Law

Last week, the European Commission voted to ban three pesticides which are said to harm bees. Everyone loves bees, so perhaps we should all be rejoicing? Well, I’m afraid my reaction was not joy, but to think: here we go again, this is bound to mean more dead bees. It’s inevitable: whether it’s a ban, an order or a reform, it doesn’t matter. When governments act they almost always forget the golden rule of public policy: the Law of Unintended -Consequences. And guess what? Just a few days after the vote, scientists are pointing out that the ban will mean farmers using older chemicals that are even more harmful to bees. For good measure, the alternative pesticides are more expensive to use and not as good at protecting crops.

Like John Rentoul, I think much of the scoffing and chortling at the expense of the poor jury asked to consider Vicky Pryce's guilt (or innocence!) is misplaced. This was an unusual case. The questions* they asked - which have been much mocked - seem entirely reasonable to me. More than that, they're quite intelligent. "Reasonable doubt" for instance is not necessarily an obvious thing to measure or define. As for their conduct demonstrating that the Great British public is incapable of jury service, well, phooey to that. In any case, in both the legal systems that apply on these islands, the vast majority of trials do not involve juries at all. We do not actually believe juries are necessarily necessary for criminal proceedings.

Further to the row that has erupted between Theresa May and some judges over the deportation of foreign criminals, the government is understood to be applying to appeal the case of MF. The Home Secretary is plainly confident that her arguments will be well received in the Court of Appeal, having been found wanting in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). The issue of deporting foreign criminals has been cast by some as a disagreement between senior judges and their more activist juniors, and not merely a clash between different arms of government. Theresa May’s team have been at pains to point out that the majority of senior judges support her case.

Here is a story that should have got far more attention. A story that perfectly epitomises the corruption and anti-democratic activity of the EU. In 2010 the group NGO Monitor – which seeks to hold NGOs to account – petitioned the European Commission to reveal details of the NGOs it has funded in recent years.  As readers will know, much of the government-funded NGO business is a racket, and one which pushes highly specific political agendas. And so it has been in recent years with funding from the EU. In particular, as NGO Monitor has previously shown, there is the little matter of the European Commission funding rabidly anti-Israel groups in Europe and the Middle East.

As James says, the prisoner votes row will return to parliament before lunch today. The government is expected to offer the Commons three choices: The retention of the blanket ban, in defiance of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Enfranchising prisoners serving up to six months. Enfranchising those serving up to four years. Parliament is expected to vote for retention, as it has done so previously. Such an outcome would, obviously, set the UK government on a collision course with the ECtHR and leave it open to very costly compensation suits. Damages of around £1,000 per case have been awarded in other jurisdictions, and leaked documents published last year showed that the government’s lawyers estimate the cost of compensation suits could exceed £140 million.

Theresa May gave a defiant statement to the house on the Special Immigration Appeals Committee’s (SIAC)  decision to uphold Abu Qatada’s appeal against deportation to Jordan on grounds that he would not receive a fair trial. She vowed to fight on by ‘appealing the decision’, which prompts the question: how will she do that? It’s necessary to understand what the SIAC considered (here is its judgment and here is a précis). First, it examined whether or not evidence given by Qatada’s former co-defendants in an earlier trial (from which Qatada was absent), Abu Hawsher and Al-Hamasher, is admissible in Qatada’s retrial.

How much longer must we put up with this kind of thing? A bus driver who was fired for being a member of the BNP has won a long legal battle claiming his dismissal was a breach of his human rights. Arthur Redfearn, 56, was sacked from his job in Bradford, West Yorkshire, where he drove mainly Asian adults and children with disabilities. Judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled today his employer Serco Ltd dismissed him only because of his membership of a political party. This breaks Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the Freedom of Assembly and Association, the chamber of the court ruled.  The seven judges came to this conclusion on a 4-3 majority.