Category: Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Posts elsewhere on the “Bill of Rights” and on by-elections

27th June 2022

Just a brief post here today, as I am currently writing one of my longer posts for (I hope) posting on this blog later in the week.

Over at Al Jazeera, I have written again from a liberal constitutionalist perspective for an international audience.

My piece there this week is on the significance of last week’s by-elections – and why, generally, by-elections and other ‘mid-term’ events can be constitutionally significant, even if they are not good predictions of general election results.

And this is because in the British constitution it is common for Prime Ministers to either gain or lose power between general elections (or both) – as this blog has set out previously.

Over at Prospect I have done a comment piece on the new ‘Bill of Rights’ – focusing on its pointlessness but also emphasising that it shows the wrong priorities for the Ministry of Justice, a small department with a limited budget.

Today, criminal barristers are on strike – as the criminal justice system is in an ongoing crisis.

For the current Lord Chancellor to prioritise this ‘Bill of Rights’ above everything else at the Ministry of Justice is a serious error.

So, as my Prospect piece concludes, this bill is the legislative equivalent of lounging on a beach while Afghanistan falls.

***

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Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.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 the current government may not have a mandate for repealing the Human Rights Act – and why this may matter

24th June 2022

In yesterday’s post on this blog, the successive manifesto commitments of the current governing party since 2010 on the Human Rights Act were set out.

These commitments were as follows :-

The 2010 Conservative manifesto (twelve years ago):

“To protect our freedoms from state encroachment and encourage greater social responsibility, we will replace the  Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights.”

The 2015 Conservative manifesto (seven years ago):

“The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights. This will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK.”

The 2017 Conservative manifesto (five years ago) placed a foot on the ball:

“We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes.”

And then most recently, in the 2019 Conservative manifesto:

“We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government.”

*

This post looks at what the implications of that last 2019 commitment may be – though, in doing so, it is accepted that manifesto commitments are not legally binding obligations, and so there is leeway in how they are to be interpreted.

The 2010 and 2015 manifesto commitments do not need much interpretation in respect of the Human Rights Act – they are as plain as any pikestaff.

The Human Rights Act was to go – replaced, scrapped.

The 2017 commitment is also not ambiguous – the Human Rights Act was to stay, for now.

But.

The 2019 commitment was not that the Act would be replaced or scrapped, or that it was to safe for now.

The 2019 commitment was only to ‘update‘ the Act.

The 2019 commitment could have been to ‘scrap’ or ‘replace’ the Act – but the governing party decided against making that commitment.

The governing party opted for ‘update’ instead.

*

The governing party thereby has an election mandate for ‘updating’ the Human Rights Act.

And so if this is what they do, then that cannot be gainsaid – at least not constitutionally,

But the government is not now proposing merely to update the Act – but to repeal it and replace it with another statute.

To do, in effect, what the 2010 and 2015 manifestos promised.

But do the governing party have a mandate for repealing the Human Rights Act outright?

In other words: is repeal within the scope of an ‘update’?

Again, it is important not to be legalistic about this – no legal claim can be brought for a government breaking its manifesto promises, and so no manifesto should read as it is a formal legal document.

But what is stated in a manifesto is not without constitutional consequences.

This is because of the so-called ‘Salisbury doctrine’ – a constitutional convention.

This doctrine provides – quite rightly – that it is not open to the House of Lords to block or delay legislation for which a government has obtained a mandate at a general election.

The question thereby becomes whether this proposed ‘Bill of Rights’  is protected by the Salisbury doctrine or not.

If it is protected by the Salisbury doctrine, then the House of Lords cannot and should not block or delay the bill – though, of course, it may seek to make amendments.

If the bill is not protected by the Salisbury doctrine, however, then there could be such delays – including forcing the government to resort to the Parliament Acts to force the law onto the statute book after a year without the support of the House of Lords.

As the new bill substantially reduces rights and freedoms of individuals, there may be those in the House of Lords that will want to amend the bill beyond what the current government would want to accept – and to insist on those amendments.

Their view may be that “updates” – whatever that means – may be fine, but not outright repeal –  because the government cannot point to any mandate for repeal.

*

If a bill is protected by the Salisbury doctrine, then the House of Lords will (usually) back down before the government has to invoke the Parliament Acts.

Of course, the only reason any of the above may be an issue is, no doubt, that the governing party did not want to say expressly in its manifesto that it would repeal the Human Rights Act outright, as that might have scared the voters, if not the horses.

A promise to ‘update’ was a lot less alarming to middle-ground voters.

*

One suspects the House of Lords will be wary about opposing the government in respect of such a populist piece of legislation.

And the government – and its media and political supporters – will clap and cheer at the prospect of a ‘peers vs people’ narrative.

But because of the mild wording of the 2019 manifesto commitment, the government cannot be certain of the House of Lords will back down on outright repeal.

And, what is more, this government in particular is not in any strong position to insist that other elements of our constitutional order comply with mere conventions.

**

Thank you for reading – posts like this take time and opportunity cost, so please support this free-to-read independent source of commentary.

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

***

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.

“Oh no, not again” – the story of the Human Rights Act and of the new “Bill of Rights”

23rd June 2022

*

“Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was ‘Oh no, not again’.”

– Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

*

Legal and constitutional commentators are the petunias of the modern age.

The current bout of constitutional excitements started in around 2015, and these excitements have carried on relentlessly since.

Again and again the government has threatened to do something – or done something – drastic in respect of our constitutional arrangements.

Seven or so years later it is rather exhausting to keep up.

And giving up is tempting.

But keep up we must, as these are serious matters – even if government and its political and media supporters do not take them seriously.

For the political and media supporters of government will clap and cheer at each of these constitutional disturbances – and will delight in the ‘libs’ being ‘owned’.

Well, this ‘lib’ is more bored than owned.

But commentary must be offered, if only as a corrective to the narratives of those currently in power and those who support them.

And so this is the story of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the supposed “Bill of Rights” with which the government wants to replace it.

*

Before the Second World War, a certain sort of English person would have boasted not of having rights but of having liberties.

The notion was that an English person was free to do whatever they wish, unless it was prohibited.

The self-image was of a robust anti-authoritarianism – and it was an image which gained wide purchase.

And to an extent it was a fair depiction – the powers of the Crown had generally been made subject to Parliament, and most exercises of state power could be contested before a court.

But.

The Victorian doctrine of parliamentary supremacy – which asserted that Parliament could make or un-make any power it wanted – had as an unfortunate implication that the subject was powerless in the face of a determined executive dominating the legislature.

This implication was noticed by, among others, a Lord Chief Justice – Lord Hewitt – who in 1929 published The New Despotism warning of the illiberal power of the British state.

And in the Second World War what Hewitt warned of in theory was carried out in practice with the government’s use of the defence regulations.

For all the comforting self-image, there was not in practice robust English liberties that would actually protect the subject against the king’s government – let alone the citizen against the state.

Perhaps there never had been.

*

Following the Second World War there was a spate of international conferences and organisations that purported to declare and protect rights.

One of these, of course, was the European Convention on Human Rights.

This convention provided for a number of rights, contained in articles.

Some of the rights were set out in the original convention, and some were added in later protocols.

The convention was connected to the Council of Europe, which now comprises most European states:

By being party to the convention, a country agrees to be bound by the convention as a matter of international law.

Some claim that the convention was promoted by Winston Churchill and drafted by Conservative lawyers – but their contribution should not be overstated (see this fine book for what did happen).

The United Kingdom at the time the convention was ratified in 1951 did not see the convention as controversial or as being inconsistent with domestic law.

The convention did not only provide for rights but it also established a court to determine whether any signatory – as a matter of international law – was in breach of its obligations under the convention.

That court is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, of which you may have heard.

*

What happened next is not widely known.

As is described in a House of Commons library paper:

“Although the UK ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951, it was 1965 before the UK Government declared, by an option under then Article 25 of the Convention, that it would accept the jurisdiction of the Court in relation to individual complaints. The optional clause was debated in late 1980, amid charges that the Court was “interfering with the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty” and “limiting [the UK’s] freedom of action”, but in 1981 and subsequently it was accepted for five more years. In 1994, during the negotiation of Protocol 11, the UK tried in vain to ensure that the right of individual petition would remain optional. The Government thought the Court had too much power, and the possibility of non-renewal of individual petition would act as a check on its authority.”

The United Kingdom did not allow anyone to actually petition the Strasbourg court until 1964.

And until relatively recently – the mid-1990s – governments of all parties resisted the reach of the Strasbourg court.

*

This resistance had the following effects.

First, it created immense costs and delays for individuals who wanted the United Kingdom to comply with its international obligations.

For example, in the case of Malone – in my view, one of the most important constitutional cases in the last hundred years – a 1977 incident did not reach a Strasbourg judgment until 1984.

There the Strasbourg court held that any surveillance of the individual by the state had to have a lawful basis.

The English court had held, in effect, that just as it was open to any subject to do as they wish unless prohibited, it was also open to state bodies to do as they wished unless prohibited.

That’s robust English liberties, for you.

The Malone decision in turn led to the United Kingdom placing its surveillance regime onto a legal – and thereby legally contestable basis.

But it took seven years for the judgment to happen.

Second, it meant that lawyers developed various means of referring to Strasbourg jurisprudence in domestic courts.

I remember seeing this article as a law student in the mid-1990s:

By then it was getting rather silly.

A United Kingdom litigant seeking to rely on their convention rights had to go to the cost and delays of going to Strasbourg, or had to find a clever lawlerly way of relying on Strasbourg caselaw in a domestic case.

But what that litigant could not do is rely on their convention rights in a straightforward way before the domestic courts – even though the United Kingdom was bound by the convention (and by the Strasbourg court’s interpretation of the convention) as a matter of international law.

*

And then, in 1997, the electorate of the United Kingdom returned a Labour government:

Things could only get better, or so people thought.

And one thing the government did to make things better was to introduce legislation so that the convention could be relied on in domestic courts.

This would not only solve the increasingly absurd problem of the costs and delays of individual petition and indirect reliance, it also gave effect to a key provision of the Good Friday Agreement which was signed in April 1998.

One of the express bases of that agreement was that the convention had to be capable of being directly enforced in the courts of Northern Ireland – in particular against the Northern Irish Assembly:

And so the Human Rights Act 1998 came into being, which allowed direct access to the courts for breaches of the convention, and not just for those in Northern Ireland.

As the government of the day boasted in an allusion to the popular football song: rights were brought home:

The Act took effect on 2 October 2000.

*

But.

The Human Rights Act never gained universal support.

This is for, I think, two main reasons.

First, the popular media disliked how English judges created an entirely new tort – misuse of private information – on the back of the 1998 Act.

The Act does not expressly provide for any such cause of action.

But case-by-case, the courts crafted a new basis for suing for breaches of privacy.

And the courts did not ‘develop’ the corresponding right of free expression in any comparable way.

Few reporters and editors came to see the Human Rights Act as an instrument that would protect them like their American counterparts who could point to their constitutional rights.

Second, the politics following 2001 and 9/11 pushed against human rights protections.

It is difficult to imagine the Human Rights Act being enacted after 2001 had it not been enacted before.

The Labour governments became more illiberal, as anti-terrorist act followed anti-terrorist act.

And by 2006:

Human rights may well have come home – but they were now unloved by the Act’s own parents.

*

At this time, the then-opposition Conservatives were becoming even more opposed to the Human Rights Act than the Labour government.

So also in 2006:

The 2010 Conservative manifesto (twelve years ago):

“To protect our freedoms from state encroachment and encourage greater social responsibility, we will replace the  Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights.”

The 2015 Conservative manifesto (seven years ago):

“The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights. This will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK.”

The 2017 Conservative manifesto (five years ago) placed a foot on the ball:

“We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes.”

And then most recently, in the 2019 Conservative manifesto:

“We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government.”

As it happens the government elected on the back of that latest manifesto is not prosing to “update” the Human Rights Act but now to repeal it – at least in form.

*

*

Alongside these manifesto commitments, there have been various attempts to find a practical way of repealing or updating the 1998 Act.

In 2011 there was a commission established by the government:

But this went nowhere.

In 2014 the then justice secretary launched a new attack at Conservative party conference.

And that went nowhere.

And in 2015-16, the then prime minister was again about to take on the Human Rights Act – and may well have done so but for Brexit:

*

*

And now, in 2022, we have yet another attempt to repeal the Human Rights Act, twenty-five years after the Human Rights Bill was introduced by the incoming Labour government.

The difference now, however, is that the proposals have reached the stage of draft legislation before Parliament.

And the justice secretary proposing the new legislation, Dominic Raab, is a long-term opponent of the Human Rights Act and was the junior justice minister under Cameron responsible charged with finding an alternative to the Act.

In effect, the Human Rights Act is Moby Dick to Raab’s Captain Ahab.

It does not matter that the criminal justice system is in crisis, scarce ministerial time and departmental resources will be devoted to repealing the 1998 Act.

*

The 1998 Act is unlikely to survive this assault.

There is enough time for the bill to pass before the next general election, and there is sheer determination to get the bill through.

But.

The essentials of the Act will remain.

The Good Friday Agreement will still require that the convention can be given direct effect in the courts of Northern Ireland.

The United Kingdom will still be bound by the convention as a matter of international law.

If the domestic courts do not protect convention rights then litigants can still go to Strasbourg.

The United Kingdom will still be required to comply with the decisions of the Strasbourg court.

And resourceful lawyers – and judges – will still find ways of referring to Strasbourg jurisprudence in domestic courts when determining convention rights.

And so one consequence of the new bill is that cost and expense will be added to the process of relying on convention rights under a treaty that will still bind the United Kingdom under international law.

*

As this blog set out yesterday, the core of the new bill is the same as the 1998 Act.

The convention rights are still listed in the schedule; the definition of convention rights is the same; and the key obligation on public authorities to comply with the convention is also the same.

What the bill does is to introduce a number of provisions that will make it far more difficult for litigants to rely on those rights in domestic courts.

Over at the blog of Professor Mark Elliott there is an outstanding post – written within a day of the publication of the new bill – that details all the new legislative contraptions and devices, the purpose of which is to inconvenience the litigant seeking to rely on their convention rights.

Elliott’s post should be read and circulated as widely as possible.

And Elliott’s conclusion is compelling:

“the Government’s strategy appears to involve making it more difficult for human rights to be enforced in UK law both by marginalising the domestic influence of the ECtHR and by limiting the capacity of domestic courts to uphold Convention rights.”

And this is why – jaded and fatigued as any sensible person must be who is keeping up with this government’s ongoing attack on our constitutional arrangements – we have to be vigilant about this latest exercise in limiting the ability of individuals to rely on rights which the United Kingdom is bound to protect by international law.

*

The government is not – and cannot – take the United Kingdom out of the European Convention of Human Rights – at least not without breaching the Good Friday Agreement.

The government is still obliged to give effect under international law to the rights contained in convention – and individuals will still have the right to petition the court.

But after twenty years of trying, the current government party has put forward the means of attacking the Human Rights Act by limiting the ready enforcement of these rights by individuals.

And so as a bowl of petunias once no doubt thought: brace, brace.

*

 

**

Thank you for reading – posts like this take time and opportunity cost, so please support this free-to-read independent source of commentary.

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

***

Comments Policy

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

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

A first glance at the Bill of Rights Bill

22nd June 2022

The new Bill of Rights Bill 2022 has been published.

On the face of it, this is a very significant move.

The Bill even tells us that when enacted it will be known as the “Bill of Rights 2022”.

Note this means it will now be one of a small group of statutes which will not be known as Blah Blah Act Date.

No, this legislation demands comparison with the (actual) Bill of Rights of 1688.

Portentous stuff.

But.

In broad terms, this new legislation makes no real difference to the Human Rights Act 1998.

For example, schedule one to the Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights:

And Schedule 1 to the new legislation also sets out the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights:

The proposed Bill of Rights does not create any new ‘British’ rights instead of the European Convention.

The fundamental purpose of the 1998 Act and the new bill are the same: to provide a basis in domestic law for giving effect to the convention rights in the European Convention.

And the key operative provision is the same.

Here is section 6 of the 1998 Act:

And here is clause 12 of the proposed bill:

*

So.

Both the 1998 Act and the new legislation place the rights under the European Convention of Human Rights into English law by means of a schedule.

And the 1998 Act and the new legislation provide – in identical language – that public bodies must comply with those rights.

Even the defintion of “Convention rights” are the same.

The 1998 Act:

The new Bill:

*

You may wonder what is the point of an entirely new enactment that does, at the fundamental level, exactly the same as the legislation it is supposed to replace?

And the answer to that is there is no real point.

The new legislation does make a difference in respect of how the convention rights can be enforced in certain situations.

The overall effect – odd for legislation which will be called ‘The Bill of Rights”, if you think about it – is to make it harder practically for convention rights to be enforced.

But that is done by the means of various processes and other tinkering – but nothing which warrants such a legislative overhaul.

Those new provisions can be looked in detail at as the bill proceeds.

But in respect of the fundamentals this new bill gives effect to the same Convention rights with the same key obligation and with the same defintion of convention rights.

The rest is detail and symbolism.

***

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.

 

 

 

Who watches the watchmen?

Summer Solstice 2022

Over at Al Jazeera – where I am pleased to write posts from a liberal constitutionalist perspective – I have written about what the Lord Geidt resignation tells us about British politics.

Somewhat flatteringly, that post has been chosen as a ‘best column’ by The Week magazine:

From a personal perspective, the post is one of very few I have written for the mainstream media with which I am happy.

(One day I will get the hang of writing paragraphs with more than one sentence.)

On the back of that Al Jazeera post I thought I would add here some thoughts about constitutionalism and absolute power.

For, as Lord Acton famously once said (and to which I allude in the Al Jazeera post), power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

*

One problem with many – if not most – proposed or imagined political systems is that there is little or nothing to check or balance those who will have the most power under that system.

The hope is presumably that those with the most power will be selfless patriots – good kings, good chaps, and so on.

But, of course, what will tend to happen is that those with power will be corrupted, and those with absolute power will be corrupted absolutely.

And not just corrupted in a narrow financial sense, but in the broader sense of becoming debased.

In this way Orwell’s pigs in Animal Farm may be a more realistic guide to what happens with sustained one party control than the focused O’Brien in Nineteen Eighty-four.

Alan Moore – who I mention expressly in the Al Jazeera post – has repeatedly shown in his stories what can happen when individuals get unchecked power.

In Watchmen – there is a character with absolute superpowers who goes quite mad, a character with immense wealth who becomes immensely destructive, and a character with complete government protection who does whatever he wants to whoever he wants.

And these are the supposed good guys – and none of them is the supposedly unhinged one, Rorschach.

*

Switching from imagined communities to historical examples, there are actually few examples of that most peculiar figure ‘the enlightened despot’.

What we do have are despots with good P.R. and gullible historians.

For if a leader is ‘enlightened’, they do not need to be a despot.

Even the supposed good guys of the modern age – the British – have a wretched record if you look closely enough – for example in Kenya, in Northern Ireland, and in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The documented evidence of torture and war crimes by the British cannot be denied, but few realise or care.

For that is what happens when you have good P.R. and gullible historians.

Even the popular comedy meme about ‘Are we the bad guys?’ is dressed in foreign uniforms.

But corruption – in both its narrow and broad sense – is not just about what happens to foreigners.

It can happen in any polity – and with any rulers, if they believe they can get away with it.

*

That is why any political system which confers great power on any individuals is suspect.

Yes, you may have a selfless patriot as an initial ruler, but what do you get when the selfless patriots die away?

The primary job of any liberal constitution is not that it provides and allocates powers, but that it effectively checks and balances those with powers.

It assumes the worst – even if there are hopes for the best.

And if those with the greatest powers in any political system are without checks and balances then it should not come as a surprise that powers are abused.

Indeed, it would be more of a surprise if they were not.

***

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.

The Metric Martyrs case – twenty years on

30th May 2022

Before Brexit, there were the Metric Martyrs.

The key legal case here was a set of appeals which were decided by the High Court in 2002, in a judgment now known as Thoburn.

The street-level appellants faced criminal sanctions and other legal impediments because they dealt their groceries and wares in imperial measures rather than metric measures.

Re-reading Thoburn some twenty years later – in the light of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and this weekend’s ‘news’ about the government wanting to revive imperial measures – is an interesting exercise.

*

The first striking thing about Thoburn is the complexity of the applicable law.

Few lawyers – if any – would find it easy to follow paragraphs 8 to 35 of the judgment, which sets out all the relevant legal provisions.

Even the judge who gave the decisions of the court found it a complicated mess, saying at paragraph 81:

“In the course of the hearing I made no secret of my dismay at the way in which the criminal offences relevant to the first three of these appeals had been created. It is a nightmare of a paper chase. I accept that there was no prejudice to these individual appellants, who knew well what the law was because they were concerned to campaign against it. But in principle, I regard it as lamentable that criminal offences should be created by such a maze of cross-references in subordinate legislation.”

(The judge was Sir John Laws – notable to non-lawyers for his name and for being the uncle of Dominic Cummings – and it would be great if commenters assume these two things do not always need to be stated in their comments below.)

This judicial observation has wider import.

It is the lot of regulatory law – especially that law that regulates commerce and retail – to be complicated.

And this in turn means the law – like the one regarding the shape of bananas – will not fare well against the urges of simplification and distortion.

On one hand, you had the accessible image of market traders pricing and weighing their goods in imperial measurements for walk-up customers in English towns.

And on the other hand, you have pages and pages of impenetrable legal-ese which sets out why doing such a thing is a criminal activity leading to criminal sanctions.

Few onlookers would side with the legal-ese.

*

A second thing about the Thoburn case is just how hopeless the legal arguments were that were put on behalf of the traders.

Wide ‘constitutional’ submissions were made about ‘implied repeal’ and entrenchment of statutes – which were met by an equally wide-ranging ‘constitutional’ judgment.

This is why the Thoburn case is now – despite not being a Court of Appeal of House of Lords case – a staple of constitutional law teaching and essay writing.

The legal arguments were hopeless.

And this, in turn, was (in my view) a problem.

Many people at the time (and since) thought there was something not right about these prosecutions.

It was one thing to have common rules for cross-border trade within the single market, but it was another to prosecute and seek to give criminal records to local greengrocers and stall traders selling to local customers.

It seemed – to use a European Union concept – disproportionate.

But the hopelessness of the arguments at appeal indicates that here was a grievance here without a remedy.

There appeared at the time to be no way of practically contesting the disproportionate criminalisation of the grocers and the traders.

Even if you are (as I was and am) a supporter of the single market – and thereby of cross-border commercial standardisation and harmonisation – something just did not seem right about these prosecutions, but there was nothing that could be done about it.

And I submit that this sense of impotence in the face of what was perceived to be the legal impositions of the European Union was a contributing factor to what later became Brexit.

*

Weights and measures – like currencies – are both instruments and ornaments.

As means of exchange, such measures necessarily have to have a shared understanding – and anything which has a shared understanding will also tend to have cultural significance.

As this informative and fascinating thread by an author of a forthcoming book on weights and measures describes, one should not underestimate how important measures are to people:

I happen to have been born in 1971 and so was educated with metrification – and I still habitually think in miles, yards and feet, in stones and pounds, and in pints.

And this is despite not being especially patriotic, and not being opposed to metrification in principle.

I suspect it is not an idiosyncratic trait; I suspect many of you tend to think in imperial measures too.

*

But.

The government’s latest proposals. of course, do not make any sense.

This is partly because – after the Metric Martyrs case – both the United Kingdom and the European Union pulled back from strict applications of unified standards.

Supplementary indications of measures were to be allowed indefinitely – imperial markings as well as metric markings

And, in any case, often the relevant laws were home-made and not from Brussels:

As a former Lord Chancellor avers, this ‘policy’ is also a political rallying call which is made again and again:

*

The United Kingdom’s move towards universal measurements predates membership of the European Union and its predecessor communities.

And over time, no doubt, these more ‘rational’ and internationally acceptable measures will take hold.

(Few now can reckon in pounds and shillings – which also went in 1971.)

Yet it is one of those areas where law and policy cannot easily outpace lore and culture.

Units of measurement are the means by which people understand the world about them and indeed understand the dimensions of their own bodies.

They will not easily shift – and perhaps some may never disappear altogether.

The current government is in deep political trouble – and so it is not surprising that it seeks to get the benefit of nostalgia and sentiment.

Such a government should be treated with disdain.

But changing the everyday practices and conventions of a people is a slow process – and with metrification it still has not ended.

Not by a country mile.

**

Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.

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

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

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

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

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

‘Partygate’ is not ultimately about lying to parliament, or breaking the criminal law, or putting lives at risk – it is about fair dealing

24th May 2022

‘What is justice?’ is a question that has been long discussed by clever philosophers, jurists and political theorists.

But one way of understanding justice is to see it not as a thing, but the absence of a thing: justice means a lack of injustice.

Justice is thereby defined by what it is not.

A just society is one where concrete injustices have been addressed; a just outcome is the solution to an actual unjust situation; and so on.

And for many it is injustices that matter, for injustices rankle.

*

With ‘Partygate’ it seems what rankles most is the unfairness of it, the injustice.

That the current Prime Minister lied to Parliament and to the rest of us surprises no sensible person, for it is the one quality about Boris Johnson that all sensible people will know to be true.

That the current Prime Minister broke the law and guidance again is no shock – and, indeed, it would be more of a shock if, in any given situation, Johnson had followed the law and any guidance when he did not need to do so.

It does not even seem to matter to that many – though there are exceptions – that Johnson broke laws and guidance designed to keep people safe.

The anger about ‘Partygate’ appears (at least to me) not to be motivated primarily by the concern that Johnson was personally putting others at risk (though this will anger some).

What seems to be what upsets people about ‘Partygate’ is that while others were immensely affected because they had to comply with rules, or were punished if they did not, the Prime Minister and others in Downing Street casually did not comply with those rules.

The rules, of course, that Johnson and his government imposed upon the rest of us – the laws his government issued and enforced, the guidance he and his government promoted night after night.

The stories which appear (again to me) to be getting the most traction on news sites and on social media are those from people who, for example, could not visit their loved ones on their deathbeds or were not able to attend funerals.

Had the story been about Johnson in a serious dilemma choosing to break the rules to see a loved one in hospital or attend a funeral, then people would perhaps be more forgiving.

Many people in extreme situations may choose to break rules.

But the situations in which Johnson and his circle broke the rules were not extreme situations or dreadful dilemmas.

And this disparity in the seriousness with which one abided with the rules is what annoys – disgusts – people who would otherwise shrug.

Not the lies, not the rule-breaking itself – but the unfairness.

*

‘Partygate’ is not about parties or cakes; and it is not ultimately about lying to parliament, or about breaking the criminal law, or about putting lives at risk; it is at bottom about fair dealing.

And that is why – months into this scandal – ‘Partygate’ will not go away easily.

Downing Street partied while the rest of us were prevented from going to visit deathbeds or attend funerals, at the behest of Downing Street.

That was unfair.

**

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

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

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

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

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

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

The importance of access to good legal advice: how Johnson had only one penalty while junior Downing Street staff had many

23rd May 2022

Some of the best lawyers in the country work for those who often state publicly their disdain for lawyers.

Some of the best media lawyers work for the tabloid press who insult lawyers on front pages and blame them for many social and political ills.

And some of the best regulatory and procedural lawyers help populist politicians and pundits get out of all sorts of scrapes.

None of this is surprising – being part of the tabloid media or being a populist politician or pundit is a high-risk activity.

Such figures will regularly face civil and/or criminal liability in what they want to say or do, but thanks to their good lawyers they are kept safe.

The irony is, of course, that the stock lines-to-take of such figures include ridicule and hostility towards the lawyers who help others.

Those lawyers are ‘activists’ and invariably ‘left-wing’ – some are even ‘human rights’ lawyers.

In other words: the populists dislike lawyers that keep other sorts of people from legal harm, while taking the benefit of lawyers who keep populists safe.

From time-to-time you can see this discrepancy in practical examples.

During the phone-hacking cases, certain publishers took the benefit of outstanding legal advice, while sometimes letting individual reporters and their sources fend for themselves.

And last week we saw the same with the Downing Street parties and the now-closed Metropolitan police investigation.

It would appear that senior Downing Street figures escaped penalties while junior staff incurred them.

And it seems to be the situation that this discrepancy may be because senior figures had the the benefit of deft legal advice in how to complete (and not complete) the questionnaires, while more junior staff provided answers that had  not had the benefit of such advice.

This sort of ‘getting off on a technicality’ would – if it were about migrants or other marginalised group, or loud protesters – be met by emphatic criticism from populist politicians and the tabloid press.

But as it is the leaders of a populist government, then there is hardly a word.

There is nothing wrong with such senior figures having access to competent legal advice.

The issue is not that some have access to good lawyers, but that not everyone does.

Everybody facing criminal liability should have access to the legal advice of the standard that assisted Boris Johnson in ‘Partygate’.

And when you next see denouncements of ‘activist’ lawyers, remind yourself that those denouncements often come from those with ready access to the best quality legal advice, when those that need help from ‘activist’ lawyers often do not.

**

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

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

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

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

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

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

Four possible consequences of Partygate

19th May 2022

Partygate, again.

Today the Metropolitan Police announced the end of their investigation.

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

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

*

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

This unseen report now has many expectations loaded onto it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

The fourth possible consequence is more optimistic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

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

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

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

10th May 2022

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

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

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

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

This post is one more of derision than of alarm.

For the proposal set out today is all rather pathetic.

*

Let us start with the Queen’s Speech.

The relevant portion of the speech was this:

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

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

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

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

But this latest “Bill of Rights”?

It was 800 words into a 940-word speech

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

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

*

And now we turn to content.

There is no real content.

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

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

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

“The purpose of the Bill is to:

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

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

The main benefits of the Bill would be:

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

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

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

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

The main elements of the Bill are:

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

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

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

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

*

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

Almost none of the bullet-points are concrete.

If anything they are almost all talking-points.

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

Perhaps.

But.

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

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

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

**

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

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

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

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

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

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

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