Law

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 backed up by the UK Human Rights Blog run by 1 Crown Office Row.

Westminster is rife this afternoon with rumours that there’ll soon be a high-profile arrest in the phone hacking case. For David Cameron, this issue is going to remain incredibly difficult as long as the focus remains narrowly on News International. But Cameron has one tool he can use to try and broaden out the issue, the inquiries he mentioned yesterday at PMQs. If Cameron were to move quickly on setting up judge-led public inquiries into the police and into journalistic abuses, he would regain some of the initiative. These inquiries are really the only tool he has, given that the government is hemmed in on the takeover of BSkyB as it is a quasi-judicial issue and on the cases itself he can’t say anything that might risk prejudicing a trial.

The judges are judging the judges, or at least judging by the cover of this morning's Times (£) they are. "Radical reform of the selection of judges," some leading figures tell the paper, "is needed to break the stranglehold of white Oxbridge males at the top of the judiciary." The story continues inside the paper, with a tranche of statistics on just how white, Oxbridge and male the judiciary actually is (i.e. very). It all reminded me of a table we put together for Coffee House some months ago, and which I thought I'd excavate this morning. Here it is, with judges sitting firmly at the bottom: Of course, some caveats apply to those figures: the state sector isn't just made up of comprehensives; this refers to the schools system of some decades ago; and so on.

Jack Straw’s column in the Times today (£) contains the following revelation: ‘Our records indicate that you may be entitled to £3,450 for the accident you had. To claim free reply CLAIM to this message,” went the text that my pal Phil Riley received last week. This “accident” was, in truth, a minor prang. Phil had stopped in traffic. The chap behind drove into him, with minor damage to Phil’s car; no personal injuries. The other driver’s insurer paid Phil’s repair bill. Within days of this prang, 18 months ago, Phil was bombarded with texts and personal calls to tell him that if he would make a claim, three or four thousand pounds would be his for the personal injury he had suffered.

Activity in Whitehall becomes more fevered as the day itself approaches. Michael Gove wants to see off the NUT with as little bloodshed as possible, honouring David Cameron’s decree that ministers tread softly. To that end, he has already written to headmasters urging them to keep calm and carry on. And this morning, news emerges that Gove is asking parents and retired teachers who have passed CRB checks to fill in on Thursday to ensure that children have a constructive day at school. The Department of Education has not yet approached former members of the flagship Teach First scheme to return to school for a day; it’s probably too late to do so on this occasion, but doubtless there will be others.

A letter is bouncing around Whitehall, and I thought CoffeeHousers might care to see a copy. It has been penned by Michael Gove, and is being dispatched to all headmasters today. It urges them to Keep Calm and Carry On during the impending strikes over teachers' pensions. "My view," pens the education secretary, "is that we all have a strong moral duty to pupils and parents to keep schools open, and the Government wants to help you achieve that." You can read the full thing below. While much of this missive is dry, dry stuff — certainly drier than Gove's usual prose — it's also quite revealing of the government's approach to strikes.

One of the many problems with the equalities act is that it requires a level of consultation and a number of equalities impact assessments that are not compatible with speedy decision making. Word is seeping out tonight that the coalition is now having to ‘reconsider’ its decision on Academy funding because the Treasury, the Department of Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government did not tick all the right boxes before announcing the new settlement. The reverse is the result of a legal challenge by various local authorities. But this is a pyrrhic victory as the likely result of it is that local authorities actually receive less money than they would have done because a whole set of decisions on Academy funding are now being rethought.