120 people will be given the chance to watch as Mr Blair is questioned – one third of the seats being reserved for the families of servicemen killed during the Iraq war. Blair faces what the Independent calls a ‘six hour grilling’. Given that there are no lawyers experienced at cross-examining witnesses on the panel ( a curious state of affairs which many have noted), the grilling is more likely to be expedient ‘Burger King’ than searingly forensic ‘haut cuisine’.
It is probably just as well for Mr Blair, given his travels and his quest for worldwide fame, that there are few countries which allow private individuals to bring private prosecutions to have politicians and others arrested when they visit.
Attorney General Baroness Scotland may block Israeli war crimes warrants
The Times reports: “The power for a private individual to seek an arrest warrant from a British court for a foreign national they wish to prosecute is an unusual but not unique quirk of English law. The ability, which derives from the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, is also available in varying forms in the Netherlands, Spain, the Czech Republic and New Zealand. But after several high-profile cases where British courts have granted arrest warrants for foreign nationals — many of them Israelis — Britain has gained a reputation as being an easy place to do it.”
It seems that Hamas has been ‘stirring up trouble’ by hiring lawyers to have visiting Israelis arrested for war crimes, prompting the government to act. The Times notes: “The Attorney General could be given a veto over arrest warrants for foreign leaders in an attempt to placate Israeli ministers who fear war crimes prosecutions if they visit Britain. Baroness Scotland of Asthal, who is in Jerusalem, discussed an amendment to British law that would give her office the power to review arrest warrants in private prosecutions against political figures, according to Foreign Ministry sources. Israel warned that a failure to resolve the situation soon would have consequences for both countries.
A Mr Jeffrey loop comments on the issue in The Times: “Do you lot still have trial by fire or combat too? Grow up England.”
It does seem rather bizarre that private individuals can bring such prosecutions. Lawyers maintain that it is quite difficult to get arrest warrants – but the Times does note that the evidence underpinning the issuing of such warrants has , in the past, included articles in newspapers! Oh dear. Another matter for Jack ‘The Lad Chancellor’ Straw to look at?
Ten ways to reveal your lover: coming out the easy way
James Quarmby, tax partner, Thomas Eggar writes in The Lawyer: “Homosexuals are the hidden minority. Don’t look round but the person sitting at the desk next to you may be one. Unlike other minorities we’re not immediately obvious (apart from a few flamboyant individuals I could mention). This means you won’t know unless you’re told……”
James Quarmby considers various methods for coming out, noting that some law firms are liberal while other law firms still live in caves with their animals when it comes to issues of sexuality. I did like this wry comment ” 2. Don’t make any grand gestures or announcements. Hanging a banner over your desk emblazoned with the words, ‘Yes, I’m gay, get over it’, probably isn’t the best move. Lawyers are conservative creatures by nature and are easily shocked by… well… anything really…
and this… “5. Do take your significant other to the firm’s Christmas party. You can be guaranteed that, within a few hours of arrival, the gossips will have done their work and that every last man, woman and child will know all the fabulous details. However, it’s probably best to avoid getting heroically drunk and snogging to the slow numbers on the dance floor. This may be a step too far.”
There is more good news. On 1st January yet another law regulator lumbered onto the stage. Only time will tell whether the new Legal Services Board will have any value whatsoever. A new blog run by ‘ a barrister’: Of Interest to Some Lawyers noted “We are the new, independent body responsible for overseeing the regulation of lawyers in England and Wales. Our goal is to reform and modernise the legal services market place by putting the interests of consumers at the heart of the system, reflecting the objectives of 
I went onto the Legal Services Board website. Not a ripping read, it has to be said – although I enjoyed reading the register of interests and expenses for the board members. The expenses were satisfyingly dull – mainly taxi fares and one board member had no expenses. Why not…was my immediate thought? The LSB is subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the website has a helpful section on how to make FOI requests. The website reminded me of the early days of the web in design terms and the new logo looks as if it had been knoocked up by a board member keen to demonstrate that this was not a money wasting quango. The Approved Regulators page explains all to any member of the public with a burning desire to see state of the art web design and modern regulatory practice in relation to law regulators. We shall see… in time.
You may like to look at this excellent article from the Law Society Gazette. It raises ‘food for thought’: The Legal Services Board must properly research what it is about to do
Official: 2,500 ex-servicemen are in prison
My attention was caught when I saw this headline in The Telegraph: “Nearly 2,500 ex-servicemen are in prison in England and Wales, official figures show for the first time.”
The Telegraph report did not explain why we have so many ex-servicemen in prison beyond stating the obvious – that the government is not, perhaps, looking after ex-servicemen that well when they return from war, but the Telegraph did make this wry comment ” The count of the prison population – which was carried out in November – is the first time ever that the Government has attempted to understand how many former members of the armed forces are in jail. Officials were able to complete the count by matching all the 81,000 prisoners aged over-18 in England and Wales with a database of more than one million veterans held by the Ministry of Defence.”
Clearly: The answer to the question – why are there so many ex-servicemen in prison? – is rather important, I would have thought?
//
Judges examine rise in complaints against MI5
The Independent reports: ” A record rise in the number of complaints against MI5 and other bodies authorised to spy on the public is being investigated by judges appointed to oversee the use of surveillance powers in Britain. Some of the allegations brought to the attention of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, include claims of harassment against officers working for the Security Service, MI5. Others concern the alleged misuse of surveillance by local authorities. The tribunal judges, who oversee the work of MI5 and other law enforcement agencies authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, confirmed yesterday that they were looking at why the number of complaints had more than doubled from 66 in 2007 to 136 in 2008.
And finally… the weather
Charon QC 
hamas ‘stirring up trouble’ or using a valid legal method to bring to account those who have been perpetrating crimes against a civilian population? you say either, i say either.
that simon wiesenthal did a bit of stirring up trouble too.
SW I did put ‘stirring up trouble’ in quotes… as did the Times
Israel might be better to stop making threats and to consider that, in the modern world, it needs all the friends it can get. None is a better friend than the UK.
It is wrong to hand to the Attorney-General any say whatsoever in whether a warrant should issue. That must be a judicial decision and it is a decision which, in these cases, could possibly be taken by a High Court Judge.
Of course, much needed reform of the office of the AG has been kicked into the long grass but the fact remains that there is a definite case to take the Attorney out of any decision relating to particular investigations or prosecutions.
I suppose that the aim of the warrant was to put the Israeli foreign minister on trial in the UK for what occurred in Gaza. Israel has not ratified the Rome Convention relating to the International Criminal Court.
See:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/6/Israel%20and%20the%20International%20Criminal%20Court
Readers might also find the Goldstone report interesting:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm
Was going to make similar comment on ‘stirring up trouble’ but sw beat me to it. I note the quotation marks.
I blogged on this month and commented that Livni belonged in the next cell to Karadžić at the International Criminal Court so you may gather where I’m coming from.
Sooooo……
What’s wrong with the power for an individual to apply for one of these universal jurisdiction warrants? As you say, they can in plenty of other countries. There surely exists power to prevent abuse of this entitlement. For example – erm – refusing to grant the application for warrant. We keep judges to do that sort of thing. Presumably a Wednesbury perverse type issuing of a warrant could be subject to judicial review. We keep judges to do that sort of thing too.
Nobody – apart from the usual pissing and moaning from Israel – even pretends that there aren’t serious human rights abuse issues relating to what happened in Gaza a year ago. I posted a clip showing some of the damage. Maybe go ask the carbonised dead baby its opinion on the matter. Oh dear – can’t do that – it’s (very) dead. Israeli Prime Minister at the time: T Livni.
What is odious is Miliband apologising to Israeli Foreign Minister (and revolting racist) Avigdor Lieberman for the actions of a judge over whom he hads no authority. Ever heard of the seperation of powers and judicial independence David? Similarly P Scotland on an exercise in grovelling allover Jerusalem.
‘Israel warned that a failure to resolve the situation soon would have consequences for both countries’. Oh scary! The international politics equivalent of Billy No Mates says consequences may follow. Then a bunch of gutless ministers start dancing to their tune!
Rant over 😀
I blogged on this LAST month…
always edit…
And there was I thinking that we could trust the Attorney General to review the use of the power. I should have known better given her recent experience in relation to Immigration and Employment Law.
🙂
I agree, however, with the stance you take on the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.
I lost respect for Israel many many years ago…
Some say that the problem of global terror cannot even begin to be resolved without resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I tend to favour that view.
Others say that Islamic extremism requires the establishment of Islam throughout the world. That is not the view of the Muslims I have spoken to.
Good comments SW/WR.
The Times (7th January) carried an interesting article by Michael Mansfield QC about the Chilcot Inquiry. Mansfield’s key argument is that the witnesses are not being tested adequately. He may be right and it is a pity that there is not even one lawyer on this panel which is singularly unqualified to express a view on any matters of “legality.” That begs the question of why not simply say so and avoid going into that issue?
I suppose that lawyers would have preferred a judicially led Public Inquiry into all this. Leaving aside the woeful inadequacies of the Inquiries Act 2005, imagine the costs of a such an inquiry into matters which took place over a period of some 8 years. The inquiry would have a team of counsel; witnesses would be represented, examined, cross-examined, re-examined and so on. The idea of Chilcot is to try to learn lessons but to avoid something like a Bloody Sunday Inquiry with clogs on. The costs of the latter have run into millions and, when published, the report is likely to satisfy nobody. Maybe Chilcot ought not to be condemned just yet. Let’s wait and see how they get on.