header-logo header-logo

Abuse inquiry controversy

05 November 2014
Issue: 7629 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Will Home Office take opportunity to “clear the slate”?

A judicial review action over the child sexual abuse inquiry is to continue despite Fiona Woolf’s resignation as chair.

A survivor of the abuse applied for judicial review of the home secretary’s decisions in relation to the inquiry last month. The action continues, and legal advice is that nothing in the past week—Woolf’s resignation and a further statement from the home secretary in the House of Commons—alters the bases of the claim. The bases are: failure in a timely way, or at all, properly to consider the impartiality and relevant experience of the chair and panel members; failure to consult—as common law and fairness demands—with survivors and their representative groups as to decisions on terms of reference, and panel and chair of the inquiry; and irrationality in failing to appoint a statutory inquiry (the present format remains discretionary).

The Home Office had appointed Woolf, a corporate lawyer and Lord Mayor of London, to chair the inquiry in September. She resigned over her links with former Home Secretary Lord Brittan. She had replaced Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who resigned because her brother Lord Havers had been Attorney-General at the time of the allegations. 

David Burrows, solicitor advocate with The Family Law Co, Exeter, who acts for the survivor and judicial review applicant, says: “The Home Office has a chance now to clear the slate; to look at everything again in the light of a real consultation exercise. This is what our client wants.

“As Lord Carlile, among others, has suggested, the home secretary can invite the lord chief justice to recommend to her a senior judge with appropriate experience. She can make the inquiry fully statutory; and leave the judge to appoint expert assessors or to rely on expert evidence as he or she sees fit.”

 

Issue: 7629 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll