’ or ‘natural’ rights – these are rights which exist (or should) exist, independent of whether they are posited by the legal system.

Sometimes these rights correspond with constitutional or legal rights, sometimes they do not.

From a liberal perspective (the perspective of this blog), the right of a woman to elect to have an abortion is a fundamental right.

The principle is that – in general – it is for the woman to decide, and not a legislature.

(And if a legislator or voter is opposed to abortion, then they are free to not have one – but it should not be an absolute rule imposed on another.)

This general principle is subject to a limitation of there being a point in a pregnancy after which no abortion should be normally be performed – and views will differ on when that limit is.

But the fact that views will differ as to when that limit is does not mean that there should not be a general right to elect to have an abortion before that limit.

*

If the Supreme Court do remove the constitutional status of the implicit right to an abortion then it may still be a legal right in some states, and it still will be a fundamental right, even if an ineffective fundamental right in other states.

If the Supreme Court overrules Roe v Wade, the only other way to return the right to an abortion to being a constitutional right – and thereby exercisable in every American state is for the constitution to be amended.

That would then put it beyond the grasp of an illiberal Supreme Court and any illiberal Congress.

But until and unless that happens, you have a fundamental right which may be a legal right in some states and not others, but is not a constitutional right.

And that – well – would not be right.

**

Do you value this blog?

If so, please do support this blog, so that it can carry on for you and others.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The suggestion that the Prime Minister give evidence to the privileges committee under oath and pain of perjury

2nd May 2022

Did you know there is a Parliamentary Witness Oaths Act?

This 1871 statute – which is still in force – provides among other things that any committee of the House of Commons may administer an oath to the witnesses examined before such committee.

And, while an examination of witness by a parliamentary committee is not a judicial proceeding, it would still be perjury for a person to lie such an oath (or affirmation) – with the penalty being up to seven years in prison.

This information comes from a fascinating and informative article at the New Statesman by Alexander Horne, a former parliamentary legal adviser.

In that article Horne contends that such an oath could be administered to the Prime Minister for any evidence he gives to the privileges committee.

If so. this would mean that the Prime Minister would be (to use the glorious legal phrase) ‘under pain of perjury’ to tell the truth to the committee investigating whether he deliberately misled parliament and/or failed to correct the record at the first available opportunity.

(The latter point is where this blog has previously set out that the Prime Minister is vulnerable, for it may be hard for him to maintain that once he had the Sue Gray report and/or any briefing for the Metropolitan police investigation that he still did not realise that he had misled parliament.)

On the face of it, administering such an oath has its attractions.

No sensible person doubts that the current prime minister lies fluently and repeatedly, and so placing him ‘under pain of perjury’ would have the advantage of concentrating his mind wonderfully.

Such an approach would also have the broader advantage of reminding the Prime Minister and others that evidence to parliamentary committees should be taken seriously – especially as the sanction of ‘contempt of parliament’ is, well, held in contempt.

Horne mentions where such oaths have been used:

“Committees rarely administer the oath to witnesses, although it has happened in recent years. The Home Affairs Committee chose to take evidence under oath in respect of its inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. The Public Accounts Committee also controversially administered the oath to the general counsel and solicitor to the Inland Revenue in 2011.”

*

But.

It may be one thing for witnesses who are not members of either house of parliament to give evidence to a parliamentary committee ‘under pain of perjury’ – but for a parliamentarian and minister to also do so is constitutionally problematic.

That what parliamentarians say in parliament is absolutely protected at law is set out (some would say ‘enshrined’) in the Bill of Rights.

And there is the principle that the responsibility of a minister to answer questions in parliament is politically enforceable (or not enforceable), and not a matter for any form of litigation.

Imagine if the Prime Minister (or other minister or parliamentarian) is caught out in a lie before a parliamentary committee, what would then happen?

(And the 1871 legislation does not expressly provide that parliamentarians are exempt.)

Would an outside court have to adjudicate the conduct of a parliamentarian in respect of parliamentary proceedings?

It is difficult to see how such a prosecution could be easily brought – and it could result in another (for constitutional commentators, splendid) constitutional mess.

And regardless of the legal(istic) issues in this particular situation, there is a sensible wariness of converting political issues into court matters.

*

That said, however, it is unfortunate that there is so little that can be done to get the prime minister to give truthful answers in parliament.

This is certainly a constitutional problem that needs a practical solution.

The suggestion of getting a Prime Minister to give evidence to the privileges committee investigating him ‘under pain of perjury’ has the appearance of being such a solution to that problem.

The fear would be that in seeking go solve one constitutional problem, another is caused.

And so the problem remains: what can you do – constitutionally and practically –  with a dishonest Prime Minister?

*

POSTSCRIPT

Horne has provided a link to a useful post where he deals with the issues in more detail:

**

Please support this blog, so that it can carry on.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The false and misleading statements of Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock about the Covid care homes judgment

29 April 2022

On Wednesday the prime minister was asked by Daisy Cooper MP about the high court decision holding that the government had acted unlawfully in its covid guidance for care homes.

Hansard sets out the exchange as follows:

Note that key phrase from the prime minister:

“…we did not know in particular was that covid could be transmitted asymptomatically in the way that it was. I wish we had known more about that at the time.”

The former health secretary Matt Hancock gave an interview to ITV News, where he said:

“I wish that the knowledge about asymptomatic transmission had been…had been…I had known it earlier.”

(The switch midway that sentence is interesting – he seems to go from wanting to say that knowledge about asymptomatic transmission had not been known earlier to carefully stating that he personally did not know.)

Hancock then put out a statement to the press as follows:

“This court case comprehensively clears ministers of any wrongdoing and finds Mr Hancock acted reasonably on all counts. 

“The court also found that Public Health England failed to tell ministers what they knew about asymptomatic transmission.”

So: is what the prime minister and the former health secretary said in response to this judgment true?

Let us see.

*

The judgment contains evidence about what was said and done, and when.

The evidence does not appear to have been contested by the government in the hearing, though the government’s lawyers would dispute the weight and meanings to be placed on that evidence.

What did the evidence say?

At paragraph 65 of the judgment (emphasis on date added):

“…on 9 March [2020] the Health Minister Lord Bethell, said in the House of Lords that “large numbers of people are infectious or infected but are completely asymptomatic and never go near a test kit.” “

At paragraph 69 of the judgment (emphasis on date added):

“On 12 March [2020] the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) published a paper entitled ‘Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic; increased transmission in the EU-EEA and the UK- 6th update.’ It made a number of observations about asymptomatic transmission. It noted that “over the course of the infection, the virus has been identified in respiratory tract specimens 1-2 days before the onset of symptoms…”. Referring to the Japanese National Institute of Infectious Diseases’ field briefing entitled ‘Diamond Princess COVID-19 cases update March 10, 2020,’ it observed that the virus has “been detected in asymptomatic persons. On a rapidly evolving cruise ship outbreak where most of the passengers and staff were tested irrespective of symptoms, 51% of the laboratory confirmed cases were asymptomatic at the time of confirmation”.

At paragraph 73 (emphasis on date added):

“On the morning of 13 March [2020], on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, said this about the means of transmission of the virus:

” “It looks quite likely that there is some degree of asymptomatic transmission. There’s definitely quite a lot of transmission very early on in the disease when there are very mild symptoms”.”

At paragraph 78 (emphasis on date added):

“on 15 March [2020], an important paper from Imperial College and Columbia University was published. ‘Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus’ by Li and Pei et al. discussed the transmission rate of undocumented infection.”

And so on.

The judgment also lists various papers that were published in March 2020, including a paper published on 31 March that stated:

“between a third and a half of transmissions occur from pre-symptomatic individuals.”

*

That was all in March 2020 – now let us turn to April 2020.

Paragraph 286 of the judgment:

“On 2 April 2020, a week after the lockdown had been given legal effect (by the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/350)) , the Admissions Guidance was published. As noted above, this included the following about new admissions (emphasis in the original):

” “Some of these patients [admitted from a hospital or from a home setting] may have COVID-19, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic.  All of these patients can be safely cared for in a care home if this guidance is followed.  If an individual has no COVID-19 symptoms, or has tested positive for COVID-19 but is no longer showing symptoms and has completed their isolation period then care should be provided as normal. … Negative tests are not required prior to transfers/admissions into the care home.” “

The court then states in the next paragraphs about this April guidance:

“there is no evidence that the Secretary of State or anyone advising him addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of asymptomatic transmission. […]

“Since there is no evidence that this question was considered by the Secretary of State, or that he was asked to consider it, it is not an example of a political judgment on a finely balanced issue. Nor is it a point on which any of the expert committees had advised that no guidance was required. Those drafting the March Discharge Policy and the April Admissions Guidance simply failed to take into account the highly relevant consideration of the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from asymptomatic transmission.”

