Deeply sorry to hear that Jack Merritt was murdered in the terrorist attack at London Bridge. I interviewed him at Warren Hill prison about the course he ran for prisoners and university students: A fine young man, dedicated to improving people’s lives.
Speculation in
@thesundaytimes
today that Lord Pannick QC was paid £250 an hour to represent
@thatginamiller
in the
@UKSupremeCourt
last week. In fact, he represented her pro bono — charging no fee at all.
I wonder if the couple released without charge by police investigating the Gatwick drones will sue newspapers that named them for invading their privacy, following the example of Sir Cliff Richard.
If Boris Johnson were to advise the Queen to prorogue parliament to ensure the UK leaves the EU on 31 October, the courts would be likely to hear an urgent application and then declare his advice to be unlawful: well-argued advice from Lord Pannick QC
I am mystified by this report in the
@thesundaytimes
. Surely Cummings knows that the
@UKSupremeCourt
hears appeals from lower courts? It does not grant orders in response to first-instance applications. The High Court can move extremely quickly. Its orders stand until overturned.
“The government is to …make it illegal for Parliament to extend the process beyond the end of next year.”
Not so. It would not be “illegal” for parliament to change the law in a year’s time and allow an extension. Any law can be repealed by a later one.
No decision tomorrow morning from the
@UKSupremeCourt
on the prorogation appeals. Tuesday looking increasingly likely. We’ll know more during the day tomorrow.
Dominic Grieve says the law officers should have stopped this legislation. He would have resigned if he had been asked to support this bill. And the position of
@RobertBuckland
is untenable too. There are unwritten limits to what law officers can approve.
The
@Conservatives
promise: “We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.” Yes but what does it mean?
Russia has been formally excluded from the Council of Europe after 26 years. The decision, which takes effect today, was made by the committee of ministers.
Duchess of Sussex wins summary judgment on the claim for misuse of private information, and on the other issues in the copyright claim.
Judge says there there should be a trial limited to issues relating to
the ownership of copyright.
Lefty lawyers? Or professionals attacked by ministers for acting professionally. What does
@RobertBuckland
make of the prime minister’s comments, I wonder:
Associated Newspapers say they will ask the Duchess of Sussex to pay their legal costs of in excess of £50,000 after the couple refused their offer to deal with the strike-out issue out of court. She will also have to pay her own costs for the hearing last week.
Lord Burnett, lord chief justice, tells me at a news conference that senior judges are considering offering new MPs and peers a short briefing note about constitutional boundaries. He says it was “unfortunate” that four MPs and a peer wrote to senior judges about a pending case.
Just listened to Lord Trimble on
@BBCr4today
. Still mystified by his proposal to take legal action over Brexit. Against whom? In which court? And for what breach of the law? Happy to be enlightened.
Thanks for all the people who’ve thanked me for my tweets today. And thanks to
@SkyNews
for sponsoring them.
I’ll be live-tweeting the government’s arguments tomorrow morning but unfortunately I have other commitments after that.
Hale: no explanation before the court of why it was necessary to suspend parliament for five weeks. We are bound to conclude that the decision was unlawful.
The lord chancellor was under a statutory duty to appoint a reviewer of secret justice two years ago. He has not done so. What has he got to hide? And is
@RobertBuckland
now acting unlawfully? My latest
@lawsocgazette
column:
Law in Action returns to
@BBCRadio4
at 4pm: . In the 35 years since I presented the first edition, I can’t remember a time when there has been more action in the law. As
@davidallengreen
likes saying, constitutional law is not meant to be this interesting!
I hope that readers (including my wife) will forgive a rare, self-indulgent, personal tweet so that I can wish
@MelanieLatest
a happy 45th wedding anniversary.
The
@UKSupremeCourt
has now confirmed that judgment will be tomorrow, Tuesday, at 1030.
The justices in attendance at the hand-down of the judgment will be:
Lady Hale
Lord Reed
Lord Wilson
Lord Hodge
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lady Arden
Lord Kitchin
“An unusual submission”.
Slightly later than promised, my analysis of today’s ruling dismissing Suella Braverman’s attempt to persuade the Court of Appeal that manslaughter sentences passed on PC Andrew Harper’s killers were unduly lenient:
Several members of the executive committee of
@SocConLaw
including
@neill_bob
(chair) are “deeply troubled” by what the government said yesterday. They say: “Upholding the rule of law is a fundamental principle of sound government, knowingly and deliberately breaching it is not.”
Can you believe sex is immutable?
Not according to an employment judge — but will the appeal tribunal agree?
My preview of the
@MForstater
appeal starting today:
So let’s just think this through. A government minister is thinking of starting legal proceedings against an independent body sponsored by his department for exercising its discretion in accordance with laws which that government has refused to amend, despite universal criticism?
Explaining why his wife and daughter (who gave birth yesterday) are not at his valedictory, Sir James Munby says the interests of the child are paramount. He receives a rare standing ovation.
Very sorry to hear this. Lord Kerr was only 72 and retired just two months ago. His judgment in the Patrick Finucane case was much admired and he was one of the most progressive members off Lady Hale’s court. This picture doesn’t do him justice: it misses the twinkle in his eye.
With great sadness the Supreme Court learns of the death of Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, former Justice. Lord Reed, President of the Supreme Court’s tribute is available to read here:
But the bill says the PM “must seek to obtain … an extension … by sending … a letter”. Sending the required letter with a covering note saying “please ignore the next letter” would not comply with this requirement. And the EU could ignore the covering note if it chose to.
It looks as if Lady Hale hopes to produce a reasonably complete judgment over the weekend representing the view of the court — or of a majority if they are split. Individual sections could be written by different justices. Much better than a bald decision with reasons to follow.
Top team for Gina Miller challenge in London tomorrow: Lord Chief Justice of E&W (Lord Burnett of Maldon), Master of the Rolls (Sir Terence Etherton) and President of Queen’s Bench Division (Dame Victoria Sharp). Can’t be televised under current rules, unfortunately. 1030 start.
Assange loses public interest challenge to absconding allegations. Senior district judge dismisses all five arguments put by his lawyers last week. “He should have the courage” to come to court, she says.
I am hoping to live-tweet the procedural hearing today in Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers. It’s not being streamed onto a public website but the High Court cause list indicates how people can access the remote hearing. I’m currently waiting to be let in.
Good morning from the
@UKSupremeCourt
. Lady Hale is expected to deliver a summary of the court’s judgment in the Miller/Cherry prorogation appeals at 1030. This will be live-streamed and televised. I’m in the court media room and plan to live-tweet (threaded) what’s said in court
Good morning from R (Miller) v Prime Minister, in the High Court of England and Wales (Divisional Court). Gina Miller represented by Lord Pannick QC. PM represented by Sir David Eadie QC. Judges are Lord Burnett CJ, Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame Victoria Sharp President QBD.
Pannick reminds Lord Reed that his court had no trouble finding that employment tribunal fees were too high (in the Unison case) without saying what level would be lawful. So this court can declare that five weeks prorogation was too long without saying how long would be ok.
I hope to live-tweet some of the lockdown regulations challenge hearing that starts at 1030. Claimants include Simon Dolan, a businessman. Defendants include Matt Hancock, health secretary. Claimant’s counsel is Philip Havers QC. Defendant’s counsel is Sir James Eadie QC.
Now is not the time to introduce major reforms of the jury system, however temporary and however limited. And senior judges should not be flying kites for the government, not least because the wind can change. My latest column for
@lawsocgazette
now online
Good morning. I’m not at the
@UKSupremeCourt
but I plan to follow the livestream all day and live-tweet the arguments. The court is hearing separate appeals that raise similar issues: is the PM’s advice to HM to prorogue parliament justiciable? And, if so, was it lawful? (thread)
Sorry that Frances Gibb is retiring from
@thetimes
after covering legal affairs for longer than any of us (she started in 1982 and I began in 1984). She writes a fine valedictory piece today, reporting the reactions of the judges she annoyed. Good journalists have few friends.
Very sorry to hear that Lord Steyn died yesterday. The retired law lord famously suggested in 2005 that judicial review was something not even a sovereign parliament acting at the behest of a “complaisant” House of Commons could abolish. Not often you see that word.
Free online course designed to teach young people about the judiciary of England and Wales launches next week: Covers the work of the judiciary, judges’ portrayal in the media and how to understand judgments. Requires three hours a week for five weeks.
All in all, then, almost a complete victory for the duchess as far as I can see. No doubt Associated Newspapers will announce appeal. And there’s still a possibility of a hearing on some issues. But I don’t expect that will happen. There’s likely be be some sort of deal on those.
@JoshuaRozenberg
Utterly lost for words. I too met him at Warren Hill. His open heartedness, his drive and his faith in the redemption of prisoners through education shone out. He saved lives through his work.
Lord Neuberger says that if the Internal Market Bill is passed and is then challenged in the courts, the judges will either be on a collision course with the government or will be seen as craven. Either you sort out problems in court or you have civil war, he adds.
By a majority, Court of Appeal allows migrants' appeal on whether Rwanda is a safe country. Lord Chief Justice dissents. He believes they won't be sent back to their countries of origin.
Case now seen as likely to go to UK Supreme Court
Hale: the power to prorogue is limited. A decision will be unlawful if it frustrates the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions.
Barrister resolves long-standing problem of Jewish husband refusing to allow former wife to remarry by bringing private prosecution against him for offence of controlling or coercive behaviour: Innovative thinking by Anthony Metzer QC of Goldsmith Chambers
This reveals a number of misconceptions by “senior Tories” — for example that the jurisdiction of the
@UKSupremeCourt
is significantly different from the jurisdiction of the law lords in the 1980s/1990s; and the Wednesbury test for judicial review was ever interpreted literally.
Warby J: The defendant’s factual and legal case [on copyright ownership] both seem to me to occupy the shadowland between improbability and unreality. The case is contingent, inferential and imprecise. It cannot be described as convincing, and seems improbable
Brexit update:
@UKSupremeCourt
says 11 justices will sit, not 9 as first announced: Lady Hale, President; Lord Reed, Deputy President; Lord Kerr; Lord Wilson; Lord Carnwath; Lord Hodge; Lady Black; Lord Lloyd-Jones; Lady Arden; Lord Kitchin; Lord Sales. Lord Briggs is missing.
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has told all judges that they will be using technology to conduct business which even a month ago would have been unthinkable. Final hearings and hearings with contested evidence very shortly will be conducted using technology (THREAD)
I understand that
@MoJGovUK
has agreed to allow televising of judges’ sentencing remarks in the Crown Court of England and Wales. Announcement imminent. Excellent if true.
“The thing about great cases is that what once seemed impossible now seems inevitable” — comment made by one of the lawyers involved after the judgment.
But it was wrong. You may not think there’s much difference between charging a few thousand pounds and offering your skills without a fee in the public interest but Pannick is surely entitled to a correction, isn’t he? I thought that was what
@IpsoNews
was there for.
The student body at the college led by
@dinahroseqc
has rejected calls for her to resign.
“A lawyer should not be identified with the views of their client. This is a fundamental principle of justice and the JCR upholds this wholeheartedly and unconditionally.”
Gina Miller case: the court has agreed that four other parties can make written submissions. They are Lady Chakrabarti, the Welsh Government, the Scottish Advocate General and the former Prime Minister Sir John Major.
A bill of rhetoric: first glimpse of human rights reforms suggests it is full of holes
My line-by-line analysis of what
@MoJGovUK
has said today, free to read:
We’re all very sorry to see you go, Owen. And it’s particularly unfortunate that — as far as I know — the
@guardian
will no longer have a dedicated legal correspondent. The only London-based national news organisations with full-time correspondents are now
@thetimes
and
@FT
After 32 years on The Guardian, I’m closing my notebook and stepping down from the press bench at the end of the year. Huge thanks to everyone who helped me understand. Apologies for stories missed.