header-logo header-logo

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

Truss in dock over Art 50 case uproar

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll