Law

Back to the start on a military covenant

I suppose you could call it an O-turn. First, the Prime Minister declared, in a speech aboard HMS Ark Royal last year, that a new military covenant would be enshrined “into the law of our land.” Then, there seemed to be a U-turn, with the government committing only to review the covenant annually, not to lend it legal force. Yet, now, a U-turn on the U-turn, with the news that it will be etched into the staute books after all. The defence minister Andrew Robathan tells today’s Telegraph that, “we are putting the military covenant on a statutory basis for the first time.” The formal announcement is expected in the

Baleful Bosnia

Bosnia has been getting more attention recently, as analysts predict gridlock (or worse) in the coming weeks. The reason is a move by the country’s Bosnian Serb leader, Milorad Dodik, to challenge parts of the Dayton Peace Agreement, which ended the hard-fought war in 1995. Few people outside Bosnia know who Dodik is. Those who knew him during the Bosnian War or immediately afterwards saw him as a moderate businessman-turned-politician. But since then, Dodik has either changed or shed his cover. Now he wants to hold a vote next month on whether to reject Bosnia’s federal institutions, especially the war crimes court. He has accused the court of bias. A

MacShane’s contradictory testimony to the Iraq Inquiry

A trickle of documents from the Chilcot Inquiry have been released today, among which is the written witness statement of former Europe Minister Denis MacShane. It’s rather intriguing. MacShane told the inquiry that it was his understanding that France ‘would not leave the US, Britain and other allies alone in any action against Saddam’ and that President Chirac then vetoed military action in the UN at the stroke of the twelfth hour, apparently against the wishes of his colleagues and France’s political establishment. MacShane says he gained this impression after speaking to a senior French official at the Anglo-French summit at Le Touquet on 4 February 2003, six weeks before

The press becomes the story

The power of the press has, almost from nowhere, become one of the defining leitmotifs of this Parliament. Only two years ago, the Telegraph exerted that power to (partially) clean out British politics, and won general acclaim in the process. But now, it seems, the media is more likely to have its actions attacked, or at least questioned and contained. Whether it is the Press Complaint Commissions’s censure today for those clandestine Cable tapes, or the continuing hoo-hah over super-injunctions and their infraction, there is a question hanging unavoidably in the air: how much does the public have a right to know? This is a precarious political issue, not least

Crimes committed in a just cause

Last week, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) found former Croatian General Ante Gotovina and a fellow officer, Mladen Markac, guilty of war crimes during the Yugoslav Wars. The news has been greeted with dismay in Croatia. Tens of thousands of war veterans and citizens rallied under the slogan “For the Country” in Zagreb’s main square, Trg Bana Jelacica, over the weekend to express their outrage against the verdicts. The Croatian government has followed suit, calling the verdict “unacceptable” and vowing to “do everything in our power to change it.” The verdicts are understandably difficult for some Croats to bear. Their struggle for independence against Serbia has,

What to do with Gaddafi?

The charge sheet against Colonel Gaddafi in any trial would be a long one. There are his crimes against his own people, his support of terrorism overseas and his wars in Chad. But, however morally right it would be to make Gaddafi face justice, the door should be left open to him to go into exile. Gaddafi and his family leaving Libya would make possible an end to this conflict and prevent huge bloodshed as Gaddafi attempts to cling on to power street by street. The unpleasant truth is that if dictators are left only with the choice between fighting to the bitter end and a trial in the Hague,

Putin rages against the “crusading” West

A gold star for Vladimir Putin, for providing us with one of the most extraordinary interventions of the day. While we knew that the Russian Prime Minister is opposed to military action in Libya — and also that he is no natural friend of the West — it is still striking to hear him talk as he does in the video above. “It reminds me,” he says of the UN resolution at hand, “of the medieval call for a crusade.” Ever the pacifist, he then goes on to rail against the “steady trend in US policy” to get involved in conflicts abroad. Meanwhile, our government is doing its part to

The government has been the author of its troubles

In his Spectator column this week, James Forsyth painted a picture of a government taken by surprise by enemies who have, in effect, ambushed them – the civil service, the civil service’s lawyers and the European Union in particular. Clearly the government is frustrated by the “forces of conservatism” and the “enemies of enterprise”, but the difficult truth is that a lot the government’s problems are of its own making, and in its own hands to put right. When it comes to the civil service, the government hasn’t simply inherited an uncooperative Whitehall. It has strengthened its position, as a conscious policy decision. Francis Maude said it in terms at

The threat to a British liberty

It’s a funny old world. I have now been contacted by two journalists informing me that Bedfordshire Police are investigating The Spectator. Why? Because of the Melanie Philips blog where she referred to the “moral depravity” of “the Arabs” who killed the Fogel family in Israel. CoffeeHousers can judge for themselves if they agree or disagree with her language and views – but should this be illegal?  The Guardian has written this story up, claiming The Spectator is being investigated by the Press Complaints Commission. This is untrue. The PCC tell me that a complaint has been lodged, but that’s as far as it has gone. They investigate only if

Fraser Nelson

Clegg’s coup

Libya is not the only scene of conflict today. Nick Clegg has just won a powerful victory over the Conservatives, appointing a Bill of Rights commission which is certain to leave the ECHR intact. When you see the names Philippe Sands, Helena Kennedy and Lord Lester on the list — even alongside Tories — you know that this review is over before it has begun. Clegg is a firm believer in Europe, and has played his hand very well — outmanoeuvering the Conservatives who thought that a British Bill of Rights should supplant edicts from Strasbourg. Upshot: there may still be a Bill of Rights, containing various declarations inserted by

This Country Needs More Daffodil Police

You will notice that the little girl pictured here is a) in a park and b) skipping merrily through the daffodils. Being a well-brought-up type she is not c) pulling up daffodils just for fun. She is not, that is to say, one of Jane Errington’s children. Miss Errington, a resident of Poole, is most aggrieved that her children – aged four, six and ten – were cautioned by police and warned that destroying daffodils in a public park could be construed as criminal damage and, were said flowers then removed from the park, theft. The Daily Mail uses the story to have a go at the Peelers who, we

The British Bill of Rights stalls

A British Bill of Rights has long been the Tory leadership’s sticking plaster solution to the problems posed by the ECHR. The idea is that a British Bill of Rights would give this country a greater margin of appreciation in interpreting the convention. But this morning this plan is in tatters.   The long-awaited commission on the British Bill of Rights is clearly going nowhere.  Any commission which includes Lord Lester and Helena Kennedy, two of the Lib Dem appointees to it, isn’t going to improve the situation.   The failure of this commission even before it has started is a reminder that this problem isn’t going to be solved

A landmark judgment for the security services on torture

The Court of Appeal made a momentous judgment this afternoon. It was hearing the appeal of Rangzieb Ahmed, the first man to be convicted on terror-related charges in this country, for which he is serving 10 years. Ahmed’s appeal was based on the allegation that British security services had been complicit in his torture and that the evidence for his conviction, gained by Pakistan’s ISI, was obtained by a series of extreme measures culminating in the slow removal of his finger nails. The appeal judges rejected Ahmed’s suit, saying that there was no evidence that his nails had been pulled out or that British officers ordered beatings. Ahmed’s claims had

On the basis of this legal advice, the government is not planning to defy the ECHR

As I wrote this morning, the Times has obtained a copy of a government legal memo (written before last week’s prisoners’ debate in parliament) examining non-compliance with the ECHR’s infamous judgment. The newspaper argues that the government plans to defy the Court; and there are plenty rumours swirling around Westminster to that effect, which is hardly surprising given that the Times chanced upon this document. But it’s mostly hot air. The government lawyers actually advised against non-compliance on four separate grounds and revealed that British officials are working towards compliance. First, here are the recommendations of the advice: 1).    The Strasbourg judgements on Hirst and Greens and MT are

It’s a knock out: judicial activism versus the sovereignty of parliament

The prisoner voting debate is coming to a head, and Dave has turned once too often. The Times has received (£) what it describes as a government legal memo, urging the government to defy the demands of the European Court of Human Rights. After last week’s parliamentary debate, the government’s lawyers calculate that the ECHR can only put ‘political pressure rather than judicial pressure’ on British institutions. This is a seminal moment: political will has not been met by administrative won’t. But would non-compliance succeed? Last month, Austria’s attempt to withdraw the franchise from all prisoners serving more than a year was thrown out by the ECHR; but one suspects

The Commons rejects prisoner voting rights

The Davis Straw motion on keeping the ban on prisoner votes has just passed by 234 votes to 22. It is a crushing victory on what was a very good turnout given that both front benches were not voting. The 22 against the motion were a bunch of Liberal Democrats plus the Ulster MP Lady Hermon, the Plaid MPs Jonathan Edwards, Elfyn Llwyd and Hywel Williams, the Green Caroline Lucas,   Labour MPs Barry Gardiner, Kate Green, Glenda Jackson, Andy Love, Kerry McCarthy, John McDonnell, Yasmin Quereshi  and  one Tory Peter Bottomely, David Cameron now finds himself between a rock and a hard place. His MPs hate the idea of giving

And Ilsley goes too

Following the jury’s decision in the Jim Devine case, Eric Ilsley has been sentenced to 12 months in jail having pleaded guilty to charges of false accounting.   As I wrote this morning, prison sentences for expenses offenders are both appropriate and constructive. They dictate that parliament should conduct itself with dignity and probity; and they express the absolute supremacy of the rule of law. It is right that those whose abuse of the expenses system was criminal are being incarcerated.      

Looks like Devine’s going down

Twitter has exploded at the news that former Labour MP Jim Devine has been found guilty on two counts of false accounting, and is likely follow to David Chaytor to the slammer – another argument against votes for lags. Sentence will be passed in four weeks As James Kirkup wrote at the time of Chaytor’s sentencing, this is a victory for the British justice system; proof that those who make our laws and subject to them also. The purge on the most heinous expenses cheats is a painful but necessary passage for restoring dignity to parliament and probity to public life. And the process is far from over. News of

Parliament is expected to deny prisoners the right to vote

These are hard times for the government and there is no respite. Today, parliament will debate a prisoner’s right to vote, in accordance with the wishes of the resented European Court of Human Rights. The Guardian’s Patrick Wintour writes what many suspect: on the back of a free vote, the House will deny prisoners the right to vote in all cases and outlaw compensation claims. Such a result would seem a set-back for the government, which was thought to favour a limited franchise on prisoner voting. If it became law, then the government would apparently be at odds with the ECHR – precipitating an ignominious procession of grasping lags, searching

Bringing rights back home

Thursday’s debate on the backbench motion on prisoner voting tabled by Jack Straw and David Davis is set to be a real parliamentary event – a rare occasion where the will of the elected legislature might just make a big difference.  The real news will not be how many endorse the ban, but which MPs – aside from those abstaining Government Ministers and Denis MacShane – choose to bow to Strasbourg.   MPs preparing to speak out against Strasbourg are now armed with a powerful academic case.  A new Policy Exchange report authored by the political scientist Michael Pinto-Duschinsky – Bringing Rights Back Home – outlines how the UK can