I do not have any particular problem with Sadiq Khan MP being promoted to the Shadow Lord Chancellor position for being a driving force behind Ed Miliband’s accession to the imperial Labour throne – but I do think, as a lawyer, and now shadowing one of the great offices of State, that he may need to brush up on his legal skills and, in particular, statutory interpretation.
MPs’ expenses: Sadiq Khan misused Commons’ envelopes (!)
The Telegraph reports, (Slavering?): “Following a formal sleaze inquiry, the Labour MP for Tooting was found to have broken the rules by using Parliamentary stationery during the general election. Under strict rules designed to prevent incumbents having an advantage over challengers from other parties, MPs may not use postage-paid Commons’ envelopes at election time. Mr Khan said that he used the stationery only to let his constituents know that he was unable to act on their behalf during the campaign. Around 500 received the letters. But he agreed to apologise to the House and repay the cost of the mail-out, £173.36, meaning he was spared a full Commons’ standards ruling. The deal – brokered by John Lyon, the Commissioner for Standards – would have remained secret had Mr Khan not made it public on his official website.
This is by no means one of the great ‘expenses revelations of all time’….. but I did like the bit where Khan stated…“The Parliamentary Commissioner reached a slightly different interpretation of the rules, which I respect.”
I’m not sure any of this Shadow Cabinet stuff actually means that much. Labour have come up with a plan in opposition (described as ‘Bonkers’ by former Lord Chancellor Jack Straw) to elect members of the Shadow Cabinet. The Great Leader is then able to chuck out the portfolios to people in this pool. Should Labour return to power, the Prime Minister doesn’t have to appoint from this elected pool. He or she may choose as they wish. Jack Straw observed, drily, that some of the new shadows appointed may be severely disappointed when it the time comes for a return to government.
I am, however, looking forward to Ed Balls giving Theresa May a hard time. Whatever one may think of Balls, he is a fairly fearless debater – so it could be amusing as well as interesting. Mr Khan may well find the old bruiser Ken Clarke QC, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, quite a handful to oppose!
Roll on Friday has word of… Second law firm suffers cyber-attack over copyright claims
After the galactic embarrassment suffered by ACS:Law last week, a second law firm has had its website attacked by irate file sharers.
London firm Gallant Macmillan plies the same greasy trade as ACS:Law – firing out countless letters demanding cash from individuals who may or may not have shared files illegally. It acts for the Ministry of Sound, and over the weekend the websites of both the firm and its client crashed after suffering distributed denial of service attacks.
However, this isn’t Gallant Macmillan’s only problem – it is also engaged in a fight with BT, which is resisting the firm’s attempt to recover details of its customers. BT has just been granted an adjournment, and a spokesman said that “the incident involving the ACS:Law data leak has further damaged people’s confidence in the current process. We’re pleased that the court has agreed to an adjournment so that our concerns can be examined“.
Things are certainly hotting up for lawyers who are in this less than pleasant game.
Patrick Wintour, political editor of the Guardian writes… “Sadiq Khan, one of Ed Miliband’s first supporters and a barrister, has been appointed shadow justice secretary. His appointment will signal a more liberal view on counter-terrorism issues.”
Guido Fawkes is less complimentary….
5 Things You Should Know About the Shadow Justice Secretary
***
Migrationwatch drops Sally Bercow libel threat
The Lawyer reports: Migrationwatch has dropped its libel complaint against political commentator Sally Bercow less than a week after she instructed lawyers to defend the threatened action.
Lawyer David Allen Green, author of the Jack of kent blog – rides to the rescue and does it again. He published the correspondence on his blog.
Good effort – and not wishing to diminish the work done by Green, this case would not have caused him (I suspect) to even break into a mild sweat. It seemed to me, and many other lawyers and commentators, that the Migration Watch threats were unlikely to succeed before the court. However – people who are not specialists in the law don’t know that, so Sally Bercow was facing the very real prospect of misery and expensive litigation until David Allen Green stepped in and sorted it. There are, however, dangers in publicising legal cases on twitter. I think it was justified in the Joke Trial issue and here – but it would be unfortunate indeed if Twitter was abused by lawyers. We wouldn’t want Twitter to become a ‘court of public opinion’…I prefer litigation to be dealt with in court…assuming, of course, that we have any left after the Spending Review scheduled for 20th October.
The Supreme Court’s future …is still under review!
I have an idea that David Allen Green might think that the prospect of Twittermobbing might act as a disincentive to those attempting to “cow” people through threats of legal action.
If so, is that a valid way of dealing with perceived legal bullying? Oh that Robert Maxwell was still around. An interesting thought experiment.
Steve – David Allen Green is a very good lawyer and I admire the way he is able to assist pro bono with people who ask for his help.
I do have some concerns about twittermobbing. The Streisand effect, however, is well known – and if public antipathy to some of laws forces a change to a more reasonable and fair and accepted regime that is to the good.
There is no doubt that libel and privacy reform is needed – and they say that it is on the way. Did you read that excellent analysis of Privacy law by Lord Walker… linked to in an earlier post? Worth a read. Not long.
What worries me is the other problem with Twitter and Facebook – cyber bullying. it ain’t just kids in the playground.
Thanks for the kind comments.
Like many lawyers, very little of my work goes anywhere near the public domain; like an iceberg you see only get to see the pointed bits that do!
However, it is not uncommon for litigation lawyers to be mindful of the power of forms of media. Many litigators (and litigation PR firms) are skilful in their use of the mainstream media. The only novelty in my approach – if any novelty at all – is that I happen to feel as comfortable in social media as many of my learned friends feel dealing with journalists and editors.
I think there are three key issues.
First, there is the public understanding of law and the litigation process. In this respect, the UK is behing the US, where it is normal for court documents to be available on-line. In cases where there is a public interest (and no private or confidential information), it generally helps for the public to have access to what the cases of the parties actually are. This counters the effects of spinning and “litigation PR” which can mislead those reliant on MSM for their information about a case.
Second, there is mobilisation of support. In Simon Singh’s case, the widespread support on the internet had an effect on morale. The same may be true on Twitter Joke Trial. In Sally Bercow’s case, it was important to her as a politician for her to be seen to face down this threat in public. But in other cases, such a public aspect can be unwanted or simply not needed. It all depends on what needs to be achieved in a particular case.
Third, as for trying cases by media: I am a believer in due pro process (eg my coverage of the WikiLeaks allegations). But that is different to just making primary legal documents publicly available and allowing defendants (or perhaps claimants) access to the benefit of public support.
Twitter and the internet can open up the litigation process as appropriate, but it can (and should) never replace it.
David – thank you – good comment. Keep going!
charon – just a few things:
1 shadow cabinet
‘Labour have come up with a plan in opposition (described as ‘Bonkers’ by former Lord Chancellor Jack Straw) to elect members of the Shadow Cabinet. ‘
funny how the more people labour involves in its decision making the more stick they get for being either undemocratic or stupid. i believe jack straw said it was as idiotic as electing the board of a company. but companies do have elected members on their boards. nice point, jack.
so in an age when we constantly decry the major parties for running an increasingly presidential-style set-up and failing to listen to their rank and file, we also have a go at a party that gives the rank and file a chance to elect the leader’s inner circle. nice touch!
and more women in the shadow cabinet than other parties – that’s a bad thing then?
2 sadiq khan’s probity
‘The deal – brokered by John Lyon, the Commissioner for Standards – would have remained secret had Mr Khan not made it public on his official website.’
so he wasn’t one of those mp’s trying to keep stuff secret.
3 guido fawkes
‘Guido Fawkes is less complimentary….’
guido fawkes is also a twat of course, but there ya go.
4 bathos
‘I am, however, looking forward to Ed Balls giving Theresa May a hard time.’
rarely can a sentence have started so promisingly only to peter out at the end.