RSS Feed

Tag Archives: Politics

Home Office plays the long – and costly – game to deport 70-year-old widow

Posted on

In these straitened times the Ministry of Justice has had to crack down on the costs of the UK legal system. But there is one area where apparently money is no object: chasing 70-year-old Pakistani widows from Britain’s shores.

Even when their chums at the Home Office are on a two-year losing streak during which judges twice rejected the case for removing Razia Begum as “disproportionate” given she retains no ties in Pakistan, one last desperate (and expensive) throw of the dice was bankrolled by the public purse. 

Thus it was that Home Office lawyers fetched up at the Court of Appeal a couple of weeks ago demanding another go at removing Mrs Begum, even though they had missed an appeal deadline a year and a half ago – owing to “mere oversight”. Their claim for an extension was based on the notion that they “had a good case” against Mrs Begum.

But “the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost” is a principle of legal procedure far pre-dating current MoJ rigours. So the notion that the Home Office could, at great expense, lay out its case before two Lord Justices to persuade them it was good enough for it to proceed, then at some later point lay out the whole case again before yet more learned justices during the substantive appeal was not one likely to find favour in the Court.
Read the rest of this entry

Libel juries: How Tim Yeo and Warby J buried the Seven Bishops

Posted on

It is ironic – and perhaps a little shocking – that an early high-profile beneficiary of Britain’s abolition of the right for juries to try libel cases should be a Member of Parliament – one who will doubtless have supported the Defamation Act 2013 that removed the long-standing right. So, step forward Tim Yeo, who will not (thanks to the new law and a sympathetic judge) have 12 jurors facing him in court who need to be persuaded that he did not show willingness “to abuse his position in Parliament to further his own financial and business interests in preference to the public interest“.*

Yeo succeeded in challenging Times Newspapers’ attempt to have a jury empanelled – but might be mortified that Mr Justice Warby in Tim Yeo MP v Times Newspapers decided the case could do without a jury because Yeo is just not an important enough figure to warrant one. Some public figures (government ministers or judges, perhaps, rather than footballers or celebs) might have to face a libel trial jury, but the moderately high and not-so-mighty-now Mr Yeo doesn’t quite cut the mustard.

More significantly, Warby’s decision about a jury has ditched centuries of legal and constitutional  principle, denying any public interest right for defamation cases involving senior public servants to be tried by those representatives of the public who constitute juries. But some background is needed.

Read the rest of this entry

Should veils be banned in court? It’s a question of evidence

Posted on

The issue of whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear the veil, niqab or burqa when giving evidence in court is a matter of tiny importance yet, seemingly, of great significance. Tiny because there are so few women in Britain wearing full face coverings for religious reasons, of whom even tinier numbers are likely to give evidence in court.

But court scenarios are where the arguments about veiling (whether or not part of a “national debate”, as per Liberal Democrat minister Jeremy Browne) seem to play well for the veil banners since they can tap into Britain’s great traditions of justice and notions of the fair trial. What they don’t tap into is any actual evidence about how or under what circumstances veil wearing might harm a fair trial.

Judge Peter Murphy has considered this issue in the case of R v D(R) (though stressing his view should not be part of the wider debate) and concluded a defendant should give evidence unveiled. (His full decision is here pdf)

There is some evidence (see below) that doesn’t necessarily support the view that juries pick up important clues from watching the facial features of witnesses, but first the context. Read the rest of this entry

A question of standing: Grayling’s new attack on Judicial Review

Posted on

How do you decide what is in the public interest? Just ask the government. That, apparently, is UK Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s view in his latest proposals to curb judicial review.

There have been too many judicial reviews in the public interest, is what his argument amounts to. In the latest consultation on curbing JRs he says: “The concern is based on the principle that Parliament and the elected Government are best placed to determine what is in the public interest.” It doesn’t need judges, organisations or even ordinary people to do the job for them. “L’intérêt public, c’est moi”.

Among the matters in the public interest that Grayling draws attention to, one assumes because he would rather not have seen them brought to court, was an issue of whether Taliban suspects should have been transferred from the British authorities in Afghanistan to the Afghan government – putting them at risk of severe abuse. Grayling complains that their case was brought by a peace activist, Maya Evans, who was not a member of the Taliban nor a prisoner in Afghanistan – and so had no direct interest in the matter at all.

The judge in the case allowed her to bring it (in other words gave her standing) because of her expertise in such issues of human rights and the fact that Britain’s treatment of prisoners abroad is a matter of public interest.

But that is not good enough for Grayling. He suggests only people with a “direct” interest be allowed to bring such cases – the Taliban prisoners themselves perhaps. Read the rest of this entry

Schedule 7: High Court rejects Sylvie Beghal human rights case

Posted on

The British High Court has called for a legislative change to “Schedule 7” terrorism powers under which David Miranda, partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was held for questioning.

However, the judge has ruled that the Schedule 7 regime is legally acceptable and that Sylvie Beghal, held under Schedule 7, did not have her right to liberty under European Convention law breached. Nor was her right to a private life breached by the obligation under Schedule 7 to answer any questions put by security officers – however personal.

Lord Justice Gross in his conclusion said: “In short, the balance struck between individual rights and the public interest in protection against terrorism does not violate the fundamental human rights in question.”

The judges recommended the law be changed to bar the use of admissions gained at a Schedule 7 questioning being used against the individual at any subsequent criminal trial. Schedule 7 questioning is not accompanied by the usual protections for suspects including the (qualified) right to silence and the absolute right to a lawyer. Read the rest of this entry

David Miranda Schedule 7 detention: Arbitrary or Alice in Wonderland?

Posted on

Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act, under which a Guardian journalist’s partner, David Miranda, was held for nine hours at Heathrow, is an odd piece of legislation – not least because, unusually for criminal law, it deals with people who are for the most part wholly innocent. It is drafted with the intent – and has clearly had the effect – of detaining large numbers of innocent people to ask them about their terrorist activities.

As a result about 70,000 people were detained under Schedule 7 in 2011-12 – of whom only 24 were then arrested for terrorist related offences.

The authorities are perfectly happy with this appalling hit rate. The official guidance to officers when they use Schedule 7 is as follows: “Examining officers must take into account that many people selected for examination using Schedule 7 powers will be entirely innocent of any unlawful activity … All persons being stopped and questioned by examining officers must be treated in a respectful and courteous manner.” (Examining Officers under the Terrorism Act 2000 pdf)

The advice points out that “The powers to stop, question, detain and search persons under Schedule 7 do not require an examining officer to have any grounds for suspicion against any individual prior to the exercise of the powers.”

This may seem somewhat bizarre: a crucial anti-terrorism power that needs not even the tiniest scintilla of evidence of a person’s involvement in terrorism before it is operated against that person; and a clear acknowledgment that, for the most part, the examining officer will be wasting his own and the traveller’s time. Read the rest of this entry

Joan Edwards’ will: whose money is it anyway?

Posted on

Joan Edwards was obviously one of those kindly but naïve souls who believe that governments do good and are capable, when using their discretion, of making good decisions about the use of other people’s money.

Her will, which left a £520,000 bequest to the UK government, shows her trusting nature – but did she make the intention of her bequest clear? Apparently not since the two governing parties were initially happy to split the money between them and then, within half a day of the bequest being publicised in the Daily Mail, somewhat miserably to hand it back.

But to whom should the money actually go? This seems, in modern American parlance, to be Trust Law 101: uncertainty of intention, risking making the bequest void – which would return it to the Edwards estate for a difficult decision about who the actual final recipient should be. Read the rest of this entry

%d bloggers like this: