Category: Courts and the administration of justice

The tragedy of the Human Rights Act

27th March 2023

Here is a playfully mischievous tweet from the Guardian:

And how we can – and perhaps should – laugh at the irony of a newspaper that has attacked the Human Rights Act relying on that same Act when it is in its interests.

It is not even the first time – here is Associated Newspapers seeking to rely on the ECHR in respect of the Leveson Inquiry  and here is Associated Newspapers seeking to rely on the Human Rights Act in 2006.

And there is nothing – absolutely nothing – wrong with Associated Newspapers seeking to do this.

For that is what the law of fundamental rights is for: they can be relied by (or sought to be relied on) by anybody.

There are useful rights for the media generally and journalists in particular under the Act.

And in other jurisdiction – notably the United States – the media and journalists are conscious of the fundamental rights they can rely on and can point to provisions that protect those rights.

The tragedy of the Human Rights Act is that despite it providing rights on which the media and journalists can rely, it is also despised in many in the media and journalism.

There is a mismatch between the reputation of the Act and the substance of the Act.

In the United States it would be unthinkable – even now – for any media organisation to call for the repeal of the First Amendment.

If only media organisations in the United Kingdom were as protective of Article 10 of the ECHR.

But there is a disconnect.

The newspaper in-house lawyers know about these provisions, and they will not hesitate to rely on the ECHR and the Human Rights Act when they can.

But across the office floor, there is not attachment to Article 10.

And that is part of the tragedy of the Human Rights Act.

Over twenty years since it took effect, it is still seen by so many in politics and the media as a partisan ornament rather than a practical instrument.

So entrenched is the dislike for the legislation it is tempting to support repealing the Act and replacing it with a new statute with exactly the same provisions but with a far less contentious name.

***

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Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

This week’s Substack essay: how the courts improvised legal solutions in the hard case of George Blake

 

This week’s Substack essay is on George Blake – and how the English court system and the government struggled to come up with a legal basis for depriving him of monies from his memoirs – and how the solution finally adopted then caused its own legal problems for the law of contract.

*

Blake was rightly sentenced to 42 years’ imprisonment in 1961, and he was perhaps lucky not to be executed, and the only real fault with his sentence is that the prison authorities allowed his easy escape in 1966. Blake ended up in Russia, lauded first by the Soviet government and then by Putin. He died in 2020.

Given this background, it is not hard to sympathise with those who wanted somehow to deny him the proceeds of a 1989 book deal for his memoirs.

The general sense from reading about what then happened is that both the government (under Conservative and then Labour ministers) and the judges thought something should be done to prevent Blake getting the monies from the publisher of his memoirs.

The problem was that there was little-to-nothing that could be done on the basis of the then existing law. And so the government and the courts sought to improvise (or ‘develop the law’ to use the polite legal fiction) a legal basis for denying him the publisher’s payments, with the House of Lords in 2000 coming up with something that had eluded the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

But the way the House of Lords ensured something was done to deal with Blake’s case meant, in turn, that an element of uncertainty was introduced into English contract law which, again in turn, lasted until the Supreme Court effectively limited the case of Blake to its own exceptional facts in 2018.

Blake is perhaps a good example of how hard cases make bad law – or at least uncertain law.

My Substack post tells the story of this fascinating hard case.

*

Those of you kind enough to be paying Substack subscribers can read it here – and if you are not yet a paying Substack subscriber, please consider becoming one.  The subscriptions help support my daily law and policy commentary on this blog.

Those of you who are Patreon supporters can read the essay here.

Anyone who donated money to this blog in 2022 can have a free one year complimentary Substack subscription – just leave a comment marked “Private” below with your email.  (It is important that nobody pays twice for my drivel.)

*

Last week’s essay was on the lore of Lady Justice, and you can read it here.

The week before it was on the case of Jane Wenham and the last of the English witch trials.

Other essays include (in chronological order of the subject):

Dr Bonham’s case (1610) – and the question of whether parliament is really sovereign

Taff Vale (1901) – perhaps the most important case in trade union history

Wednesbury (1948) – the origin of the modern principle of legal unreasonableness

Malone (1979) – perhaps the most significant constitutional case of the last 50 years

These essays are on topics to do with legal history and legal lore – and they are in addition to my topical law and policy commentary here every weekday.

***

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, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

What the judge said and did not say at the Just Stop Oil hearing, and what the judge should and should not have said

22nd February 2023

The from-court sensation last week was not about something in the High Court, the Old Bailey or any of the other august courts of the English capital, but about what happened at a hearing at Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court.

It was a legal case that involved no great issue of law, and indeed there seems no dispute about the applicable law or even its application.

The sensation was not the result of sensational news reporting from an intrepid news reporter, for there seems to have been no media present at the hearing.

And there does not seem to have been any miscarriage of justice, and the findings of guilt and acquittals seem not to have been wrong on the available facts.

But there was a sensation, all the same.

Tweets went viral, with one tweet on the hearing recording 1.4 million views.

The case was taken up by the national press, and pundits were emphatic in their support or opposition to what happened.

A former home secretary said this:

And, from the opposing perspective, a well-known Canadian campaigner said this:

And all this for case in a local magistrates’ court, with no great issue of law, no obvious miscarriages of justice, and it seems no news reporters present to record what happened.

Regardless of the substance of what happened, it is an example of what happens when the legal system and modern social media (and after a lag, mainstream media) meet.

So what did happen at that hearing at Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court?

*

The straight answer is that we perhaps cannot be certain absolutely what happened, as accounts differ, and there seems to have been no recording of the hearing.

But what we can work out is as follows.

We are told there were nine defendants.

(There is a reason for the “We are told” choice-of-words, as will become apparent.)

We are also told the offence was aggravated trespass, which is an offence under section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994:

The Crown Prosecution Service guidance on the offence is as follows:

The prosecutions were in respect of this incident from April 2022, as reported by the local news Express & Star:

According to that news report:

“Around 30 protesters from the Just Stop Oil coalition, including two on the roof of a petrol tanker, blocked the exit and entrance to the Esso fuel terminal in Wood Lane, Tyburn, Birmingham.

“Members of the group called Just Stop Oil said it had blocked a number of “key oil” terminals, including the site in Tyburn, Birmingham.

“Police warned of delays as ExxonMobil UK, one of the country’s largest privately-owned underground oil pipeline distribution networks, confirmed demonstrations were under way at some of its sites. It said it had shut down three of its sites.”

The Birmingham Evening Mail reported:

“A protester was carried away by five police officers during a new blockade at a Birmingham fuel terminal.

“Activists from Just Stop Oil again blocked access to the Esso site in Tyburn today, Sunday, April 3, despite more than 100 arrests across the country this week. A police cordon was in place in Wood Lane, where officers had been stationed since 7.30am. West Midlands Fire Service was also in attendance.”

Two days before, the Birmingham Evening Mail reported:

“A Just Stop Oil protester glued his hands and bare feet to the road during a nine-hour protest in Birmingham. Others have glued themselves to each other.

“Up to 45 protesters have been disrupting oil tankers heading in and out of the Esso Fuel Terminal on Wood Lane, Tyburn, near Erdington, since 4am today, Friday, April 1.”

The “Just Stop Oil” group behind the protests published this release at the time:

“For the third day in a row, supporters of Just Stop Oil have disrupted oil supplies from 7 critical oil facilities near London and Birmingham in support of their demand to the UK government to end new oil and gas projects in the UK.

“Early this morning people climbed on and blocked oil tankers at 5 critical oil terminals. A few have entered the loading bay at Buncefield oil terminal in Hertfordshire and are standing on oil tankers holding banners.

“At Kingsbury, Midlands and Esso terminals in Birmingham oil tankers have been prevented from leaving by people sitting in the road.”

*

From the contemporaneous news reports and the contemporaneous Just Stop Oil press release there can be no doubt that (a) disruption was caused and (b) disruption was intended to be caused.

As such, anyone who caused the disruption and intended to cause the disruption could have no serious defence to a charge of causing and intending to cause the disruption.

*

And so from the protest last April, a prosecution was brought this month at Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court.

We are told that that the hearing involved cross-examination, and that evidence was put in by the defendants.

This would mean that notwithstanding the openly expressed intention by Just Stop Oil to cause disruption, and the evidence of the disruption caused, the defendants pleaded not guilty.  This would also accord with two of the defendants being acquitted.

Seven of the defendants were however found guilty.

The judge – District Judge Wilkinson – said some things.

And this is when things become less certain.

*

A judge can say various things during a hearing – indeed, no one is usually in a position to tell them to shut up.

A judge making any significant decision will usually give reasons.

A judge imposing a sentence will give what are called “sentencing remarks” – which, in some national-profile cases are collected and published by the Judicial Office (previous examples are here).

But when a judge acquits they may also give reasons.

And sometimes what a judge says is set out in a prepared script, sometimes it is based on notes, and sometimes a judge may speak without notes.

*

After the hearing, the Just Stop Oil published a press release:

This was quite the headline, given that there were seven defendants found guilty.

The press release also contained what it called a “summation” – which is not a legal term for anything a judge says – and this “summation” is quoted as if it was verbatim:

“It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.

“When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.

“No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.

“Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.

“I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. You are good people and I will not issue a punitive sentence. Your arrests and loss of good character are sufficient. Good people doing the wrong thing cannot make the wrong thing right. I don’t say this, ever, but it has been a pleasure dealing with you.

“You should feel guilty for nothing. You should feel proud that you care, have concern for the future. I urge you not to break the law again. Good luck to all of you.”

*

It was the screenshot of this “summation” that went viral.

And, as you can see, it is the last of the paragraphs quoted which provided the headline to the press release.

The impression of that last paragraph (given the “you” in the prior “… I have to convict you…”) is that the judge’s remark that “You should feel guilty for nothing” is addressed to all the defendants.

But that final remark is no more striking than the rest of the quoted text.

Did a judge really say all these things to defendants in a criminal case?

*

When I saw the viral tweets I did nothing to promote or amplify them.

In fifteen years of legal commentary I have learned that when a judge is reported to have said something sensational – especially if it accords with your world-view – it is better to wait for it to be verified before congratulating or castigating the legal system.

But pretty soon these viral judicial remarks prompted an equal and opposite reaction.  The Daily Telegraph reported:

The news report continued:

“But on Friday afternoon, the Judicial Office, which represents judges, admonished the group for “misquoting” the judge. […]

“In a rare intervention, the body accused them of taking a phrase “out of context” and issued an almost entirely different account, saying it was “what the judge actually said”

“[…] the Judicial Office said: “It was said to one of the defendants who in his evidence had said (through tears) that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter.”

(The judge’s statement was also posted on the Crimeline site, though inadvertently incorrectly titled as “full” sentencing remarks.)

*

An “almost entirely different account”?

This was becoming fascinating.

So far in this post I have relied on the Just Stop Oil press release for the from-court facts – hence the “We are told” formulation above – but the facts stated above – charges, number of defendants, disposals – do not seem to be controversial, or indeed controverted.

But now we have an alternative version of what happened.

The Judicial Office had contacted the judge, who provided his own note of what was said.

The judge’s note was:

“As a judge my overriding duty is always to uphold the law without fear or favour.

“This is not a court of morals it is a court of law, if I allow my own moral compass or political beliefs to influence my decisions and ignore the law where it is convenient to me to do so then the court becomes one where the rule of law no longer applies.

“If judges across the criminal justice system did the same then there would be no consistency and no respect for the law, decisions based on the personal beliefs of members of the judiciary cannot be consistent with the rule of law and the ideal that each law will apply to all equally.

“Trust in the rule of law is an essential ingredient of society and it will erode swiftly if judges make politically or morally motivated decisions that do not accord with established legal principles. Indeed I would become the self appointed sheriff if I acted in such a way.

“It is abundantly clear that you are all good people, intelligent and articulate and you have been a pleasure throughout to deal with. It is unarguable that man made global warming is real and that we are facing a climate crisis. That is accepted and recognised by the scientific community and most governments (including our own).

“Your aims are to slow or even stop the advance of global warming and therefore to preserve the planet not just for generations to come but for existing generations. No one can therefore criticize your motivations and indeed each of you has spoken individually about your own personal experiences, motivations and actions.

“Many of your explanations for your actions were deeply emotive and I am sure all listening were moved by them, I know I was. In simple terms you are good people with admirable aims.

“However if good people with the right motivation do the wrong thing it can never make that wrong thing right, it can only ever act as substantial mitigation.”

*

The Judicial Office also told reporters by email on Friday last week:

“The judge in the case pointed out that Just Stop Oil have have misquoted him and put in words he never spoke. He has sent [us] the text of what he actually said below.

“They have also quoted the line, “You should feel guilty for nothing” out of context. It was said to one of the defendants who in his evidence had said (through tears) that he felt guilty for not doing enough to save the planet for his daughter. It was not in the context that the seven convicted should feel guilty for nothing which would make no sense at all in the context of the judge having convicted them.”

*

I asked the Judicial Office whether the judge’s note was read out verbatum in court – or it it was just the basis of what was said in court.  I also asked for confirmation that the note was not prepared after the hearing.

I was told the following:

“[these] were words that the judge had prepared before sentencing and were said verbatim.  He made some other comments as part of his sentencing but these were based on notes he made in advance but were not delivered verbatim.  As there is no recording or transcript made of proceedings in the magistrate court and in the absence of fully written sentencing remarks, this was the best [we] could provide at short notice in terms of what the judge had said in his own words.”

*

If you compare and contrast the two statements – what Just Stop Oil said and what the judge said through the Judicial Office – there are three main points of comparison and contrast.

*

The first part of the judge’s comments are not in the Just Stop Oil press release, and they are a statement of general principle.  As my fellow legal blogger Matthew Scott avers, “As an abstract statement of principle that could not have been put better.”

But as Scott also correctly observes, these remarks expressly introduce a tension between “politically or morally motivated decisions” and “established legal principles”.

As such, these prefatory remarks do not really help the judge against criticism – and they do not really change the framing of what then follows.

Yes, these general remarks provide a context – but they do not render what then follows as out of context.

*

If we now jump to the end of the comments, and to the Judicial Office email, the judge, however, has a good point.

The “you should feel guilty for nothing” remark appears not to have been directed at all the defendants, but to only one and in a specific situation.

Just Stop Oil accepted this, and they amended part of their press release accordingly – though this was too late for the viral tweets.

Just Stop Oil, however, have not amended the sensational title of their press release, which still gives the impression that the statement was said to all the defendants:

*

As for the middle part of the text, there is little substantial difference between the two accounts.

Other than the paragraph “When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.” – which seems an unlikely frolic for a judge to have gone on in sentencing remarks – all the other comments attributed to him seem to have counterparts in the Just Stop Oil account.

In my view, the differences can be accounted for by brief notes being reconstructed after the event into prose.

Of course, Just Stop Oil should not have presented such reconstructed comments as being verbatim.  But it is a strain to say that their version of what was said is an “entirely different account”.

Indeed, had it matched the judge’s own notes exactly, it would look as if they had secretly recorded the judge.

I asked Just Stop Oil to explain how they put their version together. They said:

“We have notes from a defendant in court who cross checked them with others that were there and also notes from the defence lawyer […] who acted for one of the defendants.
“We corrected the press release when we became aware via Crimeline that one of the remarks was said to an individual defendant and we had taken it out of context.
“We have not received any communication from the judicial office and there appears to be nothing on the website so we’re slightly bemused by the framing in some of the media articles that suggests that we had some kind of official rebuke.
“We have not seen the information that was given to the press in its entirety but it is obvious that the Crimeline account stops short before the remarks around sentencing (since it contains no information about the sentences that were handed down).
“From looking at [lawyer’s] notes we can see that several of the remarks we have reported were made after sentences were pronounced.”
So it does appear the supposed verbatim press release was reconstructed – and that the statements were not said all at the same time.

*

Which leaves the final question: was it right for the judge to say such things – regardless of the reported sequencing?

Here, we should rely on the judge’s own account of what he said.

Judges’ comments when sentencing are not a bad thing.

Every court day, up and down the country, criminal judges will say things in what are immediate situations that exhort the defendant to do better in future or admonish the guilty.

At worst, such statements are harmless or futile, and at best, such statements may be beneficial to those being exhorted or admonished, and thereby to society.

Not all sentencing remarks can or should be as impeccable as the ones published on the national judicial website.

But.

Judges can and do say things they should not say.

Here a judge was addressing protesters in respect of a highly publicised incident organised by a highly publicised pressure group.

It was entirely foreseeable that what he said would be publicised.

And even it was not foreseeable, and it was an otherwise unexceptional courtroom on a cold and routine day in Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court, it was inappropriate for a judge to express such general political sentiments, either in sentencing remarks or otherwise.

As it happens, as someone with politics broadly as green as my surname, the sentiments expressed by the judge would be ones I would like to see expressed more often by politicians.

But imagine a latter-day Judge Pickles or Judge Argyle type judge expressing sentiments in support of what illiberal right-wing protesters had done on some other demonstration.

That would be wrong, and would call the administration of justice into question, and so what the judge in Wolverhampton said was wrong too.

*

So, in (ahem) summation: Just Stop Oil erred in the title and content of their press release, and the judge erred more seriously in making the comments in the first place, even accepting his own version of his remarks.

And the real problem, as this blog averred recently, is with the refusal by the courts to provide or allow recordings of what judges say in open court.

There is no good reason for this prohibition, and scarcely even a bad reason – it is just unthinking conservatism.

Perhaps there should be a protest organised against it.

***

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, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

Why can we not record what a judge says in open court?

20th February 2023

I am currently writing a post about what was said and not said by a judge at a public hearing.

The post should be up tomorrow or the day after – I had hoped to finish it today – but it does raise a prior question: why can we not just listen to a recording and put the matter beyond doubt?

It is not as if there is a want today of technology and surveillance and recording devices available.

But the old rule remains: it is a contempt of court for a lawyer or a member of the public to record a judge.

And this is even the position when what the judge says or does not say can make the difference to an outcome of a case, or a disposal of an appeal.

Of course, there are good reasons why the evidence of, say, a witness may not be recorded, and still less broadcast.

But unless a judge is discussing matters that should be kept private then the principle of “open justice” should prevail about what the judge themselves say.

There is no good reason for this general prohibition – and there is scarcely even a bad reason.

It is a tradition, a way of doing things, which judges do not want to change.

One suspects it is because judges like to control what comes out of a courtroom as much as they like controlling what is in a courtroom.

And even the courts where there is recording, and so official transcripts can be available, judges want to have prior approval before publication.

Perhaps judges tell themselves that there should not be recordings because there may be “misunderstandings” – but misunderstandings are more likely if we have to rely on recollection and incomplete notes.

The time has come for there to be no general prohibition on recording what a judge says in open court.

****

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, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

Why there should be a “no fault” compensation scheme for serious personal injuries

17th February 2023

Some of the most depressing case reports to read are tortuous claims when someone has had a life-changing injury.

The case reports are depressing for both what they say and what they do not say.

A person has a horrific injury – such as in this recent case report:

“He sustained catastrophic injuries which have rendered him paraplegic.”

The case report in such a case details the background to the injury and then – because such cases are invariably claims in negligence – there is often elaborate and somewhat artificial consideration of whether there was a duty of care and any warning, and whether there was any contributory negligence and fault.

Sometimes as in the case linked to above, the case can touch on obscure legal provisions which neither party actually had any idea about at the time.

And because there is a case report that means that there is a dispute – and almost invariably (though I do not know about the linked case) the case is contested because an insurer does not want to admit liability.

In other words: the case is really about who (if anyone) pays for the ongoing medical needs of the poor claimant.

Knowing this, it seems unfair that the monies for a person’s medical needs when there has been a catastrophic injury should hinge on whether a piece of evidence had been put in, or a finding of a fact, or the application of some hitherto unknown law.

The person’s needs are still the same.

Reading such judgments is like watching a ball on roulette wheel.

And it is rarely the resources of the nominal defendant which are at stake.

As my tort lecturer said once: the law of tort is really a branch of the law of insurance.

Some jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, have a no fault compensation fund for those who suffer injuries.

This is a better (and no doubt all-round cheaper) way than the dismal case reports where one sees a judge making finely balanced decisions that mean whether someone has their medical needs properly paid for or not.

There is a role for the law of negligence in other matters, but it seems out of place here.

****

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, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

Private nuisance and Tate Modern

13th February 2023

Over at Prospect I have an article about the Tate Modern privacy case.

Click here (even if you do not read it).

As the article shows, I am no fan of either the new Tate Modern building or the blocks of flats facing it.  I have always thought it is better to live inside an ugly building looking at a nice building, rather than living in a nice building looking at an ugly building, and the sad predicament in the Tate Modern case is that you have two ugly buildings facing each other.

And like many people, I instinctively sided with the art gallery, as at least the public gallery was a public good, and that offset the private inconveniences of the wealthy leaseholders.

But.

As I read the case reports carefully, and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in particular, I found it hard to legally fault the final decision:

– High Court decision

– Court of Appeal decision

– Supreme Court decision

If there is to be a law of private nuisance then this seems to be the correct application of that law.

My lingering reaction is to wish that only privacy rights were as easy to enforce in non-property cases.

Anyway, you can read the article here – and please comment below.

****

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, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

Whole Life Orders when there is not loss of life

10th February 2023

Although this blog is written generally from a liberal perspective, I do not object – in principle – to whole life orders for exceptional offences.

Other liberals would contend that no prisoner should face the prospect of never being released, to have all hope removed – and that to put a person in this position is in and of itself a cruel and unusual punishment, a form of torture.

But although this blog is deeply sceptical of imprisonment as a routine punishment, there seems to me to be a special category of offenders whose offences mean they should literally have a life sentence.

If whole life sentences, however, are available, one question which arises is whether such sentences should be limited to murderers.

And this question has, again, been prompted by the sentencing of David Carrick.

*

The estimable legal blogger and criminal barrister Matthew Scott has set out why the sentence for Carrick of thirty-two years is correct.

Scott tells us that the reasoning of the judge as set out in her sentencing remarks is “unassailable”.

Given he is an experienced criminal barrister and I am not (and neither will be most of you) then we should defer to his expertise.

But “unassailable” was not the view I formed when I read the sentencing remarks.

Instead my immediate reaction was that the reasoning was not compelling.

In paragraph 32 of the sentencing remarks, the judge says:

“I have assessed very carefully whether given your abuse of position this case should attract a whole life order.”

In paragraph 35 of the remarks, the judge then says:

“The stand out feature is the element of abuse of the status of a police constable but having considered the matter with care I have come to the same conclusion as the prosecution. Of the utmost gravity though this is, the “wholly exceptional circumstances” test is not met.”

What confused me was that in the Wayne Couzens case, the Court of Appeal held (emphasis added):

It provides for its unique and defining feature, which was that Couzens had used his knowledge and status as a police office to perpetrate his appalling crimes against Ms Everard and for the extensive and extreme nature of the other aggravating features which were present: the significant and cold-blooded planning and pre-meditation; the abduction of Ms Everard; the most serious sexual conduct; the mental and physical suffering inflicted on Ms Everard before her death; and the concealment and attempts to destroy Ms Everard’s body.

We agree with the judge that having determined there should be a whole life order, given the misuse of Couzens’ role as a police officer and the serious aggravating features of the offending the guilty pleas did not affect the outcome.

*

It seemed to me that if the Couzens’ role as a police officer meant that what otherwise would be a long term sentence was converted into a whole life order then it would follow that the same would be the case for Carrick.

Against this view, the Crown Prosecution Service in the Carrick case made a point of not seeking a whole life order, and I did not immediately understand this concession, and nor why the judge went along with it.

But now, looking again at the authorities, I can see why Scott is (probably) right and – unsurprisingly – why my instinct was (probably) wrong.

Let me explain.

*

On the face of it, the legislation permitting whole life orders is not limited to murder or any other offence:

S. 321. Life sentence: minimum term order or whole life order

(1) Where a court passes a life sentence, it must make an order under this section.

(2) The order must be a minimum term order unless the court is required to make a whole life order under subsection (3).

(3) The order must be a whole life order if—

(a) [in effect, the offender is over 21], and

(b) the court is of the opinion that, because of the seriousness of— (i) the offence, or (ii) the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, it should not make a minimum term order.

*

This means as long as the conditions in section 3(a) and 3(b) are ticked then there can be a whole life order.

There is no mention of any particular offence.

But in a 2020 case the Lord Chief Justice sitting with the other senior criminal appeals judges considered whether non-murderers would ever meet the threshold for a whole life sentence.

The Court of Appeal said (in a passage which I have broken up for flow):

We endorse the line of authority which does not shut the door to a whole life tariff in a case not involving murder.

The infinite variety of circumstances which give rise to serious offending make it impossible to identify such cases in advance, but we give an indication of the circumstances that might justify such a sentence.

We can envisage circumstances where murders of similar exceptionally high seriousness […] are substantively planned to a point close to execution (conspiracy to murder or attempted murder) but the crime does not occur because the enterprise is foiled or prevented by some fortuitous intervening event.

Examples might include when a bomb planted on a commercial airliner fails to explode or does so without causing sufficient damage to bring it down; similarly, a bomb in a public place does not achieve the wicked aim of those who planned or planted it; or intervention by the authorities prevents an act of mass-murder.

There will be other cases that do not involve a planned homicide of this kind which will merit a discretionary whole life term but, as Lord Phillips observed in Neil Jones, when they occur the need for such a sentence will be clear.

Otherwise, a determinate term of appropriate length will meet the requirements of retribution and punishment.

The offending in the cases of McCann and Sinaga, very serious indeed though it is does not, in our judgment, call for either to receive a whole life tariff.

This is not to minimise the seriousness of their offending but instead to ensure that the most severe sentence in our jurisdiction is reserved, save exceptionally, either for the most serious cases involving loss of life, or when a substantive plan to murder of similar seriousness is interrupted close to fulfilment.

*

So if a whole life order can be imposed when there has not been loss of life – but normally it should be where there was a plan to murder which somehow failed.

If this is the settled and firm view of the court of appeal – and the sheer seniority of the judges on that panel would indicate that should be taken to be the Court of Appeal’s policy, then we can see why the Crown Prosecution Service and the judge in the Carrick case did not seek or consider a whole life order.

Yes, a whole life order can be imposed where there is not loss of life – but not even in a case like Carrick, notwithstanding the misuse of the defendant’s misuse of his police status.

Indeed, it would appear that the misuse of the police status was instrumental in getting Carrick to the starting point of a sixty year sentence which, after the “credit” for his guilty plea, and a reduction to take account of what period a life prisoner would otherwise spend out of prison on licence, ended up with the minimum of thirty-two years to be served.

*

You may think that despite the Court of Appeal setting out the exceptional circumstances where a non-murderer can get a whole life order, one should have been imposed in Carrick’s case.

Or you may think that given the age of Carrick, it is academic whether it is a thirty-two year sentence or a whole life order.

Or you may have another view.

My own normative view is that the Court of Appeal has set too narrowly the sort of cases that warrant a whole life order, and that if misuse of his position as a police officer was enough to convert Couzens’ sentence to a whole life order then the same should have been the case for Carrick.

But practical law is not normative but positive, and you have to take the law as it is, and not what you would like it to be; and the Court of Appeal’s policy on whole life orders meant that neither the Crown Prosecution Service nor the trial judge were in a position to seriously seek or consider a whole life order in this case.

And, for the reasons Scott gives in his post, it is indeed unlikely that the Court of Appeal will shift its position if Carrick’s sentence is referred to it as being “unduly lenient”.

****

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, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

Is it, at last, time to say “good bye” to Thoburn and the idea of “constitutional statutes”?

 9th February 2023

Oh dear old Thoburn, what shall be done with you?

Thoburn, the mainstay of thousands of constitutional law essays and hundreds of learned articles, does yesterday’s Supreme Court decision mean you are now no more?

*

Thoburn is the 2002 “metric martyrs” case which introduced into the then quiet, sedate world of constitutional law the exciting concept of “constitutional statutes”.

Until then all Acts of Parliament were regarded as being equal, none of them any more entrenched – enshrined – than any other.

But in Thoburn the judge said, in effect, that there was a class of super-duper statutes known as “constitutional statutes” and these statutes had super-duper qualities not available to more mundane everyday statutes.

Incredible, if true.

And so Thoburn became the recent constitutional law case any student or informed pundit had to have an opinion about.

But yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on the Northern Irish Protocol may mean the dictum in Thoburn are no longer to be taken seriously.

What will law students and pundits do?

*

To understand what happened with the Thoburn case we have to go back to the Victorian doctrine of the supremacy of parliament.

This doctrine holds that no statute passed by the Crown-in-Parliament can be gainsaid by any court.

But in two case in the early 1930s about the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 and the Housing Act 1925, the courts were presented with a situation where two statutes contradicted each other.

How should the courts deal with this situation?

The clever idea the courts came up with was “implied repeal” – and so the fiction adopted was that parliament in passing the later legislation knew about the earlier legislation, and so the (presumed) intent of parliament was to repeal the earlier legislation.

But as this repeal was not explicit in the later legislation, it would have to be an implicit repeal.

And this is how the interwar courts managed to disapply a piece of primary legislation, notwithstanding the heady doctrine of the supremacy of parliament.

(Of course, if no Act of parliament can actually be gainsaid by a court, then the courts should have just refused to choose between the two contradictory statutes and return the matter to Parliament to sort out – but the fig-leaf of the “intent” of parliament meant the courts could sort out the legislative mess parliament had created.)

And the legal rule from these case was that the later statute trumps – that is, implicitly repeals – the earlier statute when the two contradict.

*

But in 2002 the court was faced with another seemingly awkward situation.

It was submitted in that case that the Weights and Measures Act 1985 somehow implicitly repealed the earlier European Communities Act 1973.

On the merits of the case, the court found that this was not the position.

But in a dictum – which was not about the point on which the case turned – Lord Justice Laws (and please none of the usual jokes about nominative determinism) went on a judicial frolic and speculated about implied repeal.

Could a later Act of Parliament really implicitly repeal the European Communities Act 1973, which – in turn – was the (then) basis for the laws of the European Union having effect in the United Kingdom?

On the basis of the 1930s cases then this would have to be the position, as the later statute trumps the earlier statute.

But.

As we now know, repeal of the European Communities Act 1973 would be a very complicated and far-reaching thing.

And so Lord Justice Laws posited a new category of statutes which would be immune from any implied repeal.

If there were any contradictions with an earlier “constitutional statute” then it would be the later statute that would be repealed, not the earlier one.

His dictum was as follows (which I have broke out into one-sentence paragraphs):

We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were “ordinary” statutes and “constitutional” statutes.

The two categories must be distinguished on a principled basis. In my opinion a constitutional statute is one which (a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, or (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights.

(a) and (b) are of necessity closely related: it is difficult to think of an instance of (a) that is not also an instance of (b).

The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights.

Examples are the [sic] Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998.

The ECA clearly belongs in this family. It incorporated the whole corpus of substantive Community rights and obligations, and gave overriding domestic effect to the judicial and administrative machinery of Community law.

It may be there has never been a statute having such profound effects on so many dimensions of our daily lives.

The ECA is, by force of the common law, a constitutional statute.

*

This was exhilarating, provocative stuff.

And it was utter flapdoodle.

There was no basis for positing such “constitutional statutes” – either then or now.

They were invented just to get the courts out of the potentially tricky situation which the judges’ contrived solution to the problems in the 1930s had got themselves into.

The notion of “implied repeal” was now a reversible switch – and it was to be the judges who decided (and not parliament) whether it would be the earlier or the later legislation that would be “implicitly repealed” by the simple expedient of the judge perhaps dubbing one or the other of the Acts of Parliament a “constitutional statute”.

It was all rather daft, but you will see why it was like catnip to those with an interest in constitutional law.

*

Anyway, the Laws dictum was relied on by the applicants in the recent Allister litigation on the legality of the Northern Irish Protocol, which eventually reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court decision in that case is fascinating and it warrants a post by itself, especially on respect of the developing jurisprudence of the court on devolution.

But the Supreme Court was unimpressed by the Thoburn point.

The court described the submission (again broken up into one-sentence paragraphs):

On the hearing of this appeal, the appellants submitted that the Acts of Union were constitutional statutes so that the rights in the trade limb of article VI of His Majesty’s subjects of Northern Ireland being on the same footing in respect of trade as His Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain, could not be subject to repeal or to subjugation, modification, or suspension absent express or specific words in a later statute.

In support of that submission, the appellants relied on a line of authorities starting with Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin); [2003] QB 151 for the proposition that whilst ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed constitutional statutes may not.

At para 63 of Thoburn, Laws LJ suggested that the repeal of a constitutional statute or the abrogation of a fundamental right could only be effected by a later statute by:

“express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible.”

The appellants submitted that the Acts of Union are constitutional Acts and that the rights to equal footing as to trade were fundamental rights so that there was no scope for implied repeal and by analogy there was no scope for implied subjugation, modification, or suspension.

*

You will see that the Thoburn point has now been expanded beyond implied repeal and that “constitutional statutes” have various other super-duper legal protections.

The court held (again broken up into one-sentence paragraphs, and with my two comments interposed):

The debate as to whether article VI created fundamental rights in relation to trade, whether the Acts of Union are statutes of a constitutional character, whether the 2018 and 2020 Acts are also statutes of a constitutional character, and as to the correct interpretative approach when considering such statutes or any fundamental rights, is academic.

“Academic.”

Even if it is engaged in this case, the interpretative presumption that Parliament does not intend to violate fundamental rights cannot override the clearly expressed will of Parliament.

“Even if”

*

Allister is not about implied repeal, so strictly speaking the Laws dictum in Thoburn may be said to not be applicable.

But the notion of “constitutional statutes” is plainly not taken seriously by this unanimous Supreme Court in an important devolution case engaging what Laws would have called many “constitutional statutes” , with a panel consisting of justices from Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, as well as the court’s leading public law justice, Lord Sales.

For the Supreme Court, the content of the Acts of Union have no special entrenched legal status, and they can be amended, and so on, just as any other Act of Parliament.

The question of what would happen with a direct contradiction, as in the early 1930s has been sidestepped.

But the expedient of “constitutional statutes” as suggested by Laws in Thoburn seems to have been put back in its judicial box.

Or has it?

No doubt there will now be thousands more constitutional law essays, and hundreds more learned articles, to tell us whether the dictum in Thoburn is no more.

****

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, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

Beware of judges employing rhetoric: a note on Lord Denning and his “appalling vista”

3rd February 2023

Yesterday on this blog there was a quick post on the Tate Modern privacy/nuisance case – and I am delighted that I have now been commissioned by Prospect magazine to do an online in-depth analysis of this fascinating case about the clash of public spaces and private rights.

The point of the quick post yesterday was not to offer any considered view on the Tate Modern case (on which I actually have not formed a view) but to point to a conspicuous absence in the judgment.

It was odd that the famous speech of the former Master of the Rolls Lord Denning in the 1977 nuisance case of Miller v Jackson was not mentioned, and nor indeed was Denning himself, given this is one of the most famous speeches in the history of English law.

That speech begins as follows (and I have broken out the sentences):

“In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. 

“Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. 

“In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last seventy years. 

“They tend it well. 

“The wicket area is well rolled and mown. 

“The outfield is kept short. 

“It has a good club-house for the players and seats for the onlookers. 

“The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays.

“They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. 

“On other evenings after work they practice while the light lasts. 

“Yet now after these 70 years a Judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there anymore.

“He has issued an injunction to stop them. 

“He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. 

“This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. 

“The animals did not mind the cricket.

“But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. 

“The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. 

“No doubt the open space was a selling point. 

