Eady stepping down as top libel judge does not affect the need for libel reform
David Allen Green, author of the Jack of Kent blog, writes in The New Statesman:
From 1 October 2010, Sir David Eady will no longer be the senior libel and privacy judge at the High Court (also see report here). He will still be able to hear libel and privacy trials — he is not retiring outright — but he will no longer pick and choose which media law cases go before him.
This is welcome news; but not because Mr Justice Eady is particularly culpable as a judge. In fact, Sir David Eady is generally no worse and no better than any other judge applying the dysfunctional English law of libel. He has given almost as many heartening liberal defamation judgments as dreadfully illiberal judgments. And his contribution to the development of privacy law is commendable: the mainstream media is now less likely to intrude upon people’s personal space and misuse private information just because of his rulings.
It is instead welcome news because it de-personalises a complex problem. The problems with libel law are to do with the substance of the law and the way it is litigated and threatened, and not because of any particular judge….
David Allen Green ends with these words – which I agree with….“The awful — indeed dispreputable — state of English libel law will still be there the morning after he steps down.”
MPs’ expenses case taken to Supreme Court
The Telegraph reports: Three former Labour MPs charged with fraud over their parliamentary expenses are to take their case to the Supreme Court.
Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine are to appeal to the country’s most senior judges at a hearing next month. The three, along with Lord Hanningfield, a Tory peer also accused of expenses fraud, are due to go on trial in November. But they claim that they cannot be tried in ordinary criminal courts because of centuries-old laws on parliamentary privilege. Three Court of Appeal judges found against them in July saying that they could not envisage how the ancient defence could ever cover “ordinary criminal activities” by MPs and. But the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, ruled that there was a “point of general public importance” for Britain’s highest court to rule on.
I am no expert on Constitutional Law but the Court of Appeal decision was very robust, clear and to the point; and while it is right that justice pursues its course and matters of public importance are considered by our highest court, one can’t help feeling that the Justices of the Supreme Court will have little difficulty in dealing with this issue on parliamentary privilege and confirm the decision of the Court of Appeal. We shall see in time – but if they find for the MPs the judgments will keep constitutional law experts busy for a while. It will also mean, of course, that Parliament will have try the MPs. Will they use Westminster Hall? One thing is for certain… the MPs will not be able to use the plea of Charles I…“I would know by what power I am called hither, by what lawful authority…?”
As an aside, I saw on Twitter that a YouGov poll revealed that 51% of people want to restore the death penalty. I had no idea there were so many medieval barbarians alive and well in Britain today.. but..there you are.
Probably if the YouGov poll had asked if Sharia Law should be used to judge Messrs. Chaytor, Devine and Morley, you might have been surprised by an even bigger number of medieval barbarians alive and well in this fair country!
Barnacle Bill – Absolutely – and… another scaffold would be erected outside the Banqueting House in Whitehall
🙂
Consider this.
Prison doesn’t work: though prisoners have satellite television & pool tables unlike me.
Criminal rehabilitation doesn’t work either: and no adventure holidays in Cornwall for me either.
The reality is that; Violent. Real. Family-impacting crime is up. – though data collection has been broadened so governments can give the electorate the impression crime is under control – thanks to more Labour legacies.
I certainly sympathise with your disgust. But in 2010; 51% of people wanting to restore the death penalty actually speaks volumes for the recent Labour Government being caught hoodwinking the electorate for at least a decade.
The public, me, my parents and relatives, neighbours, colleagues and associates are at the end of their tethers.
So. If the law-abiding, form-filling, biometric bearing, street drunks avoiding, finger-print-even-when-innocent-in-storage tolerating public, have the right to expect ‘the system’ it funds; to provide them their protection, what is the alternative to capital punishment?
“The reality is that; Violent. Real. Family-impacting crime is up.”
No, the reality is that it’s down. Unfortunately, most people believe the shrieking hysterical nonsense they read in the tabloid press, rather than actually looking at the evidence.
(if there isn’t a strong correlation between the part of the population who are incapable of rationally appraising evidence and the part of the population who support the death penalty, then I’d be happy to waltz naked down High Holborn…)
“It will also mean, of course, that Parliament will have to try the MPs.”
Will it CharonQC? My gut feeling is that if the Supreme Court rules in favour of these men then that will be that. No trial at all. I am not saying that it could not be done but it would make our country look stupid in the eyes of the world. (i.e. if we don’t already). The UK would be setting up a “show trial” of a kind formerly seen in non-democratic States. The criminal courts are there to try criminal matters and they, and only they, should be the proper forum for trials.
In fact, given various “names” who have got away expense fiddling I have the view that these men ought not to be on trial at all. There is , at least, the appearance of scapegoating about it.
The fact that parliament is also known as “The High Court of The Parliament” was brought up by Andrew Mackinlay MP on 15th July 2003 in the famous bullying by committee of Dr Kelly. It was a disgrace. This whole antiquated notion ought to be kicked into touch. Britain needs a radically reformed parliament which is fit for modern purposes including holding an over-mighty executive to account. Sadly, as far as I can see from my northern vantage point, things are going in the opposite direction under this coalition.
—–
Will they use Westminster Hall? One thing is for certain… the MPs will not be able to use the plea of Charles I…“I would know by what power I am called hither, by what lawful authority…?”
Charles I used an interesting argument there. Under feudal law, a “lord could not be sued in his own court”. Thus, there was no court which could properly try the King. I believe that Her Majesty still enjoys immunity from any criminal prosecution and, in our civil law, the Crown (nowadays = executive) has numerous privileges in litigation. It is only since 1948 that civil proceedings can be brought against “the Crown”.
As I recall, the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion 1660 was passed to give a free pardon to most who has supported the Commonwealth/Protectorate. However, 59 “regicides” were not pardoned and, in fact, some of them were “hung, drawn and quartered” – essentially because they signed Charles I’s death warrant. Other were jailed for life – which, I suppose, then meant exactly that.
—-
Like you, I cannot support the death penalty even if it could be argued that those who commit certain horrific crimes deserve it. It is fundamentally wrong to exact punishment in this way and is not a deterrent at all as can be seen by the continuing existence of murder in those American States which still use capital punishment.
Obiter J – A very interesting point – it would be a show trial – but surely Parliament would have to do something? The papers, TV and social ‘meedja’ will be howling like wolves if nothing happens to these MPs!
I am not entirely sure what would happen. One suspects that the Committee of Privileges would get the task of dealing with it ???
I don’t think politicians really care all that much about what the “howling” masses / meedja are saying. [Fixed term parliaments will ensure that they can act with total impunity until the election starts to loom again by which time what they did 2 or more years ago will be long forgotten]. As I said above, there are some notable MPs who definitely got away with things and the “meedja” howling has long since stopped.
…. should have added …. let’s not forget that these 3 are EX MPs. Devine was not permitted by Labour to be a candidate. Chaytor and Morley decided not to stand in 2010.
Just what (“The High Court of”) Parliament could do to EX MPs is a nice question in itself.