Andrew Tettenborn is a professor of law at Swansea Law School
The botched assassination attempt on Donald Trump could well generate a wave of sympathy that helps waft him into the White House in November. Another indirect result of those same events may contribute further to this effect. Until the Republican National Convention opened in Milwaukee this week, the GOP had a potentially awkward problem over its stance on abortion rights. Following the attempt on Trump’s life, this has now disappeared.
Life in the Berlaymont building, the Brussels headquarters of the European Union, just got a bit more surreal. A striking feature of the EU is its rotating presidency, under which the 27 member states take it in turns to do a six-month stint running its technically supreme political body, the European Council. This week, Hungary, the bad boy of Europe, took over the hot seat. It keeps it until the end of this year. The difficulty is that the government of Viktor Orbán in Budapest, albeit still popular at home, is at loggerheads with the EU. Politically, its scepticism over Ukraine’s war effort and its open dislike for liberal social policies exasperate Brussels; legally, it is under attack over the so-called rule of law, LGBT rights and its intransigence on immigration and asylum.
If you gaze south from the sarsens of Stonehenge, your view at present is of a constant crocodile of cars and caravans grinding along the nearby A303 en route to the West Country. Unfortunately the government’s plans to improve matters by burying the road in a neat two-mile tunnel, already badly delayed by activist lawfare, now face another obstacle. The problem is that Stonehenge is a Unesco world heritage site – and the UN functionaries that run Unesco do not approve. Indeed they disapprove so much that the Unesco World Heritage Committee last week recommended that unless it was stopped, Stonehenge should be added to its official list of heritage in danger. For a principled government, there is only one answer to this impertinence.
James Cleverly may now be a care-and-maintenance Home Secretary, but even so he will be heaving a sigh of relief as he finally tapes up the file on Julian Assange. The Australian journalist and WikiLeaks founder was on the point of being extradited to the US for revealing state secrets obtained from agents in that country. Last night we heard that Assange’s lawyers had closed a deal with American prosecutors. The arrangement is this. Assange voluntarily surrenders to US officials in the Marianas Islands; he pleads guilty to one offence of revealing US classified information, and gets five years. The court then providentially notices that he has already spent more than that in HMP Belmarsh, gives him credit for it, and releases him to fly to his native Australia.
'Britain is evolving from a democracy towards a kritarchy – the rule of lawyers,' wrote Ross Clark in today’s Spectator magazine. His gloomy prediction has been proved correct almost immediately. A 3-2 majority in the Supreme Court today put the emergency brakes on long-standing plans to extract oil at Horse Hill in Surrey when it struck down the council’s necessary grant of planning permission. As with most legal decisions, the reasoning was convoluted. But in essence it was this: the court ruled that the environmental impact of emissions from burning fossil fuels must be considered in planning applications for new extraction projects, not just the impacts of the emissions produced in extracting them.
In this election, neither Labour nor the Tories are particularly interested in serious constitutional reform. By contrast, there’s one smaller opposition party that makes it quite clear in its manifesto that it does believe in serious democratic change to make government radically responsive to what voters want. That party is Reform. True, there’s a lot in its manifesto, launched today, to make you cautious: its elements of rehashed free-market Thatcherism, for instance, not to mention its fairly sketchy funding projections. But a number of its constitutional proposals make for interesting reading.
If anyone thought our relations with the EU since the Brexit referendum would be a respectful dialogue of equals, they were quickly disabused. Relations remain, to use an understatement, strained. Three national opposition parties have all chosen to weaponise this unpleasantness, and call for re-engagement with at least some EU institutions. Before you follow them and cast an anti-Sunak vote two weeks on Thursday, you could do worse than read their manifestos. If you like the look of the Greens’ 'real hope, real change' motto, do note that they openly want the UK back in the EU as soon as possible. Meanwhile they would sign up immediately again to the customs union and to free movement of people.
We are set for another high-profile tussle between Budapest and Brussels. Yesterday the EU Court of Justice chose to impose a whopping €200 million fine on the Hungarian government for failing to apply EU asylum laws, a fine that increases by €1 million for every day the infringement continues. Politics is never very far from the surface with the EU court The legalities as ever were murky, but essentially Brussels’s complaint was this. EU law requires that asylum seekers be allowed into a member state to seek protection and to stay there until their claim is handled. Originally Hungary had prevented this by corralling applicants in border reception centres, until the Court decided in 2020 that this was not good enough.
The Tories are pledging to reshape our homicide laws if they win re-election. There could, as in many US states, be first-degree murder for intentional killing, second-degree murder for manslaughter because of diminished responsibility or death arising from a deliberate wrong. Rishi Sunak is also promising to get tough on domestic abuse, with a minimum tariff for murder in the home. The crackdown will form a key part of the Conservative manifesto. The plan is far from foolproof You can understand Sunak’s thinking. The hospital order imposed on Nottingham triple killer Valdo Colocane earlier this year after he admitted manslaughter owing to diminished responsibility raised eyebrows among those who looked to the Tories as defenders of law and order.
Rishi Sunak’s unequivocal statement this week about sex and the Equality Act was a clever piece of electioneering. Subsequent reports suggesting that the Tories planned to harden their stance on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), by contrast, had the air of a measure taken in sheer panic. Regrettably, this will be obvious to many potential voters already mulling the idea of quietly jumping ship to Reform UK. The Prime Minister has failed badly in the presentation stakes. This matters. One of the chief attractions of Reform is that, for all their faults, they have never made any bones about their commitment to give notice to exit the ECHR and to give top priority to the connected topic of suppressing irregular migration.
On Friday, the High Court in Northern Ireland deflected a serious threat to the right to free speech, not only in the province but also in the country as a whole. It was, however, a very close-run thing, and the affair is still highly worrying. A Northern Ireland Assembly law that came into effect last year, the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, made it an imprisonable crime to publish the fact that someone had come under police investigation for a sexual offence unless and until they were charged. If they were never charged the matter had to be hushed up until 25 years after their death (or even longer, if a court agreed to their relatives’ request). As I pointed out at the end of last year, this law was incredibly wide-ranging.
Rishi Sunak said on Tuesday what many of us have quietly suspected for some time. As a nation, we have too few apprentices and too many university students. Why not, he said, look hard at the higher education courses we provide at public expense, and where we see high drop-out rates, or poor employment and earnings prospects, be prepared to axe them and use the money to support apprenticeships? Predictably, the call for a cut in the number of university students has led to yelps of dissent, both from Labour with an election to win, and also from the higher education establishment with sales to safeguard. For all that, however, Rishi has made a good point, although his suggested remedy may need alteration. What about a bit of old-fashioned academic elitism?
The Georgian parliament has rammed through its new foreign agents law amid massive protests, overriding the veto of pro-western and pro-EU president Salome Zourabichvili. The new law essentially will require all non-commercial organisations operating in Georgia to register as foreign agents and publicise themselves as such if they receive over 20 per cent of their funding from abroad. Its aim is to counter the influence of pro-western NGOs in the country. The Georgian government has a point when it defends the requirement of registration as a transparency measure The proposal has already caused serious unrest, and this will undoubtedly now balloon. You can see why. The government led by ruling party Georgian Dream is not a pleasant grouping.
It has been argued that the preparedness of the courts to declare governmental action unlawful is vital to the rule of law. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. Yesterday’s High Court decision which annulled new police powers to control protests shows that there might be two sides to this, especially when you find yourself on the school run behind a deliberately dawdling crocodile of JSO protesters or in front of a a bunch of XR zealots lying in the road. The rule of law is all very well, but progressives cannot be allowed to have it all their own way The background to the episode is boringly legalistic. (Please accept apologies in advance.
James Cleverly won’t be able to move the Julian Assange file out of his inbox quite yet after all. The High Court has allowed Assange to appeal once more against extradition to the US on the basis that no sufficient assurances have been received over his ability to rely on the First Amendment if tried there. We don’t know what the result will be (today’s hearing merely gave permission to appeal, with no guarantee as to its outcome). Nevertheless, we should still think twice before we hope that the appeal will ultimately be dismissed, thus allowing the final removal of someone who has been a thorn in the UK authorities’ side for nearly 15 years. This is Assange’s second brush with extradition law.
Except for households blessed with rather generous incomes, most mothers these days have to work to keep a family decently fed and housed. Some kind of subsidised childcare is therefore an unfortunate necessity. The government recognises this, and has just introduced a new scheme. When fully up and running, it will give parents working full-time who earn less than £100,000 a free 570 hours a year of child-minding or early education for each child between nine months and four years. Plus it will (in effect) also hand them a basic rate tax deduction if they want to spend a further £10,000 per year on it. This will be over and above a free 570 hours available to any parent of any child aged three or four. Generous?
Last week in Lincoln’s Inn Hall, nearly 50 prominent Sikhs gathered to mark the formation of the world’s first specifically Sikh court. When the body opens for business on 1 June, its members will be available essentially to do two things. They can provide what the lawyers call Alternative Dispute Resolution, helping to settle family and community arguments. In addition, on request they will act as arbitrators in property or business disputes, with the power to give determinations which will be legally binding.
Before 7 October last year, observers had long suspected an uncomfortable symbiosis between UNRWA, the UN organisation tasked with organising aid to the unfortunate Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, and the autocratic Hamas government in control in Gaza city. The attack on Israel on that day certainly didn’t dispel these suspicions, and in January this year Israel alleged that a number of UNRWA staff had been implicated. Seventeen countries paused funding for UNRWA, including the US, Australia, Canada, Japan, the EU and several individual European states. So did the UK, which last year had provided about £35 million. The UK, which had said it would await the Colonna report before making a decision, will now face immense pressure to resume payments Will this funding come back?
The movement to radicalise the art and museum world was always going to come back and bite its own children. It has happened more quickly than we thought, as demonstrated by the seriously red faces at the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) last week. Among the paintings on display at the NPG was one by French society artist James Tissot of Edward Fox-White, a well-known British 19th century art dealer who opened his first gallery in Glasgow in 1854. Last year, Donald Gajadhar, a descendant of Fox-White’s and manager of the art appraisal business founded by him, noticed a statement in the gallery’s notes next to the picture of his great-great-grandfather.
It was always a racing certainty that this week’s ‘Swiss grannies’ climate change judgment in Strasbourg would spawn a new wave of environmental lawfare and give new life to that already in progress. A taste of the brave new future duly came from the High Court in London yesterday. Section 58 of the Climate Change Act requires the government periodically to lay before parliament its objectives to deal with climate change. The government has duly produced a so-called ‘National Adaptation Programme 3’, but some people say it is not good enough.
