header-logo header-logo

28 March 2025 / Roger Smith
Issue: 8110 / Categories: Opinion , Rule of law
printer mail-detail

The lecture that never was?

212908
What is the point of a state adhering to the rule of law if it doesn’t talk about it? Roger Smith ponders a mysterious cancellation

Let’s begin with what might—or might not—be a mystery. Lord Hermer, the Attorney General (AG), was advertised as giving the Miriam Rothschild Memorial Lecture on the subject ‘What has the rule of law ever done for us?’ in mid-March. Good title. Surely nothing out of order there. But this broad topic was rapidly cut back to the much more limited ‘The rule of law and the government’s missions’ (there were five: could you name them?), and then, just as abruptly, was cancelled. Regrettably, it was said that the AG was ‘likely to be abroad’.

So, what is to be seen here? The usual exigencies of government, or something more interesting?

Personal commitment

Lord Hermer’s personal commitment to the rule of law cannot be questioned. He is a veteran of Geoffrey Robertson’s Doughty Street Chambers and a former head of Matrix—from which he was plucked by

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll