Generally, yes. When there has been controversy, it has been around how broadly art 6 is applied. For example the Home Secretary used to decide when prisoners on mandatory life sentences could be released, but that was found to be incompatible with art 6.
It is also inherent to our legal system. People who do bad things still have rights in common law to due process and right of appeal. I worry that too many voters think 'law and order' just means 'punish the bad guys'.
Today's Hansard reading spot was the Folketing, Denmark's Parliament! š©š° Prime Ministers pick their portrait artist, which has resulted in some interesting works (see last photo) :)
Reflecting on the 2019 Conservative manifesto, I wonder if the pandemic prevented Boris Johnson going further with constitutional change?
Slightly reassuring, but I worry where the public will be after a few more years of the press and politicians blaming the ECHR. One challenge is getting voters to understand that repealing the HRA will likely result in the judiciary expanding the common law.
For the avoidance of doubt, Larry the Cat is not First Lord of the Treasury, but as he has outlasted several who have been he seemed a safe bet for the coverā¦ www.amazon.co.uk/Politics-UK-...
Barristers? Yes, there are a few exceptionally well paid barristers. What the public doesn't realise is that barristers don't have a steady income, seem to work antisocial hours, and many would earn more money as solicitors.
I was thinking this last night: Citizens Advice is where someone interested in aims and priorities might go and volunteer, but it is not politically aligned and doesn't do the values bit.
I think when it comes to think tanks, young conservatives/right-wingers have more opportunities. I have broader criticisms of think tanks.
If the government framed cost as a major reason for rejecting a temporary injunction, then judges will be more cautious. Cost grounds would also be a good reason to ask the Court of Appeal to overturn the injunction.
Which is possibly more compatible with English law. The issue with defamation in England is that it is a civil matter, and very expensive. I think it is easier to go after individuals and platforms in countries such as Germany.
Correct, I should have checked. The Code gets approved under the negative procedure for SIs. I should get back to applying for a job.
It is horrible, but I know FWS have a good chance of getting their case heard. It is easier to bring judicial review cases in Scotland. I am nervous about McCloud's ECHR case. Honestly, best thing MPs can do is vote down revised Code.
RG unis are also not as good when it comes to supporting students who want to do a placement/sandwich year in their degree
I definitely agree that new funding sources for the NHS should be looked at. As for stealing doctors, Australia has the advantage of having more private hospitals. I just wouldnāt want to replicate how expensive it was to see a GP.
As ASI can't even provide the full tables, let alone use a reputable pollster, who is to know if any of the figures are accurate?
This much-shared story is misleading. It's the National Drought Group - which includes the Met Office, water companies, regulators, conservationists and the govt - that has recommended various water-saving measures inc turning off taps, taking shorter showers... and deleting old pics and emails.
BTW, no decision has been made regarding Wikipedia. The claimants fear it could be designated a Category 1 site under new regulations, adding duties. They argued the regulations were irrational and breached the ECHR, but failed to convince the court. Let's see if it's appealed.
I have no idea what Ofcom will do. My only prediction is that if Ofcom mess up, I expect ministers will overturn the decision asap.
My date of birth is closer to when Harold Wilson was PM than when David Cameron became PM š
Relying on AI to summarise literature also robs people of something vital: being able to come to their own conclusions.
It was suggested to me that rather than reading a 300 paragraph judgment, I should get ChatGPT to summarise. Which is a terrible suggestion because I have used it, and every time it has hallucinated something. It has either gotten a case name wrong or gotten facts confused.
I would recommend Grand Budapest, it is very rewatchable
If it is ok, I don't intend to respond any further because I have an essay to write
The purpose of explanatory notes is really just advisory, they exist to tell MPs how the government thinks the legislation will function. Best used with a big dollop of caution.
Which opens the discussion about how far courts will rely on explanatory notes when interpreting legislation. They only do it under very limited circumstances because the notes are usually prepared by the government, effectively saying this is how their legal advice interprets a bill.
Just on this. Whilst it was important that the High Court reached that decision, it could never bind the Supreme Court. The High Court is below both UKSC and Court of Appeal in the legal hierarchy.
Yeah, this is where we get into a tricky issue. Appeal courts donāt hear new evidence, they review the evidence and arguments presented in the lower courts. It was up to the Scottish government to present this evidence.
About 15 years ago they were not standard in Australia, but ever since my contracts have always had unlimited texts
It is quite often that a judge will incorporate the arguments presented by the other side, then promptly explain why their is reasoning is different. That is how para 221 reads to me.
Para 221 is definitely disjointed. I would have to read the Inner House decision to see if they quoted from the Explanatory Notes when interpreting that specific provision. My reading is Lord Hodge etc are disagreeing with the reasoning of the Inner House.
Parliament just does not have the bandwidth to scrutinise all of the thousands of pieces of secondary legislation issued by the government. Plus individual MPs won't necessarily know or be able to agree what they intended when they passed the original Act.
What happens is the government places the draft before each house, after which there is only 40 sitting days for each house to scrutinise it. In the Commons, MPs have to petition the government for a vote. After 40 days, the draft is considered approved.
Yes, the EHRC is part of the broader executive branch. As for why Parliament would approve: it is because Parliament almost never blocks secondary legislation. It rarely gets closely scrutinised. The Code of Practice is also subject to the negative procedure.
I am sorry, but the Code was never 'authoritative'. Tribunals will use it and employers are recommended to follow it, but it could never supplant the actual text of the Act.
Because such a document will rarely be used to establish parliamentary intent. The document was issued by the executive branch, not Parliament. In the hierarchy of laws it falls below the actual text of the Act and judicial opinion.
Hereās a thought - presentations and ongoing workshops (Iām sure there are other āongoing assessmentā routes as well). Basically, assessment of working knowledge and understanding not specifically defined by a formalised āassessmentā.
I know I should work on my essay, but this does look tempting
We could have a single ballot, with the first preference going to a parties national vote. But the mechanics would not be compatible with British politics. When I have time, I might look at the Austrian system because it is a good hybrid.
What the government was saying in 2004 was 'no previous legislation could have envisaged GRCs, so therefore they will be silent on the issue'. But, quite often old statutes will be interpreted in the light of new situtations. I wish the government had drafted the GRA better.
I will be honest, I think the 2004 government made a mistake framing it that way. It would have been better if the government had inserted that into the GRA itself. Courts are very reluctant to infer the meaning of legislation based on ministerial intent.
UKSC will have read s 9(3) using the plain meaning of the words. Applying that approach, if Parliament only intended for future legislation to disengage s 9(1), it could have written āany subsequent enactmentā.
Watching these 9 ducklings grow has helped to get me through my assessments
Ideally, the GRA 2004 should have extensively amended older legislation, such as the Sex Discrimination Act. It would also have helped if the EA 2010 s 11 had referred to the GRA or GRCs.
I can see where you are coming from. One legal issue is that the GRA 2004 refers to gender rather than sex and the courts tend to apply a literal interpretation of statutes. So when deciding what 'sex' meant, UKSC likely prioritised statutes that explicitly used the term.
There is a nuance between āelections cancelledā and Trump mimicking Eastern European autocrats which is missing in so many responses. Mid-term elections will happen, but outside blue states they might not be competitive.
There are legitimate reasons to be critical of this post, but most are just undiluted American chauvinism
A risk with codification is that politicians will restrict the common law powers of the courts
It also reveals a lot about how closed government was back then, and how deferential people were. I would argue that if a prospective tenant had brought this to court for judicial review in the 1960s, it would have been overturned on the basis of irrationality.
Maybe over the summer I will get round to watching those two films. I have Grand Budapest on blu-ray. I enjoy the narrative structure of Grand Budapest and Fantastic Mr Fox. Above all, I love his cinematography.
Sheffield Uni isn't too bad when it comes to hot food. I get your point, it is one reason why I miss Cambridge.
If the Chagos challenge was anything, I would not be too concerned. People need to get used to the idea that groups will use judicial review to try to block decisions they don't like. Most JR applications fail, and I would expect most of these to fail.
Looking at wiki, quite a few mackems and smoggies amongst genuine geordies
lol, I should know if it represents Geordieland
No, why would I watch that?
First time someone described Newcastle as āweirdā
š Iāve been up in County Durham for the day, I donāt get into Sheffield until 6pm
Liverpool?
Itās what cigarettes and whisky does to a man
Ā£50 says she throws her vapes in the bin, rather than recycling
I was reading her dissenting opinion in Keyu v Foreign Secretary. I rarely get to read such passionate arguments in a law report.
The most interesting part of this article is Lady Hale discussing the spider brooch she wore when handing down Miller II www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may...
The EHRC have gone so beyond what the law allows they are operating in another dimension
Wait? Ah, I see what you are doing š
You say that, but SCOTUS loves to dig up obscure English cases from the 17th century and then cite them as authority
To think that we gave you guys a legal system
Cautious live-blogged take on the EHRC consultation below; now linked to the actual consultation as well.
She switched party rooms, so now caucuses with the Liberals
Hire purchase company, but not doing basic stuff like credit checks?
Crossing items off the 'law nerd in Scotland' bucket list by visiting "Dear Duty" commemorating May Donoghue of Donoghue v Stevenson - the dead snail / ginger beer case ššŗ
No idea, it takes a while for cases to get through the system. Not sure what I would be looking for on Westlaw.
The more planning revision I do for my exam next week the more my hatred for David Cameron grows beyond what I thought possible
The idea is dumb on two levels: 1. Thanks for killing representative democracy 2. Turnout in elections is already correlated with income, education, nationality, and tenure
What confuses me is people on social media who know Trump and Navarro lie have decided they can believe them on this ādealā
I donāt even know how to use TikTok
With an accent like that, the Italians will have beat that out of him long ago
Quick, let me see the result on the news at 6
Is Britain actually having a good week?
This chart is from @britishelectionstudy.com @jamesdgriffiths.bsky.social, me and Ed Fieldhouse. You can see that 2024 Reform voters mainly came from the Conservatives or UKIP in 2015. This has been a story on the right for *ten years* now, unless something very different happened last week.
Can anyone explain how this is a coherent ideology? Can Glasman explain āprimacy of Parliamentā without referring to A V Dicey?
Yeah, we live in the shitty timeline
I scraped a 2:1 in my BA, mainly because I generally got firsts on essays and 2:2 on exam papers. I ended up getting a PhD, partly because I never had to sit another written exam after that. Thereās got to be a better way than āmore examsā. If thatās the answer, weāre asking the wrong question.
And you may find yourself living in a thatched-roof hut And you may find yourself living in the Holy Roman Empire And you may find yourself negotiating with your lords And you may find yourself in a beautiful hall, with a beautiful wife And you may ask yourself, "Well, how did I get here?"
Good luck. I wouldnāt enter, but I have given a little thought to what I would do if I won.
Yeah, I am not feeling particularly confident about this challenge. Itās effectively asking Strasbourg to overrule the English courts when it comes to allowing third party interventions in administrative cases.
Latter sounds good
Iām curious about the EU bit. Abolishing DCMS is just stupid
āTheir lordships should have taken evidence, consulted experts, before establishing the neighbour principleā
It is one of those decisions in which I donāt like the outcome, but I can see why the court decided it that way. There are several HoL decisions I can think of. The best response is always to pass primary legislation that corrects the decision.
Everything Nathan mentions, plus Council tax is cow manure. Regressive, out of date bands, and doesnāt tax wealthy households enough. It was basically designed to encourage local government to be frugal.
On housing, I don't get why there aren't a few token shovel ready projects started this year, to get a photo of the PM and co literally holding the shovels. Ok, it's superficial and the long-term structural work is obviously more important; but this is politics, you're allowed to do some signalling!
You just beautifully encapsulated how public perception of corruption works. I wonāt bore you with info on Australia. Other than water, they have similar issues in gambling etc.
lol, itās the public perceptions index. Not to be rude about their methodology, but UK responses typically go āyes we think our country is corrupt, no I have never paid a bribeā. Personal view, Australia is more corrupt.
Australian politics is pretty corrupt by its nature. Small elite, everyone in politics knows each other, ministers have more power to influence where money is spent.
It has to be special. I have probably watched North by Northwest a few times.
Yep. I am very concerned that standing will be an issue. I am also thinking that the High Court might say the application is premature and should only be brought once the updated EHRC guidelines have been implemented.
If it fails, another person or organisation can bring a challenge later. But Iām worried the High Court will look dimly on this application. There are better applicants to bring this challenge.
