I was there in the Portcullis House section of the Commons, as Susan Carr the LCJ gave her evidence to the newly formed Justice Select Committee for this term of Parliament. I listened for two and a half hours of mush! Yes mush, the LCJ can do nothing, sorry nothing, the government isn't minded to give anyone sitting days funding than they've already got. They the Judiciary will have to manage within existing resources. The MoJ is about prison building & enjoying the mathematics of managing a big land estate. Courts may be empty but the prisons are not. The Justice Select Committees will produce a fab report however I can telll you now, the MoJ establishment & higher government ie Treasury & No10 will ignore it.
Your piece started off as being about the Rule of Law (RoL) & the threats presented by insufficient funding of our system of justice. It then - swiftly, & at length (assuming your readers sensibly read the linked information), became a piece about David Wolfson’s criticism of the current AG’s response (or lack of) to his assertions on the position in International law about the possible effect of the ICC arrest warrants against participating officials in the war in Israel/Gaza.
Does David believe that the RoL can only reinforce whatever position the *current administration* desires or does he accept that these matters can only properly be decided by the court empanelled to decide that issue - the separation of powers? If the latter perhaps he might spend his time more effectively ensuring the ICC receives sufficient proportion of their funding from the UK to carry out their duties efficiently?
*France will respect its international obligations, it being understood that the Rome Statute requires full cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and also provides that a State may not be required to act in a manner incompatible with its obligations under international law with regard to the immunities of States not parties to the ICC. Such immunities apply to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the other ministers concerned and should be taken into consideration if the ICC were to request their arrest and surrender.
In accordance with the historical friendship that binds France to Israel, two democracies committed to the rule of law and respect for professional and independent justice, France intends to continue to work closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli authorities to achieve peace and security for all in the Middle East.*
As a (now non-practising) criminal defence solicitor and higher court advocate, I can speak with authority about the -often torrid- dilemma of enforced “white heat” preparation for trials on a relentless and punishing schedule. With overnight arrests and first appearances in Magistrates’ Courts, time and other pressures were - generally speaking- unavoidable and dealing with earlier aspects of cases (bail, sentencing and the like) were a necessary adjunct to defence practice but double or treble stacked trial Courts in the Petty Sessional context had meant multiple preparation time overnight or -frankly- busking it. However, long before I had ceased to practise, heavy sentencing exercises and short trials would very often be thrown in up to the early evening for the following day as-for example- “floaters”, with no numbered Court allocated in the hope of their finding a “home” somewhere rather than being put off to another day. It was exhausting and demanding of a commitment that ate deeply into what ought to have been our personal, meal or “growing children” time. Did I mention sleeping time? I am sure that it is MUCH worse now and I honour and applaud Baroness Carr for forcefully and in clear telling it how it is. The tensions over the concordat are no surprise to me but the rule of law is and must remain a pearl beyond price where that concept and its delivery as things stand can scarcely continue to be achieved by yet further heroic and selfless work from all cjs agencies on some kind of bean counting continuum. This is the Cinderella service and whenever it should come to financial stringency the soft underbelly of all of the CARING public services. That HAS to stop. The practice of “poor and disabled people “ law is a vocation and to fight for their inalienable rights and for both domestic and international human rights an irreducible duty- and honour.
I was there in the Portcullis House section of the Commons, as Susan Carr the LCJ gave her evidence to the newly formed Justice Select Committee for this term of Parliament. I listened for two and a half hours of mush! Yes mush, the LCJ can do nothing, sorry nothing, the government isn't minded to give anyone sitting days funding than they've already got. They the Judiciary will have to manage within existing resources. The MoJ is about prison building & enjoying the mathematics of managing a big land estate. Courts may be empty but the prisons are not. The Justice Select Committees will produce a fab report however I can telll you now, the MoJ establishment & higher government ie Treasury & No10 will ignore it.
Your piece started off as being about the Rule of Law (RoL) & the threats presented by insufficient funding of our system of justice. It then - swiftly, & at length (assuming your readers sensibly read the linked information), became a piece about David Wolfson’s criticism of the current AG’s response (or lack of) to his assertions on the position in International law about the possible effect of the ICC arrest warrants against participating officials in the war in Israel/Gaza.
Does David believe that the RoL can only reinforce whatever position the *current administration* desires or does he accept that these matters can only properly be decided by the court empanelled to decide that issue - the separation of powers? If the latter perhaps he might spend his time more effectively ensuring the ICC receives sufficient proportion of their funding from the UK to carry out their duties efficiently?
I’d be interested to know how the ICC is funded?
The ICC is funded by its states parties.
… we wouldn’t do that without good reason - would we? I mean they can’t just be some *kangaroo court* where the Rule of law doesn’t apply - can it?
France has *taken a view*👇🏻
*France will respect its international obligations, it being understood that the Rome Statute requires full cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and also provides that a State may not be required to act in a manner incompatible with its obligations under international law with regard to the immunities of States not parties to the ICC. Such immunities apply to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the other ministers concerned and should be taken into consideration if the ICC were to request their arrest and surrender.
In accordance with the historical friendship that binds France to Israel, two democracies committed to the rule of law and respect for professional and independent justice, France intends to continue to work closely with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli authorities to achieve peace and security for all in the Middle East.*
https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/dossiers-pays/israel-territoires-palestiniens/article/israel-cour-penale-internationale-27-11-24
Thanks for this.
Perhaps you, Joshua, might find this link interesting… when I saw it I thought of this topic 🤞🏻❤️👇🏻
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPv8157739I
There is a cost to maintaining standards which has been lacking and wherever there is an opportunity to make savings it has been taken.
As a (now non-practising) criminal defence solicitor and higher court advocate, I can speak with authority about the -often torrid- dilemma of enforced “white heat” preparation for trials on a relentless and punishing schedule. With overnight arrests and first appearances in Magistrates’ Courts, time and other pressures were - generally speaking- unavoidable and dealing with earlier aspects of cases (bail, sentencing and the like) were a necessary adjunct to defence practice but double or treble stacked trial Courts in the Petty Sessional context had meant multiple preparation time overnight or -frankly- busking it. However, long before I had ceased to practise, heavy sentencing exercises and short trials would very often be thrown in up to the early evening for the following day as-for example- “floaters”, with no numbered Court allocated in the hope of their finding a “home” somewhere rather than being put off to another day. It was exhausting and demanding of a commitment that ate deeply into what ought to have been our personal, meal or “growing children” time. Did I mention sleeping time? I am sure that it is MUCH worse now and I honour and applaud Baroness Carr for forcefully and in clear telling it how it is. The tensions over the concordat are no surprise to me but the rule of law is and must remain a pearl beyond price where that concept and its delivery as things stand can scarcely continue to be achieved by yet further heroic and selfless work from all cjs agencies on some kind of bean counting continuum. This is the Cinderella service and whenever it should come to financial stringency the soft underbelly of all of the CARING public services. That HAS to stop. The practice of “poor and disabled people “ law is a vocation and to fight for their inalienable rights and for both domestic and international human rights an irreducible duty- and honour.