header-logo header-logo

29 May 2008 / Seamus Burns
Issue: 7323 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

A life and death decision

Seamus Burns discusses the separation of powers' doctrine between the judiciary and the executive in the UK

The House of Lords' (HL) decision in R (on the application of Gentle and another) v Prime Minister and others [2008] All ER (D) 111 (Apr), [2008] UKHL 20, that the British government did not owe a duty to British troops and their families under Art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) to hold a public inquiry into whether it had obtained adequate prior legal advice on the legality in international law of the Iraq invasion, signals the reluctance of courts to subject the executive's decisions on matters of high public policy to forensic scrutiny and accountability, allied to the need to limit the potential scope and applicability of a key Convention Article.

Background

The appellants, Rose Gentle and Beverley Clarke, were the mothers of two British soldiers, both 19, who were killed serving in Iraq. Fusilier Gentle of the 1st Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers was

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll