header-logo header-logo

Truss in dock over Art 50 case uproar

10 November 2016
Issue: 7722 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

Lord Chancellor criticised for slow response to attacks on judicial independence

The Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss is facing mounting criticism for being slow to defend the independence of the judiciary, following an unprecedented media and political uproar over the Art 50 case.

National newspaper headlines attacked the three judges who ruled in the case, Santos and Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin), Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Terence Etherton, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Sales. Most notoriously, The Daily Mail branded the judges “enemies of the people” in a front-page headline.

By convention, judges cannot defend themselves from personal attacks. Instead, the Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to protect the independence of the judiciary.

However, Truss waited two days before issuing a statement that said: “The independence of the judiciary is the foundation upon which our rule of law is built and our judiciary is rightly respected the world over for its independence and impartiality.”

She has declined to comment on the issue further.

Some 17 QCs from One Crown Office Row have since written to Truss expressing dismay at her “inadequate defence” of the judges. They said: “The judges have been publicly accused of bias and in effect of breaking their judicial oath. The accusations have come not only from the press but from MPs.”

Conservative MPs are reported to have expressed “huge concern” to Truss about her handling of the criticism, at a private meeting this week. Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve described Truss’s response as “muted”.

Lord Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice, has also criticised her response. In an interview on BBC Newsnight , he said Truss had a “statutory obligation” to defend the judiciary and that he was disappointed that her response was “a little too late and not a lot”.

“To say you believe in independence of judges is fine but it doesn’t actually address why this matters at a particular time.”

The historic decision, which means MPs must be given a vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, is due to be heard by the Supreme Court next month, with a decision likely to be handed down in January.

Issue: 7722 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU
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