header-logo header-logo

20 February 2015 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7641 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Battle of the giants

Geoffrey Bindman QC analyses a judicial confrontation

When two senior judges cross swords over a fundamental constitutional question we sit up and take notice. The judges are Dean Spielmann, president of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and Lord Judge, recently retired Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. The question is whether decisions and opinions of the Strasbourg Court override or “trump” the authority of the UK Parliament. It is particularly significant because the prime minister has declared that if his party is elected to government in May it will seek to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and remove any binding effect on the UK of rulings of the Court of Human Rights. The promise is to “end the ability of the European Court to change British laws”. In its press release announcing this policy, the Conservative party quotes Lord Judge, implying his support for its proposals.

Criticisms

Judge Spielmann in “A View from Strasbourg” (Counsel, April 2014), defends his court against these criticisms. In particular

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll