Law

Tuesday

Isabel Hardman

'Rape as most people understand it'

George Galloway got a spade out today and made a statement in which he attempted to clarify his comments about the allegations against Julian Assange. He dug himself a little deeper, saying that ‘what occurred is not rape as most people understand it’. Assange is wanted in Sweden – but not yet charged – on allegations of rape, unlawful coercion and sexual molestation. Rod Liddle blogs that he thinks Galloway has a point. The law says he does not. There is a lesson to be learned from Galloway’s comments, though, which is that rape is not well understood at all. When he says something is ‘not rape as most people

Monday

Isabel Hardman

Victory for ministers on 'slave labour' schemes

Ministers were relieved today when the High Court ruled that the Work and Pensions Department’s back-to-work schemes are not ‘forced labour’ and do not breach human rights. The case had been brought by two people: Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson, who argued that the unpaid schemes they had been put on violated article four of the European Convention on Human Rights. Ms Reilly, 23, was given ‘unpaid menial work’ at Poundland, while Mr Wilson, 40, was told that he would be required to undertake 30 hours’ unpaid work each week cleaning furniture. Both had been subjected to sanctions for refusing to take part in the schemes, and were facing losing

Saturday

Jon Mack

Why we should trust trial by jury

The acquittal of PC Simon Harwood on Thursday for the manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson provoked a strong reaction in the press. Leading the charge, the Daily Mail’s headline summed up the mood: ‘Freed, the ‘thug in police uniform’: what jury weren’t told about the PC cleared of G20 killing.’ The criticism was aimed at not only Simon Harwood, but also the Metropolitan police for re-employing the officer with a string of complaints against him, and the court for not allowing evidence of his disciplinary record to go before the jury, the insinuation being that there must be something wrong with a trial process that keeps the jury in the dark about

Friday

Douglas Murray

We can't just bury Bloody Sunday

I have a piece in today’s Wall Street Journal about the case for prosecuting certain of the Bloody Sunday soldiers. I am aware that it is not a popular argument, and one that most British people tend to shy away from. It also seems to provoke a certain amount of confusion. On a radio programme the other day, discussing potential prosecutions, the interviewer went so far as to ask how or why somebody who is ‘right-wing’ could be making these points. Firstly of course, this is a straightforward category error (‘right-wing’ equals bad and mean and therefore any ‘right-winger’ must be in favour of shooting civilians). Secondly, I think that

Thursday

Steerpike

Legally blonde

A touch of glamour at the High Court this morning as N-Dubz singer turned X-Factor judge Tulisa won an apology from her ex-boyfriend for leaking a rather intimate tape of the pair. Revealing a newly dyed blonde mop for her day, presumably in homage to Legally Blonde, she told the waiting pack that her leaky ex had messed with the wrong girl. ‘I’m just really happy that the truth is out. It’s a fresh start for me today after this, and it’s my birthday, and now, of course, I’m off to Ibiza.’ Of course. A happy ending you might say.

Tuesday

Alex Massie

Obamacare and the Supreme Court: Partisan goose for the partisan gander

Like the French Revolution it remains much too soon to say what the consequences of the United States Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare will be. Except this: defeat would surely have been a catastrophe for Mr Obama. The more one considers John Roberts’ pivotal argument, however, the more it seems as cunning as it is undoubtedly neat. There is something for everyone in his judgement and something for everyone to fear too. Roberts, who appears to have changed his mind, produced an elegant solution: the federal government lacks the power to force citizens to purchase health insurance but it may tax them if they don’t. So Obamacare survives and

Monday

Douglas Murray

Rodney King and compensation

The late Auberon Waugh advised his readers to reflect on the case of David Flannigan when considering the munificent compensation often awarded to people after awful events. Mr Flannigan had been estranged from his parents for two years before the night of 21 December 1988, when Pan Am Flight 103 fell onto the family’s house in Lockerbie, killing all but one other member of his immediate family. Through a thoughtless, inhumane, process of compensation Flannigan (who had been a spray-painter) became a millionaire. Just over five years later, at the age of 24 — after fast cars, drink and drugs — he was found dead at a beach resort in

Tuesday

John Kampfner

A day for celebration, but more must be done to protect free speech

It’s not often that three relatively small NGOs can change politics. So today’s parliamentary debate on the Defamation Bill is cause for considerable pride, among my former colleagues at Index on Censorship and their partners at English PEN and Sense about Science. In November 2009, we began a campaign to reform England’s unfair libel laws. The claimant cabal, those law firms who encourage the rich and famous, particularly those from abroad, to use London’s indulgent courts, assumed that the campaign would fizzle out. It didn’t, picking up steam as it went along. So today’s events should be a cause for celebration. They are, but only in part. The legislative process

Wednesday

Alex Massie

A Victory for the ECHR

As Pete said yesterday, the arrest and presumed deportation of Abu Qatada to Jordan is worth a cheer or two. So too is the fact that the British government orefers to act within the law, not outside it. The government insists it has received assurances from the Jordanians that Qatada will face a fair trial (or, perhaps more accurately, as fair a trial as can reasonably be expected). This is also worth a cheer, even if one cannot be wholly confident of the worth of these assurances. Most of all, however, these developments are a victory for the too-often-maligned European Court of Human Rights. Granted, this assumes the Court will

Sunday

Fraser Nelson

How Clegg outmanoeuvred Cameron over the ECHR

News that Nick Clegg has brilliantly outmanoeuvred Cameron over the British Bill of Rights will come as no surprise to CoffeeHousers — we told you so last March. The panel was stuffed full of ECHR enthusiasts, balanced by Tories most of whose competence lay in other legal areas. Perhaps Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, the most clued-up of the Tory appointees, didn’t realise this when he joined the panel. He has twigged now, and has quit (or was eased out, depending on whose version of events you believe); observing that the ‘Lib Dem tail is wagging the Conservative dog’. As was evident from the start. Duschinsky made his j’accuse on BBC1’s Sunday Politics

Saturday

James Mather

Holy law

In the autumn of 1347, the Black Death arrived in Egypt. In the 18 months that followed, mosques turned into mortuaries across North Africa and the Levant. By the time the pestilence had subsided, up to a third of the Muslim world lay dead. Theologians delved into their books and found a comforting spin: infection was a blessing from God, they pronounced, and all believers touched with it were bound for paradise.  The hordes who fled their villages to escape the disease were apparently unconvinced. So too was an Andalusian scholar named Ibn al-Khatib, whose observations showed it to be spread by human contagion, not the hand of the Almighty.

Monday

David Blackburn

Raab’s early hits

The Commons will debate the UK’s controversial extradition treaty with the US and the European Arrest Warrant later today. The debate has been brought by Dominic Raab MP. He was on the Today programme this morning, explaining that he wanted to introduce a ‘forum clause’ to the UK-US treaty. Forum is a principle that could apply in cross-border cases like Gary McKinnon’s, which Raab has been championing. Raab wants to end the ‘sort of haggling between prosecutors behind closed doors’ that governs extraditions at present, and reform the process by placing it before open court in Britain. He argues that numerous other countries enjoy such an arrangement with the US,

Monday

John Kampfner

A crucial week for the cause of free expression

For those who care about free expression in the UK, and particularly the reform of our invidious libel laws, this is a crucial week. Today and tomorrow, the UK Supreme Court hears the Times’s attempt to overturn an appeal court ruling in a libel case brought against it by Metropolitan Police officer Gary Flood.   On Wednesday the Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill produce its first report. There are grounds for hope that it will suggest strengthening some key areas, paving the way for full legislation early in 2012 — if the government can be persuaded to find parliamentary time. They should, as this will be a win-win

Wednesday

David Blackburn

Grieve tucks into May

A fringe debate on the Human Rights Act hosted by the Tory Reform Group might not have been a crowd puller. But yesterday’s feline foul-up and the presence of Attorney General Dominic Grieve, a firm advocate of human rights, ensured the event was a sell-out. If Grieve had been advised against deepening internal animosity on the ‘cat flap’ furore, he ignored the direction. The TRG’s Egremont blog quotes Grieve as saying: “We need to have a rational debate. We must be more productive than just going for the ‘meow’ factor.” Then he added: “The judicial interpretation and case workload of the European Court ought to be a concern for the UK and other

Tuesday

Jonathan Jones

May's cat story is nonsense

If Theresa May took Ken Clarke up on his wager that no one has avoided deportation because they had a cat, as May claimed in her speech earlier, she should pay up. According to the Guardian’s Andrew Sparrow, a spokesman for the Judicial Office has explained: ‘This was a case in which the Home Office conceded that they had mistakenly failed to apply their own policy – applying at that time to that appellant – for dealing with unmarried partners of people settled in the UK. That was the basis for the decision to uphold the original tribunaldecision – the cat had nothing to do with the decision.’ This is

David Blackburn

The human rights smokescreen

Today’s papers resound with the news that Theresa May is resisting Liberal Democrat opposition to close the loophole over the “right to family life”, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This change, it is argued, will ensure that foreign criminals are deported so that the courts protect, as David Cameron put it, “the United Kingdom”.  The announcement is a carefully choreographed step to differentiate the Tories from the Liberal Democrats. Dr Evan Harris, the self-anointed king of the Lib Dems in exile, told the BBC this morning: ‘It’s actually a useful tool because it enables Nick Clegg to say the Human Rights Act (HRA) is here to say

Thursday

Fraser Nelson

An EU ruling that Cameron must fight

A showdown with the EU may come sooner than we expect. The European Commission has today threatened to sue David Cameron’s government unless it starts letting EU citizens come here to claim benefits. Until now, any EU citizen could live here, but if they couldn’t find work, they were not entitled to claim benefits. This was widely accepted. Today, the EU has issued a statement saying: ‘Under UK law, certain social security benefits – namely Child Benefit, Child Tax Credit, State Pension Credit, Income-based Allowance for Jobseekers, Income-based Employment and Support Allowance – are only granted to persons with a “right to reside” in the UK. Other EU nationals have to

Wednesday

Alex Massie

Your Lying Eyes

I don’t know, just as you don’t know, whether Troy Davis is innocent. I do suspect that his conviction would, in this country, be considered unsafe. Not that this, or anything else, matters to the Georgia Board of Pardons who have denied Davis’s last appeal for clemency. No-one should be surprised by that. Nevertheless, the case highlights a major problem in criminal trials: eye-witness testimony is often unreliable. According to the University of Virginia’s Brandon Garrett: The federal court that finally reviewed evidence of Davis’ innocence agreed “this case centers on eyewitness testimony.” Yet that court put to one side the fact that seven of the nine witnesses at the

Wednesday

Alex Massie

Our Crazy Drug Laws, Part XVI

As legal entertainments go Man facing jail after reporting his cannabis plants stolen is a pretty good one. The Edinburgh Evening News reports: Police were called to David Williamson’s home to investigate reports that he had been assaulted and robbed. But after Williamson volunteered that it was two of his prized cannabis plants which had been stolen, suspicious officers got a warrant to search the 34-year-old’s Edinburgh home and discovered a further 20 plants. Williamson was immediately arrested. The case caused barely disguised mirth among lawyers and officials at Edinburgh Sheriff Court today, when Williamson admitted producing a controlled drug at his Sighthill home in May this year. So far,

Daniel Korski

What kind of Libyan justice?

Tory MP Dominic Raab has a piece in The Times today (£) about the need for Libyans to rely on the International Criminal Court in the Hague, rather than seek retribution and revenge against Colonel Gaddafi and his loyalists in Libya. A former Foreign Office lawyer, Raab knows his subject well. But I can’t help but quibble with a few of his points. For the history of the International Criminal Tribunal in Yugoslavia, a precursor to the ICC, raises questions about how societies can best deal with such crimes. The ICTY allowed space for the post-conflict consolidation to take place before indicting criminals. In contrast, the ICC issued an indictment