Ethics on the bench and in the witness box: The Round-up

16 March 2016 by

Photo credit: Guardian

This week’s round up comes from Alex Wessely.

In the news

A highly experienced magistrate – Richard Page – has been sacked for airing views opposing same-sex couples being allowed to adopt.  In a statement the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said his views – which he had expressed in an BBC interview in 2015 – constituted “serious misconduct which brought the magistracy into disrepute”. Alice Arnold in the Guardian agrees with the decision to sack him (“the law is clear… magistrates must respect it”), whereas the Christian Legal Centre say this represents a “new political orthodoxy” and “modern day madness”. In a subsequent development, Mr Page is now planning to sue Michael Gove, citing religious discrimination.

Dr Waney Squier, a leading researcher on so-called “Shaken Baby Syndrome” and an established expert witness, has been judged by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service to have deliberately misled the court and misrepresented academic literature. Dr Squier – who was represented by Clodagh Bradley QC – is one of a minority group of experts who contend that “the triad” of injuries (brain swelling, intra-cranial bleeding and retinal bleeding) which the majority state are self-evident of SBS can actually have non-criminal/accidental causes. Dr Squier has submitted this opinion in around 200 criminal and civil cases since the 1990s. The controversy around SBS is not new. Clive Stafford Smith – founder of Reprieve – writes that Dr Squier’s conviction, which will likely lead to severe punishments for her, is “akin to the trial of Galileo” and “a very dark day for science [and] justice”, pointing out that only one member of the panel had any “meaningful” medical qualifications (a retired psychiatrist).

In other news

  • 200 senior lawyers have signed an open letter to the Guardian stating that the Investigatory Powers Bill is not fit for purpose and “may be illegal”.
  • Saudi Arabia is “poised to break last year’s record execution rate”. Seventy people have already been executed in 2016, and a further set of executions (of teenagers, convicted of ‘offences’ including anti-government protest) are scheduled imminently. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabian officials have defended their county’s rights record to the UN, saying they “fight torture” and “promote human rights”. HRW disagree.
  • The South Sudanese government has been accused of sanctioning mass killings and allowing the rape of civilians as “rewards” to soldiers. A UN report contains vivid accounts of systematic sexual abuse of civilians, with the government accused of a “scorched earth policy”
  • Over 4,000 former South African gold miners have won a “landmark settlement” against Anglo American South Africa Ltd and AngloGold Ashanti Ltd, for dust-related lung diseases they contracted due to working in unsafe conditions in the mines. The case is covered by the Guardian here; for a detailed account of the current state of South Africa’s gold industry, look here.
  • Conservative plans to scrap the Human Rights Act have been delayed until after the EU referendum, according to The Sun  (and covered by Politics Home here). In other HRA news: The British Institute of Human Rights has released this informative eBook about the Act. However, two stories are likely to fuel anti-ECHR sentiments, as notorious killers Anders Breivik and Joanne Dennehy – are said to be relying on human rights arguments to challenge their respective jail conditions.
  • The Cycling Silk Martin Porter has brought – and lost – the first private prosecution against dangerous driving endangering a cyclist.
  • Luciana Berger – shadow mental health minister – has shared her experiences of online anti-Semitism before a conference in Berlin on that subject.
  • Open Rights Group have appointed renowned obscenity lawyer Myles Jackman as their new legal director.
  • Human Rights Watch are protesting an Egyptian court’s decision to sentence three teenagers to five years in prison for blasphemy over a video “mocking ISIS”.

In the courts

The ECHR has found that the conviction of two Turkish Labour Party members, who were fined for leafleting without prior authorisation, was a violation of the Article 10 right to freedom of expression. They also found a further violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) as they were convicted without a public hearing.

The UK Supreme Court has handed down two judgements concerning changes to the law on vicarious liability, effectively extending the circumstances where vicarious liability (the liability of an employer for the actions of their employees) is found to exist. Kate Richmond explains the significance of these cases here in UKHRB.

The “Hatton Garden Robbers” have been sentenced to a total of 34 years. The sentencing remarks point to the “careful, detailed and intense planning” that went in to the heist; the offenders are said to have thanked the judge afterwards for his apparent leniency.

Events

1COR’s Jim Duffy and Michael Deacon will be speaking at an event this Thursday (17th) at 18:00 entitled “So you want to be… a Judicial Assistant at the UK Supreme Court?” The free event is taking place at Parliament Hall in Edinburgh, and is being organised by the Scottish Young Lawyers’ Association. Details here.

 

 

3 comments


  1. Captain Sensible says:

    I’m not a religious person in any way but I believe in free speech and the right to personal beliefs and lifestyles including same sex relationships. However I think its quite shocking the way human rights law is being used against people with religious beliefs, particularly Christian, which are opposed to the current fashionable thinking on same sex couples. We’ve had bakers and B&B owners in the dock as it were, all because they do not share the beliefs of the Guardianista’s. As has been pointed out we are now in a situation of positive discrimination in favour of same sex couple with a raft of legislation in place. What about the 94% of the population who are not LGBT ? It seems the minority trump the majority in the UK.

    The judiciary express their views in court regularly, so why should this magistrate suffer ? Because he made a pronouncement on a subject sacred to the left liberal progressives.

  2. Magistrates should uphold Richard’s view and go on strike or other action. Certainly not accept the decision for him to be sacked. There is no law for male and female to adopt. Why?
    Because this is Natural.
    Why then must same sex people have special law with special privileges. Is this not discrimination.
    It is shocking to read that the Guardian agrees and supports the decision for Richard to be sacked. This truly is disappointing.

  3. It all goes to show that all the claptrap aired these days about multiculturism and tolerance of others is a dangerous illusion.The UK is drifting slowly towards being a police State where scientists are punished for expressing their views,and religious persons are sacked for expressing theirs !
    Parents are jailed every year for protesting publicly when their children are taken and free speech goes out of the window when parents visit children in care as they cannot reveal abuse in fostercare or discuss their cases or the possibility of coming home.
    Surely if someone wants to say that the earth is flat, that all gays end up in the flames of hell,,
    and that the names of children in care should be in the newspapers (all views I disagree with!) they should be allowed to say so .We have laws of libel and slander to protect us from those who might smear us and criminal laws that forbid speeches that incite violence and they are more than sufficient;

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: