I am also grateful for your usual clear and informative analysis of important events. I entirely agree with those who express disappointment with such a distinguished lawyer’s response to this. He really should have known better. Sadly, however, in my experience of lawyers turned politicians, it is so often the case that they seem to shed their legal training like an old, unwanted and unnecessary skin when they make the transition.
That the Telegraph and Mail are attempting once again to represent judges as "enemies of the people" is entirely unsurpising, as is Badenoch eagerly jumping on their bandwaggon. But for Starmer, a human rights lawyer and former DPP, to join in nothing less than deplorable and despicable.
I think that ship sailed some time ago, particularly after Truss refused to defend the judiciary when LC. The biography of her (which started out as semi-authorised until she self-destructed) by Harry Cole and James Heale is very clear about how this happened and why. That tradition has been continued. The idea that the duty in the CRA 2005 was ever going to be treated seriously seemed to me at the time to be remarkably naive.
I'm also not 100% sure that Baroness Hill is correct. She is correct to say that the LOTO and the PM should not have presented a case using the wrong facts, but again there's quite a lot of precedent here, including Theresa May's false allegation about not deporting someone due to them having a cat.
The UK constitution is an ever-evolving system and I don't believe it's ever been the case that judges could not be criticised. They are not supposed to talk about live cases (and certainly not in a distorted way), but judicial criticism by MPs, both in and out of Parliament, has occurred for many years, including when Parliament has chosen to overrule a decision of the courts. The soundbite politics that now exists on both sides of the Atlantic has shown that they are prepared to more readily attack judges for doing their job. In the past, previous LCJs have noted that it is an unfortunate side-effect of judicial office. I don't think anything Baroness Carr has said here will alter that. You can't stuff the genie back in the bottle.
It has certainly never been case that judges cannot be criticised. Any law student knows that legal scholars and legal practitioners often roundly criticise judge’s decisions. What is different is the ignorant and ill-informed comment that is published in the press and taken as gospel even by those, like the PM, who should know better
Whilst I agree that the PM has to think on his feet when answering supplementary questions from the LOTO, he had ample time to properly consider her initial question and Joshua’s clear and simple explanation that, ultimately, this was nothing to do with the Ukrainian scheme and everything to do with the very precious Article 8, is something I would have expected a former expert human rights lawyer to have understood. His initial answer therefore to Badenoch’s banal first question could have been much more powerful if he had merely pointed out that she should not believe everything she reads in the Mail and Telegraph!
Of course the PM has to ‘think on his feet’. Don’t advocates have to do this as a matter of course? The PM’s oft-praised forensic skills seem to have been overstated
I agree with Joshua’s appraisal and also with Andrew and Lesley. The Baroness is -rightly- telling both the LOTO and Sir K,” Take your tanks off our (= the judiciary’s ) lawn. The separation of the powers especially in this context is no trite, untroubled re-assertion of a secure and unassailable principle. It is to be guarded constantly and NEVER to be taken for granted. I am on this occasion disappointed in a PM I wish very much to support since after all I have always preferred to believe that, once a human rights lawyer, always at heart a human rights warrior. This outlook ought to apply to every citizen and ill informed or under informed utterances should be called out as such. It goes without saying as I hope that that should certainly be the case with “shock job” deliberate distortions. Bravissima, Baroness Carr.
Superbly insightful Joshua. I take the view that given the PM preps for PMQs all morning after his 0830 Quad meeting with the DPM, Chancellors Exchequer & Lancaster, I'm surprised he was not better prepared to give the answer to the LOTO (leader of the opposition) question. However, the PM has to think on his feet and I detect that he is still unsteady on them. He still refers to the LOTO as 'she' rather than protocol of The Rt.Hon Lady which I think is deliberately done and the Speaker doesn't correct him. Hence rather than say, HMG respects the independence of the judiciary I'll study the judgement & write to the Rt.Hon Lady' he doesn't want 2b outflanked by the LOTO on immigration hence resorts to base language his goto mode.
I really hope this clear explanation of the facts gets wider traction. The initial media reporting has focussed on the Ukrainian scheme, but I now understand how irrelevant that is. Is the government seeking to close an exceptional circumstances loophole? Or rather, provide an appropriate form for that option?
Starmer’s response is astonishing. No only is a KC but he has the resources of the GLS to give him an adequate briefing.
I am also grateful for your usual clear and informative analysis of important events. I entirely agree with those who express disappointment with such a distinguished lawyer’s response to this. He really should have known better. Sadly, however, in my experience of lawyers turned politicians, it is so often the case that they seem to shed their legal training like an old, unwanted and unnecessary skin when they make the transition.
That the Telegraph and Mail are attempting once again to represent judges as "enemies of the people" is entirely unsurpising, as is Badenoch eagerly jumping on their bandwaggon. But for Starmer, a human rights lawyer and former DPP, to join in nothing less than deplorable and despicable.
I think that ship sailed some time ago, particularly after Truss refused to defend the judiciary when LC. The biography of her (which started out as semi-authorised until she self-destructed) by Harry Cole and James Heale is very clear about how this happened and why. That tradition has been continued. The idea that the duty in the CRA 2005 was ever going to be treated seriously seemed to me at the time to be remarkably naive.
I'm also not 100% sure that Baroness Hill is correct. She is correct to say that the LOTO and the PM should not have presented a case using the wrong facts, but again there's quite a lot of precedent here, including Theresa May's false allegation about not deporting someone due to them having a cat.
The UK constitution is an ever-evolving system and I don't believe it's ever been the case that judges could not be criticised. They are not supposed to talk about live cases (and certainly not in a distorted way), but judicial criticism by MPs, both in and out of Parliament, has occurred for many years, including when Parliament has chosen to overrule a decision of the courts. The soundbite politics that now exists on both sides of the Atlantic has shown that they are prepared to more readily attack judges for doing their job. In the past, previous LCJs have noted that it is an unfortunate side-effect of judicial office. I don't think anything Baroness Carr has said here will alter that. You can't stuff the genie back in the bottle.
It has certainly never been case that judges cannot be criticised. Any law student knows that legal scholars and legal practitioners often roundly criticise judge’s decisions. What is different is the ignorant and ill-informed comment that is published in the press and taken as gospel even by those, like the PM, who should know better
Whilst I agree that the PM has to think on his feet when answering supplementary questions from the LOTO, he had ample time to properly consider her initial question and Joshua’s clear and simple explanation that, ultimately, this was nothing to do with the Ukrainian scheme and everything to do with the very precious Article 8, is something I would have expected a former expert human rights lawyer to have understood. His initial answer therefore to Badenoch’s banal first question could have been much more powerful if he had merely pointed out that she should not believe everything she reads in the Mail and Telegraph!
Of course the PM has to ‘think on his feet’. Don’t advocates have to do this as a matter of course? The PM’s oft-praised forensic skills seem to have been overstated
I agree with Joshua’s appraisal and also with Andrew and Lesley. The Baroness is -rightly- telling both the LOTO and Sir K,” Take your tanks off our (= the judiciary’s ) lawn. The separation of the powers especially in this context is no trite, untroubled re-assertion of a secure and unassailable principle. It is to be guarded constantly and NEVER to be taken for granted. I am on this occasion disappointed in a PM I wish very much to support since after all I have always preferred to believe that, once a human rights lawyer, always at heart a human rights warrior. This outlook ought to apply to every citizen and ill informed or under informed utterances should be called out as such. It goes without saying as I hope that that should certainly be the case with “shock job” deliberate distortions. Bravissima, Baroness Carr.
Superbly insightful Joshua. I take the view that given the PM preps for PMQs all morning after his 0830 Quad meeting with the DPM, Chancellors Exchequer & Lancaster, I'm surprised he was not better prepared to give the answer to the LOTO (leader of the opposition) question. However, the PM has to think on his feet and I detect that he is still unsteady on them. He still refers to the LOTO as 'she' rather than protocol of The Rt.Hon Lady which I think is deliberately done and the Speaker doesn't correct him. Hence rather than say, HMG respects the independence of the judiciary I'll study the judgement & write to the Rt.Hon Lady' he doesn't want 2b outflanked by the LOTO on immigration hence resorts to base language his goto mode.
I really hope this clear explanation of the facts gets wider traction. The initial media reporting has focussed on the Ukrainian scheme, but I now understand how irrelevant that is. Is the government seeking to close an exceptional circumstances loophole? Or rather, provide an appropriate form for that option?
It;s not clear, to me at least, what the government is seeking to do.