header-logo header-logo

A brave new world at the Home Office?

25 January 2007
Issue: 7257 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

News

Speculation is mounting that the Home Office is to be split into separate justice and public protection functions.

Home Secretary John Reid, who declared the department “not fit for purpose” on taking office in May last year, has dropped several hints that radical change may be necessary. Reid’s reform plans are due to be debated by the cabinet next month, according to the BBC, and they are already provoking discussion among crime and immigration law specialists.
Paul Cavadino, chief executive of crime reduction charity Nacro, say there could be advantages in creating a separate justice ministry. “A Ministry of Justice could concentrate on reducing crime and running an effective penal system without being diverted by constant crises in security and immigration policy.

“There would also be an advantage in having two separate departmental budgets. For example, if the government suddenly decided to switch more resources into the immigration detention system, this would no longer put other parts of the Home Office budget at immediate risk,” he says.
Immigration barrister Doron Blum, of 1 Pump Court Chambers, says: “The Home Office is under-resourced, under-staffed and over-stretched. My hope for these plans would be that it means more resources.

“A few months ago, there were no presenting officers representing the Home Office in a quarter of cases at the [immigration] tribunal. People were leaving because of low pay. If it means there will be more resources and people will stay on so that presenting officers become more experienced then that is good. “My fear is it could lead to more bureaucracy. Things get lost in the Home Office as it is.”

However, the Home Office denies that plans to split the department into its separate functions exist. A spokesperson says: “No such proposal has been made. The Home Secretary has put in place a plan for the reform and transformation of the Home Office, and that is composed of three separate reviews into the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the criminal justice system and security capabilities.”

Issue: 7257 / 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