header-logo header-logo

03 November 2011 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7488 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Man on a mission

HLE blogger Simon Hetherington anticipates the attorney general's address to the ECtHR on the question of prisoners' voting rights

"Dominic Grieve QC, the attorney general is, no doubt, a skilled advocate. The letters after his name suggest as much, and the position he has reached in public life endorses that suggestion. Such, presumably, is the skill he will take with him to address the European Court of Human Rights on the question of prisoners’ voting rights, arising in an Italian case.

This is an issue on which the government (or at least the dominant coalition partner) feels fairly strongly. In brief, the court has seemed to think that prisoners should have the right to vote; the government thinks not, and is looking for the least degree of compliance that it can get away with. In Grieve’s own words, “we need clarity”—though it is unclear quite what is unclear.

We know the gist of what Grieve will say, because he very helpfully outlined his argument in a speech reported in The Guardian last week. Presumably he does not mind that other participants in the proceedings may have the advantage provided by prior knowledge of his case. But would it be cynical to wonder whether the occasion is a platform for a home-facing speech rather than a full-on attempt to limit the direct power of the court? The government is just now a little sensitive on matters European and has the difficult task of trying to please everyone at the same time.

The attorney general will be talking about “subsidiarity”, and seeking to argue that the court should not spend time on matters which can be and have been fully explored at national level. This is a view that has been expressed recently by the justice secretary, Ken Clarke; and it is a main plank of the independent review commissioned by the government in advance of the UK’s presidency of the Council of Europe.

It is a powerful point and should be listened to. True, it is being urged by a government that wishes to repeal the Human Rights Act (which is for all its faults a means by which subsidiarity can be sustained so long as the court in Strasbourg gives it adequate notice). But that government has never said that it wishes to resile from the Convention…”

Continue reading at www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Issue: 7488 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll