header-logo header-logo

A plea for clarity on post-Brexit legal system

29 November 2018
Issue: 7820 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Bob Neill MP, the chair of the Justice Committee has written to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) expressing ‘serious concerns’ about the lack of clarity on the justice system in the Brexit post-transition period.

In a letter to Justice minister Lucy Frazer QC this week, Neill said the MoJ has provided ‘little detail or certainty’ about how civil judicial co-operation will be achieved from 1 January 2021, after the transition period ends.

The draft Political Declaration states that ‘the parties will explore options for judicial co-operation in matrimonial, parental responsibility and other related matters’. Neill said: ‘So broad and unspecific a statement provides little comfort.’

Moreover, Neill said the committee was ‘disappointed with progress to date’ on maintaining co-operation on criminal justice and concerned that the loss of access to the European Arrest Warrant, European Criminal Records Information System and Schengen Information System II would have ‘serious downstream consequences. It would impact on time in court, costs in court and the ability to bring justice to bear on criminals’.

There was a lack of clarity on the status of the European Court of Justice, and on jurisdiction and enforceability of judgments after Brexit, and the impact on contractual continuity, he said. He expressed disappointment at the decision not to issue a No Deal technical notice relating to criminal justice measures.

The Justice Committee heard evidence in October from the heads of the Bar Council and Law Society and an expert in finance and capital markets from Clifford Chance.

Neill said: ‘Evidence we heard during our inquiry and our recent session made the serious impact of this lack of clarity absolutely clear.

‘While I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances we received when she gave evidence last month, significant questions remain, putting the global reputation of our legal services sector, its 300,000 jobs and £26bn contribution to our economy at risk. I hope these issues are given a high priority, and in view of the seriousness of the potential impact, have requested a swift response by 10 December 10—before the meaningful vote in Parliament.’

Issue: 7820 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
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