header-logo header-logo

24 September 2019
Issue: 7857 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Profession
printer mail-detail

Threats to judges & barristers

The Bar Council has hit out at suggestions by a ‘No 10 source’ quoted in the Sunday Times that the judiciary was taking sides on Brexit.

The article, published on 22 September, ahead of the Supreme Court handing down its judgment, was headlined: ‘Gove: Tories will collapse if UK is not out of EU by October 31’. It includes the following paragraph: ‘A No 10 source said: “Remainiac lawyers now demand that Scottish judges take over the role of elected politicians and cancel Brexit. Hopefully judges will reflect deeply on the profound consequences for the judiciary if they are seen by the public to side with those trying to cancel the biggest democratic vote in our history.’

Richard Atkins QC, chair of the Bar Council, said: ‘It is a low point in the history of our nation when a faceless “No10 source” refers to “Remainiac lawyers” and issues threats to the judiciary about its constitutional role suggesting that judges take sides.

‘The rule of law and the independence of the judiciary are fundamental pillars of our democracy. Judges do not take sides as the Downing Street source suggests, but apply the law “without fear or favour”.

‘This comment displays a complete failure to understand how our legal system operates and threatens to undermine the role of our independent judiciary and thus the rule of law. [It] comes at the same time as lawyers associated with litigation over Parliament’s role in Brexit are not only receiving death threats, but having the location of their family homes publicised on social media by a member of the press.

‘Threats to lawyers and litigants are serious threats to the proper operation of our legal system and cannot and must not be tolerated.’

Issue: 7857 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Profession
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