header-logo header-logo

Man on a mission

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

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

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll