header-logo header-logo

Putting our leaders on trial

30 May 2014 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7608 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Impeachment is not an effective weapon by which to hold our leaders to account, says Geoffrey Bindman QC

The resignation of a cabinet minister following allegations of misconduct is an unusual event. Does our constitution have the means to hold our leaders to account?. In the case of Maria Miller MP, resignation seemed to remove the pressure for any further action. Yet no one talked about impeachment. This is the historic process by which the House of Commons could procure the trial of a senior public servant or government minister for “high crimes and misdemeanours”. Is it still relevant?

The last impeachment in England, in 1805, was of Viscount Melville, William Pitt’s former Home Secretary Henry Dundas. He was acquitted of misappropriating public funds. But the great legal historian Holdsworth thought in the 20th century that impeachment “might still be a useful weapon in the armoury of the constitution because it embodies the sound principle that ministers and officials should be made criminally liable for corruption, gross negligence or other misfeasances in the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll