Law and Lawyers

The United Kingdom is bound in international law by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).   The road from the UK to the European Court of Human Rights (E Ct HR) opens once Arts. 34 and 35 apply:

Art 34 - The court may receive applications from any person, nongovernmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be a victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.  The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.  (My  emphasis).

Art 35 - The court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.

The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is the principal legislative statement of current Trade Union law.  The 1992 Act not only consolidated many earlier Acts but also made a number of significant changes to the law.  The history of the law prior to this Act was complex and is well described in books such as Smith and Wood's Employment Law.  The "power balance" between Unions and Employers has proved to be exceptionally difficult to find both politically and legally.  The struggle between the Labour Movement and the government was epitomised by the Industrial Relations Act 1971, later replaced by the Trades Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.  The ebb and flow of Trade Union law continues with the latest Trade Union Bill which has passed the House of Commons and is now before the House of Lords - BBC 15th September 2015.

On the evening of 4th August 2011, at Ferry Lane (Tottenham, London), the Police intercepted and stopped a taxi (or minicab) carrying Mr Mark Duggan.  Mr Duggan got out of the vehicle.  Two shots were fired at Mr Duggan by one of two Police Officers confronting him.  The officer who fired was referred to as V53.  The other officer was W42.  Mr Duggan died as a result.  A handgun was found at the other side of a fence which was alongside the pavement where the Police had shot Mr Duggan.

Serious disorder followed this event, not only in London but in many other cities and towns.  The disorder was covered extensively on this blog and elsewhere.   The Police claimed that officer V53 had acted in self-defence in the honest belief that Mr Duggan was holding a gun at the time.

Mrs Duggan (mother of Mark Duggan) sought Judicial Review

The Judiciary has published the decision of Mr Justice Openshaw regarding whether Lord Greville Janner is fit to plead - read the decision dated 7th December 2015.  The learned judge took the opportunity to restate the test for fitness to plead or stand trial set out in R v Pritchard (1836) 7 Carrington and Payne 303 where Alderson B said:

‘There are three points to be enquired into:- first, whether the prisoner is mute of malice or not; secondly, whether he can plead to the indictment or not; thirdly, whether he is of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings in the trial so as to make a proper defence – to know that he might challenge any of you [the jury] to whom he may object – and to comprehend the details of the evidence, which in a case of this nature must constitute a minute investigation.”

Alderson B was stating the law for a jury.  In modern law, the decision as to fitness is taken by the trial judge and not a jury.

Openshaw J's modern formulation of the test is:

United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) are most important at an international level and yet they can be difficult to interpret.  They are not treaties.  Understanding of the proceedings at the Council prior to the resolution is essential to reach a proper interpretation.  Furthermore, they are are not subjected to the sort of detailed examination that accompanies the enactment of national legislation.  Pressures of time and politics are also in play.  For an expert view of how interpretation should be approached see:

Michael C. Wood - Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 1998 - Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions

and for a video presentation see - Michael C. Wood on the Interpretation of UN Security Council Resolutions

UPDATE 29th January 2016 - Report of Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments raising question over how the charge was removed

Details of the Criminal Courts Charge are in this post of 30th July 2015.   In a speech to the Magistrates' Association, Michael Gove (Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor) announced that he had laid in Parliament an amending statutory instrument so that - from the 24th of December - the criminal courts charge will no longer be imposed.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 section 54 introduced the Criminal Courts Charge.  Section 54 came into force on 13th April 2015 and, on the same date, the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015 came into force.  It was Paragraph 3 of those regulations which dealt with the amount that had to be ordered and the actual amounts were set out in a Schedule.

Amendment regulations

The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor has given evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the filmed session is available for viewing.

Questions ranged over several important issues including the Lord Chancellor's Oath;  the dual role of Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor; Constitutional Reform; the Ministerial Code; Prisoner Voting and Reform of the Courts and Tribunal Service.

The most interesting aspect of the session was that Mr Gove said that there will be a Consultation Paper relating to Human Rights Reform and this will now appear in "the New Year" (no specific date offered).  The paper would contain a series of "open ended questions" and would seek as broad a consensus for reform as possible.