header-logo header-logo

03 March 2021 / David Locke
Issue: 7923 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Trump’s impeachment: all for show?

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll