European Union accession to the European Convention on Human Rights


Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union states that the Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.  Art 6(3) of the Treaty states that fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union's law.

At present, Art 6(3) operates to make the rights in the E Conv HR general principles of EU law.   This is reflective of what occurred through the influence of the European Court of Justice - now the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).  A useful analysis of how the court has embraced human rights may be read at  Human Rights and the European Court of Justice - Elizabeth Defeis, Fordham Journal of International Law 2007 Vol 31 Article 2.

Art 6(2) will take matters further by making the EU itself a signatory to the E Conv HR.  
Since the Lisbon Treaty (in force 1st December 2009) there have been negotiations regarding the implementation of Art 6(2) and the outcome is a Draft agreement on accession to the European Convention  - (pdf 35 pages).   In fact, there is a package of documents: the draft agreement; a draft declaration by the EU; a draft rule to be added to the rules of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers relating to the supervision and execution of judgments and the terms of friendly settlements to which the EU is a party; a draft Memorandum of Understanding and an Explanatory report.  The verbose Explanatory material commences on Page 16 (Annex V) of the draft documentation.

Further steps have been recommended before accession of the EU to the convention can take place.  These include obtaining an opinion of the Court of Justice of the EU on the compatibility of the draft agreement with the EU Treaties and, secondly, that the Council of the EU adopt unanimously the decision authorising signature of the Accession Agreement.  

On the UK Human Rights Blog (8th April) David Hart QC looked at - How the ECtHR is indeed going to watch the EU.  Hart points out that an individual applicant will be able to take the EU (as well as a Convention country) to the ECtHR arguing infringement, by the EU, of the applicants human rights.  Furthermore, the EU may become a party, where the alleged violation in the case calls into question the compatibility of an EU law with a Convention right.  Hence, it will be Strasbourg which has the final say on the compatibility with the Convention of EU actions.

Clearly, this raises the possibility of conflict between the ECtHR and the CJEU - possibly a lucrative fountain for lawyers who practise at this level.  The draft agreement contains some provisions aimed at addressing such conflicts - should they arise.  In essence, the CJEU will be given the opportunity to give judgment first on the compatibility of the EU law with the ECHR.  The CJEU's opinion will not bind the ECtHR.

This is a subject to which we shall doubtless return.   If unanimity is required, one wonders whether the UK government will be all that keen to agree given (a) the anti-European Convention and anti-EU rhetoric from some senior Ministers and (b) the likely timescale and costs inherent in the process if a case is to go from the CJEU at Luxembourg to the ECtHR at Strasbourg.   Other useful links are:

Council of Europe - Reasons for EU accession to the Convention

ECHR Blog - Accession of EU to ECHR Draft agreement: Finally Finalised 

European Judicial Training Network -EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights
Francoise Tulkens 1st March 2013 - former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights

Joshua Rozenberg - Law Society Gazette 15th April - EU accession to the ECHR will change the European legal framework

Legal aid - death by a thousand cuts

The present government was always unlikely to be satisfied with their already severe cuts to civil legal aid enacted by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of  Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO).   The Solicitor's Journal takes a look at the latest Ministry of Justice moves on legal aid - Civil legal aid faces further big cuts.  The further 'big cuts' amount to something in the region of £220m each year.

The Ministry claims that it is Making legal aid fairer fairer for taxpayers and is addressing a number of 'abuses' in the system.   The full consultation paper is at Ministry of Justice - Transforming legal aid: Delivering a more credible and efficient system.

The key features in the consultation are:



Chapter 3 - (Eligibility, Scope and Merits) - 

reforms to prison law to ensure that legal aid is not available for matters that do not justify the use of public funds such as treatment issues;

introduction of a household disposable income threshold above which defendants would no longer receive criminal legal aid;

a residence test for civil legal aid claimants;

reduce the use of legal aid to fund weak judicial reviews;

and amendments to the civil merits test to prevent the funding of any cases with less than a 50% chance of success.

Chapter 4 (Introducing Competition in the Criminal Legal Aid Market) - 

introducing price competition into the criminal legal aid market, initially for the full range of litigation services (except Very High Cost Cases (Crime) VHCCs) and magistrates’ court representation only.

