header-logo header-logo

30 May 2014 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7608 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Putting our leaders on trial

Impeachment is not an effective weapon by which to hold our leaders to account, says Geoffrey Bindman QC

The resignation of a cabinet minister following allegations of misconduct is an unusual event. Does our constitution have the means to hold our leaders to account?. In the case of Maria Miller MP, resignation seemed to remove the pressure for any further action. Yet no one talked about impeachment. This is the historic process by which the House of Commons could procure the trial of a senior public servant or government minister for “high crimes and misdemeanours”. Is it still relevant?

The last impeachment in England, in 1805, was of Viscount Melville, William Pitt’s former Home Secretary Henry Dundas. He was acquitted of misappropriating public funds. But the great legal historian Holdsworth thought in the 20th century that impeachment “might still be a useful weapon in the armoury of the constitution because it embodies the sound principle that ministers and officials should be made criminally liable for corruption, gross negligence or other misfeasances in the

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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll