header-logo header-logo

03 November 2011 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7488 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Man on a mission

HLE blogger Simon Hetherington anticipates the attorney general's address to the ECtHR on the question of prisoners' voting rights

"Dominic Grieve QC, the attorney general is, no doubt, a skilled advocate. The letters after his name suggest as much, and the position he has reached in public life endorses that suggestion. Such, presumably, is the skill he will take with him to address the European Court of Human Rights on the question of prisoners’ voting rights, arising in an Italian case.

This is an issue on which the government (or at least the dominant coalition partner) feels fairly strongly. In brief, the court has seemed to think that prisoners should have the right to vote; the government thinks not, and is looking for the least degree of compliance that it can get away with. In Grieve’s own words, “we need clarity”—though it is unclear quite what is unclear.

We know the gist of what Grieve will say, because he very helpfully outlined his argument in a speech reported in The Guardian last week. Presumably he does not mind that other participants in the proceedings may have the advantage provided by prior knowledge of his case. But would it be cynical to wonder whether the occasion is a platform for a home-facing speech rather than a full-on attempt to limit the direct power of the court? The government is just now a little sensitive on matters European and has the difficult task of trying to please everyone at the same time.

The attorney general will be talking about “subsidiarity”, and seeking to argue that the court should not spend time on matters which can be and have been fully explored at national level. This is a view that has been expressed recently by the justice secretary, Ken Clarke; and it is a main plank of the independent review commissioned by the government in advance of the UK’s presidency of the Council of Europe.

It is a powerful point and should be listened to. True, it is being urged by a government that wishes to repeal the Human Rights Act (which is for all its faults a means by which subsidiarity can be sustained so long as the court in Strasbourg gives it adequate notice). But that government has never said that it wishes to resile from the Convention…”

Continue reading at www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Issue: 7488 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll