David Cameron Addresses The 2015 Conservative Party Autumn Conference

UK home secretary Theresa May  © Getty Images

The UK government on Wednesday published a draft Investigatory Powers Bill for public and parliamentary consideration. It was a significant move in many ways.

The intention is that the draft Bill will be the basis of consultation, with a revised Bill being published in 2016. This revised Bill will need to be enacted by the end of next year, as the current Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act expires on 31 December 2016 and one section of it has been quashed by the High Court as from March 2016.

Publication is therefore the start of what may be a year-long legislative process. On the face of it, the government intends to take the legislative process seriously. The Bill has been published with extensive explanatory materials, fact sheets and impact assessments. The page count of those documents is higher than that of the bill itself — the government wishes to give the impression this process is to be done properly and thoroughly. Read more

CeBIT 2012 Technology Trade Fair

  © Getty Images

This week the Home Office will be launching the new Investigatory Powers Bill. It had previously sought to obtain these powers under the “Snoopers’ Charter” proposals in the last parliament but it failed.

This time the government is sensibly not relying on the brute strength of parliamentary votes or the standard “FUD” tactic of promoting fear, uncertainty and doubt. Such methods of stealth and FUDery may not be sufficient, so something more is needed to get the Bill over the bumps of this first week or two. The Home Office wants your heads to nod along too.

Many people say that the problem with politics is that there is too much cynicism. The problem with UK politics, however, is not that people are too cynical but that they are too gullible. Our politics is beset and bedeviled by the phenomenon of mass nodding along. Just get the catchphrases correct, and you will get all the audience applause you need. The trick is saying the right things at the right time. Read more

Magna Carta  © Getty Images

Last week the UK’s Cabinet Office sought silently to remove the reference to “international law” from the Ministerial Code.

The text had stated that there was an “overarching duty on ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations and to uphold the administration of justice and to protect the integrity of public life”. The new version states that there is an “overarching duty on ministers to comply with the law and to protect the integrity of public life”.

Does this matter? From a strict legalistic perspective, there is an argument that it makes no difference: inclusion or exclusion of text from a ministerial code by acts of ministerial or civil service discretion do not create or change substantive law. And there is some force in this contention, though the courts can and do look at such documents when construing the obligations of the state under public law and the legitimate expectations of individuals who can be affected by state actions. Read more

Spending Review - Government Ministry Buildings

  © Getty Images

To what extent does the influence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reach into the domestic government of the United Kingdom? And what does the UK get in return? Read more


Chris Grayling in March as Justice Secretary before the general election   © Getty Images

The UK’s Ministry of Justice made a welcome announcement this week: “Just Solutions International” is to cease to operate. Just Solutions International (or JSi) was the means by which a group of MoJ civil servants went round the world to sell their supposed expertise to foreign despotic governments on a “commercial” basis, rather than doing what they are there to do, which is to run the prison and probation services of England and Wales. (For background on JSi, including my previous posts on it, see here.) Read more


David Cameron  © Getty Images

On Monday, the prime minister told the House of Commons that a specific UK citizen had been killed deliberately by the UK state in a UK military operation:

Today, I can inform the House that in an act of self-defence and after meticulous planning, Reyaad Khan was killed in a precision airstrike carried out on 21 August by an RAF remotely piloted aircraft while he was travelling in a vehicle in the area of Raqqa in Syria. In addition to Reyaad Khan, who was the target of the strike, two Isil associates were also killed, one of whom, Ruhul Amin, has been identified as a UK national. They were Isil fighters, and I can confirm that there were no civilian casualties.

We took this action because there was no alternative. In this area, there is no government we can work with; we have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots; and there was nothing to suggest that Reyaad Khan would ever leave Syria or desist from his desire to murder us at home, so we had no way of preventing his planned attacks on our country without taking direct action.

The rather legalistic tone and phrasing was no accident; what the prime minister was telling the Commons was not only that the operation had been a success but that it was also “lawful”. Like a defence advocate in court, David Cameron was keen to show that all the required elements to justify an otherwise unlawful action were present: it was “self-defence”, it was necessary — “there was no alternative”, and it was proportionate — there was no other method to achieve the aim of eliminating this target. The statement was, in essence, a formal box-ticking exercise. Read more

Founder Of Kids Company Camila Batmanghelidjh Leaves LBC Studios

Camila Batmanghelidjh  © Getty Images

One should always be wary of charming people, for they are used to making you feel good about them getting their way. And one should always be cautious of organisations whose first line of defence when placed under scrutiny is something emotive and manipulative like “won’t somebody, please, think of the children?“.

Neither of these wise stances necessarily mean that Kids Company and its charismatic and well-connected head Camilla Batmanghelidjh have done anything culpable. The truth is that, at this stage, very few people know what happened before the UK charity closed in a financial mess.

But what is plain is that subjecting any “third sector” service provider to any meaningful accountability is difficult, and that this needs to change. The appropriate mechanisms are not in place, there is almost no transparency and any public criticism can be deterred as appearing “unhelpful”. Who would want to be responsible for stopping what could be valuable and wonderful work? Read more

David Cameron Attends Prime Minister's Questions In Parliament

Michael Gove  © Getty Images

If there is an epitome of just how bad the tenure was of the previous Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice it has to be the prison books fiasco. This remarkable policy — even more than the time the Ministry of Justice instructed counsel to submit to the High Court that the Lord Chancellor should be able to disregard the rule of law — told observers all they needed to know about the ways in which Chris Grayling was running his department.

The thing about the prison books fiasco was that it was not even a deliberate policy decision: the listing of books as a “privilege” in an elaborate prisoner incentive scheme was the sort of error that a bureaucracy can make from time to time. Nobody perhaps realised, or cared, that making books harder to obtain was contrary to the government’s own project of promoting literacy among prisoners. No government department is really “joined-up”. Read more

The State Opening Of Parliament

Michael Gove at the State Opening Of Parliament  © Getty Images

A curious Martian looking down at the government departments in Whitehall would not work out much about the British party political system. The alien would not grasp that there is supposedly a policy division between Conservatives, Labour, and the Liberal Democrats. Read more

The State Opening Of Parliament

  © Getty Images

The Queen’s Speech last week had one notable omission: the firm commitment to a new Bill within months to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and for it to be replaced with a “British Bill of Rights”. Read more

It is a misconception to say Conservatives do not “do” human rights and civil liberties — yet Tory civil libertarianism wants the benefits of a libertarian approach to policy in certain cases without the means of placing such libertarianism on a sustainable basis. So Raab’s appointment as a junior minister at the ministry of justice is an intriguing move Read more

Michael Gove

Michael Gove  © Getty Images

The United Kingdom’s Conservative party no longer has to share power as part of a coalition. Now it has a majority in the House of Commons, one of the very first things the Tories want to do is repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace it with something that purports to protect the rights of citizens but has a weaker connection to the European Convention on Human Rights. Getting rid of the Act is a long-standing objective of the Conservatives, and they now want to repeal it at speed.

According to the Guardian, repeal of the Act is an urgent priority for the new government:

The scrapping of the human rights act, a pledge included in the Tory manifesto, is one of the measures to be included in the prime minister’s plans for the first 100 days, when the Queen’s speech is delivered on 27 May.

The “pledge” is in the 2015 party manifesto, which contains the following statements about the Act:

We will…scrap the Human Rights Act and curtail the role of the European Court of Human Rights, so that foreign criminals can be more easily deported from Britain. [...]

The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights. [...]

We will scrap Labour’s Human Rights Act and introduce a British Bill of Rights which will restore common sense to the application of human rights in the UK.

 Read more

Procession Of Judges Marks Start Of Legal Year

  © Getty Images

Imagine a politician making a clear and specific promise before an election. Imagine then, if you can, that politician breaking the promise when he or she is elected to office.

Is this the sort of situation where a voter should be able to go to court and obtain some legal remedy?

Usually when somebody lets you down over something important you can threaten to get the law involved. For example, if a debtor does not pay what is due, or if another driver does not take proper care and attention, you can sue the culprit.

And your rights to legal redress are not just for straightforward disputes: a well-brought legal action can halt an infrastructure project worth billions of pounds if the developer has put a foot wrong, and a judge in chancery will be perfectly happy on a Tuesday afternoon to rule that there is a worldwide complex trust preventing some absconder from misusing a victim’s assets. Where there is blame, there is usually a clever lawyer somewhere who can formulate for you a claim.

 Read more

The Ministry of Justice for England and Wales (MoJ) wants to make money out of the punishment system of Saudi Arabia.

It has a “commercial” proposal — made with the apparent blessing of the UK secretary of state for justice Chris Grayling — whereby it will charge £5.9m for providing scarce UK civil service resources funded by the UK taxpayer to one of the most brutal legal systems in the world.

How has this happened?

Our story starts with Saudi Arabia and the sheer nastiness of its legal system. In the last two weeks this regime has had worldwide attention.

This is in part because of the case of Raif Badawi, a writer who was sentenced to be flogged 1,000 times in batches of 50 lashes — because he created and wrote for a liberal website, the Saudi Free Liberals Forum. His first official beating was two weeks ago in front of a mosque in Jeddah; the one scheduled for last week did not go ahead, it is said, for medical reasons. International horror at the punishment appears to have now prompted the case’s referral to the country’s supreme court.

But the Badawi case is not the only one to have received publicity. Last week Layla Bint Abdul Mutaleb Basim was dragged through a street in Mecca and beheaded. She died screaming her innocence. The execution was not done smoothly: a video shows her head was hacked off with three blows, with no anaesthetic. Again this procedure was a formal punishment — an example of the Saudi legal system in action. Read more

A French national flag at the Paris statue "Le triomphe de la Republique"  (Joel Saget/AFP/Getty Images)

A French national flag at the Paris statue "Le triomphe de la Republique"  © Joel Saget/AFP/Getty Images

What should be the legal response to terrorism?

This question needs asking, for whatever the security problem, the political solution seems invariably to be more law. Something dreadful happens, and the response of many UK politicians and officials is “tougher powers” and another bill on the statute book.

It is almost as if the passing of a law is seen as a kind of solution in and of itself. Something must be done, and therefore something will be done.

And so in the UK over the last 15 years, we have had a Terrorism Act, then an Anti-terrorism Act, then a Prevention of Terrorism Act, another Terrorism Act, then a Counter-Terrorism Act, and most recently a Terrorism Prevention Act. Currently there is a Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill before parliament.

If statutes were weapons in the war against terror, the UK would be armed to its hilt. And inevitably, the atrocities last week in Paris have prompted the prime minister and home secretary to call for even more laws to combat terrorism.


Part of the reason for this glut of legislation is, of course, the relative impotence of UK politicians. There is, in fact, very little they can be seen to be doing in response to any crisis other than to promote additional laws. Policy making is hard, and good policy making and its implementation is not showy. Sometimes policy making will not need any new laws at all. But for the busy and media-conscious politician, it is easier to ban something, or to create a new legal power, than to actually think through what one is doing. Read more

One innocent pleasure is to ask someone concerned with “policy-making” what the term “policy” actually means.

Often the person you ask – whether they are a politician or an official, a “public policy” lobbyist or some self-proclaimed “policy wonk” – will not have an instant answer. It is almost as if the word “policy” is such a commonplace in their world, few have thought about to what it refers. Read more

A barrister picks up his wig (Photo by Ian Waldie/Getty Images)

  © Ian Waldie/Getty Images

A couple of months ago I raised the issue of whether police in the UK were using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to obtain information which is legally privileged.

Legal privilege is important. In simple terms it means that your dealings with your lawyer are strictly confidential, both in respect of the content of the advice you are given (“legal professional privilege”) and also anything done to assist you in preparing a claim or a defence (“litigation privilege”). In essence, when information is under legal privilege then no court order can oblige you to disclose it to the court or other party, including the police.

It seemed obvious to me that there must be some possibility that police could be using RIPA to obtain information which would be covered by legal privilege. There are about half a million public authority requests for “communications data” every year (that is, information public authorities can get from a telecoms or internet service provider other than the actual content of your communication). Also it is now known that the Metropolitan Police have used RIPA to obtain details of calls made and received by journalists. So, if the police are using RIPA to circumvent the usual protection given to journalists’ sources, there seemed no reason, in principle, why the police would not use the same means to get information which would otherwise be legally privileged.

But what was lacking was evidence: to say something could be happening is not the same as saying that it is happeningRead more

A copy of the long-awaited Saville Inquiry report into Bloody Sunday (Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images)

  © Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images

The current difficulties of the UK government in setting up an inquiry into historic child abuse raise a more general point: there seems to be an increasing — but unfortunate — reliance on “inquiries” in British politics.

The pattern is familiar: a dreadful state of affairs comes to light, something must be done, lessons must be learned, and it must never happen again.

Responsibility for determining the thing to be done, working out the lessons to be learned, and ensuring that the “it” never happens again is then handed to a specially appointed inquiry. Such an inquiry will usually be “independent” and not connected to the institutions of the state which have presumably allowed the bad thing to happen in the first place.

And this approach suits a lot of people.

As there is the appearance of immediate action, those aggrieved at the bad thing that has happened can be satisfied that “progress is being made” and those in the media who want something to report and comment on have all they need. Read more

Another day, another case before the English courts where the issue is whether someone should face criminal liability not for something they did, or intended to do, but for something they said.

In this particular instance, the case was an appeal from a local criminal court to the High Court in London. The facts of the case are unpleasant, and the vile speech act in question was not one which any civilized person would find acceptable. However, a two judge panel at the High Court granted the defendant’s appeal. And in his concurring judgment, Lord Justice Laws (an example of nominative determinism seemingly rife in the senior English judiciary – Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge is another example) made the following emphatic statement:

the words were…certainly offensive: a nasty, malicious antisemitic comment of which the appellant should be thoroughly ashamed, but they were not menacing.

The courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive.

It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances.

This is a rousing declaration: the sort of judicial exclamation which makes you want to nod your head as you read it. It is sensible and liberal, even if the speech act in question being defended is disgusting. Read more

A general view of New Scotland Yard on October 2, 2008 (Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)

  © Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

The news that the UK’s Metropolitan Police had obtained the “telecommunications data” of a journalist so as to identify his confidential source has significant implications for criminal and civil lawyers — and also for their clients.

What the Met did was simple: they merely completed a request form under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and sent it to the journalist’s mobile telephone service provider. As long as the RIPA request is approved by the appropriate senior police officer, the telephone company provides the requested information by return. This information is not the actual content of a call or voicemail — that would (or should) require an intercept warrant — but all the accompanying “metadata” (a list of calls to and from the mobile, their duration and times, and even the geographic location of the mobile during the call) as well as subscriber information.

For the police, asking for this telecommunications data is routine. Every year the police and other public authorities make about half a million RIPA requests. None of these requests need a warrant, and none need consent. Indeed, the subscriber is not even told the request has been made. All this information is provided silently and easily to the police force or other public body making the request. There are no real safeguards against abuse.

So, if the police can casually use RIPA to obtain the telecommunications data of the political editor of the Sun newspaper, is there any limit on who else they would seek this data on? And even if there was such a limit, how would anyone know that it was not being respected? Read more