A report, a consultation and an important job vacancy

Home Affairs Committee - report on the US-UK Extradition Treaty  in the conclusion section the committee states:

The Committee is proposing significant changes to the extradition arrangements between the US and the UK not because we are critical of the American justice system but because we recognise the importance of robust extradition arrangements between our two countries. Such extradition arrangements are now threatened by loss of public confidence in the UK and there is a risk that, with time, that lack of confidence will translate into wider disaffection. We believe that the Government should act now to restore public faith in the Treaty by rebalancing the requirements for the provision of information, urgently opening negotiations about the re-introduction of an evidence test, and introducing a forum bar. The Committee believes that these changes will allow for a fair and balanced system of justice between the US and the UK as regards extradition.

*****

Ministry of Justice - Consultation: Punishment and Reform - Effective Community Sentences  - The consultation is open to 22nd June 2012.

 This consultation sets out

You be the judge - Was 56 days imprisonment justified?

Update 30th March - appeal dismissed- see Crown Court sentencing remarks - end of this post

It is reported that Liam Stacey - a 21 year old student - was sentenced by a District Judge (Magistrates' Court) to 56 days imprisonment for his "tweets" in relation to Bolton Wanderers footballer Fabrice Muamba.  See The Guardian "Student jailed for racist Fabrice Muamba tweets" where it is reported that Stacey entered a guilty plea to a charge of racially aggravated disorderly behaviour with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress contrary to Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s.31 (as read with  Public Order Act 1986 s.4A)


There is no doubt that his tweets were highly, some might say extremely, offensive and there were around 26 of them.  The District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) who sentenced Stacey would have been able to see them all.

Sentencing - general principles:

Sentencing is far from an easy task.  The sentencer must apply all the relevant law (e.g. Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and Part 4 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009).  In particular,

Constitution Committee Report on the Judiciary

Updated 29th March:

The House of Lords Constitution Committee has issued a report  which argues that a more diverse judiciary would increase public confidence in the justice system - see Parliament - Constitution Committee. Several recommendations in the report are aimed at improving diversity.  These include placing the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice under a legal duty to encourage diversity.  Whilst emphasising that "appointment based on merit is vital and should continue", the report supports applying the Equalities Act 2010 s.159 to judicial appointments so that diversity can be a relevant factor if two candidates are found "to be of equal merit."   Further recommendations include:

• more flexible working and career breaks for to encourage applications from women and others with caring responsibilities

August 2011 Disorder: Communities and Victims Panel Report

This morning I just thought that I would draw attention to the report by the Communities and Victims Panel into the events of August 2011.  The disorder was covered, quite extensively, on this and other blogs.

In total, the Panel make 63 recommendations.  Lack of money and resources seem to pervade society these days and it must be doubtful whether, in this climate, some of the recommendations will proceed very far.  Many of the recommendations are not particularly of a legal nature, though some of them are.

Themes - The recommendations relate to various themes: Children and Parents; Personal resilience; Hopes and Dreams; Brands; Usual Suspects; Police and Public; Community Engagement, Involvement and Cohesion.

Some recommendations of legal interest -

Greater use of "restorative justice" in "riots related cases" (Rec. 40).  Here is a subject

Selecting the Senior Judiciary

Updated 27th March:

The think-tank Centreforum has issued a report - "Guarding the Guardians:  Towards an independent, accountable and diverse senior judiciary" - (PDF, 78 pages - Executive Summary and 7 Chapters).  See also Centreforum's announcement of the report.  The report is by Alan Paterson - Professor of Law and Director of the Centre for Professional Legal Studies at Strathclyde University and Chris Paterson who joined CentreForum as a researcher in April 2011 from city law firm Slaughter and May.

This report argues that senior judicial appointments including those to the Supreme Court are in need of significant reform.  The emergence of a more powerful judicial branch of government provides an important check on executive power but this must be buttressed by a constitutionally appropriate appointments system.  The report sees the present system as being unfit for purpose with the potential to produce a self-perpetuating oligarchy.  It is argued that the appointments system ought to contain a better balance

Marriage - the changing scene

Updated x 2:

According to Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights -

"Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to national laws governing the exercise of this right."

In Hamer v United Kingdom (1982) 4 EHRR 139, the European Court of Human Rights stated that marriage, in the context of Article 12, is the 'formation of a legally recognised binding association between a man and a woman' which thereby involves the acquisition of legally recognised social status.   The Hamer case concerned Article 12 in relation to prisoners and a breach of Art 12 was found.   Later, in Rees v United Kingdom (1987) 9 EHRR 56, the E Ct Hr stated that the right to marry guaranteed by Art. 12 refers to the traditional marriage between persons of opposite biological sex.  There was no breach of Art. 12 in the case of a female to male transsexual.  See now the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

In Schalk and Kopf v Austria 2010, the question of Article 12 and same sex marriage was directly raised at the E Ct HR.  Interestingly, the UK intervened in this case.   A male couple complained that the legal impossibility of a same-sex couple marrying under Austrian law violated their right to respect for private and family life and the principle of non-discrimination.  Held, rejecting the complaint, that there is no breach of Article 12 where marriage is available to two people of the opposite sex but not two people of the same sex.

Hence, there is no obligation placed by the Convention on States to recognise same sex marriages or, for that matter, civil partnerships. Of course, the absence of such an obligation does not prevent States from deciding to recognise same-sex marriages or civil partnerships and, in the U.K., civil partnerships have been recognised since December 2005 under the Civil Partnerships Act 2004.  A number of European (and other) States already recognise same-sex marriage - e.g.  Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada.

The government

Budget and Tax

Taxation has a long history.  Magna Carta Article 12 declared that, with certain exceptions, a medieval tax known as "Scutage" was not to be imposed unless "by common counsel of our Kingdom."    Charles I  reigned for lengthy periods without calling Parliament and he attempted to raise a tax known as "Ship Money."  The first ship money writ of 1634 simply requested the coastal towns to provide ships, following on from earlier acts of Elizabeth I. This could be justified at a time when pirates threatened coastal trade around the country.  The following year ship money writs were sent to inland areas, provoking increasing resistance, especially after John Hampden refused to pay. The resulting court case - R v Hampden (Case of Ship Money) (1637) 3 St Tr 825 - found for Charles I but by a very small margin, and the judgement, which in effect gave Charles the power to do whatever he wished, alienated almost the entire nation, including many who fought for Charles in the Civil War. Ship money was made illegal by the Long Parliament in 1641.

The Bill of Rights stated that - "levying money