Indeed: for an AG to enter into the public arena over the exercise of his powers, her/his utterances should follow the wise counsel that less is more. For him to have strayed into opining about and seemingly supporting government policy renders that constitutional anomaly Stephen Wooller identifies untenable.
To delve into -for me and many others- a still vivid historical example, the then AG ostensibly allowed Number 10 ‘s resolute direction of travel over the imminent and illegal invasion of Iraq to colour his second prototype opinion which served to assuage the reservations of -then Mr- Blair’s Cabinet. That Prime Minister had then been empowered to persuade MPs with reservations face to face and one on one to support him in his anxiety to stand shoulder to shoulder with Dubya in the unwise as well as illegal invasion.
There had been a sensible protocol or understanding that AGs should attend Cabinet meetings only where legal issues within her/his remit were on the agenda but Lord Goldsmith did appear to display an unseemly hankering to get in on the party political act.
And so now? How to ensure a return to that custom of a self denying ordinance?
Harking back for a moment to Sir Keir’s stance over Trump’s outlandish and counter productive enterprise in Iran, all credit to Sir K for refusing to “do a Blair”.
I served for nearly 18 years in the Attorney General's Chambers at a time when the boundaries between politics and criminal justice were properly understood and observed. At that time, there was no question of the Law officers requiring a SPAD (special political adviser). The role of AG requires the wearing of multiple hats and is something of a constitutional anomaly; discharging it successfully requires great skill, wise judgement integrity with the public interest always coming before political considerations (per Hartley Shawcross). That understanding seems to have been lost. It will be difficult to recover the position but the office of Attorney General can only endure in its present form unless that happens.
'Keep politics out of law'; as you say. Any government must, as you go on, keep an 'attorney general’s power to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal separate from politics'.
Oh yes, so important; and both of us speak as scribbler members of the law commentariat...
Hermer owes his appointment as AG to being a crony of Starmer. Given these justified criticisms Hermer should resign as AG immediately. If he does not go, Burnham must sack him
This is a damning judgment on the Attorney General. If Lord Hermer does not tender his resignation to Sir Keir Starmer, he must surely be replaced when Andy Burnham forms his government team on Monday.
I was surprised he made those comments .All he had to do was to opine that the sentences met the threshold for a Reference to the Appellate Court .He could and should have left it Starmer or other politicians to comment .It was in my view a fundamental error of judgement by the AG .His denial of knowledge of the level of threat to the trial judge despite acknowledging the temperature of broad public opinion is most disquieting .
Totally naive if he was personally responsible
Indeed: for an AG to enter into the public arena over the exercise of his powers, her/his utterances should follow the wise counsel that less is more. For him to have strayed into opining about and seemingly supporting government policy renders that constitutional anomaly Stephen Wooller identifies untenable.
To delve into -for me and many others- a still vivid historical example, the then AG ostensibly allowed Number 10 ‘s resolute direction of travel over the imminent and illegal invasion of Iraq to colour his second prototype opinion which served to assuage the reservations of -then Mr- Blair’s Cabinet. That Prime Minister had then been empowered to persuade MPs with reservations face to face and one on one to support him in his anxiety to stand shoulder to shoulder with Dubya in the unwise as well as illegal invasion.
There had been a sensible protocol or understanding that AGs should attend Cabinet meetings only where legal issues within her/his remit were on the agenda but Lord Goldsmith did appear to display an unseemly hankering to get in on the party political act.
And so now? How to ensure a return to that custom of a self denying ordinance?
Harking back for a moment to Sir Keir’s stance over Trump’s outlandish and counter productive enterprise in Iran, all credit to Sir K for refusing to “do a Blair”.
I served for nearly 18 years in the Attorney General's Chambers at a time when the boundaries between politics and criminal justice were properly understood and observed. At that time, there was no question of the Law officers requiring a SPAD (special political adviser). The role of AG requires the wearing of multiple hats and is something of a constitutional anomaly; discharging it successfully requires great skill, wise judgement integrity with the public interest always coming before political considerations (per Hartley Shawcross). That understanding seems to have been lost. It will be difficult to recover the position but the office of Attorney General can only endure in its present form unless that happens.
'Keep politics out of law'; as you say. Any government must, as you go on, keep an 'attorney general’s power to refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal separate from politics'.
Oh yes, so important; and both of us speak as scribbler members of the law commentariat...
Hermer owes his appointment as AG to being a crony of Starmer. Given these justified criticisms Hermer should resign as AG immediately. If he does not go, Burnham must sack him
Thank you Joshua for an informative analysis and balanced commentary ;excellent .
This is a damning judgment on the Attorney General. If Lord Hermer does not tender his resignation to Sir Keir Starmer, he must surely be replaced when Andy Burnham forms his government team on Monday.
I was surprised he made those comments .All he had to do was to opine that the sentences met the threshold for a Reference to the Appellate Court .He could and should have left it Starmer or other politicians to comment .It was in my view a fundamental error of judgement by the AG .His denial of knowledge of the level of threat to the trial judge despite acknowledging the temperature of broad public opinion is most disquieting .