“Now he complains that, when a batsman hits a six, the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. 

“His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at weekends. 

“They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. 

“They say that this is intolerable. 

“So they asked the Judge to stop the cricket being played. 

“And the Judge, I am sorry to say, feels that the cricket must be stopped: with the consequences, I suppose, that the Lintz cricket-club will disappear. 

“The cricket ground will be turned to some other use.

“I expect for more houses or a factory. 

“The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket.

“The whole village will be much the poorer. 

“And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.”

*

The leading legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg agreed about this conspicuous absence on Twitter:

*

In the post yesterday I mentioned that I was not a fan of Lord Denning as an appeal judge, though I conceded that one cannot deny his quality as a wordsmith.

(Please note that this adverse view is not about Denning as a person, about whom I have no idea, but about the content and style of his judgments.)

One day I may write a fuller account of this adverse view, but in essence I hold this view for three reasons.

First, it seems to me that Denning’s judgments are often triumphs of form – indeed of rhetoric – over legal substance.

(Indeed, when I once read many of Denning’s judgments in succession, it felt as if he was even sometimes the prisoner, and not the master, of his style of giving judgments.)

Second, his freestyle use of law and equity created a great deal of needless uncertainty in areas of law where certainty is important, especially at appellate level.

(And the usual argument that this was for achieving justice in individual cases really goes to his deftness as a legal rhetorician: for it is difficult when reading his judgments not to sympathise with the party Denning wanted to win – “of course” they should win.)

And third, it is because his rhetorically impressive judgments often cloaked a very illiberal approach to the law and the rights of individuals.

For example there is his notorious 1980 speech in the civil claim brought by the then-imprisoned (and later rightly exonerated) Birmingham Six.

Here I will quote from that speech more fully than usual, so that you can see hos slow rhetorical build-up (and I have again broken out the sentences):

“In this case at the “trial within a trial” there was an issue whether the police had been guilty of violence or threats towards the six men so that their confessions were not made voluntarily.

“The judge on the issue made a clear finding against the six men after a trial of eight days in which the six men had full and fair opportunity of being heard – and were in fact heard – and were represented by leading counsel.

“At the trial the same evidence about violence and threats was given all over again before the jury.

“If the jury had acquitted the six men, it would not be fair or just to hold that the finding of Bridge J. was binding on the six men in subsequent proceedings.

“But seeing that the jury convicted the six men, it is reasonable to suppose that they took the same view as Bridge J.

“In any case the issues are such that it would not be fair or just to allow the decision to be reopened by the six men.

“Just consider the course of events if this action were to proceed to trial. It will not be tried for 18 months or two years.

“It will take weeks and weeks.

“The evidence about violence and threats will be given all over again, but this time six or seven years after the event, instead of one year.

“If the six men fail, it will mean that much time and money and worry will have been expended by many people for no good purpose.

“If the six men win, it will mean that the police were guilty of perjury, that they were guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were involuntary and were improperly admitted in evidence: and that the convictions were erroneous.

“That would mean that the Home Secretary would have either to recommend they be pardoned or he would have to remit the case to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 .

“This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say: It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.

“They should be struck out either on the ground that the six men are estopped from challenging the decision of Bridge J. or alternatively that it is an abuse of the process of the court.

“Whichever it is, the actions should be stopped.”

*

Denning’s exercise in legal rhetoric is strikingly similar in style to his famous introduction to the 1977 case of Miller v Jackson.

But instead of the readers clapping and cheering, as most will do with the Miller v Jackson introduction, the only decent response to this Birmingham Six passage is disgust.

And this is why one should be wary of rhetoric in legal judgments – and indeed it is why we should be at our most vigilant when we find ourselves nodding-along with a rousing passage in any judgment – whether by Lord Denning or by any other judge.

Of course: judgments should be plain and succinct and comprehensible to non-lawyers.

But judges should leave the tools of persuasion to the advocates.

For if the judge has got the law right and the facts right, there is no need for the judge to also employ rhetorical devices so as to get you to nod-along with what they have decided.

****

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, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

New Essay at Substack: Perhaps the most significant UK constitutional case of the last fifty years

6th January 2023

Over at my new law and lore Substack, I have published an essay for paying subscribers on how the Malone case of 1979-1985 exposed the lie of our supposedly liberal constitution and changed the way we were governed.

The essay starts as follows:

Consider this simple, attractive proposition: in the United Kingdom, you are free to do as you will, unless there is a law against it.

What could be wrong with such a nice proposition: it is almost a perfect articulation of principled liberalism.

But.

This proposition can have a hidden and ugly implication.

For it also can mean that the State can do as it wishes, to you and other people, unless there is a law against it.

And the case which exposed this unpleasant truth – and helped put an end to it, so that the State was required to have a legal basis for interfering with our lives – is the 1979-85 case of Malone.

This is the story of that case, and of its effects.

You can read the rest of the essay with a paid subscription here.

*

This essay is also being posted on Patreon for those who subscribe to this blog using that medium.

For those who subscribe and donate through either Patreon or PayPal, please leave a “PRIVATE” comment below confirming you want me to add your email address to the Substack system so you can have a one-year complementary subscription to the law and lore Substack.

It is important that nobody pays “twice” for my content.