Law

The human rights Act made the second Hillsborough inquest possible   © Getty Images

So, a day or two before the UK general election, the prime minister and Conservative party leader Theresa May proposes to “tear up” human rights law which, she asserts, stops her government dealing effectively with terrorism.

Presumably, this is not the sort of politician’s statement that will influence how anybody reading this blog will vote. Indeed, it is not the sort of statement that is aimed at any sophisticated or thoughtful voter. Our ears are not able to hear the dog whistle: we can only see the curious contortions of the person blowing hard on it. Read more

  © Getty Images

Legal agreements do not really exist for when things go well. They are more for when things go badly. The primary, sometimes only, purpose of any contract is to regulate the consequences of things not going in the manner hoped for. For it is only when something goes wrong that the parties want to be able to go to a court to enforce the terms of the legal instrument.

Anyone entering into a complex and high-value legal relationship should be careful. What are the allocations of risk for all the foreseeable things that can go awry? How can the relationship be brought to an end? The parties to a deal should be unsentimental and painstaking: in the event of anything undesirable happening then the respective positions of those involved should be clear. Read more

One of the best tweets occasioned by Brexit was sent not long after the polls closed on the day of the referendum:

The speed of the count was not the only impressive electoral feat of the Gibraltar vote that night. Ninety-six percent of those who voted in Gibraltar wanted the UK to remain in the EU. This was by far the highest support for EU membership in any area that voted in the referendum.

But what are the consequences for Gibraltar of that referendum’s overall vote for Brexit? Has the vote for Leave placed the Rock in a hard place? Read more


One of the easiest things for a reporter to produce is knocking copy about the judiciary and the legal system. The “law is an ass” piece almost writes itself. Readers are more than ready to nod-along with any attack on a supposed judicial idiocy or misapplication of the law.

Alongside the copy will be the usual photographs of a grown-up wearing a silly costume and wig. (For, as Danny in Withnail and I avers in his story of the defendant accused by a judge of wearing fancy dress: “You think you look normal, your honour?”) Add to this the inherent human interest in stories of apparent injustice, and an element of class prejudice against posh and out-of-touch judges, and then you understand why monstering the judiciary is a staple of the popular press. Such pieces can be fun to write and fun to read. Read more

The Supreme Court appeal heard this week what may turn out to be the UK constitutional law case of a generation. Read more

Britain's justice secretary Liz Truss

When Elizabeth Truss was appointed Lord Chancellor and justice secretary there was considerable disquiet. The first holder of the combined roles Lord Falconer went so far to call the appointment “unlawful” and inappropriate. Others like Joshua Rozenberg (and myself) reserved judgment. After all, natural justice requires everyone to be assessed on their merits. Read more

The UK’s future may rest on this text of fewer than 300 words and how they are interpreted Read more

David Davis, the new cabinet minister responsible for Brexit

David Davis, the new cabinet minister responsible for Brexit  © Getty Images

The attention of the public and the media has been grabbed by the appointment by the new prime minister, Theresa May, of Boris Johnson as foreign secretary. But it is another of her appointments, that of David Davis as the cabinet minister responsible for Brexit, which is more important for those interested in how and when (or if) the UK leaves the EU.

The choice of Mr Davis is a remarkable one in some ways. A sincere civil libertarian, as well as a pro-Brexit campaigner, he is one of a group of claimants suing the UK government at the European Court of Justice to enforce EU law on an allegedly non-compliant UK in respect of personal data rights. This case — which is reliant on the very charter of fundamental rights loathed by many in his own party — has already seen a decision of the high court saying an act of parliament was incompatible with EU law (though this was not upheld on appeal, it was referred to the ECJ instead). Read more

The Houses of Parliament

The Houses of Parliament  © Getty Images

It is one thing to assert “Brexit is Brexit” and quite another to make it come about. Any departure of the UK from the EU is not going to happen by mere incantation of a grand phrase. There also has to be some legal means. So what are the legal means by which Brexit can happen?

Some say it can be done by the prime minister (with or without cabinet) as part of the so-called “royal prerogative” – the legal fiction that a minister may exercise the remaining powers of the crown which have not been limited by statute. The prime minister can, for example, enter into treaties on the basis of the royal prerogative.

Others say it can only be by an Act of Parliament — and these people are willing to litigate the point. The argument here is that there is legislation such as the European Communities Act which give individuals rights under EU law so it is not open to the executive to frustrate or circumvent this statute. Primary legislation would therefore be needed. Read more

Various EU politicians can demand what they want but they may as well be whistling Read more

The referendum on Britain’s EU membership is unnecessary. There is no objective reason for it to take place: no new treaty or proposed treaty amendment. It is merely a vote on whether the U.K. continues to be part of an international organisation of which it has been a member for over forty years. There is no more reason to have a referendum on this issue in June 2016 than in June 2015 or June 2017.

The referendum is also not binding as a matter of law. As set out in my earlier post, there is no legal consequence contingent on the result of the vote. The government could have legislated for an immediate legal effect but it chose not to do so. As such the referendum is advisory and not mandatory. The key decision by the government in the event of a “Leave” vote is whether to invoke the (seemingly) irreversible exit procedure in Article 50, and the government can make the relevant notification at a time of its choosing (subject perhaps to a parliamentary vote) or even not make such a notification at all. Read more

In June 2006, 10 years ago this month, David Cameron, then leader of the opposition, promised to replace the Human Rights Act of 1998 with a “British bill of rights” when he and the Conservatives obtained power.

Ten years later the Human Rights Act is still the law of the land, even if it now seems Mr Cameron — prime minister since 2010 — may not be in office much longer. The Human Rights Act is as safe (or as unsafe) as it has ever been, and it looks as though the act will survive the premiership of Mr Cameron. Read more

What follows any referendum vote next week for the United Kingdom to leave the EU? From a legal perspective, the immediate consequence is simple: nothing will happen.

The relevant legislation did not provide for the referendum result to have any formal trigger effect. The referendum is advisory rather than mandatory. The 2011 referendum on electoral reform did have an obligation on the government to legislate in the event of a “yes” vote (the vote was “no” so this did not matter). But no such provision was included in the EU referendum legislation. Read more

The third painting in the series, 'The Humours of an Election' by William Hogarth, 1755. Granger, NYC/Alamy.

The UK Conservative party is facing serious allegations and extensive investigations in respect of their campaign expenses at last year’s general election. Read more

Free expression is not the only principle at stake in the Thiel case, writes David Allen Green Read more

A general view of the Supreme Court on May 19, 2016 in London, England.

Last week the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down a judgment in the privacy case of PJS v News Group Newspapers. The court upheld the interim injunction preventing the publication by the news media of the identity of PJS in England and Wales. Read more

Lauri Love

Lauri Love  © Courage Foundation'

On Tuesday, an English judge refused a request by the National Crime Agency to require an alleged hacker Lauri Love to provide his encryption keys. The decision can be read here. It was a serious and embarrassing legal defeat for the agency — a body described by some as “the UK’s FBI”.

This defeat was not — or should not have been — surprising. The agency had attempted to circumvent the relevant law regarding the disclosure of encryption keys, and the district judge at Westminster magistrates’ court ruled that this tactic was not open to it. As the judge notes:

“The case management powers of the court are not to be used to circumvent specific legislation that has been passed in order to deal with the disclosure sought.”

This case, however, is more significant than a junior judge simply putting a law enforcement body back in its box. Read more

After signing the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, British prime minister Tony Blair (right), US senator George Mitchell and Irish prime minister Bertie Ahern (left)

In 1998 the Good Friday Agreement was signed by Tony Blair (right), George Mitchell and Bertie Ahern (left)  © Getty Images

A significant parliamentary report is published today. It is a report about something that has not happened yet, and does not look like happening soon. If the report is read carefully, it explains why the thing may never happen at all. Read more

Sir Edward Coke

Sir Edward Coke  © Getty Images

This post is the first of a series on law and legislation. Read more

John Whittingdale, secretary of state for culture, media and sport

John Whittingdale, secretary of state for culture, media and sport  © Getty Images

During the recent controversy about John Whittingdale, his private life and his relationship with the press, one statutory provision was often mentioned.

This is “section 40″ and the contention was that the secretary of state for culture, media and sport was acting wrongly in not bringing it into force.

It was further argued that the reason for this failure could be attributed to the hold that the tabloid media had over him. Section 40 of the Courts and Crime Act 2013 is, it would appear, to be of fundamental importance in the debate about press regulation.

Some assert that it would be lethal to press freedom in general and to investigative journalism in particular. Others say it would be a valuable cornerstone in a regulatory system for a free and vibrant but accountable press.

Never has a statutory provision, which is yet to be implemented, had so much riding on it.

On the narrow issue of this provision, as on the wider one of press regulation, good and experienced people — who worked alongside each other on libel reform, for example — disagree starkly. There is anger and derision in their debates on social media. One gets the sense that wise individuals should never discuss the regulation of the press, and that they should talk of less controversial topics such as religion or politics instead.

So what exactly is this section 40 about? Why does it matter to so many people who are concerned with press freedom and media standards? And what would it mean in practice, if and when it is finally put into effect?

 Read more