header-logo header-logo

Trump’s impeachment: all for show?

03 March 2021 / David Locke
Issue: 7923 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
41408
David Locke draws comparisons between the governments of the US and UK in their recent frivolous approaches to serious legal matters

The recent trial in the US Senate was a stage production more reminiscent of an English pantomime than a Broadway show. With all its synthetic rage and posturing, it had a little bit of ‘Punch and Judy’ about it. Yet these were quasi-criminal proceedings of the gravest constitutional significance, which could have resulted in a conviction with significant penalties, albeit not penal in nature.

The government in the UK has co-opted its own criminal code to indulge in a spot of grandstanding to grab some headlines, announcing a ten-year maximum sentence for travellers failing to declare having visited a ‘red-flag’ country. If the aim of securing compliance with COVID-19 quarantine laws is laudable, the execution is poor and condemnation has been stern. They might as well have announced a 100-year term for all the chance of any sentencing judge paying the slightest bit of attention.

The parallel between the jurisdictions

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll