header-logo header-logo

Man on a mission

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

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

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