Appealing presenters

Also, why rights are good for security and military courts are quicker

Three reports for you this morning:

• BBC presenters to appeal

• Human rights benefit national security

• Military prosecutions faster

BBC presenters to appeal

Four BBC news presenters who said they were paid less than male colleagues doing similar work have lodged an appeal against an employment tribunal ruling in May dismissing part of their claim.

The BBC, which has denied discrimination, said at the time that it was pleased that the tribunal had accepted its position on the equal pay claims.

L-R: Annita McVeigh, Martine Croxall, Karin Giannone and Kasia Madera

Employment Judge Goodman ruled that Martine Croxall, Kasia Madera, Annita McVeigh and Karin Giannone were barred from bringing equal pay claims because of a settlement they had accepted in 2020.

“The four claimants are estopped by the 2020 agreements from bringing the new equal pay claims as pleaded currently and accordingly they are dismissed,” the judge said. But she agreed that separate claims including sex and age discrimination could go to a full hearing next March.

The presenters, supported by the National Union of Journalists, argue that the earlier settlements addressed past discrimination and should not prevent them from challenging alleged discriminatory pay practices since 2020.

Clare Darwin KC, representing the four claimants, is expected to tell the Employment Appeal Tribunal that the earlier judgment sets a dangerous precedent by allowing employers to contract out of their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Such an approach would risk undermining the ability of current employees to seek redress at a tribunal for current or future unlawful treatment at work, regardless of its severity.

The claimants’ solicitor, Neil Todd from Thompsons, said:

The appeal raises important questions about how out-of-court settlements can cover future unlawful actions. In our view, the agreements that sought to do this in this instance are unenforceable as a matter of law.

Human rights benefit national security

Lord Anderson of Ipswich KBE KC, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said that the UK’s continued support for the European Convention on Human Rights benefits national security.

Lord Anderson of Ipswich KBE KC. Jonathan Crow CVO KC is in the chair

Giving the Denning Society lecture at Lincoln’s Inn last night, Anderson took issue with Lord Sumption, a former justice of the Supreme Court, who argued last year that the real purpose of the convention was “to make us accept rights which we may not want” and and that the UK should simply withdraw from it.

In these extracts from his remarks, which Anderson has kindly allowed me to publish in full, he offers four reasons:

1. I am less convinced than Sumption that the rights of minorities can be adequately safeguarded by a parliament which is both unconstrained by any code of constitutional rights and tightly controlled by the executive… As Lord Sumption has himself pointed out, we saw during the Covid pandemic how easy it was for the government to control almost every aspect of our public and private lives by regulations which could not even be debated before they were brought into force.

2. Our judges remain, as Francis Bacon characterised them in 1625, “lions, but lions under the throne”. They have no power to override parliament and few would wish them to have it. But the rulings of the Strasbourg court bind us in international law and our own judges can call parliament out when that law is violated. A determined government could still ignore them. But without the friction provided by the convention system, the subtle balance between political power and judicial influence would be upset — and not to our advantage.

3. Continued adherence to the European convention is a central part of our devolution settlement, particularly as regards Northern Ireland, and of our trade and cooperation agreement with the European Union.

4. The convention mechanism is valuable not just for its effects in the United Kingdom but for its geopolitical significance… As despotism and illiberalism strengthen around the globe and a new war rages on the edge of our own continent, the world is engaged in a battle for hearts and minds — a battle which our national security depends on winning. The convention embodies what we fought for, what we still stand for, and the values that we have helped, more than perhaps any other country, to project across a once divided continent. To abandon it now would be to cast aside our compass in treacherous terrain and to signal to newer democracies than ours that no compass is needed. That would be an act, I suggest, of the purest folly.

More broadly, Anderson argued that preservation of the UK’s national security had been assisted by a framework that included the Human Rights Act 1998:

When young Englishmen behead journalists with medieval weapons, or target their bombs on innocent young concert-goers, their objective is to maximise our shock and thus to generate over-reactions. Whether in the form of violent demonstrations, or oppressive laws, these reactions can in turn be used to foment the sense of grievance which can divide a society. So it was in Northern Ireland, where Bloody Sunday, internment and the “five techniques” enjoyed a deadly half-life as agents of radicalisation.

In this century, Islamist terrorism has tested the cohesion of our society — but, thankfully, without breaking it. Human rights law has constrained the occasional tendency to disproportionate reaction and demonstrated to the sceptical that we stand, however imperfectly, for principles worth defending — even if they are not always convenient to the state.

In a nod to candidates nominated for posts in the incoming US administration, he continued:

We live in a world of unfettered online discourse, suspicions and conspiracy theories — from which, across the Atlantic at least, even prospective government officials are not immune. The parliamentary and judicial accountability that is demanded by the European convention both protects our liberties and helps build broader public trust in the guardians of our national security.

The application of human rights has done little to hamper the fight against terrorism and much to secure its legitimacy. It will continue to serve us well as our national security focus shifts back towards state threats and hybrid warfare, on our territory and in our minds.

Military prosecutions faster

Service personnel accused of serious sexual assault can expect their cases to come to trial much more quickly than defendants tried in the ordinary criminal courts, an inspection report has revealed.

Anthony Rogers, chief inspector of HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, was invited in 2022 by the director of service prosecutions, Jonathan Rees KC, to review the work of the Service Prosecution Authority. The inspection took place earlier this year.

Rogers wrote:

A clear difference between the service and the civilian justice system at the time of writing is in the length of time it takes for cases to be tried. The delay in Crown Court cases in the civilian justice system is well rehearsed and it is not unusual for victims of serious sexual offences to wait a number of years, sometimes longer, for their cases to be heard.

By contrast, with fewer cases in the system, victims of serious sexual offences in the service justice system can usually expect their case to be heard by the court martial within about six months of the case being directed for charge. Lower volumes mean that cases can be progressed more quickly, providing certainty and closure to victims.

The Service Prosecuting Authority is responsible for prosecuting all service offences before courts martial — military courts — for all three branches of the armed forces.

The inspectorate found that found that it was delivering a good service and producing good quality casework. Cases were prepared to a high standard and the right people were being prosecuted for the right offences.

Inspectors said that victims were updated at key stages of the prosecution, letters were generally of high quality and applications under the victims’ right to review scheme were dealt with correctly.

Some areas for improvement were identified and the inspectorate made seven recommendations. Five related to adopting best practice seen in the Crown Prosecution Service and the others dealt with improving disclosure practices and improving engagement with complainants.