With the announcement that Parliament is to be recalled for an emergency session this Thursday we seem to be heading for involvement in another Middle Eastern war.
Before the 2003 Iraq war Tony Blair and his government went to elaborate lengths to find a legal justification for joining the United States attack on Iraq. The then Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, swung first one way and then the other on the question of whether the invasion would be legal. Presumably the current Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, has been asked for his opinion on the legality of an attack -perhaps with cruise missiles and bombers – on Syria.
Mr Grieve, an honourable and humane man whose high regard for the rule of law is self-evident, will not have an easy task.
Before answering the question, he will need to clarify it somewhat. An action that is lawful under domestic law might nevertheless be unlawful under international law. Continue reading “Would a British attack on Syria be lawful?”
Celebrity opponents of the drilling operations in Balcombe who include Bianca Jagger, Vivienne Westwood, Russell Brand and even, God help us, the neo-fascist Nick Griffin, are celebrating Cuadrilla’s decision to “temporarily suspend operations” in the face of the potential disorder that they fear may be imminent.
Leaders of the anti-fracking demonstrators have called for “civil disobedience,” – what is otherwise known as breaking the law – to stop the drilling permanently. The protesters have set up a camp on private land from which to co-ordinate their campaign. They do not have the landowner’s permission. The certainty in the rightness of their cause appears to have led some to consider themselves above the law.
It is of crucial importance that their campaign does not succeed. Continue reading “Drilling at Balcombe must go ahead. Law breakers must not win.”
The always informative and often fascinating UK criminal law blog has given us some interesting background to the fixed penalty notice for being drunk and disorderly received by Monty Panesar on 4th August. Panesar apparently urinated on two bouncers from a night-club balcony. The learned editor, Dan Bunting, points out that Mr Panesar was lucky to be dealt with in this lenient way because he might have committed at least 5 other separate offences, and he set law students a challenge to see if they could identify them all.
As no law student seems to have taken him up on it, here are my answers: Continue reading “Monty Panesar urinates into a legal minefield”
Neil Wilson probably thought that he had escaped lightly on Monday when he walked out of Snaresbrook Crown Court with a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to a single count of sexual activity with a child and 2 counts of possession of images of extreme pornography possibly involving horses or dogs. There was some suggestion that he may also have possessed images of child abuse, but puzzlingly the press reports do not suggest that he was actually sentenced for such an offence.
Unfortunately for Mr Wilson his good fortune quickly turned sour with the news that the Attorney General is considering a review of his sentence. Continue reading “If Robert Colover made a mistake it does not make him a scumbag”
I have blogged recently about The Naked Rambler, and apologies to readers who feel that it is becoming something of an obsession. There are, I suppose, many more important legal issues than the largely self-inflicted fate of one obsessive individual. On the other hand law is nothing if it is not about the protection of individual rights and Stephen Gough’s lengthy campaign does raise a number of important questions. Should we really go to great lengths to prosecute a man for doing no more than expose his un-air-brushed, and un-hair-brushed, body in a society in which highly sexualised near nudity is widely accepted? Is the ASBO regime appropriate to criminalise activity which might well not otherwise be criminal? Does the existence of Mr Gough’s ASBO mean that he is in effect denied the chance of a jury’s verdict on his behaviour? And do we not have many better ways to spend public money than to prosecute and incarcerate Mr Gough until the day he dies? Continue reading “A way out of the naked rambler dilemma: let a jury decide”
Now that the Boy George is safely home, thoughts are turning to who will be the next Royal Nanny. Although it is said that Kate’s mother Carole is to be a very “hands-on” mother-in-law my guess is that before long the strain will tell on her and a nanny will be appointed. In these enlightened days they will probably avoid someone like Prince Charles’ former nanny, Helen Lightbody, who was said to be “as imperious as old Queen Mary”. According to www.royalcentral.co.uk she would insist “… on the infant Prince having his own special lunch, something quite different from what was served to anyone else. Helen would then reject the meal that was first offered and demand another choice.” One would hate to think that the next but one heir to the throne would inadvertently be taught such finickiness by those who have charge of his moral welfare. My guess is that they will opt for someone a little more chilled out, probably an Australian. Their Royal Highnesses could perhaps start their search by seeking advice from the Prime Minister’s fair dinkum blunt speaking special adviser Lynton Crosby. Continue reading “Banning rape pornography won’t work and is wrong in principle”
Following the acquittal of George Zimmerman as well as protests across America there has been a great deal of comment in the British media about the Florida law of self-defence.
Some of the facts are reasonably clear. Mr Zimmerman became suspicious of Trayvon Martin a 17 year old black boy who was walking through the gated community where Mr Zimmerman acted as a Neighbourhood Watch volunteer. He assumed – perhaps on racial grounds – that Martin was “up to no good.” In this country the typical Neighbourhood Watch volunteer might at this point have discretely tweaked the net curtain back into position before making a cup of tea and dialling 999. But they favour a more direct approach in Florida. Mr Zimmerman picked up his legally owned Kel-Tec PF9 semi-automatic pistol, got out of his car and followed Trayvon through the gated streets. Exactly what happened next is unclear but there was a fight – who started it, and why, may never be satisfactorily resolved – but Zimmerman was to say that he feared for his own safety and as a result shot Trayvon dead.
Since the verdict much criticism has been directed at what has been called the law of “stand your ground.” Continue reading “Zimmerman verdict: Stand your Ground Florida! There’s nothing wrong with your law of self defence”
Anyone believing that they can predict the outcome of any criminal appeal is likely to be swiftly corrected, and sentencing appeals are no easier to predict than any other case. Mr Hall’s is made still more difficult because it has attracted such widespread comment, not all of it terribly enlightening.
If you want to make your own mind up you ought first to read the sentencing remarks of HHJ Russell QC.
If the Attorney-General’s appeal were a sporting event upon which Mr Hall was commenting he would certainly have quoted the statistics to his listeners, and they will not have reassured him. Once a Prosecution appeal against a lenient sentence reaches the Court of Appeal the defendant is about as likely to win as, say, Aldershot Town in a fourth round FA cup tie against Manchester City. It can happen, but it usually doesn’t. Continue reading “Will The Court of Appeal increase Stuart Hall’s sentence?”
Both Theresa May and the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling have called for Britain to consider repealing the Human Rights Act and withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a populist call that they probably calculate will win them votes.
But there is in fact a strong Conservative case for supporting the Act and the Convention, which was drafted very largely by David Maxwell-Fyfe, later a Conservative Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor. Continue reading “Abu Qatada & Derrick Kinsasi: The Conservative Case for supporting the European Convention on Human Rights”