header-logo header-logo

Truss in dock over Art 50 case uproar

10 November 2016
Issue: 7722 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

Lord Chancellor criticised for slow response to attacks on judicial independence

The Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss is facing mounting criticism for being slow to defend the independence of the judiciary, following an unprecedented media and political uproar over the Art 50 case.

National newspaper headlines attacked the three judges who ruled in the case, Santos and Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin), Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Terence Etherton, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Sales. Most notoriously, The Daily Mail branded the judges “enemies of the people” in a front-page headline.

By convention, judges cannot defend themselves from personal attacks. Instead, the Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to protect the independence of the judiciary.

However, Truss waited two days before issuing a statement that said: “The independence of the judiciary is the foundation upon which our rule of law is built and our judiciary is rightly respected the world over for its independence and impartiality.”

She has declined to comment on the issue further.

Some 17 QCs from One Crown Office Row have since written to Truss expressing dismay at her “inadequate defence” of the judges. They said: “The judges have been publicly accused of bias and in effect of breaking their judicial oath. The accusations have come not only from the press but from MPs.”

Conservative MPs are reported to have expressed “huge concern” to Truss about her handling of the criticism, at a private meeting this week. Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve described Truss’s response as “muted”.

Lord Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice, has also criticised her response. In an interview on BBC Newsnight , he said Truss had a “statutory obligation” to defend the judiciary and that he was disappointed that her response was “a little too late and not a lot”.

“To say you believe in independence of judges is fine but it doesn’t actually address why this matters at a particular time.”

The historic decision, which means MPs must be given a vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, is due to be heard by the Supreme Court next month, with a decision likely to be handed down in January.

Issue: 7722 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
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
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
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll