On the “footnote on recusal”: it is important to note a distinction which is not clearly spelt out in Conor Casey’s Policy Exchange paper to which you link but, reading between the lines, he clearly accepts - and is plainly right.
That distinction is between a general question (“has the AG advised on issues where he has a conflict”) and a specific question (“has the AG advised/been asked to advise on issue X, where there seems to be a conflict”).
The problem Casey skates round is that at least one of the questions that he cites is a specific question (Jenrick’s “has the AG recused himself from advising on any matter involving Gerry Adams?”).
If the AG answered that positively (“yes I have recused myself”) he would in effect be disclosing that the Law Officers have been asked for advice on the Adams matter.
That would breach the convention (rightly accepted by Casey, for the reasons he gives) that the Law Officers do not say whether they have advised on any particular matter.
Could he reply: "I can't say whether or not I have recused myself in any specific case but if I am (or have been) asked to advise on Gerry Adams then I would recuse myself"?
Yes I suppose that that’s right (although I am not sure as a matter of fact whether he would be precluded from ever advising on anything to do with Adams just because he acted for him on one matter, so your formulation is probably too wide).
As a lifelong member of the British computer society, and also an accountant, may I suggest at all computer systems should be designed with an audit trail that may be followed. I cannot imagine why this safeguard was ever discontinued. John Wyborn.
Your opening paragraphs are an accurate summary of the position so far as they apply to the criminal law. The position in civil proceedings is more complicated. In 1992 my firm acted for the successful claimant in R v Coventry Justices, ex parte Bullard, a case concerning the admissibility of computer records said to show that the claimant had not paid the community charge (the poll tax) imposed by the local authority. At the time the Civil Evidence Act 1968, which contained provisions somewhat similar to those in PACE, did not apply to magistrates’ courts. The outcome was that the regulations relating to the evidence required to establish non-payment of the community charge were amended to allow local authorities to rely on computer records. Although the proceedings were civil in nature, detention in custody was the ultimate sanction for non-payment.
There is no such presumption of accuracy in council tax cases which is the most widely used court process where computer evidence is regularly adduced as critical evidence of a list of liable debtors and where the council computer manager can and does sometimes explicitly attest to the accuracy of the computer by way of a signed certificate of accuracy. If it is custom and practice in such a widely used type of case ( albeit in a civil capacity ) then it could be easily expanded to other types of cases.
On the “footnote on recusal”: it is important to note a distinction which is not clearly spelt out in Conor Casey’s Policy Exchange paper to which you link but, reading between the lines, he clearly accepts - and is plainly right.
That distinction is between a general question (“has the AG advised on issues where he has a conflict”) and a specific question (“has the AG advised/been asked to advise on issue X, where there seems to be a conflict”).
The problem Casey skates round is that at least one of the questions that he cites is a specific question (Jenrick’s “has the AG recused himself from advising on any matter involving Gerry Adams?”).
If the AG answered that positively (“yes I have recused myself”) he would in effect be disclosing that the Law Officers have been asked for advice on the Adams matter.
That would breach the convention (rightly accepted by Casey, for the reasons he gives) that the Law Officers do not say whether they have advised on any particular matter.
Yes, that's an important point. Thank you.
Could he reply: "I can't say whether or not I have recused myself in any specific case but if I am (or have been) asked to advise on Gerry Adams then I would recuse myself"?
Yes I suppose that that’s right (although I am not sure as a matter of fact whether he would be precluded from ever advising on anything to do with Adams just because he acted for him on one matter, so your formulation is probably too wide).
Yes, I agree. Thanks again.
As a lifelong member of the British computer society, and also an accountant, may I suggest at all computer systems should be designed with an audit trail that may be followed. I cannot imagine why this safeguard was ever discontinued. John Wyborn.
Seems a good idea. Was it cheaper not to bother?
Your opening paragraphs are an accurate summary of the position so far as they apply to the criminal law. The position in civil proceedings is more complicated. In 1992 my firm acted for the successful claimant in R v Coventry Justices, ex parte Bullard, a case concerning the admissibility of computer records said to show that the claimant had not paid the community charge (the poll tax) imposed by the local authority. At the time the Civil Evidence Act 1968, which contained provisions somewhat similar to those in PACE, did not apply to magistrates’ courts. The outcome was that the regulations relating to the evidence required to establish non-payment of the community charge were amended to allow local authorities to rely on computer records. Although the proceedings were civil in nature, detention in custody was the ultimate sanction for non-payment.
There is no such presumption of accuracy in council tax cases which is the most widely used court process where computer evidence is regularly adduced as critical evidence of a list of liable debtors and where the council computer manager can and does sometimes explicitly attest to the accuracy of the computer by way of a signed certificate of accuracy. If it is custom and practice in such a widely used type of case ( albeit in a civil capacity ) then it could be easily expanded to other types of cases.