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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll