Category: Courts and Politics

The real problem with Beergate – and with Partygate

9th May 2022

There are many ways to look at the ‘Beergate’ political story – about the police investigation into what Leader of the Opposition did and did not do at (or after) a campaign function.

One way is to follow the political soap opera – and to ponder if the Leader of the Opposition will resign if he faces a penalty, if this will then backfire on the government supporters who have made this such a political story, and if voters will get tired and dismiss this and ‘Partygate’ with the shrug that says ‘they are all the same’.

Another way is to anxiously scrutinise the applicable law and to query whether the gathering was for work purposes or not.

And there is a third way, which requires stepping back to wonder if something more significant is going on.

Do ‘Partygate’ and ‘Beergate’ signify a shift in standard political tactics towards using reports to the police of one’s political opponents and encouraging investigations and sanctions?

For it is one thing to campaign against one’s political opponents.

But it seems another to actively seek that they face police attention.

Of course, from time to time – and in a society under the rule of law – politicians will get arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished.

And that can be in respect of ‘political’ offences – such as regulate electoral matters – or more straightforward criminal activity.

Sometimes such investigations may have potentially important political implications – such as the cash for honours scandal about fifteen years ago, or the more recent parliamentary expenses scandals.

But in each of these cases, the involvement of the police seemed exceptional – and not part of the mundane, day-to-day politicking of Westminster.

And generally it seemed police involvement was not weaponised for political advantage (though there were one or two exceptions of minor Members of Parliament who liked referring matters to Scotland Yard).

Now, however, police involvement could not be more central to politics.

The fate of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the Opposition depend, in part, on exercises of police discretion.

Not even a court is involved – just decisions of police officers as to whether it is reasonable to believe covid rules were broken.

(It would only become a matter for the courts if those police decisions are not accepted.)

Perhaps all this is just a one-off – just an extraordinary result of intrusive pandemic regulations that are no longer in place.

Or perhaps this marks a shift to using police involvement as a regular aspect of political activity.

So before we get carried away – one way or another – with clamouring for penalties to be imposed on which politicians you like least, perhaps we should think about where this is going.

For it may not be a good place for our politics to go.

**

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 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.

 

Partygate and parliament: law and policy, tactics and strategy, privileges and penalties

21st April 2022

Well.

Those were an interesting few days in parliament.

We went from a government bullishly seeking to block the prime minister being investigated by the powerful committee on privileges, to supporting the opposition motion.

This government cannot even get political gangsterism right.

Great credit here should go to the opposition parties.

Faced with a law-breaking prime minister who has said – on any view – incorrect things to parliament about the facts relevant to that law-breaking, the opposition could have gone for censure motion, or a confidence motion, or a contempt motion.

And had the opposition done so, it would have been defeated – perhaps on a whipped vote.

But instead the Labour leadership put forward a motion to which no sensible member of parliament could object, and the motion even said any consideration by the privileges committee should await the end of the Metropolitan police investigation.

And the Labour chair of the privileges committee – who had been vocal in his disdain of the prime minister on this issue – said he would recuse himself, thereby removing another possible objection.

Against this tactical savviness, the government position collapsed.

First there was to be an amendment: but that went.

Then the vote was to be unwhipped: and that went.

And in the end, there was not even a vote.

The motion went through on the nod.

Let’s just think about that.

A motion of the house of commons that a sitting prime minister should be investigated by the privileges committee in respect of four statements he made in the house about the circumstances of that law breaking went through – and not a single member of parliament opposed it.

Of course: asking for an investigation is one thing – and the committee may well not find the prime minister in contempt.

But – in and of itself – that such a motion should go through without any objection is remarkable.

One reason for the opposition’s tactical success is that Conservative members of parliament do not want another situation like with Owen Paterson – where they were whipped to frustrate a report, only for the position to be reversed in front of their eyes.

Another reason is that – as this blog has previously averred – a parliamentary majority is no barrier to Nemesis following Hubris.

Other prime ministers in command of working majorities have been brought down before between elections – Thatcher, Blair – and so there is no reason this one cannot be either.

A privileges committee investigation is a serious matter, as they have the power to recommend suspensions from the house.

Another investigation – following the Sue Gray and metropolitan investigations – will also keep this issue alive – and that is, no doubt, the strategic goal of the opposition.

The constitutional Wednesday Addams in any of us can only smile at all of this not going away.

*

What is happening here is – in effect – a parliamentary stress-test, an anxious examination of our constitutional arrangements.

What do you do with a law-breaking prime minister who has misled the house of commons?

Can this be checked and balanced?

The answer to this should not be a civil servant’s report – however independently minded the civil servant.

Nor should it be a decision by the police to issue a penalty, or not.

It is – rightly – a matter for parliament.

And this week’s deft parliamentary footwork by Labour and the other opposition parties has ensured that there will be a parliamentary answer to this particular parliamentary question.

**

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

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

***

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.

Boris Johnson’s Triple-Whammy of Unlawfulness

12th April 2022

Constitutional law is not supposed to be interesting.

Constitutional law is supposed to be boring.

And Boris Johnson could not make it any more exciting.

To take three examples.

First, the Supreme Court held that he gave unlawful advice to the Queen over prorogation of parliament.

(An incident that managed to engage all four of the monarch, parliament, the courts and the executive – the constitutional law equivalent of a full house.)

Second, his government actually introduced legislation to Parliament to enable it to break the law.

(Just typing that seems strange – but it happened, although the government averred that the law would be broken in a “limited and specific” way.)

And now, an even more extraordinary thing has happened.

The prime minister has been found by the metropolitan police to have broken this governments own laws on gatherings under lockdown.

And the necessary implication of this sanction is that the prime minister knowingly misled parliament when denying such a gathering took place.

He cannot even say he was misinformed, as he was at the gathering himself.

*

Johnson has not been prime minister a long time, and there are many prime ministers who have been in office far longer with far less constitutional excitement.

Of course he should resign – but that is not the point of this blogpost.

The point instead is to convey the sheer magnitude of what Johnson has ‘accomplished’ in his trashing of constitutional norms – and in under three years..

Just one of the above examples – and there have been many more, it is just those three came readily to mind – would be career-ending for a politician in any normal political system.

And that even now nobody knows if he will resign is an indication of how abnormal politics are at the moment.

It takes a certain quality for a prime minister in three years to contrive this triple-whammy of unlawfulness.

Indeed, it is difficult to conceive what he could still yet do as a fourth instalment.

Brace, brace.

**

Thank you for reading – these free-to-read law and policy posts take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to 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.

***

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.

Two reasons why today’s ‘Reclaim these Streets’ high court decision is significant

11th March 2022

The ‘Reclaim these Streets’ decision was handed down by the High Court today.

In a welcome judgment, it was held by the High Court that the Metropolitan Police had acted unlawfully in respect of blanket banning a vigil during lockdown.

The ruling is detailed and thorough, but on the first reading there are two points that seem worth making.

First, the court placed the police decision-making under anxious scrutiny.

This was instead of the court’s usual deference to police decision making – where the long arm of the law is kept at more than arm’s length.

This is refreshing approach instead of the more familiar nodding-along by judges at police conduct.

Second, and just as refreshing, the court took the legal right to freedom of expression  – under Article 10 of the ECHR – seriously.

This was rather than the common lip-service paid by judges – who invariably mention free expression rights only to allow them to be interfered with.

*

This must have been a challenging case to bring, to prepare for and to argue, and so there should be considerable credit for the applicants and their legal team for doing so.

Indeed – in getting the court to overcome its traditional deference to the police and in getting that court to then take free expression rights seriously – it is difficult to imagine a harder such case to fight and to win.

Well done to all who were involved.

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1502252517631135752

******

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.

How you can be sued for libel for reporting things said in Parliament

10th March 2022

On 9 March 2022 the following was stated by Bob Seely MP in the House of Commons:

What Seely said is set out on the ‘They Work For You’ website:

And it has been published in Hansard:

What has struck many about what Seely said is that reporting parliamentary debates could be actionable under the law of defamation.

Surely, some thought, reporting what is said in parliament has absolute privilege – that is legal protection – from any law suit.

Well.

The legal position is not straightforward – though you may think it should be.

And the unsettling answer is that you can be sued for reporting things said in parliament.

*

First there needs to be a distinction.

What MPs and peers themselves say in parliament does have absolute privilege.

This protection is provided by the Bill of Rights:

“`That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

From time to time, (ahem) spirited lawyers do threaten parliamentarians in respect of things said in parliament (here is a 2010 example) – but the lawyers should not do so, `and any legal claim would fail.

(The position is less clear-cut for witnesses at select committee hearings – but that is a topic for another time.)

This means there is nothing that a law firm can do with a legal threat to Seely or any other parliamentarian about what they say in parliamentary proceedings.

The MP or peer has absolute privilege – though there are rules in both houses of parliament about what can and cannot be said about certain matters – and those rules are not justiciable in court.

*

But.

Those reporting – or indeed repeating – what is said in parliament do not have this same absolute protection.

The protection is instead ‘qualified’ – and so is subject to a condition.

This condition is (in general terms) that the report – or other repetition – is not malicious.

(This condition is the general effect of the august Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 and the Defamation Act 1996.)

This therefore means a person can be sued for defamation (and perhaps for other things) for reporting or repeating what is said in parliament when in doing so they acting maliciously.

The onus is on the claimant to show this malice.

So this means that a potential claimant can sue – and thereby threaten to sue – a person who is reporting or repeating what is said in parliament.

The potential claimant and their lawyers would have to meet a high threshold if there were to issue such a claim and demonstrate malice – and it may be that they will fail to do so.

But nothing at law stops them issuing the threats.

*

How this all should work in an internet age where footage from parliament TV can be captured and circulated instantly is not clear.

For example I would not publish the footage of Seely above until and unless I saw it reported in Hansard, as I would want the protection of the 1840 Act.

*

There is the eternal question of what constitutes ‘malice’.

 

*

And there is also a question about whether lawyers for potential claimants can make over-stated libel threats when they have no evidence of malice.

As Professor Richard Moorhead explains there are general professional conduct rules about what can and cannot be in a threatening letter from a law firm:

The Solicitors Regulatory Authority states the following about solicitors’ professional duties in respect of disputes:

In essence – libel claimant lawyers cannot (and should not) threaten legal proceedings lightly – and if they do, there can be professional repercussions for those lawyers.

*

Perhaps there should be further protections.

For example: in respect of infringements to registered intellectual property rights (eg trade marks and patents), the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 prevents lawyers from making baseless threats.

Perhaps this should be extended to defamation threats.

And barristers and solicitors are under general professional obligations not to allege fraud without satisfactory evidence.

Presumably it would not be impossible for a similar rule to prevent baseless defamation threats, especially where there is no evidence of malice.

*

None of the above suggests – or is intended to suggest – that any particular claimant firm is making such baseless threats.

Instead the above points to the protections that those receiving the threats have (or should have) so as to be confident that such threats are not baseless.

And it also points to the high hurdle that any claimant firm needs to meet so as to allege malice when making such a threat.

*

We do have the gap in the law between absolute privilege for parliamentarians and only qualified privilege for those outside who report and repeat what those parliamentarians say.

It is a gap which in my view should be filled, and one which is not sensible (or sustainable) in the internet age.

But it is gap that has not yet been filled.

And so yes – as Seely said, it is possible for a law firm to threaten newspapers and others for what is said in parliament.

*

For completeness, this is not a new problem either for parliamentarians or for those reporting on what they say.

Those with good memories will recall the Trafigura matter – which was not about defamation but confidentiality – where a member of parliament said something which seemed to be subject to (and thereby in breach of) a court injunction.

(And to demonstrate my own personal lack of malice – this is a link to how Trafigura’s lawyer saw what happened.)

So none of this is a new issue – and it is one that goes to the very essence of a separation of powers.

**

Disclosure: I happen to be a qualified solicitor, and I still help clients facing libel and other claims, and so this post is informed by that experience.

*****

Thank you for reading – these free-to-read law and policy posts take time and opportunity cost to put together.

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 have each post sent by email by filling in the box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

******

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.

 

 

 

A government should not be able to deprive people of possessions and property by mere ministerial diktat

3rd March 2022

Yesterday’s short post turned out to be rather popular, with a number of informed and insightful comments.

(Perhaps that is a hint that I should keep these blogposts succinct!)

The question puzzling me today is whether those clamouring for United Kingdom sanctions against oligarchs realise that it is not a good thing for the government to have summary powers to deprive individuals of possessions and other property.

When the government uses summary powers, say, to deport members of the Windrush generation, or to remove a person’s British citizenship, then liberal rightly are concerned.

Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them, without violating their rights.

And if all individuals have rights, and oligarchs are individuals, then it follows that oligarchs have rights.

These rights may not be absolute – and property rights especially can be subject to interferences by the state.

But such interferences need to have a lawful and reasonable basis and follow due process.

And this is the same for oligarchs, as it is for anyone else.

That the government cannot just deprive people of possessions and property by mere ministerial diktat is not a bad thing in a liberal society.

And those who clap and cheer at the prospect of possessions and property being taken by the state without any lawful and reasonable basis, and without due process, should be careful what they wish for.

******

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.

Public interest litigation against public bodies

16th February 2022

There are two ways by which those with public power will act lawfully.

The first is self-restraint: that ministers and officials will act lawfully because, in essence, they want to do so.

The second is by enforcement: that ministers and officials who act unlawfully are open to challenge in the courts and can also face action from the police or other regulatory bodies.

So: if not the first, then the second.

But hopefully the first, which is better for everyone, apart from public law litigators.

The problem is what happens when ministers and officials do not care for self-restraint?

Then we have to go to the second stage, all too quickly.

But then there are new problems.

Who decides, for example, which cases to litigate?

How are those challenges to be financed?

And what if there is nobody in a position to litigate a case?

What is there – ultimately – to stop lawless behaviour by those with public power?

These questions are important – and they are not easy to answer.

One solution is to have non-governmental organisations litigate these cases, in the public interest.

But this brings new problems.

Pressure groups can have their own agendas – and some see litigation as an aid to fundraising and campaigning, rather than a thing in itself.

(When I was legal adviser to a pressure group party to a case that went all the way to the supreme court, I was careful to ensure that there was not a whiff of any ulterior motive and that the focus – correctly – was on the litigation.)

Too many pressure groups litigating elides the distinctions between politics and law.

And some may be tempted to blame the pressure groups.

But.

That is to partly see the problem the wrong way round.

The primary reason why so many non-governmental organisations are litigating is because of problems with those with public power.

The pressure groups in court are (at least) as much a consequence of poor quality policy-making and rule-making by ministers and officials.

In essence: better quality policy and rule-making will mean fewer subsequent legal challenges by pesky pressure groups.

But that would mean ministers and officials facing up to their own failings.

And it so much more easy to blame the pressure groups instead.

******

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.