Chapter 5 - (Reforming Fees in Criminal Legal Aid) - 

reduce criminal legal aid fees for Crown Court advocacy and VHCCs (both litigation and advocacy), which it is not proposed to include in competition.

restructure the current Advocacy Graduated Fees Scheme to encourage earlier resolution and more efficient working through a harmonisation of guilty plea, cracked trial and basic trial fee rates to the cracked trial rate, and a reduction in and tapering of daily trial attendance rates from day 3.

reduce all VHCC rates by 30%.

tighten the rules governing the decision to appoint multiple counsel in a case,

changes to litigator contracts to require greater support to counsel from the litigation team,

the introduction of a more robust and consistent system of decision-making.

Chapter 6 - (Reforming Fees in Civil Legal Aid) - 

reduce solicitor representation fees in family public law cases by 10%,

align the fees for barristers and other advocates in non-family cases,

remove the 35% uplift in provider legal aid fees in immigration and asylum appeals.

Chapter 7 - (Expert Fees in Civil, Family and Criminal Proceedings) - 

reduce fees paid to experts in civil, family and criminal cases by 20%.

One can forecast with some confidence that even this consultation will not be the last.  It is difficult to see an end to this process other than the (almost) total removal of legal aid and, with it, access to justice.  The proposals relating to criminal legal aid are very worrying and so is the proposal to reduce legal aid in relation to so-called 'weak' judicial reviews.  It is via judicial review that the legality of official action can be challenged and therefore this proposal represents a potentially severe intrusion on the rights of the aggrieved citizen.

There is until 4th June to respond to the consultation.

A High number of care applications for children ~ Universal Credit ~ Working Together

The number of care applications for children continues to be high.  Local Government Lawyer highlights the numbers: 998 in February 2013; 925 in March and 11,055 in a 12 month period. The article does not look at the reasons for this.  No doubt, the current economic climate is playing a part and support for families in difficulty is becoming thin on the ground as reductions to local authority budgets bite ever deeper.   In many families where children are considered to be at risk of 'significant harm' (Children Act 1989 s31) there are adults with drink or drug dependency and with lack of basic skills such as budgeting income.  The system of benefits is being reformed and, in Greater Manchester, we are seeing the beginnings of 'Universal Credit' - (Dept. of Work and Pensions).  I wonder what impact this will have on children?  Will the receipt of a single payment be just that bit too tempting for some parents?

There is
an Evaluation Framework for Universal Credit and it will be interesting to see how this is implemented.  The information 'on the ground' is that local authorities seem to know very little about just how the DWP will evaluate the changes and whether there will be information sharing between DWP and local authorities.  Universal Credit will go live nationally in October 2013.  Universal Credit will replace income-related JSA, income-related ESA, Income Support (including SMI), Working Tax Credits, Child Tax Credits and Housing Benefit.

The UK Human Rights blog has drawn attention to the March 2013 edition of 'Working Together to Safeguard Children' - see Human Rights have disappeared from Working Together.   The March 2013 guidance is here and the 2010 guidance is here.  The absence of guidance on applying convention rights is to be deplored and devalues the document but it remains unlawful for public bodies to operate incompatibly with convention rights - Human Rights Act 1998 s.6.

Monday items

(1) A post by Simon McKay - On Summary Military Justice - is well worth reading.  The military justice system continues to be a problematic area and McKay explains why.  See also post on Sgt. Nightingale's case.

(2) Governmental activity to drive down legal aid is set to continue as Grayling sets sights on prisoners' legal aid - Law Society Gazette 4th April.

(3) There is until 12th April to comment on the consultation about implementation of Part1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 - Ministry of Justice consultations.   The consultation paper seeks views on proposed coroner investigation regulations, inquest rules, fee and allowance regulations, coroner areas, and statutory guidance for bereaved people.  Previous recent posts relating to Coroners - here.

(4) Some interesting brief sentencing remarks
from Manchester Magistrates' Court - District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) Jonathan Taaffe - here.   News Group Newspapers Ltd were fined £3350 plus a surcharge of £120 and prosecution costs of £500 in relation to their guilty plea to an offence under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.52B.  That section deals with restrictions on the reporting of decisions in Magistrates' Courts relating to 'allocation' (i.e. a decision about the court in which an offence is to be tried) and 'sending' of cases to the Crown Court.  s52B was inserted into the 1998 Act by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Schedule 3 para. 19.

(5) Family law, an interesting decision discussed on the Marilyn Stowe blog - High Court judge warns parents against travelling to Ireland to escape care orders.  The judgment of Cobb J is here.

(6) It is good to see veteran law blogger CharonQC  getting back into action after a period of illness from which it is hoped he has made a full recovery.   UK Human Rights blog has its usual roundup of legal stories.

(7) Lawyers are reporting that they are turning away clients now that the legal aid cuts are in force.  It would be a good idea for the Law Society / Solicitor's firms to establish some form of record keeping of those turned away so that evidence is available in the future.

(8) Halsbury's Law Exchange - Criminal Law Update: March roundup

R v Philpott, Philpott and Mosley ~ Sentencing remarks of Mrs Justice Thirlwall

The manslaughter of 6 children as a result of a deliberately set fire must rank high in the catalogue of heinous crimes.  The sentencing remarks of Mrs Justice Thirlwall in the case of Philpott, Philpott and Mosley are available. The children ranged in age from 5 to 13 and they died as a direct result of a fire set by the three defendants.  Thirlwall J noted that, of the 3 defendants, Michael Philpott was the 'driving force behind this shockingly dangerous enterprise.'

Michael Philpott was sentenced to life imprisonment and must serve a minimum of 15 years before parole may be considered.  There is no guarantee that he will be released after the 15 years.  Life sentences are explained here and also see Ministry of Justice Life sentenced prisoners

Mairead Philpott (mother of the children) and Paul Mosley (family friend) were each sentenced to 17 years imprisonment and must serve half before release on licence.

Forget the political side show about the benefits Philpott received.  Thirlwall J got to the heart of his true character and the appalling deed he committed.  In the judge's words, Philpott is a 'disturbingly dangerous man' with 'no moral compass.'

The judge
referred to the only proper course being to sentence Michael Philpott to life imprisonment.  The statutory provisions relating to sentence are very convoluted.  Here, the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s82A would have applied.  Early release provisions - in the Crime (Sentences Act 1997) - are normally applied.  However, there is section 82A(4) and this enables the sentencing court to order that early release provisions shall not apply.  Clearly, the court would reserve this power for the most serious of offences.  Unfortunately, the judge's sentencing remarks do not indicate whether this power was considered.  Michael Philpott's case is one where it might be thought that the the use of that power would have been merited.

Halsbury's Law Exchange - Philpott - why wasn't it murder and when will he be free?  Barrister, Felicity Gerrity

Benefits in Britain: Separating the facts from the fiction - The Guardian 6th April 2013

Pre-Easter roundup of legal news - (2)

Following on from the previous post, further legal news:

1.  Major parts of Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 come in to force on 1 April 2013 including the severe cuts to civil legal aid provision enacted by LASPO Part 1.


2.  Youth Conditional Cautions are in force on 8th April 2013. There is a code of practice - LINK

3.  The Home Office is consulting about changes to Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Codes A, B, E and F - (Closes 10th May 2013)

4.  The Ministry of Justice is consulting about - Implementing the coroner reforms in Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009  - (Closes 12 April 2013)


5.  The appointments of 10 new members of the Court of Appeal have been announced - Appointment of Lord and Lady Justices of Appeal  The appointments are to fill forthcoming vacancies in the Court of Appeal arising over 2013.  Vacancies arise due to the elevation of Sir Terence Etherton, Sir Roger Toulson and Sir Anthony Hughes, the retirements of Sir Alan Ward and Sir Malcolm Pill, and the forthcoming retirements of Lord Judge, Sir Bernard Rix, Sir Mathew Thorpe, Sir John Mummery and Sir Timothy Lloyd.

The appointments are well covered by the Of Interest to Lawyers Blog

6. The Guide to Judicial Conduct has been updated.

7.  See David Anderson QC's evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights -Review of The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Regime

8.  See Garden Court North Chambers for Bulletins on Housing and Criminal law as well as other items of interest.  These resources are free and GCN is to be congratulated on making them publicly available.

9.  Prisoner voting was kicked into the long grass when the government published a draft Bill but there are some rumblings in the grass - for an update see ECHR Blog 

10.  On 1st April, there are major changes to the benefits system - see the Guardian 27th March 'Welfare cust will cost disabled people £28 bn over five years'.    On 28th March, a Guardian article claims that 'Monday will be the day that defines this government' .  The author (Polly Toynbee) states: 'Here is the final wicked twist: legal aid has been removed for advice on benefits, housing, divorce, debt, education and employment. On Monday the budget of Citizens Advice for such cases falls from £22m to £3m. The few emergency cases still covered – families facing instant eviction – can only use a phone service, not face-to-face legal help. Law centres will close. There will be no help on school exclusions, landlord or employer harassment, or failure to pay wages.'

11.  Easter Law Term commences 9th April and ends on 24th May.


Pre-Easter Roundup of legal news - (1)

Sir Sydney Kentridge QC
There is a massive amount of legal activity at the present time.  Here is a roundup of some it.

1. The highly controversial Justice and Security Bill has cleared the House of Lords.  All that remains is for the Bill to receive Royal Assent.  Implementation will follow and bring about the extension of closed material procedures to civil proceedings.  The Bill enhances Parliamentary supervision over the security services.

2.  New laws for missing persons - Ministry of Justice.  The Presumption of Death Act 2013 ... means relatives can apply for a certificate declaring someone as presumed dead.  The certificate will be equivalent to a death certificate and means those left behind can deal with the legal and financial affairs of the missing person – for example enabling them to stop direct debits and other outgoings.  The changes apply to England and Wales - bringing them into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland.

3.  Crown Court at Manchester - Sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Martin Rudland in R v Brewer are available - Judiciary R v Brewer and see the earlier post of 11th February.



4.  The judgment of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Othman v Secretary of State for the Home Department has been published.  Interestingly, the government briefed three Queen's Counsel and a Junior to handle this case.  At paragraphs 58 and 59, the Master of the Rolls stated:

"Torture is universally abhorred as an evil. A state cannot expel a person to another state where there is a real risk that he will be tried on the basis of evidence which there is a real possibility may have been obtained by torture. That principle is accepted by the Secretary of State and is not in doubt. That is the principle which SIAC had to apply in the present case in the light of all the evidence that it heard and read. This included evidence as to what had happened and what there was a real risk would happen if Mr Othman faced a retrial on the very serious charges that he faces. SIAC found that there was a real risk that evidence obtained by torture would be admitted at the retrial and that, as a consequence, there was a real risk that he would be subject to a flagrant denial of justice.

In order to succeed in this appeal, the Secretary of State has to show that SIAC erred in law. It is not sufficient to persuade us that we would have reached a different conclusion on the facts and Mr Eadie rightly recognised the difficulty of such an exercise. The Secretary of State accepts that SIAC directed itself properly as to the general legal test to apply. Her case that SIAC nevertheless erred in law is based on a detailed examination of a careful and comprehensive judgment. As we have stated at paras 5 and 6 above, criticisms of this kind of a decision by a specialist tribunal are particularly difficult to sustain. For the reasons that we have given, we are satisfied that SIAC did not commit any legal errors."

5.  'Self-representing litigants' are OUT and 'Litigants in Person' are back - see the Master of the Rolls' guidance  The term ‘Litigant in Person’ (LiP) should continue to be the sole term used to describe individuals who exercise their right to conduct legal proceedings on their own behalf. This Guidance applies to all proceedings in all criminal, civil and family courts.

6.  There are scathing judicial comments in Wright v Wright Supplies Ltd about the problems arising in relation to litigants in person.  Sir Alan Ward said - "We may have to accept that we live in austere times, but as I come to the end of eighteen years service in this court, I shall not refrain from expressing my conviction that justice will be ill served indeed by this emasculation of legal aid."

7.  Loss of control as a partial defence to murder has again been considered by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v Dawes, Hatter and Bowyer   The legislation - ss.54 and 55 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 - is hardly a model of clarity and was considered previously by the Court of Appeal in R v Clinton - see post of 18th January 2012.

8.  The Lord Chief Justice has issued guidance relating to Victim Personal Statements (and, in murder cases, Family Impact Statements)  in  R v Perkins, Bennett and Hall

9.  Bar and Cab rank rule - The Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, has published a staunch defence of the cab rank rule. The paper, written at the Bar Council's request by Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, responds to criticisms made in a Legal Services Board (LSB) report on the future of the cab rank rule.  Also have a look at Bar Standards Board - Removal of the 'cab rank' rule a major threart to justice

10.  Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Mark George QC considers the death penalty in the USA -  here

11.  Family Law - a great roundup of developments at Family Lore 26th March

12.  UCL Faculty of Laws pays tribute to the late Professor Ronald Dworkin   Ronald Dworkin is widely accepted as the most important and most controversial Anglo-American jurist of the past forty years.

Prof. Ronald Dworkin









13. Sixteen FACTS about QASA - Legal Half Hour blog

14  ... and if, like me, you have some concern about how government tinkers with constitutional reform then see



Regulation of the Press - (2)


The earlier post Regulation of the Press (1) noted the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society.  Following on from the Leveson Report, a model for press regulation of a Royal Charter on Press Regulation plus statutory elements emerged.


Another post - The path to censorship of the media - contains links to various materials which were collated at the time when  information was emerging as to how it was proposed to regulate the press.



What we now have is:

  • An addition to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill stating: "Where a body is established by Royal Charter after 1 March 2013 with functions relating to the carrying on of an industry, no recommendation may be made to Her Majesty in Council to amend the body's Charter or dissolve the body unless any requirements included in the Charter on the date it is granted for Parliament to approve the amendment or dissolution have been met."

 The Charter:



Essentially, the Charter creates a RECOGNITION PANEL  which is to be a 'body corporate.'  The purpose of the Panel (Art 3) is to 'carry on activities relating to the recognition of Regulators in accordance with the terms of this Charter.'  The functions of the Panel are to be found in Art. 4 - (a) determine applications for recognition from Regulators, (b) review whether a Regulator which has been granted recognition shall continue to be recognised, (c) withdrawing recognition from a Regulator where the Recognition Panel is satisfied that the Regulator ceases to be entitled to recognition and (d) reporting on any success or failure of the recognition system.

Art 9 deals with amendment of the Charter. Art 9(2) states - "Before any proposal (made by any person) to add to, supplement, vary or omit (in whole or in part) a provision of this Charter (“proposed change”) can take effect a draft of the proposed change must have been laid before Parliament, and approved by a resolution of each House. For this purpose “approved” means that at least two thirds of the members of the House in question who vote on the motion do so in support of it."

Note here that the 2/3 refers to those members who actually bother to vote!

The addition to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill is designed to tie down by statute this process of amendment and to prevent the Privy Council altering the Charter without Parliamentary approval.  However, it would be possible for some future Parliament to repeal the 2/3 requirement.

The Scheme for Recognition of Regulators is set out in Schedule 2 of the Charter and the Recognition criteria are in Schedule 3.

Crime and Courts Bill:

This is where perhaps the more controversial aspects are to be found: Exemplary Damages and Costs.

In specified situations, a court could order exemplary damages against a 'relevant publisher.'  However, such an award may not be made against the defendant in respect of a claim if the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the material time. - (there are some exceptions to this).  The definition of 'relevant publisher' is therefore highly important and it is very problematic.

A relevant publisher (RP) certainly extends beyond what one might, in ordinary parlance, consider to be the 'press' (i.e. newspapers).   RP means a person who, in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit), publishes news-related material - (a) which is written by different authors and (b) which is to any extent subject to editorial control. 

The interpretation of much of this is not clear.  What is a business?  What is the extent of news-related material.  The legislation states that news-related material is subject to editorial control if there is a person (whether or not the publisher of the material) who has editorial or equivalent responsibility for - (a) the content of the material, (b) how the material is to be presented, and (c) the decision to publish it.  It therefore seems that news related material on a blog produced by a single person would be subject to editorial control.

There are various persons who cannot be relevant publishers.  These are to be set out in Schedules to the legislation.

Exemplary damages will be limited to cases where the court is satisfied that (a) the defendant's conduct has shown a deliberate or reckless disregard of an outrageous nature for the claimant's rights, (b) the conduct is such that the court should punish the defendant for it, and (c) other remedies would not be adequate to punish that conduct.   The use of 'outrageous' was rejected as being far too vague by the House of Lords in Broome v Cassell.  That case remains an authority on exemplary damages at common law.  Such wording is almost certain to fail the test of certainty required by the European Convention on Human Rights Art 10.

With regard to costs, the legislation provides that a defendant who is a member of an approved regulator will not usually be subject to costs in a 'relevant claim' relating to 'news related material.'  However, there will be exceptions to this if the court is satisfied that (a) the issues raised by the claim could have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or (b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant.  If the defendant was not a member of an approved regulator then the court must award costs unless (a) the court is satisfied that the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or (b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.

These are particularly difficult provisions and many things are unclear.  Even members of an approved regulator might find themselves saddled with costs in some (uncertain?) situations.

That, in outline, is the scheme.  The statutory provisions have received minimal debate in Parliament because they have been shoe horned into the Crime and Justice Bill at a late stage.  The Royal Charter - a 'Royal Prerogative' power - will be simply approved ('nodded through') by the Privy Council.

The whole scheme is riddled with uncertainty and likely, in my view, to cause a chilling wind to blow on freedom to write and publish.  Small-scale publishers and single bloggers will perhaps be either unable or unwilling to pay the fees involved in becoming a member of an approved regulator and will not wish to run the risks inherent in not being a member.  Some may choose to participate as a 'covering the six o' clock' exercise!  In effect, this is a subtle form of State Licensing of publication extending well beyond the large scale press which is, after all, where the serious (and sometimes criminal - e.g. phone-hacking) wrong-doing took place.  Furthermore, the scheme is almost certainly not compatible with Article 10 in relation to exemplary damages.  A challenge at Strasbourg to the legislation will be inevitable. 

Next steps:

The Bill enters the 'ping pong' process where Commons amendments are considered in the Lords and the Bill then returns for Commons consideration of any Lords amendments.  See Parliament Crime and Courts Bill.

Other material:

Telegraph - Royal Charter: The men who wnat to kill our free press - Andrew Gilligan 24th March

Head of Legal blog considers the scheme at The Leveson Royal Charter deal and argues that blogs should be the subject of regulation - Why press regulation should cover blogs

Inforrm's Blog - Gill Phillips - Briefing note on exemplary damages and costs - this is a particularly good analysis of the exemplary damages and costs provisions.  Phillips points out that - 'As has been widely reported (see here and here and here)  the advice from three eminent QCs, Lord Pannick QC, Antony White QC and Desmond Browne QC, in a Joint Opinion commissioned by the Industry, is that Lord Justice Leveson’s proposal to extend exemplary damages to  a small group of news publishers, probably breaches Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.' 

Previous posts on this blog are Regulation of the Press (1) ...The path to censorship of the media ... Who is to guard the guardians? 29th November 2012 ... Guarding the guardians - the Leveson report and the Rubicon - 3rd December 2012 ... Press regulation ~ the Labour Part's draft bill - a new role for the high Court? 11th December 2012 ... Letters Patent ~ Royal Charters ~ Press Regulation. 13th February 2013

Whether GOOGLE was a publisher for the purposes of the law of defamation - Tamiz v Google - Court of Appeal and also see The IT Law Community

   “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason… Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

--Frederick Douglass, 1817-1895, American author and abolitionist

Jobseekers ~ Bill to reverse Court of Appeal decision is being fast-tracked

The government (Department of Work and Pensions) has introduced the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill  ('the Bill').  The Explanatory notes are helpful in explaining what lies behind this Bill - see Explanatory Notes.  The notes have been prepared by the Department for Work and Pensions to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament.

In R (on the application of Reilly and Wilson) vs Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 66 the appellants - Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson - challenged the lawfulness of the Jobseeker's Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 ("the ESE Regulations"). Their challenge was successful.  The effect of the Court's judgment is that the Department for Work and Pensions had no right to impose a sanction on claimants who had failed to meet their requirements.  The Bill has been introduced to reverse the effects of the Court of Appeal's decision and it is being 'fast-tracked' through Parliament. 


Overview of the Bill:
  • It avoids the  need to repay claimants who have been sanctioned for failure to comply with requirements under the ESE Regulations.

  • Sanctions may be imposed in cases where decisions have been put on hold since the decision of the High Court or Court of Appeal.   If sanctions had to be repaid / could not be imposed, the cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be up to £130 million.

  • Any decision to sanction a claimant for failures to comply with the ESE Regulations cannot be challenged on the grounds that the ESE Regulations were invalid or the notices given under them inadequate, notwithstanding the Court of Appeal’s judgment. 

  • The Bill also addresses the risk that previous notifications to claimants made under the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/688 – "the MWA Regulations"), which contain the same notification provisions as the ESE Regulations, may also be open to challenge on the basis of the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Reaction:

The imposition of 'sanctions' on individuals is likely to result in enormous hardship to those who have, often through no fault of their own, come on hard times through loss of employment.  On this, see (for example) The Guardian The jobseeker's story: I'm not proud to say that I've gone begging
and see the video at You're money is stopped, you go into freefall

On 21st March, The Guardian looked at the Bill in The Jobseeker's Bill: a shameful retroactive stitch-up.  The article begins:  'Last Thursday, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, lauded the role of the legal sector in driving the UK's economic growth. "British law has an unrivalled reputation in the world," he trumpeted , "a decision from a UK court carries a global guarantee of impartiality, integrity and enforceability.  At the same time as Grayling was delivering his speech ...., his colleagues in Westminster were publishing the jobseekers (back to work schemes) bill, a piece of emergency legislation whose sole purpose is to make one particular court decision just that little bit less enforceable.'

The Labour Opposition in Parliament states that it finds the bill 'difficult' but they argue that their failure to oppose the bill is 'the right call' - Labour List  This article, by Liam Byrne MP, is well worth reading in full.   Byrne points out that the Bill restores to the Department of Work and Pensions its legal power to sanction anyone who gets Jobseeker’s Allowance if they did not take steps to find work. It’s a power that government has had since 1911.

That is so but there seems to be a new zeal with which, under pressure to achieve targets, DWP staff are applying sanctions - Government admits Jobcentres set targets to take away benefits.  Citizens Advice Bureau argue that the only target should be to get it right.

Fast-tracking:

The Bill is being fast-tracked through Parliament.  The explanatory notes set out the government's reasons for this.  The following is extracted from those notes:

The Department will be seeking permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment. If permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is not granted, or the Supreme Court finds against the Department, primary legislation would be needed to ensure that the Government does not have to make repayments to (and can impose sanctions where decisions have been stayed, on) all claimants who failed to take part in programmes comprised in the ESE Regulations. Fast-tracking the Bill is necessary in order to provide certainty and thus safeguard the Government’s position.
 
It is the Department’s view that emergency primary legislation is necessary. As soon as the litigation ends the Government would incur the above mentioned liability. The only way to ensure that the Department does not have to make any sanction repayments and can impose sanctions where decisions have been stockpiled is to press ahead with emergency legislation.

Fast-tracking is necessary to safeguard against the risk of having to repay sanctions to claimants, and of losing the ability to impose sanctions where decisions have been stockpiled, in the event of permission to appeal being refused and to provide certainty.

The legislation does not change the underlying policy. It restores the policy intention of the ESE Regulations and the intended effectiveness of the notices given under them. There is therefore no need for an external consultation to be considered.

The Bill does not include a sunset clause because the legislation is retrospective.


Are we seeing here a further example of lack of humanity at the heart of the present government or is this a necessary step to ensure that the ability to impose sanctions is maintained?  In appropriate cases, the sanctions policy is no doubt required so to that extent the government's actions are necessary.  However, there needs to be some recognition of the fact that it is now much harder for almost any person out of work to gain further employment and some factors (e.g. age) continue to definitely count against the individual even if such discrimination is, strictly speaking, unlawful.  In the daily application of regulations, a recognition of - 'There but for the grace of God, go I' - would not be amiss.

Note: The Bill discussed in  this post became the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013

The Fortnum and Mason protest ~ Aggravated trespass

On 26th March 2011, around 130 UK Uncut supporters protested against tax avoidance on the part of large companies by occupying Fortnum and Mason's shop in London.  The actions of the protesters were criticised by some politicians.  Boris Johnson stated on BBC Question Time that the protesters had 'stormed' the building, 'terrified staff' and 'upset customers' and had caused 'tens of thousands of pounds' of damage.  A police Chief inspector persuaded the protesters to leave, via a specified route.  The protesters were arrested.  At subsequent trials, some were acquitted whilst others were convicted. 

Videos of Boris Johnson on BBC Question Time and the Chief Inspector talking to protesters may be viewed at UK Uncut


In Bauer and others v DPP  [2013] EWHC 634 (Admin) - Moses LJ and Kenneth Parker J - the court heard an 'appeal by way of case stated' from the decision of District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) Snow (Westminster Magistrates' Court) to convict ten individuals of aggravated trespass contrary to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 section 68 .   This form of appeal is not a rehearing of the case but it is an opportunity for the High Court to consider the relevant law and its application in the Magistrates' Court.  The definition of the offence is:-


(1)  A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land [in the open air] and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land [in the open air] , does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect - (a) of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity, (b) of obstructing that activity, or (c) of disrupting that activity.

The offence is triable summarily and carries a maximum penalty of 3 months imprisonment or a Level 4 fine or both.

The words 'in the open air' were included in this section when it was first enacted but they were removed by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 s.59   The explanatory notes to the 2003 Act state that section 59 amends sections 68 and 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to extend provisions relating to the offence of aggravated trespass to cover trespass in buildings, as well as in the open air.   Land is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 so as to include buildings and also see  DPP v Chivers [2010] EWHC 1814 (Admin).

Clearly, the offence may not be committed unless the individual is a trespasser.  Trespass is a civil law concept and is not, in itself, without difficulties.  Some other offences, notably burglary, are defined by reference to trespass.  When a shop is open to customers, individuals enter on a licence and the shop is entitled to either refuse entry or to withdraw the licence.  Essentially, access to the shop is permitted to individuals for the purpose of purchasing goods.  Those who go beyond the limits of the licence will be trespassers.  The aggravated trespass offence is aimed at individuals who intend to interfere, in one of the stated ways, with lawful activity on the land.  There are three stated ways in section 68(1)(a) - intimidation, (b) - obstruction and (c) - disruption.

The Bauer case is interesting for its discussion of what is required to prove the offence.  It is not sufficient merely to prove a trespass.  There has to be some distinct and overt act beyond that and the act must be accompanied by the intention to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt.   An individual's presence as part of a continuing occupation may amount to such a further act.  There is no requirement to prove that any damage occurred: Peppersharp v DPP [2012] EWHC 474 (Admin). 

The judgment also discusses the approach to interpreting words such as 'intimidate.'  They idea of looking up ordinary words in a dictionary and substituting some other word was deprecated.  On the facts of the case, the court found that there was ample evidence to infer that anyone who chose to remain in the store after it was closed, as part of the demonstration, had an intention to intimidate.  The intention of the appellants could be inferred from their participation in the continuing mass demonstration.

The court emphasised that all were convicted as PRINCIPAL offenders.  It was wrong to consider the case on the basis that some of those taking part were perpetrators or principals whilst others were guilty of secondary participation as accessories.  Of course, it is not an offence to be merely present when others commit an offence but, in this instance, those who remained were committing the conduct element of the offence. 

The judgment highlights the conduct of some of the protesters (para 6):

"The scene inside the store was chaotic. Protesters were shouting and screaming at a very high volume. There were chants of 'if you don't pay your taxes, shut you down', 'Whose shop, our shop', 'Occupy, occupy. Pay your taxes'. Megaphones were used. The old Piccadilly door was controlled by protesters. Some protesters were masked. Many carried placards and were handing out flyers, other protesters hung banners. Drums were beaten, horns sounded and bagpipes were played. Tents were erected. Volleyball was played across the displays. Some goods were stolen, some were damaged and others swept on to the floor. Tape was wrapped around the outside of the store and around displays, the tape had the words 'Closed by UK Uncut' printed across it. Some of the staff were subject to chants of 'pay your taxes' being directed at them and had their photographs taken."

Regarding the ten appellants, the court noted:

"Beyond presence, there is no evidence of the behaviour of any of these defendants inside the store except; Mr Coleman was seen to use a loudhailer in the Atrium. Mr Jones carried a furled up banner into the store. Mr Lichmann picked an umbrella up from the floor and opened it. He played with a beach ball. Mr Pope carried a placard into the store. Mr Ramsay used a loud hailer. Mr Storrar played the bagpipes."

Referring to Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court noted (at 38, 39):

  1. .... it will maintain and protect the rights enshrined in Articles 10 and 11, in the context of peaceful protests, to focus on the question whether those participating in a demonstration are themselves guilty of the conduct element of the crime of aggravated trespass. If the prosecution cannot prove that their presence as part of the demonstration itself constituted that criminal conduct then it should not fall back on the far more difficult proposition that whilst their presence was itself peaceful it encouraged others to commit the criminal offence of aggravated trespass...... .

  2. In the instant appeals the District Judge, towards the end of his judgment, asked whether the prosecution breached the defendants' Articles 10 and 11 rights. Once he had found that they were guilty of aggravated trespass there could be no question of a breach of those rights. He had, as he was entitled to, concluded that they were guilty of aggravated trespass. Since no one suggests that s.68 is itself contrary to either Article 10 or 11, there was no room for any further question or discussion. No one can or could suggest that the state was not entitled, for the purpose of preventing disorder or crime, from preventing aggravated trespass as defined in s.68(1).
This case makes the individual's criminal liability likely to depend on the overall conduct of the group since continuing presence as part of a demonstration is capable of being the conduct element of the offence and the required intention may also be inferred from presence.  Perhaps rather more should be required if a case is to be established on the basis of intimidation which, as the court itself said, is a forceful word indicating the notion of  putting someone in fear.

Note for practitioners - see the court's comments regarding FACTS in relation  to 'case stated appeals' and also regarding costs.