Category: Courts and the administration of justice

A legal look at the Giuffre settlement agreement on which Prince Andrew is seeking to rely

5th January 2022

A happy new year to all the readers of this law and policy blog, and welcome back.

Today’s post is about civil law – that is the law which (broadly) deals with the legal obligations we owe to each other, as opposed to criminal law which (broadly) deals with the obligations we have to the state.

In essence: in civil law you can sue or be sued, and in criminal law you can be prosecuted or not prosecuted.

Civil law – especially contract law – is fascinating, and this post takes a topical legal agreement as the basis for explaining about civil law generally and contract law in particular.

*

The topical legal agreement is the recently disclosed settlement agreement between Virginia Giuffre and the now dead Jeffrey Epstein, on which (Prince) Andrew is currently seeking to rely in American litigation.

I have chosen this as a topic because it is rare for the substance of any legal agreement to be newsworthy – and legal commentators have to take our examples as we find them.

I have no view on the underlying litigation as I do not know the facts – and I have no particular view on Andrew other than a general preference for republican government and a disdain for inherited titles.

My sole purpose in this post is to use a topical legal agreement for promoting the public understanding of law.

(By way of background, I am not an American lawyer, but an English lawyer with experience of contracts and civil litigation who has spent part of their career dealing with American contracts and civil litigation, and this post draws on principles I believe are common to English and American contract law.)

*

Let’s start by looking at the agreement – click and open tab here.

It is, in essence, a seven-page agreement – and so pages 2 to 8 of the pdf are the ones to focus on.

*

A preliminary question is how seriously we should take the agreement as something agreed to by both Epstein and Giuffre – was it a one-sided imposition, or something freely negotiated with both sides getting legal advice?

Clause 9(c) tells us ‘This Settlement Agreement was negotiated and entered into by the Parties with the advice and assistance of respective counsel.’

This means that it is not, say, a standard form contract – but one which has been negotiated by lawyers with each party having legal advice (and the lawyers are even listed at the end of the document).

This in turn means a court will take seriously what was agreed, and it will seek to give effect to what was agreed between the legally advised parties.

This is reinforced by clause 9(a), which provides that the parties ‘confirm and acknowledge that this Settlement Agreement is being entered into without any duress or undue influence, and that they have had a full and complete opportunity to discuss the terms of the Settlement Agreement with their own attorneys.’

Of course, such a provision can – in principle – be disapplied if it is factually untrue and there was actual duress.

On the face of it, this was not an agreement imposed by one party on the other, but one which was negotiated by both parties with the benefit of legal advice.

So, again on the face of it, this is an agreement by which both Epstein and Giuffre intended to be bound.

*

With that preliminary question addressed, we come to the first big question.

What was the purpose of the agreement?

This is what can be called a question of construction – putting together the agreement as a whole so that we can then, as the next stage, interpret any constituent part.

With any legal instrument, and especially contracts, construction precedes interpretation.

Here there is a clue to the purpose in the title: Settlement Agreement and General Release.

This title indicates the agreement is doing two things – and you will see that these two things are, in turn, set out respectively in clauses 1 and 2.

But before we get to clauses 1 and 2 we can also see, almost as a recital, that the parties Giuffre and Epstein both entered the agreement so as to ‘resolve the pending litigation’ between them.

This litigation is then set out in clause 1: the parties agree to dismiss a civil claim brought by Giuffre against Epstein in the Florida courts.

But clause 1 only covers part of what was agreed.

For clause 2 then sets out the General Release.

This further provision sets out a more general release than ending one particular case.

Here Giuffre accepts a substantial sum (US$500,000) – as opposed to say a nominal sum – in return for the release.

In respect of Epstein the release provides that Giuffre shall ‘remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge [Epstein][…] from all, and all manner of, action and actions of [Guiffre] , including State or Federal, cause and causes of action (common law or statutory), suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in equity for compensatory or punitive damages that [Giuffre] ever had or now have, or that any personal representative, successor, heir, or assign of [Giuffre] hereafter can, shall, or may have, against Jeffrey Epstein […] for, upon, or by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether known or unknown), from the beginning of the world to the day of this release.’

This is a comprehensive list of things for which Giuffre agrees she cannot now sue Epstein.

Epstein was not only released from the current case but other cases, State and Federal.

If Giuffre was ever to litigate against Epstein again, then Epstein’s lawyers would have sought to rely on this release and have the case thrown out.

*

But.

The release is not just in respect of Epstein, but also for other persons.

I will now quote the provision again but with what I had omitted now in bold:

Giuffre shall ‘remise, release, acquit, satisfy, and forever discharge [Epstein] and any other person or entity who could have been included as a potential defendant (“Other Potential Defendants”) from all, and all manner of, action and actions of [Guiffre] , including State or Federal, cause and causes of action (common law or statutory), suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, judgments, executions, claims, and demands whatsoever in law or in equity for compensatory or punitive damages that [Giuffre] ever had or now have, or that any personal representative, successor, heir, or assign of [Giuffre] hereafter can, shall, or may have, against Jeffrey Epstein, or Other Potential Defendants for, upon, or by reason of any matter, cause, or thing whatsoever (whether known or unknown), from the beginning of the world to the day of this release.’

These provisions in bold purport to extend the General Release granted to Epstein to other persons or entities – to give them exactly the same protection from further state and federal lawsuits as Epstein.

The term in bold, however, is not clearly drafted.

One reading is that the Other Potential Defendants are those who, on the facts alleged in the Florida litigation, could have been added as defendants to that litigation.

This would perhaps make sense as a matter of construction, as this agreement settles the case in respect of civil wrongs – torts – alleged to have happened in respect of which the Florida court had or has jurisdiction.

This reading is reinforced by the provision in clause 1 that the Court will be asked to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this settlement agreement.

Clause 7 expressly provides that the parties envisaged this matter also capable of being litigated in federal courts (bold added):

‘In the event of litigation arising out of a dispute over the interpretation of this Settlement Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its cost of litigation, including attorneys’ fees and other reasonable costs of litigation. Should the federal court not retain jurisdiction, the Parties (and any third party) agree that the courts of the 15™ Judicial Circuit of Palm Beach County shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter and shall have personal jurisdiction over the Parties (and third parties).’

What the agreement does not seem to envisage, however, is the matter being litigated in another state, other than Florida.

*

In my view, the General Release probably should be constructed as providing protection to Other Potential Defendants in respect of the issues raised in the Florida proceedings.

(This narrow construction would be notwithstanding the General Release is in more general terms than the dismissal in clause 1.)

So, if Andrew – by reasons of residence/jurisdiction, or the facts alleged by Giuffre in the Florida case – was not capable of being a defendant to the Florida proceedings then – as a matter of construction – then it is difficult for me to see how he can take the benefit of the General Release.

The agreement would not have been for him.

In essence: if Andrew could not have been jointly or separately liable for the tort claim within the Florida jurisdiction then the General Release may not apply.

That said: a judge could take a wider view of what the General Release covers, and that it covers not just the Florida allegations.

*

There is, however, a possible problem here for Giuffre’s lawyers – for the term Other Potential Defendants must mean something.

The term Other Potential Defendants cannot mean nothing – for this is a negotiated and formal agreement, and the presumption is against surplusage.

If Giuffre’s lawyers contend that the General Release does not extend to Andrew, they must be able to explain who actually was to be covered by by the term Other Potential Defendants.

What Giuffre’s lawyers need to be able to do is to show who would be in the class of Other Potential Defendants – if not Andrew.

And if they can give a plausible meaning to that phrase without it including Andrew then they will address this problem.

*

Now we turn to interpretation, as opposed to construction.

Some commentators, with little or no background in contract law, have gone straight to the term Other Potential Defendants and speculated what that phrase could mean.

But a clause is not a legal instrument, and still less a selected quote from a clause.

Yes, Andrew – like you reading this – is a potential defendant: indeed everyone other than Giuffre is.

But a settlement and a General Release in respect of a Florida case is unlikely to create a legal basis of releasing all potential defendants everywhere in the world in respect of any claim brought by Giuffre about anything – not least because the Florida court would not have jurisdiction to enforce such a general release.

In whatever way Other Potential Defendants is to be interpreted as including and not including, it is not an exercise in anything goes.

Other Potential Defendants cannot be interpreted as including Andrew if, as a matter of construction, the agreement would not apply to him.

On the other hand, if Andrew could plausibly have been added as a defendant to the original Florida case, then the phrase can be interpreted so as to include him.

*

But.

Even if the agreement can be constructed so as to cover Andrew and the phrase Other Potential Defendant interpreted as including him, there are two further problems for his lawyers.

The first is that, whatever is said on the face of the agreement, there can be rules of law and public policy that may preclude reliance on such an agreement by a defendant in another case in another state.

The essence of Andrew’s objection is that Giuffre should not be allowed to sue him for alleged civil wrongs – that she should not even have access to a court for a determination of her case.

No court will simply nod-along with such a contention – it is a serious matter to remove a person’s right of access to a court.

And so even if Andrew can be brought within the terms of the General Release, a judge may find as a matter of policy that the claim brought by Giuffre should be heard anyway.

A court, of course, would not be likely to do this if the claim was brought against Epstein (or his estate), as he was full square within the terms of the General Release.

But Andrew is at least one step away.

The second further problem is that, even if the agreement can be constructed as to cover Andrew and the phrase Other Potential Defendant interpreted as including him, it may not be legally open to Andrew directly to enforce the provision.

Andrew was not privy – that is, a party – to the original agreement (and, indeed, he is not even named).

This legal principle of privity of contract prevents a stranger to a contract either taking the benefit or bearing the burden of an agreement to which they are not a party.

In essence: it would have been for Epstein (or his estate?) to enforce the term protecting Other Potential Defendants, and not Andrew or another potential defendant directly.

*

For completeness, you will see the agreement also provides the following:

‘It is further agreed that this Settlement Agreement represents a final resolution of a disputed claim and is intended to avoid litigation. This Settlement Agreement shall not be construed to be an admission of liability or fault by any party. Additionally, as a material consideration in settling, First Parties and Second Parties agree that the terms of this Settlement Agreement are not intended to be used by any other person nor be admissible in any proceeding or case against or involving Jeffrey Epstein, either civil or criminal.’

Some commentators have leapt on this provision, but I do not think it takes us in any direction very far (though the judge may disagree).

It is not Giuffre who is seeking to rely on the settlement agreement – but a third party.

And the terms are not being relied on by Andrew as admissible evidence of liability or otherwise, but on a question of law in respect of jurisdiction.

*

As I aver above, I am not an American lawyer, but an English lawyer with experience of contracts and civil litigation who has spent part of their career dealing with American contracts and civil litigation.

But even if this agreement were under English law, I could not confidently predict what a judge would do.

This is because the agreement – while clear in its primary aim of protecting Epstein from further suit – is not clear about third parties, and this is no doubt because that the position of third parties was not the main purpose of the agreement.

The agreement has been taken from its primary context of protecting Epstein and into a context which the parties perhaps did not envisage.

And so it is not a surprise that the agreement is less clear in this context.

Had the lawyers for the parties in this agreement expected this contract to be used by third parties, then the provisions in respect of third parties would be set out more clearly – but they did not, and so they are not.

*

We are currently awaiting the judge’s decision on whether Andrew can rely on this agreement.

In my view, Andrew’s lawyers have the far harder task.

They have to show that, as a matter of construction and interpretation, the General Release covers him when he is not named and is not a party to the agreement; that no rule of law and policy means he loses that protection; and that he can enforce the protection regardless of the lack of privity.

All this, so as to extinguish Giuffre’s right of access to the court, which no court will do lightly in any case.

Giuffre, in turn, only has to succeed on one of these points – though her lawyers will need to explain what Other Potential Defendants means if not the likes of Andrew.

And even if Andrew succeeds on this technical defense, Giuffre may still win on appeal.

In summary and in conclusion: Andrew’s lawyers should be prepared to defend the substantial claim, rather than to rely on this technical defense.

*****

Thank you for reading – and now please help this daily law and policy blog survive.

It needs your help to continue for another year – for the benefit of you and other readers – there is no paid subscription model.

Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the 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.

Why judges may not be the best people to chair public inquiries

16th December 2021

Yesterday it was announced that the forthcoming Covid public inquiry will be chaired by Heather Hallett, the former appeals judge with an outstanding reputation as a lawyer.

Nothing in this post should be take to gainsay that appointment.

Instead, this post examines the general question of whether judges – or barristers – are really the best people to chair public inquiries.

In the United Kingdom judges are not usually investigators.

Instead the facts and documentary evidence on which they are to decide cases are put together by the parties to the case and their lawyers.

A judge will – despite spirited fictional depictions – not go and find out new facts and evidence for themselves.

In turn: most (though not all) judges are also barristers.

Many barristers also do not go and find out new facts and evidence in the case on which they are instructed: the facts and documentary evidence are provided to them usually by instructing solicitors or other professionals.

In essence: for all their many undisputed skills and talents, little in the background of judges and barristers fit them to be investigators.

Any investigations are normally conducted by others.

Once the evidence has been put together, judges and barristers will then often be very good at assessing and weighing that evidence, and in applying that evidence to the law (and applying the law to that evidence).

But the uncovering of the primary facts is normally done by others.

This is why – especially in civil cases – it is those who have the best controls over the flow of evidence that will tend to control the verdict.

And this is also why many public inquires are (or seem) to be ‘whitewashes’.

This is not (usually) because the head of the inquiry deliberately wants there to be a ‘whitewash’.

The ‘whitewash’ is often further upstream – in how the evidence is presented to the inquiry.

As techies say: garbage in, garbage out.

I know this, in part, because I used to work with public inquiry lawyers when I was a central government lawyer.

They worked backwards from the outcome they wanted to achieve so as to marshal the appropriate evidence.

That was their job.

So what is needed in the head of any inquiry is to have someone who is not reliant on the nicely packaged evidence and facts as put together by skilled and experienced public inquiry lawyers.

But to have someone with the skills and experience to get to the facts and evidence that powerful parties may not want to have put before an inquiry.

A person who will use the statutory powers available to public inquiries for compelling evidence, so as to balance the experienced public inquiry lawyers doing whatever they can to avoid putting certain evidence in.

Sometimes this person may be a judge, but sometimes it may not be.

But there is nothing particular in the background of most judges and barristers that equips them for investigating things.

Garbage in, garbage out.

******

This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue for another year – for the benefit of you and other readers.

Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the 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 subscription 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.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

The boon of published sentencing remarks

15th December 2021

One good thing for the public understanding of the law that has come from the internet is the publication of ‘Sentencing Remarks’.

These are not judgments – at least in a legally technical sense – but explanations by a judge about how they gone around setting the sentence of someone guilty of an offence.

Today there are two sets of sentencing remarks about highly unpleasant and disturbing cases (both of must have a content warning).

Some may want to read them for their grisly detail.

However the rest of us – especially students of law and others with an interest in the legal system – will be able to gain fascinating and detailed insights into investigations, prosecutions and sentencing.

In the olden days, these remarks were never normally available – one would have to rely on any news reporters in court, and one would then have to depend upon on the edited (and editorialised) news reports.

Now, you can read the judge’s words for yourself – and form your own view.

You may still think after reading remarks that a sentence is too low or too high – but you will at least be able to inform your view with how the sentence has been arrived at.

The best way to keep up is to follow the England and Wales judiciary’s Twitter account or to visit their site from time to time.

The regular publication of these remarks will not, by themselves, cure the promotion of misinformation about law generally and high-profile cases in particular.

But the more they become part of the normal information openly available about cases and the criminal law in the news, the better the general knowledge of the criminal justice system.

They are a boon to the public understanding of law.

******

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.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

 

How the Government both won and lost the Priti Patel High Court bullying case

6th December 2021

Today judgment was handed down in the case brought by the civil service union the FDA in respect of the Prime Minister’s determination that the bullying of the Home Secretary had not broken the Ministerial Code.

On the face of it, the government won the case.

And so this is what the press reported (and that is what time-poor news desks have published on their news sites):

But.

There are different ways that a government can win a case like this – and a closer look at the judgment shows that in substance this is not a welcome decision for the government at all.

*

First, we need to know what the case was – and was not – about.

The case was not about deciding whether the Home Secretary is a bully or not – that was not what the court was being asked to determine, and the detailed evidence about bullying was not put before the court:

And, as that was not the question before the court, then the hot takes that the court has ‘cleared the Home Secretary of bullying’ are not and cannot be true.

The primary question before the court was whether it was open to the Prime Minister, given the information before him, to determine that there had not been a breach of the Ministerial Code.

The court found that, on this occasion, the determination that there had not been a breach of the Ministerial Code was one of the determinations open to the Prime Minister on the information before him.

But in reaching that conclusion the court made a number of points that were against the government – and these points may be significant in future cases.

*

First, the court held that the Prime Minister’s determinations of the ministerial code were, in principle, amenable to judicial review by the courts.

The government made a spirited attempt to argue that the Prime Minister’s determinations of the ministerial code were not ‘justiciable’ – that the very subject matter was a no-go area for the High Court.

The court deal with justiciability in paragraphs 25 to 43 of a 61 paragraph judgment – about a third of the decision.

The court accepted that not every determination of the Code may be judicially reviewed.

And, of course, those judicial reviews which are heard by the court may not succeed (as with this case).

But there is nothing stopping a similar case on different facts succeeding just because of the subject matter.

That the court held that, in principle, prime ministerial determinations of the Ministerial Code are amenable to judicial review is a boon for transparency and accountability.

*

Once the court had dismissed the government’s attack on justiciability, it turned to whether the Prime Minister had misdirected himself in applying the Code.

Here the key paragraph of the Code is:

“1.2 Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect. Working relationships, including with civil servants, ministerial and parliamentary colleagues and parliamentary staff should be proper and appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.”

The information before the Prime Minister was an advice from Sir Alex Allan, the independent adviser on the Code.

His advice included the following:

“My advice is that the Home Secretary has not consistently met the high standards required by the Ministerial Code of treating her civil servants with consideration and respect.

“Her approach on occasions has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.

“To that extent her behaviour has been in breach of the Ministerial Code, even if unintentionally. This conclusion needs to be seen in context. There is no evidence that she was aware of the impact of her behaviour, and no feedback was given to her at the time.”

Having considered this advice, the Prime Minister’s conclusion was:

“Sir Alex’s advice found that the Home Secretary had become – justifiably in many instances – frustrated by the Home Office leadership’s lack of responsiveness and the lack of support she felt in DfID three years ago.

“He also found, however, that the Home Secretary had not always treated her civil servants with the consideration and respect that would be expected, and her approach on occasion has amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying in terms of the impact felt by individuals.

“He went on to advise, therefore, that the Home Secretary had not consistently met the high standards expected of her under the Ministerial Code. 

“The Prime Minister notes Sir Alex’s advice that many of the concerns now raised were not raised at the time and that the Home Secretary was unaware of the impact that she had.

“He is reassured that the Home Secretary is sorry for inadvertently upsetting those with whom she was working. He is also reassured that relationships, practices and culture in the Home Office are much improved.

“As the arbiter of the code, having considered Sir Alex’s advice and weighing up all the factors, the Prime Minister’s judgement is that the Ministerial code was not breached.”

*

The FDA’s claim was that, given Allan’s advice, this was not a conclusion that the Prime Minister could have legally made.

Here paragraph 58 of the judgment is important about the Prime Minister’s conclusions:

In other words: because the Prime Minister did not say Patel was not a bully, it must be that he either accepted Allan’s advice or did not form his own view.

Had the Prime Minister explicitly rejected Allan’s advice that it was bullying then it would have been a different legal situation.

The judgment then goes on in paragraph 59 to the other factors considered by the Prime Minister – it is not a paragraph easy to follow in one go, and may require re-reading:

The essence of the paragraph is in the sentences:

“In that context, the statement that the Prime Minister’s judgement was that the Ministerial Code was not breached is not therefore a finding that the conduct could not be described as bullying.

“Rather, it is either a statement that the Prime Minister does not consider, looking at all the factors involved, that it would be right to record that the Ministerial Code had been breached, or alternatively, that the conduct did not in all the circumstances warrant a sanction such as dismissal as it did not cause the Prime Minister to lose confidence in the minister.”

*

The Prime Minister can consider himself very lucky to have won this case.

Once can quite imagine a differently constituted court (or the Court of Appeal) taking a harder view against the Prime Minister

The FDA, in turn, are right to aver the following:

“The High Court has decided:

 – That the prohibition on bullying, discrimination and harassment in the Ministerial Code is justiciable in the Courts.

– That the Prime Minister must correctly apply those concepts when determining complaints against ministers.

– That it is not an excuse for bullying under the Code that a minister does not intend or is not aware of the upset and distress caused by their actions.

“These findings vindicate the claim brought by the FDA and represent a clear rejection of the idea that there are different standards for ministers than for civil servants. The FDA is applying for its full costs of the claim to be paid by the government.

“In an unexpected development, the Court also found that the Prime Minister had not acquitted the Home Secretary of bullying in his decision in November 2020. The Court has held that the Prime Minister must have accepted the advice of Sir Alex Allan that the Home Secretary had engaged in bullying (or at least that he did not reach any concluded view on the matter).”

*

Whichever government lawyer drafted the conclusions of the Prime Minister ultimately won this case for the government.

A more clumsily worded statement would have meant that even this court would have decided in favour of the FDA.

The government won – just about.

But now there is a High Court decision holding that determinations of the Ministerial Code are justiciable and that the Prime Minister must act properly in applying the Code to particular cases.

The case was also decided on the bases that the Home Secretary was not exonerated of the allegations and that the lack of intention did not mean it was not bullying.

The FDA must be tempted to have one more heave – and to take this to the Court of Appeal (though there would be a risk that it could lose the gains it has made).

The government is in the harder appeal position – for it can hardly appeal a case which it has ‘won’ and so it is stuck (for now, unless the FDA appeals) with the finding of justiciability and other points made by the court.

So this is a good example of a case which both sides can be seen to have lost – but one in which both sides can also be seen as having won.

And the more significant victory, for transparency and accountability, is that of the FDA.

******

This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue – for the benefit of you and other readers.

Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the 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 subscription 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.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

The Ministry of Justice needs leadership – but we are served scorecards

25th October 2021

Another weekend gone, and another proposed ministry of justice policy reported in the Sunday press.

The last one, if you recall, came from an interview given by the new justice secretary and Lord Chancellor (and deputy prime minister) Dominic Raab to the political editor of the Sunday Telegraph.

There he spoke of a ‘mechanism’ for ministers to ‘correct’ judgments which they happened to disagree with.

And not just any judgments, of course, but those where the courts had found that the state had interfered with fundamental rights and freedoms.

One would have thought that, if the effect of such judgments needed to be overturned, this would be a matter for parliament.

But no: ministers should be able to do this, it would seem, at a whim.

As this blog averred, the fact that such a thing was his ministerial priority when the criminal justice system is in crisis was enough to make any sensible person weep.

*

We now have another proposal, given to another political editor at another Sunday paper (though this was not an on-the-record interview but from a ‘source’, so it may have come from special advisors as opposed to from the justice secretary directly).

Scorecards.

This new proposal is as follows:

– Raab ‘wants people to be able to look up their local court online and check how quickly cases are dealt with’;

– the new national register ‘will give scores on the speed cases go through the system, and on the ‘quality’ of justice served, measured by the percentage of guilty pleas before cases come to court, as well as the number of cases rearranged because of problems with the prosecution’;

– the register will also score ‘victim engagement’, described as ‘how many crime victims give up and drop out of the process’

– the justice secretary has said ‘he wants ‘granular data’ on how courts are performing across the justice system’;

– the scorecards will be ‘introduced by the end of this year and data will be updated twice a year to monitor progress’; and

– it ‘is understood the Justice Secretary is keen on introducing scorecards on a regional level, so that in future members of the public would be able to look at the performance of local courts’.

*

One response to this proposal is to point out (which the ministry of justice ‘source’ either did not know or kept hidden) that much of this data is already published.

That statement of the should-be obvious fell to the main opposition spokesperson on justice:

*

And Lammy is right in another respect: the intention between this policy seems not for data to be published, but for court users to be misdirected.

The notion appears to be that court users will use the scorecards to put pressure on courts to perform better, and for courts to feel under pressure to show court users that they are performing better.

Court users will thereby be (mis-)directed into thinking that poor court performance is a matter for the individual courts.

But.

The problem about the court system is not micro, but macro.

The system is structurally under-resourced, and it needs leadership.

*

Here, let us turn our attention from the Sunday press to the National Audit Office:

The NAO published a major report just before the weekend.

The NAO did not propose scorecards.

Instead the NAO said: “if sustainable recovery in criminal courts is to be effective, the Ministry will need to improve its leadership of the system”.

Leadership.

Yes, the NAO used the ‘L’ word: Leadership.

But instead of leadership and solid policy, we get another weekend-special gimmick.

And not only just a gimmick – but one which appears to have the intention of misdirecting court users.

*

As this blog has previously averred: it does not have to be like this.

The justice secretary is a senior cabinet minister with the title ‘deputy prime minister’, as well as an experienced lawyer.

As such he is better placed than most recent justice secretaries to obtain better funding from the treasury, and to win the prize of serious reform.

But yet another weekend goes by where we are served trivial trinkets, instead of such a prize.

It is still enough to make any sensible person weep.

******

This blog needs your help to continue – each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the 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 subscription 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.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’ and ‘Parliamentary Supremacy’

24th October 2021

In the Attorney General’s interesting recent speech on judicial review, there is the following passage:

“But this flexibility, this resilience, should not obscure the central principle embedded in the very heart of our constitution, of fundamental importance since at least 1689.

“That principle is Parliamentary Sovereignty – it both underpins and anchors our constitutional settlement.

“I agree with the position as advanced by Lord Bingham in Jackson v Attorney General:

“‘The bedrock of the British constitution is, and in 1911 was, the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament . . . Then, as now, the Crown in Parliament was unconstrained by any entrenched or codified constitution. It could make or unmake any law it wished. Statutes, formally enacted as Acts of Parliament, properly interpreted, enjoyed the highest legal authority.'”

*

The sharp-eyed among you may have noticed that the speech here switches between ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ and ‘the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament’.

Two s-words.

And you can see that the second s-word used is qualified by the term ‘Crown in Parliament’.

*

Some use the two terms ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ and ‘parliamentary supremacy’ interchangeably, as constitutional synonyms.

I try to avoid doing this, as I think there is a distinction between the two.

This is because parliament, in and of itself, is not sovereign.

What may be sovereign is, as Lord Bingham was careful to say but the Attorney General was not, is ‘the Crown in Parliament’.

An Act of Parliament – following royal assent – is the supreme law of the land.

But nothing else done by parliament is ‘sovereign’.

For example: a parliamentary resolution or standing order binds only parliament (if at all)

And statutory instruments can be struck down by the courts as ultra vires the parent Act of Parliament.

Parliament is only sovereign when its primary legislation is endorsed by the crown – and not in respect of any other activity.

Even the limits of so-called parliamentary privilege are subject to judicial construction and interpretation.

*

The former appeals judge Stephen Sedley avers – correctly in my view:

“It needs to be understood, because events in the earlier part of [the twentieth] century have obscured it, that there are within the separate powers of the modern British state two sovereignties, those of Parliament and the courts.”

Sedley in turn quotes Lord Bridge from a 1991 House of Lords Case, X Ltd v Morgan Grampian (Publishers) Ltd:

“The maintenance of the rule of law is in every way as important in a free society as the democratic franchise.

“In our society the rule of law rests upon twin foundations: the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament in making the law and the sovereignty of the Queen’s courts in interpreting and applying the law.”

In other words: in interpreting and applying the law – but not in making or unmaking the law – the courts are sovereign too.

*

This is not – or should not be – a surprise.

The sovereign entity in the United Kingdom is – as the label suggests – the monarch.

In law-making, the Crown and parliament are sovereign.

But in interpretation and application of the law, the Crown and the courts are sovereign.

Indeed, if you ever wander into a formal courtroom, you will often see the crown above the head of the judge.

(And just as those in the armed services salute the badge and not the person of a senior officer, when lawyers and others in court ‘all rise’ they are effectively paying respect to the source of the court’s power, and not to the person of the judge – or at least that is what you can tell yourself.)

*

None of the above takes away from the legislative omnipotence of parliament in enacting primary legislation.

And it is certainly not an error to say ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ when one speaks of primary legislation.

But to do so may imply that parliament is the only form of state sovereignty in the United Kingdom (at least in England and Wales).

And it may imply that parliament is sovereign in some other respect than in enacting primary legislation.

Her Majesty’s Courts are, well, the Crown’s too.

And in interpretation and application of the law, the Crown and the courts are as sovereign as the Crown and parliament is in making and un-making the law.

So that is why – though it is only a personal preference – I tend to say ‘parliamentary supremacy’ – and not ‘parliamentary sovereignty’.

****

Thank you for reading – it is appreciated.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the 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 subscription 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.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

The Supreme Court judgment in Majera – court orders have to be obeyed, even by the Home Secretary

21st October 2021

Yesterday, while lawyers and commentators were discussing the recent speech by the Attorney General, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down a judgment that may be more significant than anything the Attorney General said and what others will say about that speech.

The case is that of Majera – and it is about immigration and deportation, but it is about a lot more than that.

Majera was born in Rwanda and came to the United Kingdom as a child, but in 2006 he was convicted of serious offences, and when in prison he was issued with a deportation order.

He was then released on licence in 2015, but was again detained, and so he applied to the relevant tribunal for bail, which was granted in a court order.

So far, so complicated – though not an unusual set of facts in the ever-expanding caselaw about deporting foreign-born convicts.

But Majera then did something that prompted even more litigation and led ultimately to yesterday’s significant Supreme Court judgment.

Majera volunteered to work in a charity shop.

*

You would think that it would be a good thing for a convict facing deportation to contribute to society by doing unpaid work for the public good.

But: no.

This was intolerable for the Home Office.

The problem, however, was that the tribunal order granting bail did not preclude Majera from working on a voluntary basis, but from paid employment or from any business or profession.

(The other bail conditions were strict: Majera could only do voluntary work as approved by his supervising officer – so not any voluntary work but only that which a state agent endorsed, and he was subject to a curfew.)

The Home Office, disregarding the judge’s order, formally notified Majera that he could not do voluntary work – and when objections were made, the Home Office came up with various excuses which they abandoned on legal challenge.

And so Majera challenged the Home Office decisions, as he was entitled to do so.

The Home Office, in response, came up with the argument that the judge’s order on bail was invalid, and thereby void, as it contradicted another statutory provision.

Accordingly, the Home Office contended, it was perfectly open to the Home Office to disregard the judge’s order and impose conditions of their own.

*

Majera won his challenge.

But.

The Home Office appealed.

It would seem the prospect of Majera working in a charity shop was so unacceptable that public funds were justified in taking this to the Court of Appeal, and so the Home Office did, instructing a QC to do so.

*

The Court of Appeal decided in favour of the Home Office.

Their reasoning was that if a decision is void then, well, it is void.

If the judge did not actually have the power to make the order that was made, then the order disappeared in a puff of legal magic, and it should be treated as if it never happened.

The order would have no effect, by the automatic operation of a lack of law.

Here the appeal judges relied on cases where subordinate legislation and administrative decisions were held to have no legal effect because they were ‘ultra vires’.

Majera appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal.

*

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision led by Lord Reed the president of the court, granted Majera’s appeal.

The decision is a wide-ranging survey of the law of ‘ultra vires’ and a detailed critique of vague notions such as ‘void’ and ‘null’ when applied to things that otherwise would have legal effect.

It is a judgment that will repay careful reading.

In essence: the supreme court held that orders of the court were special, and so should not have been lumped together with ‘ultra vires’ subordinate legislation and administrative decisions by the Court of Appeal.

A court order must be obeyed until and unless it is set aside by the court (or possibly overtaken by legislation).

It was not open to the home secretary – or anyone else – to pick and choose which orders were valid or invalid.

*

This is a judgment that is significant on its own terms – but (on first glance) it also may be one with wider implications.

For example: one of the government’s current legislative proposals for judicial review is about giving courts the power to make ‘suspended’ quashing orders that would limit the legal effects of a finding of ‘ultra vires’.

Another government proposal is about limiting the scope of judicial review in the tribunal system – and this case shows that it is not only the individuals but the state itself that can take bad public law points in claims and defences.

This may not be a judgment that was intended to contribute to the discussion about judicial activism and the reform of judicial review, but it may be an important contribution nonetheless.

*

But it is certainly an important case about the separation of powers.

For just as in a recent judgment in favour of the home secretary, Lord Reed said that is certain cases, the courts should accord ‘respect’ to the home secretary, this case in turn is about the respect the executive – and everyone else – should accord to the orders of the court.

Even the home secretary.

For just as the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General are warning judges to keep off the executive’s lawn, this is the Supreme Court, in effect, telling the government to keep off the lawn of the courts.

****

Please support this blog so that it can continue.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the 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 subscription 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.

Comments will not be published if irksome

Lord Chancellor, there is already a mechanism for the law to be changed: it is called Parliament

18th October 2021

Usually when something daft about policy is reported in the Sunday papers, you can sort-of work out the chain of miscommunication.

For example: minister to ‘special adviser’ to time-poor reporter on a background (and thereby to be re-worded) basis.

There is little wonder that the final report is often, well, inexact.

But.

In yesterday’s Telegraph, there was a report based on an on-the-record interview with Dominic Raab, the new lord chancellor and justice secretary.

And as an on-the-record interview, the usual disclaimers do not apply.

This would be what the minister actually said (or a close approximation).

News reporters can be guilty of many sins, but they rarely make up direct statements, and still less quotations.

And the lord chancellor and justice secretary is reported to have said something very striking indeed:

‘Asked about his plans to reform the Human Rights Act, Mr Raab revealed that he is devising a “mechanism” to allow the Government to introduce ad hoc legislation to “correct” court judgments that ministers believe are “incorrect”.’

The scare-quotes are lovely – but they do indicate these are the words that Raab actually used, as opposed to the rest which may be paraphrased.

Just read that statement again.

And think about it.

*

First: it is not for ministers to change the law on the basis of what they think are ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ court judgments.

This is about as basic a breach of the separation of powers as one can imagine.

Just as judges should not make policy decisions instead of ministers, ministers should not make judicial decisions instead of judges.

If a minister disagrees with a judgment then that is one thing – but it is not for the minister to gainsay the judge on the correctness of the law.

*

But that is not even the strangest thing about the statement.

Raab wants to devise ‘mechanism’ for ministers to make these ‘corrections’ – and not parliament.

But it should be parliament, operating under the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, that should make or unmake any law in these circumstances – and by the means of primary legislation.

What Raab is proposing is a separate ‘mechanism’ where (a) laws can be made or unmade by ministerial decision and (b) that decision will be based on a minister subjectively thinking that a judicial determination is ‘incorrect’.

And note: this is not just for any old laws.

Oh no.

This is for those laws where a court – usually a senior and experienced judge or panel of judges – has found that there has been a breach of fundamental rights.

If any legal ‘corrections’ should not be done in a fast-track way, without parliamentary involvement and on the basis of mere ministerial opinion, then it should not be where a court has found there to be breaches of fundamental rights.

*

In essence, what the lord chancellor and justice secretary is actually proposing is that a minister can by executive fiat reverse a judgment on the basis of a subjective opinion about ‘correctness’ when a court has found there to be a breach of a fundamental right.

Think about that.

And who is proposing this?

The very cabinet minister who has a constitutional role, recognised in statute, of protecting the rule of law.

Maybe the minister was misquoted or misunderstood, but there has not been any correction or clarification of the Sunday press report.

So presumably Raab is therefore happy with how he has been reported.

But.

There is already a mechanism where the other elements of the state can respond to such (perceived) judicial over-reaches.

It is called parliament.

And it is for parliament to decide how to respond – and to do by primary legislation.

And not ministers.

***

Or in the words of the the government’s former chief lawyer:

 

****

Please help this daily law and policy blog continue.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of £1 upwards for each useful post, or of £5 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription 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.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

Last year judges were too activist, and now they are being reined in – but neither claim is correct

16th October 2021

Those who write about the politics of the judiciary in the United Kingdom have their very own two-for-one offer.

First, you write about whether the judges are too activist and need to be reined in.

Then, after a while, you write about how the judges are no longer too activist and have been reined in.

And loop.

Over at Prospect – the only United Kingdom current affairs magazine to take law seriously (and where I, ahem, currently have a column), there was this cover story back in March 2020.

The sub-headline asked us solemnly: have the judges overplayed their hand?

It was a great, well-researched and detailed article, and it rewards careful reading.

But.

I thought it was misconceived, and I said so in the April 2020 issue.

My contention was that there were (and are) two different things.

The first is the political-media narrative of ‘judicial activism’ – and this has a life of its own.

And then there is the mundane plodding everyday reality of the work of the administrative court and of public lawyers, where ‘ambitious’ points invariably fail and conservative judges certainly do not want to make policy decisions or trespass outside the judicial arena.

The two things have little in common.

Thrilling narrative v boring reality.

(Administrative law and public law are names for the special area of law which provides the legal obligations and powers of public bodies and the rights of those whose seek to challenge those public bodies, usually by ‘judicial review’.)

*

Anyway,  Prospect now has a piece – lo-and-behold – explaining how the judges have been reined in:

“The government wanted to rein in the Supreme Court. Now it may not need to.”

Well, what a surprise.

This is not to say the piece is not great, well-researched and detailed – it is – and again it rewards careful reading.

But also – as before – it is in my view misconceived.

The mundane plodding everyday reality of the work of the administrative court is just as before.

As usual ‘ambitious’ points invariably fail and conservative judges still do not want to make policy decisions or trespass outside the judicial arena.

What has actually happened is that the political-media narrative has swung around.

*

‘Judicial activism’ has long been a political-media rather than a legal event.

The two Miller cases are exceptional – dealing with distinctive (and literally unprecedented) constitutional predicaments and were (and are) not representative of the general casework of the courts.

The last real bout of judicial activism in administrative law ended in the early 1990s, with cases like M v Home Office (a decision far more significant in general public law terms than either Miller case).

And even that 1980s/1990s bout was nothing compared to the big shifts in 1960s, where cases such as Ridge v Baldwin, Padfield, and Anisminic created public law as we now know it.

Other than the extraordinary but unique Miller cases, public law has generally been dull for the last few years.

(I know this because I became a lawyer at the turn of the century so as to do public law, and it really has not been an activist area of law.)

The fact that the recent government-supported review into reforming judicial review was such a damp squib was because it was based on what the courts were actually doing – and not on what the political-media narrative said the courts were doing.

Almost all the leading cases are still from the last century.

The main principles are still those asserted in the 1960s and then articulated in the 1984 GCHQ case: irrationality, unreasonableness, and procedural irregularity.

However: wait another year or so and there will again be earnest concern about ‘judicial activism’.

Then some time after that the judges will be ‘reined in’.

And so on – until it is perhaps finally realised that the media-political narrative of ‘activist judges’ has a life of its own, and is not closely connected with the general public law work of the courts.

*****

Please help this daily law and policy blog continue.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of £1 upwards for each useful post, or of £5 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription 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.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

Understanding the hostility to the Human Rights Act – and why this matters

7th October 2021

This week the lord chancellor and justice secretary – in 2021 – had to resort to a 2009 case – where the law had already changed in 2014 – to support his demand for an ‘overhaul’ of the Human Rights Act 1998.

That was telling.

Those opposed to the Act often seem to find it difficult to find topical examples of cases to substantiate their disdain.

Some resort to blaming cats (and I am not making this up).

And so, if it is not the actual substance of cases under the Act that explains the antipathy to the legislation, what is the explanation?

What are the actual reasons why the Human Rights Act 1998 is so hated?

I think there are four reasons.

*

The first reason is its very title and its express mention of ‘human rights’.

For many this title seems alien – and provocative.

It is as if ‘human rights concerns’ are something you tell off foreigners about, rather than it being something that is of any domestic relevance.

The view seems to be that there is no need for ‘human rights’ in regard of the United Kingdom – for we have liberties.

This is, of course, misconceived – both in theory and practice.

In theory – because we have an executive under little or no day-to-day scrutiny, where state officials have unlimited power, and where the legislature has absolute power to make or unmake any law.

And in practice – taking torture, for example, there are documented examples of torture and inhuman treatment by United Kingdom agents in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Kenya, and elsewhere.

But we pretend that the United Kingdom is not like that – that we are always the good guys.

Yet the United Kingdom and its agents are as capable – both in theory and practice – of human rights abuses as in any other state.

*

The second reason is that the rights that the are given effect by the Human Rights Act are (seen as) ‘European’.

This is a similar sentiment to the hostility to the European Union that contributed to Brexit.

And it is the ‘E’ word that seems to make all the difference.

The United Kingdom has human rights obligations under various United Nations instruments, and few know and fewer care.

We are also subject to fundamental obligations as members of international organisations such as NATO and the World Trade Organisation.

And those who jeer at the ‘E’ word will somehow be horrified at suggestions that the United Kingdom renege on its obligations under NATO and the World Trade Organisation, even if they limit our autonomy in defence and trade matters respectively.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), however, could not – for some – be more provocatively named.

Had it been called, say, the British convention – and many treaties are named after places – or the Winston Churchill convention, after one of the politicians who supported it – then, at a stroke, the regime would be less contentious.

That the the rights are seen as ‘European’ is, of course, a misconception.

The ECHR instead was formulated in part by British lawyers seeking to codify for post-war European what they perceived to be rights existing in our domestic law.

Had it been called the British convention or the Winston Churchill convention, it would not have been that misleading, given the United Kingdom’s contribution.

But instead the ECHR provisions – and thereby the Human Rights Act – are European.

‘Ugh.’

*

The third reason is that the Human Rights provides rights for humans, including the humans many do not like.

The rights are not only for nice people but also for the Other: the people who are so bad or undesirable that many believe that they should be treated inhumanely.

For example: foreign criminals, domestic criminals, asylum seekers, and so on.

Why should these people have rights?

The sentiment is that such people should not have rights, because they don’t deserve them, or that they have forfeited them.

But that is the nature of human rights: you have them because you are a human.

But if the Other use their rights, then that ‘use’ is instantly converted to ‘abuse’.

You may ‘use’ your rights, but they – they ‘abuse’ their rights.

The notion is that those facing the coercive powers of the state – say incarceration or being separated from their families – should smile and nod along with that coercion, and certainly should not interrupt clapping and cheering those being coercive.

But it those who are facing the coercion of the state, especially those where there is no public sympathy, who are most in need of human rights.

If you think about it.

*

The fourth reason is about the failure of the Human Rights Act to get ‘buy-in’ from certain media and political groups since its enactment.

Here there is a contrast with, for example, the United States – say if a citizen did not like a particular right in the Bill of Rights (for example, the right to bear arms), that citizen would be unlikely to be in favour of repealing the entire Bill of Rights.

But in the United Kingdom there are many who do not see that the rights in the Human Rights Act protect them as well as the Other.

And part of this is – in my view – the fault of the courts themselves.

After the Act took effect, the courts moved rapidly to ‘develop’ (that is, invent) a new tort of privacy.

A right that was enforced in cases against the media.

But the corresponding right of free expression enjoyed no similar ‘development’ – and over twenty years later, it is difficult to cite a case where the right to free expression has made a difference, let alone led to the ‘development’ of the law.

No United Kingdom journalist, unlike their American counterparts, would ever think to assert loudly and proudly their legal right under Article 10 to free expression.

Had the British courts made Article 10 (free expression) as meaningful as Article 8 (privacy) then the British press would be as horrified at the prospect of repeal of the Human Rights Act as the American media would be at the repeal of the entire Bill of Rights, including the right to a free press.

The populist media of the United Kingdom are not aware that the ECHR and the Human Rights Act protects (or should protect) them as well as the subjects of their coverage.

If the Article 10 right of free expression had been taken half-as-seriously by British judges as the Article 8 right to privacy, one suspects no politician would dare suggest ‘overhauling’ the Human Rights Act as a whole, let alone its repeal.

*

As this blog recently averred, at the heart of the issue of the Human Rights Act is symbolism, not substance, and for both ‘sides’.

The Act does not actually do a great deal, but it does enough to make a difference in certain situations.

But the main reason for its repeal (or ‘overhaul’) seems to be the sheer symbolic value in doing so, and the main reason to oppose such moves is the equal-and-opposite sheer symbolic value in preventing those moves.

And so the Act is caught up in political and media battles that have little or no connection to the Act’s actual legal significance.

It is almost as if the Human Rights Act in the political and media imagination has an autonomous existence, distinct from the actual legislation and what that legislation does.

But.

There is a problem here.

A real problem, which sensible liberals should not ignore.

Some legislation – for example, equalities law – can start off controversial but will become less controversial as the years go by.

Laws such as the Race Relations Act were – believe it or not – controversial at the time.

The Human Rights Act – twenty-one years after it took effect  – remains controversial and – in good part – unloved.

It has not simply become embedded as part of the political consensus.

And that is a failure.

A failure that cannot be wished away.

So there is a question for all sensible people, who support human rights in general and the ECHR in particular: are there better ways of protecting these substantive rights than by the Human Rights Act?

For it is those substantive rights, and their availability to those who need to use those rights, that are the important things, and not their legal form.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is still not a popular piece of legislation in 2021, and unless those who value human rights think constructively about other ways of enforcing those same rights, there will be a risk that the Act and the rights it provides for will all topple together.

*****

This blog needs your support to continue, for your benefit and the benefit of others.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of £1 upwards for each useful post, or of £5 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription 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.

Comments will not be published if irksome.