EU (Withdrawal) Bill ~ Retention of Existing EU law

This post continues my look at the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as introduced into Parliament on 13th July 2017.  Previous posts are HERE and HERE.  Very little of this complex and cumbersome Bill is easy reading.  Nevertheless, it is of crucial importance for the state of our law in the future. 

Since accession to the EU in 1973, an enormous amount of law has flowed into the UK via the European Communities Act 1972 (the ECA) - referred to in the Miller judgment (para 65) as a 'conduit pipe.'  The general scheme of the EuropeanUnion (Withdrawal) Bill is to retain, with important exceptions, EU law as it exists immediately before exit day and then to give (extensive) powers to Ministers to alter things.   Clauses 2 to 6 are concerned with Retention of Existing EU law.  The Explanatory Notes offer assistance with their interpretation.

Looking at the EU (Withdrawal) Bill ~ Clause 1 (ECA 1972 repeal and Exit Day)

EXIT DAY

On 13th July, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons.  A previous post is an overview of the Bill and also offers links to commentaries by several other writers.

Clause 1 simply states: "The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."   This apparently straightforward statement merits closer examination.

The European Communities Act 1972 (ECA) is

Patrick Finucane ~ decision not to hold public inquiry reaches Supreme Court

Over 28 years ago, Northern Ireland lawyer Patrick Finucane was gunned down at his north Belfast home whilst he was having dinner with his wife Geraldine and their three children.  Mr Finucane was 39 years old and from a Republican family.  As a solicitor he had advised members of the IRA but he had also represented Protestants accused of terrorist offences.  The British government promised to hold a public inquiry and that promise was made to both Mrs Finucane and to the Government of the Republic of Ireland, the political parties at the Weston Park Conference and to the general public.  See the Good Friday Agreement Implementation Plan 1st August 2001.

In 2010, when the Coalition government was formed, a decision was taken to hold a Review rather than a Public Inquiry. 

Stories from the criminal courts

Knowing the case against you:

Any person charged with a criminal offence ought to be informed of the prosecution evidence in good time so that the appropriate plea may be entered and, if the plea is not guilty, the defence prepared before trial. This proposition appears self-evident if there is to be a fair trial (as required by English Law as well as Article 6) but, in practice, things do not appear to going too well according to solicitor Robin Murray -  Minted Law - Despatches from the Disclosure Battle Front.   Mr Murray was the winner of the Legal Aid Lawyer of Year Award in 2015. and also winner of Kent Law Society exceptional achievement award 2015.

An abysmal situation - care proceedings - the case of X

Updated 7th August: Re X (A Child) (No. 4)

The case of X (A Child) highlights the lack of clinical, residential and other support services so desperately needed by the increasing numbers of children and young people with mental health problems.  Such children all too frequently come into contact with either the criminal justice system or are the subject of care proceedings or, as in X's situation, both.

X is now 17 years old and she is subject to a care order made on 15th June 2017 by the President of the Family Division - Sir James Munby. The judgment dealing with the care order is X (A Child) (No. 2) - [2017] EWHC 1585 (Fam).

X is also subject to a Detention and Training Order (DTO)

Court of Protection

Of all the courts of England and Wales, one of the least understood is the Court of Protection. It is a court empowered by Parliament to decide issues relating to those who lack mental capacity to make their own decisions.  This is a complex field.  The vast majority of people who encounter the Court of Protection will need specialist legal help but it is a regrettable fact that legal aid is not always available under current arrangements.  The absence of legal aid in many important areas can amount to a denial of access to justice and it is a national scandal.  Let's take a closer look at the court.

Tony Blair (and others) will not face trial for "aggression"

The war against Iraq began on 20th March 2003.  It caused deep divisions among the people of the UK.  On 18th March 2003, the House of Commons - in which the Labour Party held a large majority - passed a motion supporting the war - 396 votes to 217.  At the time, Tony Blair was Prime Minister; Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary and Lord Goldsmith QC was Attorney General.

In November 2016, District Judge Snow at City of Westminster Magistrates Court was asked to issue a summons to commence a private prosecution of Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Lord Goldsmith for the offence of "aggression."  The District Judge refused to issue a summons on the basis that aggression is not an offence known to the criminal law of England and Wales - see the House of Lords decisions in R v Jones and others [2006] UKHL 16 and R (Gentle) v The Prime Minister and others [2008] UKHL 20.