header-logo header-logo

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

Truss in dock over Art 50 case uproar

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

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