Bar Council and judiciary to take action on bullying from the bench – Legal Futures

Posted August 6th, 2021 in barristers, bullying, codes of practice, judiciary, news by tracey

‘The Bar Council recently met with the senior judiciary in a bid to ensure there are proper consequences for judges who bully barristers.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 6th August 2021

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Tom Hickman QC: Quashing Orders and the Judicial Review and Courts Act – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Despite commissioning a wide-ranging review of administrative law, the Judicial Review and Courts Bill 2021, unveiled this week, does not include restrictions on judicial review that many had feared. Indeed, it says relatively little about judicial review.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th July 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Judicial review: Plan to reform scrutiny by courts revealed – BBC News

‘The government is pressing ahead with plans to limit how the public can legally challenge official decisions, despite fears it will damage justice.’

Full Story

BBC News, 21st July 2021

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Tory MPs suspended for trying to influence judge in Elphicke case – The Guardian

‘Several Conservative MPs will be suspended from the Commons for a day and told to apologise for trying to influence a judge presiding over the trial of a colleague for sexual assault, the standards committee has ordered.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 21st July 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Lammy hits out at “absolute scandal” of judicial diversity – Legal Futures

Posted July 16th, 2021 in barristers, diversity, judiciary, news, solicitors, statistics by tracey

‘It is an “absolute scandal” that just 1% of judges are Black, the shadow Lord Chancellor has declared in the wake of figures that showed a decline in the number of solicitors on the bench too.’

Full Story

Legal Futures, 16th July 2021

Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk

Judicial diversity goes into reverse as barristers dominate – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted July 16th, 2021 in barristers, diversity, judiciary, legal profession, news, solicitors, statistics by tracey

‘Latest diversity statistics show once again a judiciary dominated by barristers – with the number of non-barristers in post lower than it was in 2014.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 15th July 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

NEWS ‘Crying in court’: Bar Council urges action on judicial bullying – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted July 2nd, 2021 in barristers, bullying, courts, diversity, equality, judges, judiciary, news by tracey

‘The Bar Council has encouraged barristers to speak up about judicial bullying, following an anecdotal rise in judges making lawyers cry in court. The representative body is due to meet with the judiciary’s equality and diversity lead this week to discuss the types of incidents involving judges that get reported and the impact they have on barristers.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 2nd July 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

‘Have confidence to speak up’: whistleblowing policy for judges unveiled – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 25th, 2021 in codes of practice, judges, judiciary, news, whistleblowers by tracey

‘The lord chief justice and senior president of tribunals want all judges to feel confident to speak up about any wrongdoing, according to a new whistleblowing policy unveiled this week. The 12-page Judicial Whistleblowing Policy: How to report wrongdoing document was published on the judicial intranet on Wednesday.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 25th June 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

European Court of Human Rights orders UK Government to pay €84k to social worker criticised by Family Court judge – Local Government Lawyer

‘The European Court of Human Rights has ordered the Government to pay €24,000 for non-pecuniary damage and €60,000 in legal costs to a social worker who was accused of professional misconduct by a Family Court judge in the course of a fact-finding hearing.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 23rd June 2021

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

2005 Constitutional Reform Act up for review – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The government intends to revisit the role of lord chancellor as part of a ‘careful review’ of the Blair administration’s 2005 Constitutional Reform Act, current incumbent Robert Buckland QC MP has revealed.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 14th June 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Plans to restrict judicial review weaken the rule of law, MPs warn – The Guardian

Posted June 3rd, 2021 in bills, consultations, judicial review, judiciary, news, rule of law by sally

‘Proposals to restrict judicial review are an affront to the principles of fairness and government accountability and should be dropped, a cross-party group of MPs and peers has said.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 2nd June 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Nicholas Reed Langen: Confronting Climate Change in the Courts – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Talk is cheap. Governments, particularly wealthy, western ones, have been quick to make promises on climate change. They swear blind that they understand the threat the world faces, and that they will implement a policy response commensurate with it. Few nations have adopted this rhetoric as determinedly as the UK, with the British government promising to transform the UK into a net-zero country by 2050, an oath enshrined in law through the passing of the Climate Change Act 2008 (Order 2019) by Parliament in the summer of 2019.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 27th April 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Judges call for probe of discrimination in the judiciary – Litigation Futures

‘A group of serving judges has called on the justice select committee to conduct a “wholly independent audit” of discrimination in the judiciary.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 26th April 2021

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Tim Sayer: Preserving Judicial Oversight: An Appeal to Self-Interest – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Boris Johnson’s government takes the view that ours is a time of judicial overreach, necessitating redress in terms of the balance of judicial and executive power. This seems to have been driven by a number of high-profile cases, certain vocal thinktanks which appear to have the ear of government, and a wider constitutional prospectus of enhancing executive power to the detriment of the other branches of state. An endless series of projects and proposals have emerged, designed to remedy the perception of an overmighty judiciary. The Independent Review of Administrative Law, established with a view to curbing the perceived excesses of judicial review, reported recently in relatively tame terms, only to be swiftly followed by a further set of proposals. The Independent Human Rights Act Review potentially paves the way for satiation of long-held Conservative fantasies of amending the Human Rights Act. There are also, if leaks are to be believed, proposals to reform the UK Supreme Court.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 21st April 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

UK supreme court gets second female judge as Lady Justice Rose joins – The Guardian

Posted April 20th, 2021 in diversity, judges, judiciary, news, Supreme Court, women by sally

‘Lady Justice Rose has joined the supreme court, doubling the number of female justices in the UK’s highest court in an appointment that has failed to quell concerns about lack of diversity.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 19th April 2021

Source: www.theguardian.com

Joe Tomlinson and Alison Pickup: Putting the Cart before the horse? The Confused Empirical Basis for Reform of Cart Judicial Reviews – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘The Independent Review of Administrative Law has now reported. For a review process that was unnecessarily quick, the Expert Panel, led by Lord Faulks QC, has produced a substantial and detailed analysis. The Report has rightly drawn broad support from across the political spectrum—even if the Government’s support for the report has been accompanied by a new consultation which departs from the Report’s findings on various important points. No doubt, the focus will now shift to the new consultation. However, in this post we want to respectfully take issue with one of the firm conclusions of the Panel: that Cart judicial reviews ought to be discontinued on the basis they are a disproportionate use of judicial resource.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 29th March 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Florence Powell and Stephanie Needleman: How radical an instrument is Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998? – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘The operation of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the “HRA”) is currently being reviewed by the Government’s Independent Human Rights Act Review (the “Review”). One of the Review’s key themes is “the impact of the HRA on the relationship between the judiciary, the executive and the legislature”. In respect of this theme, the Terms of Reference ask how s.3 has operated and whether it should be amended or repealed.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th March 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Ministry of Justice to consult on judicial review reforms including power to suspend quashing orders, removal of ‘Cart judgments’, and procedural changes – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on giving the courts the power to suspend quashing orders, removing so-called “Cart judgments”, and introducing a series of changes to civil procedure rules, following recommendations by the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) led by Lord Faulks QC.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 19th March 2021

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Michael Foran: Shamima Begum, the Separation of Powers, and the Common Good – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘The Supreme Court has come under significant criticism for its handling of the Shamima Begum case, decided on 26 February. Much has already been said in relation to the deference that the court showed to the executive, with some arguing that it was improper or even a complete abdication of the judicial role itself. This post seeks to clarify what precisely the court did and did not do in relation to the exercise of its constitutional duty to review the legality of executive action. It will suggest that the Court did not engage in any strong deference as to the nature of Begum’s rights nor to the balance to be struck between those rights and the common good. Such questions remained wholly within the purview of the Court. While the Court did pay due respect to the executive’s authority to determine and pursue the common good, this was subject to an assessment of lawfulness. Any deference, if it can even be called deference, was to the rule of law, given both the statutory scheme in question and the common law distinction between review and appeal. The determination of the scope of individual rights entails an exercise of judicial interpretation which seeks to strike an appropriate balance between the applicable legal considerations. It is not deference for the court to include constitutional principles such as the separation of powers within those considerations.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th March 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Daniella Lock: The Shamima Begum Case: Difficulties with ‘democratic accountability’ as a justification for judicial deference in the national security context – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘No doubt much will be written on the Supreme Court’s Shamima Begum ruling handed down on 26 February. The ruling has a number of notable features. In particular, a high level of deference was afforded to the executive which seems to contrast with the Supreme Court’s approach in high profile constitutional cases of recent years (such as, for example, in the Miller cases). A key feature of this deference is that it is offered in a national security context, where judicial deference has often played a role. This deference is partly justified by the Court on the grounds that Ministers are democratically accountable for national security decisions. However, as this post argues, the extent to which democratic accountability is a legitimate ground for judicial deference to national security decisions is questionable in light of current UK practice. This post raises three difficulties with relying on democratic accountability as a ground for deference in the UK national security context.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th March 2021

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org