header-logo header-logo

18 June 2009
Issue: 7374 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Not the right IDea

Civil liberties

Lord Steyn, a former lord of appeal in ordinary, has called for the identity card scheme to be scrapped.
Speaking this week, Lord Steyn highlighted the lack of evidence that a National Identity Register will serve to combat serious crime, and expressed concerns about the privacy implications for members of the public given the series of security leaks which have occurred.
“In my view a national identity card system is not necessary in our country. No further money should be spent on it. The idea should be abandoned,” he said.

Lord Steyn questioned whether the government was capable of running a national identity card system, citing numerous data losses since May 2007, including the loss of two discs of child benefit data lost by HM Revenue & Customs which affected 25 million individuals. Such instances, he said, “legitimately prompt the question whether the British public should have confidence in the scheme the government proposes to introduce”.

Lord Steyn went on to say that successive UK governments had constructed one of the most comprehensive and technologically advanced surveillance systems in the world. “The Home Office proudly asserts that comprehensive surveillance has become routine,” he said. “If that is true, the resemblance to the world of Kafka is no longer so very distant.” Despite recent contributions in the House of Lords to the debate on civil liberties, Lord Steyn said he doubted there was much hope of the executive taking action to counter the excesses of the surveillance society. “On the contrary,” he said, “the state relentlessly acts to extend surveillance practices and to diminish correspondingly our civil liberties”.
 

Issue: 7374 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll