‘The government has come under fire in the Lords over emergency legislation giving the security services access to people’s phone and internet records.’
BBC News, 16th July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Twenty-seven leading figures write to every peer urging them to back Lord Falconer’s private members bill on assisted dying.’
The Guardian, 15th July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The unveiling last Thursday of a a draft bill on surveillance powers that is to be rushed through Parliament brought to mind the story of the Dutch boy who finds a hole in a dyke on his way to school and puts his finger in it to plug the leak until help arrives to shore it up. The legislation is said to be necessary to plug what the Government regards as holes in the regime of surveillance and investigatory powers pending a full review. The fact that the bill is titled the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill – the “DRIP” bill – may mean I am not the first person to draw the analogy. But the analogy may not be entirely apt. An examination of the DRIP Bill reveals that it is not addressing little holes in the regime but in fact profoundly important and substantial issues.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 14th July 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog
‘The House of Lords is to debate Lord Falconer’s bill aimed at clarifying the law on the right to end one’s life.’
The Guardian, 12th July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘David Cameron and his Liberal Democrat deputy, Nick Clegg, have unveiled emergency surveillance legislation that will shore up government powers to require phone and internet companies to retain and hand over data to the security services.
The Guardian, 10th July 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The 800th anniversary of Magna Carta next year is the right time for a fresh debate on the pros and cons of a written constitution, MPs have said.’
BBC News, 10th July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Retired senior judge Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, 80, has been named as the chairman of a wide-ranging review into historical child sex abuse.’
BBC News, 8th July 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Theresa May oral statement to Parliament on child abuse investigations.’
Home Office, 7th July 2014
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
‘Doctors and nurses who fail to report that girls in their care have suffered female genital mutilation (FGM) should be prosecuted in an effort to tackle the scandal of “this horrific abuse”, MPs say in a report published today.’
Full story
The Independent, 3rd July 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Disappearance of 1980s papers handed to Leon Brittan naming senior politicians as part of Westminster child-abuse ring merits full investigation, says Lord Macdonald.’
Daily Telegraph, 2nd July 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Last night saw the House of Lords’ first reaction to the Government’s proposed changes to judicial review as the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill had its second reading. Already dissected at some length in this blog, the proposals have been roundly criticised by both the senior judiciary and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Consultations responses, including from JUSTICE, expressed concern that the measures appear, by design or coincidence, to undermine the rule of law, inhibit transparency and shield the Government from judicial scrutiny. Two key concerns arise from the Government proposals: restricting access for individuals without substantial means and limiting the courts’ discretion to do justice in the public interest. Yesterday’s debate was robust and eloquent, with former Law Lords joined by bishops and backbenchers alike to condemn the new measures.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st July 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Constitutional Reform Act redrew relationships between the senior judiciary and Parliament in a number of ways. Amongst the most significant was removing the right of the LCJ to speak in the Lords. Earlier this month, the new LCJ Lord Thomas repeated the lament of his immediate predecessors that it was a mistake to deprive the LCJ of the right to address Parliament on the floor of the House on important matters relating to the administration of justice. In this context, some have read the LCJ’s suggestion of a new approach to s5 of the CRA as significant. Drawing on interviews conducted between 2011-13 as part of an AHRC-funded project on The Politics of Judicial Independence, I want to shed some light on tensions that have arisen about the use of s5.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 14th April 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Maria Miller must pay back £5,800 worth of expenses and apologise for her behaviour in a personal statement in the House of Commons, says report.’
Daily Telegraph, 3rd April 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The dramatic increase in public law and human rights cases coming before the UK Supreme Court (and the Appellate Committee before it) means that the UK’s top court is more frequently determining essentially socio-political questions. In addition, in recent years, the judiciary has pressed for a rather more expansive definition of judicial independence, with a greater emphasis on the institutional independence of the judiciary. This has tended to lead to more powerful leadership roles, for senior judges in particular.
UK Constitutional Law Association, 27th March 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The government must enshrine in law its commitment to consult the House of Commons before using its war-making powers, MPs have reiterated.’
BBC News, 27th March 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In his Cambridge Freshfield Lecture, Lord Neuberger gave a number of reasons, historical, geographical and emotional, for the view expressed in the Daily Mail and other newspapers that, “it is unacceptable for unelected judges to impose a diktat on a democratically elected parliament”. He said that this was a “peculiarly British” view, aimed particularly at the rulings on EU law by judges in Luxembourg and on human rights by judges in Strasbourg. But I am not going to write about that. No, what troubles me about Lord Neuberger’s citation from the Daily Mail is the complaint about rulings (diktats) being made by “unelected judges”.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 18th March 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Hitting the Balls out of Court: Are Judges Stepping Over the Line?
Speech by Lord Justice Moses: Creaney Memorial Lecture 2014, 26/02/2014’
Judiciary Of England & Wales, 18th March 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
‘MPs and peers will be given a free vote on whether to change the law on assisted suicide, the Government said on Sunday.’
The Independent, 10th March 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘On Friday 28 February Dan Byles’ Private Member’s Bill on Lords reform completed its Commons passage. It is now in the Lords, and will be sponsored by David Steel. The bill, which allows retirement from the Lords and expulsion of non-attendees and serious criminals, has been presented as a small, uncontroversial “housekeeping” measure. But as already argued in an earlier blog post, as currently drafted it would in fact introduce a very major change that would alter the Lords fundamentally, and in very undesirable ways.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 6th March 2014
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog
‘If last Wednesday’s vote in the House of Lords was not a reminder as to why we need a second house to protect us then nothing will be. Many members of the public will not realise just how close this country came to fundamentally damaging the democratic society we live in and abandoning the principle of free speech, whilst simultaneously providing an unwieldy weapon against practically anybody for doing pretty much anything that another person does not like.’
Sovereign Chambers, 15th January 2014
Source: www.sovereignchambers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025