“It is notable that on 25 and 28 March, days before the publication of the 2 April Admissions Guidance, the Minister for Social Care (Ms Whately) was raising concerns about this aspect of the guidance.

“It was not until 15 April in the Action Plan of that date that the Department recommended both testing and isolation for 14 days for new residents admitted to care homes, whether from hospital or from the community. Such isolation was to be either in the care home itself or using “local authority-based arrangements”, that is to say quarantine facilities.

“This was a significant delay at a critical period.

“We consider that the decision to issue the 2 April Admissions Guidance in that form was irrational in that it failed to take into account the risk of asymptomatic transmission, and failed to make an assessment of the balance of risks.

*

And so, as this blog set out yesterday, the court held that the April guidance was irrational in that it failed to take account of a relevant consideration – and at a time where the government was seeking to discharge as many as possible from hospital and into care homes.

This is not about whether the government knew with absolute certainty whether there would be asymptomatic transmission.

But it is about that the government knowing there was a risk before the guidance was issued.

Government ministers and their advisers had spoken expressly of the risk.

Mounting scientific evidence stated there was a risk.

Given that all this can be shown as being known in March 2020, there can be no sensible reason for the April guidance to care homes not to have referred to this risk.

*

And now let us come back to the statements from the prime minister and the former health secretary.

The prime minister:

“…we did not know in particular was that covid could be transmitted asymptomatically in the way that it was. I wish we had known more about that at the time.”

The former health secretary:

“I wish that the knowledge about asymptomatic transmission had been…had been…I had known it earlier.”

Both these statements are misleading, and indeed false.

The judgment puts together all the evidence possessed and available to the health department (and the health secretary) at the time.

The passages in the judgment where the court considers the government lawyer’s attempts to explain all this away (paragraphs 272 to 278 and 290) show just how weak the government’s position on this was.

Either the accumulated detail of the judgment of what was known and when – undisputed by the government in court – is true or the statements of the prime minister and the former health secretary are true.

But not both.

The government said it was throwing its protective arms around the care homes at that critical moment, when it was seeking to discharge as many as possible from hospital into care homes.

But the government instead issued guidance that made no mention of a risk that it knew existed – and that can be shown that the government knew existed.

And so people died.

Far from ‘clearing’ the former health secretary of ‘wrongdoing’, the judgment sets out that what was done was very wrong indeed.

**

Please support this blog, so that it can carry on.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

How one paragraph in the significant Covid and care homes judgment describes Matt Hancock’s lethal, unlawful policy

28th April 2022

One of the most outstanding lawyers I know works a lot with care home clients.

Sometime ago they told me about what happened when the hospitals started seeking to release patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic.

A hospital was trying to force a care home to take a potentially positive patient.

The lawyer advised their care home client to lock all the doors, and to not accept anyone from the hospital untested.

Robust advice yes – but it was a bleedingly obvious problem – and now the High Court has said, in effect, my friend’s legal advice was correct.

The Covid and care homes judgment handed down this week is long and complicated – 75 pages and 299 numbered paragraphs.

But one paragraph stands out – and goes to the heart of the relationship between policy on one hand and law on the other.

It is paragraph 289:

“Since there is no evidence that this question was considered by the Secretary of State, or that he was asked to consider it, it is not an example of a political judgment on a finely balanced issue. Nor is it a point on which any of the expert committees had advised that no guidance was required. Those drafting the March Discharge Policy and the April Admissions Guidance simply failed to take into account the highly relevant consideration of the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from asymptomatic transmission.”

This is not an example thereby of a hard policy decision being made between competing options.

Most sensible people would say that is a matter for the government and not for the courts.

It was instead a decision which failed absolutely to take account of a relevant consideration.

As such, it was a policy decision that was not lawfully open to the decision-maker.

As those bringing the case set out, the secretary of state was the relevant decision-maker “and the public law duties fell on him personally to consider relevant considerations, exclude the irrelevant ones and be sufficiently informed”. 

How the court applied this legal principle in this case is interesting:

The court has held, in effect, that by the time the relevant guidance was issued, the risk of asymptomatic transmission was obvious and well-known – it was even being mentioned publicly by government scientific advisers.

But the government blithely put out guidance to care homes that did not even consider that risk, let alone provide for what care homes should have done to manage the risk.

The court elsewhere in the judgment rejects challenges on other grounds – and the court is careful to say that earlier stages of the pandemic, it would not have been fair or realistic for the government to have known that there was a risk.

But by the time of the April 2020 guidance, this was not the case – and the government could not pretend that was the case.

The government instead published guidance on which care homes were supposed to rely and did not care to consider the risk of asymptomatic transmission.

That took the decision out of the realm of administration and policy and into the realm of public law.

The judgment does not refer expressly to the famous Wednesbury principle, but this is an example of a decision so unreasonable no reasonable decision-maker could have made it.

And that is even after giving due latitude and deference to a government dealing with a pandemic – that offers no excuse to have got this guidance so completely – lethally – wrong.

Far from throwing their arms around the care home sector, the department of health instead threw their hands over their eyes.

And care homes should not have been placed in the dreadful predicament of having to decide whether it was safe to follow department of health guidance, or whether they should have locked their doors instead.

**

Please support this blog, so that it can carry on.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

 

What the next Queen’s Speech may tell us about this government

27th April 2022

Yesterday’s I newspaper had this interesting front page about the upcoming Queen’s Speech:

The article supporting the front page told us:

“At least a dozen Government bills which were promised at the Queen’s Speech a year ago will not become law in time for the next speech which takes place on 10 May. Downing Street is seeking to push through another 10 pieces of legislation in the next few days.”

What is especially interesting about this front page is its timing.

We are more-or-less at the midpoint of this parliament.

The last general election was on 12 December 2019, and the latest date for the next election, it would seem, is 24 January 2025.

The next Queen’s Speech – which has been set for 10 May 2022 – will mark the start of the last full parliamentary session where there would be adequate time for any significant reforms to be properly carried through after enactment.

In other words: if the government was to attempt major changes through legislation, this is the time.

But.

This government does not appear to have the appetite for major reforms.

Promised overhauls of, for example, our complex systems for planning or procurement will again not be put forward.

The (impartial) House of Commons Library provides the following list of Bills promised in the last Queen’s Speech that are yet to be introduced:

(‘Procurement Bill’ sounds like a bloke who works in supplier management in a less exciting sequel to Postman Pat.)

The library also lists the bills ‘foreshadowed’:

But as any decent scriptwriter will tell you, foreshadowing is not character (or story) development.

And it would seem that this government finds it easier to announce fundamental reforms than to actually take them forward and implement those reforms.

The ultimate reason for this is simple.

Reform is hard, policy is hard, law-making is hard.

Getting one’s thoughts together to the extent of actually having a Bill ready to introduce to parliament is hard.

The first reading in parliament of a Bill is not stage one of a process, but about stage seven or eight.

The hard work takes place on the departments and with parliamentary drafters.

Handing a Bill to ministers to pilot through parliament is not to be done lightly.

*

The former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings had – regardless of his other merits and otherwise – ambitious plans to shake our planning and public procurement regimes.

No sensible person with knowledge of planning or public procurement would say the current arrangements are perfect.

An ambitious, reforming government would now be ready to grapple with fundamental reforms in planning, public procurement, and many other areas.

And this government would be in a strong position to do – on paper.

For this government has the greatest prize that the constitution of the United Kingdom can bestow: a large working majority in the House of Commons.

This means the government not only has all the advantages of extensive executive power (under the royal prerogative and otherwise), and access to the government legal service and the treasury panel of barristers for fighting cases in the courts.

It also means that the government can be confident of passing legislation through the House of Commons and, if necessary, forcing it through the House of Lords too.

Few Prime Minsters win this prize.

Clement Attlee had this prize, and used it to drive through welfare state legislation; Thatcher did with trade union and privatisation legislation; and even Tony Blair, in his first term, was able to get the Human Rights Act and other legislation on the statute book.

And our current government?

Here is a challenge: take a moment to name one flagship Act of Parliament passed since the general election.

Yes, there has been Brexit and Covid legislation – but this would have to have been passed whoever won the last general election.

Can you think of one?

I am a law and policy commentator – and I can can only think of a possible few – though various nasty laws on borders and protests are about to come enacted.

Of course: Brexit and Covid have taken a lot of government and parliamentary time, as have Afghanistan and Ukraine.

But.

At this mid-term moment, a government with a large working majority should be raring to go.

Yet it is not.

It a government that cannot even be confident to block or amend a reference to the privileges committee about the Prime Minister.

As Norman Lamont once said of then Prime Minister John Major, we have a government in office but not in power.

And that was when Major government had a very small majority, not the working majority of nearly eighty of Boris Johnson.

So this could be a significant Queen’s Speech – but its true significance may be about what it does not contain, rather than what it does.

**

Please support this blog, so that it can carry on.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.