header-logo header-logo

Gove becomes Lord Chancellor

14 May 2015
Issue: 7652 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Legal profession awaits new Justice Secretary’s plans with bated breath

Lawyers are digesting the news that Michael Gove, who once called for the return of hanging, is the new Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary.

Writing in The Times as a columnist in 1998, Gove spoke in favour of hanging: “Were I ever alone in the dock…I would prefer a fair trial, under the shadow of the noose.”

More recently, Gove was demoted from education secretary in July last year in a bid to smooth relations with teachers and in the wake of an unfortunate public spat with Home Secretary Theresa May.

The Ministry of Justice is one of the unprotected government departments and could face further budget cuts.

Lawyers are also focused on the Conservative manifesto promise to repeal the Human Rights Act (HRA) and replace it with a Bill of Rights. Steve Hynes, director of the Legal Action Group, describes this task as “legally impossible”.

“It will still have to be applicable in Scotland and Northern Ireland because it’s written into the Devolution Agreement and Good Friday agreement, and possibly also in Wales, while in England they will try to turn the clock back to pre-HRA. Even if we repeal the Act, we have to be a Council member and signatory to the Convention to remain in the EU.

“If we leave the EU then we have a freer hand, but that won’t change the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We also have 17 years of jurisdiction on the HRA and the trend is for the courts to make decisions on it rather than refer up.”

John Bramhall, President of the London Solicitors Litigation Association (LSLA), congratulated Gove on his appointment: “We expect it will be another year or so before we can better assess the impact of measures such as increased court fees, which we fear will have particular impact on SMEs, given the disproportionate impact on claims in the £50,000-£200,000/£500,000 bracket.”

Gove is joined at the Ministry of Justice by Mike Penning (criminal justice), Edward Faulks (civil justice), Shailesh Vara (courts and legal aid), Andrew Selous (prisons), and Under-Secretaries of State Dominic Raab and Caroline Dinenage.

Issue: 7652 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll