Westminster Watch

Putting the pieces together. Toby Craig and Charles Hale try to make sense of how the multitudinous legal issues currently before Parliament fit together.  

Sometimes, one could be forgiven for looking across the political terrain; counting up the multitude of issues being debated and wondering if any of it really makes that much sense at all. It is all too easy to focus on particular issues which, understandably, exercise our minds. But, by stepping back and looking at the broader policy framework, sometimes different perspective develops. 

There is one relationship that Cupid may need to work hard at this month. Toby Craig and Charles Hale examine the Scottish referendum issue

Cracks in the Union

It’s that time of year again when love is traditionally in the air. Cupid will doubtless be busying himself sharpening the tips of his arrows in anticipation of a busy Valentine’s season. 

What will 2012 hold both here and over the pond?  Toby Craig and Charles Hale look ahead.  

First and foremost, we would like to wish a very happy New Year to all of WW’s readers. Now that the turkey has been digested, and the crackers pulled, we can focus on the year ahead and the job in hand. 

Toby Craig and Charles Hale review the legislative issues of 2011 and how these may unfold in the year ahead
  

Good tidings we bring 

Yes, ‘that’ time of year is approaching once again, the festive season soon upon us. Many would be forgiven for thinking about what they might hope to find in their stockings. It would be all too easy to cast the Lord Chancellor as the Grinch, rather than St. Nick, as legal aid is snatched away from the poor, the needy and the vulnerable. ‘Tis the season as they say.

We should also warn you to take special care with Counsel. It may be the new trend for our friends in Parliament to discard important papers in park bins. We are confident that Counsel readers are keen recyclers, though back copies surely adorn their bookshelves and are displayed with pride.
As Parliament begins to wind down a busy legislative programme continues. The Legal Aid Bill completed its course through the Commons, to a greater or lesser extent intact and the Protection of Freedoms Bill, of which every lawyer should be aware, began its Lords stages.

The Culture Committee could not be accused of being in a festive mood as it recalled James Murdoch for a second round of evidence. No shaving foam pies this time around, but Tom Watson was on hand as ever to deliver a verbal assault. Sadly for Murdoch Jnr, Wendy Deng was not on hand to issue a right-hander this time. 

The Bill 

The Legal Aid Bill continues to pre-occupy our minds. It was disappointing, though not surprising, to see that the only substantive changes were unforeseen and came on the Sentencing side (a greater penalty for death by dangerous driving and the removal of IPPs). There may not have been many victories at this stage, but a number of markers have been put down and there are MPs on all sides of the House who are publicly or privately supportive. There remains hope that the greatest scrutiny will take place in the Lords, where, one prays, their Lordships will bring a higher level of understanding to some of the more technical aspects of the Bill (particularly in Part Two, which grapples with the Jackson reforms).

The Bar Council’s lobbying in the Lords is well underway. Peers were briefed on all aspects of the Bill at a well-attended cross-party briefing and written materials have been distributed widely. The family aspects of the Bill have maintained a dominant role in highlighting some of the worst elements of the proposed legislation.

As the Family Justice Review published its final report, followed by the Civil Justice Council’s impressive report on litigants in person, the abundantly clear theme is that DIY justice is slower, more expensive and more likely to lead to bad results for parties representing themselves. It is barely worthy of being called justice. The very well received Manifesto for Family Justice, which has drawn together such a broad range of high profile interest groups, continues to act as an effective tool in promoting particular amendments to the Bill. For now, it is in their Lordships’ hands. 

The Other Bill 

The other important piece of legislation, which has floated slightly under the radar, is the Protection of Freedoms Bill. This provides an opportunity to amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which permits the police and other public authorities to target legally privileged material. Ah, you’re awake now; yes we did say legally privileged material.

The erosion of this fundamental principle which has long underpinned the giving and receiving of legal advice needs to be looked at again. It has been mooted that the current situation is a breach of our obligations under the ECHR and forthcoming EU legislation. The very real potential for abuse was made plain in the recent Boyling case; the undercover officer accused of infiltrating the direct action group, Reclaim the Streets, to spy on them. When a number were arrested he did not break cover. Instead he is alleged to have carried on in the false identity which meant giving false and misleading evidence in court and obtaining access to what the defence case was, including meetings with defence solicitors. Clearly this included access to legally privileged information. The facts in that case are not yet clear, but the extremely worrying consequences of this legislation must be.

It is interesting to replay the Coalition Agreement’s stance on civil liberties:

“We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties.”

Well that seems fairly clear. It is particularly surprising that the Liberal Democrats are willing to sign up to this. The House of Lords will undoubtedly have concerns about the unamended Bill, and we must hope that they take the opportunity to make the necessary changes in the spirit of the Coalition Agreement. 

Revolving doors 

As one door closes, another door opens. We bid a fond farewell to Peter Lodder QC, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the Bar. But we offer a warm welcome Michael Todd QC, who brings with him an exciting and an ambitious agenda; more on that in January.

Looking back, it has been a frenetic year; the Coalition Government seems increasingly stable, as it retains a steadfast commitment to tackling the deficit. There have been the usual political crises and departures such as that of Liam Fox which captured the headlines, but the Cabinet remains largely unchanged. And the Opposition? Well they have been conspicuously unable to open up any kind of lead in the polls, and at this stage in the Parliamentary process, the Government is on fairly firm ground. But a week can be a long time in politics and with the Eurozone situation increasingly unclear the financial policies on which the Coalition is built may well be at risk in 2012.

The Bar Council’s strong parliamentary links are further fortified by the welcome news that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has been elected to the Council. We welcome him as we do all those highly capable new members elected along with him.

So the end of another year. Peace and goodwill to all WW readers and here’s to a prosperous, Olympic 2012. 

Toby Craig and Charles Hale give Counsel an overview of this year’s party conferences

When surveying the Parliamentary terrain, particularly over the course of party conferences, there are always particular issues or events which stand out and capture the imagination. It might be a policy division, a sartorial misjudgement, or a “catty” remark in a speech. It is also an opportune moment for negative stories, which have been in the pipelines, to spill out. This year’s conferences proved no exception, though understandably, most eyes fell on the Conservative conference, which drew in the largest numbers. 

I’m ready for my close-up: Toby Craig and Charles Hale mull over cameras in courts

The debate over cameras in courts has been rumbling on for about as long as that on goal-line technology in football. It has often seemed that the more we talk about it, the further we are from any resolution. In fact, historically, the only thing we could be sure of was that we would keep arguing about it. In a modern world of 24-hour news, smart-phone cameras and the prevalence of social media, opening up the justice system for all to see might seem a no-brainer - in New Zealand for instance, you can now stream live trials via the internet to help the winter evenings fly by - but is it? It is all too easy to paint this as a dispute between anachronistic fuddy-duddies and forward-thinking modernisers (which a Sky News led campaign has sought to do), but in reality, the issue is far more delicately balanced, even if the technology is now all available. 

In the wake of the riots, Charles Hale and Toby Craig look ahead to the conference season. 

Preparations for the party political conferences were no doubt in place when the riots struck in early August, and politicians turned their exclusive attention to the question of how to make sure they never happened again.  It showed once more how the focus in politics can change in an instant. 

A long time coming. The Government has finally published its response to its legal aid consultation -  and its Legal Aid Bill. Charles Hale and Toby Craig examine them.  

A long time coming and more stop and start than Wimbledon in the rain, eventually, on 21 June, the Government published its response to its legal aid consultation. 

The Neverending Story. Charles Hale and Toby Craig continue to await the Government’s response on legal aid.  

And so, as WW goes to press, still we wait for the Government’s response to its legal aid consultation. It is now four months since the 4,500 or so public responses hit MoJ desks, but the powers that be are still to reach a final conclusion of how they want to take forward their original proposals. There is only so much patient waiting anyone could reasonably expect to do, as supposed publication dates are successively pushed back. To be published alongside a Bill, which is intended to bring forward some of the necessary primary legislation to enact the planned changes, the continuing false dawns have only ensured that we remain in the dark. Harrumph! 

Is anything private anymore? Charles Hale and Toby Craig investigate…  

Did you hear the one about the ‘luvvie actor’, ‘family man footballer’ (or possibly several of them) and ‘one of Britain’s most successful businessmen’? No? Sadly, nor did we, but if we had we wouldn’t have been able to tell you anyway, such is the pervasive influence of the tabloids’ latest pet topic; the infamous Super Injunction. And it’s not just Fleet Street’s ire which has been raised.