Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
15 Nov, 5 tweets, 2 min read
Well, quite. Though note that the job was originally (in 1998) given to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in different clothes).
Some other comments on the story.
Since the judiciary don’t want to be settling political arguments raising no real legal issues (and they don’t, and dispose of them fast), what’s the problem?
A “feeling”.
Hard to see what that has to do with anything. (And as of today Trump’s chances of getting an election case before the US Supreme Court appear much the same as my chances of getting my appeal against a parking penalty before ours.)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with George Peretz QC

George Peretz QC Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgePeretzQC

George Peretz QC Profile picture
16 Nov
I’m not involved in any of these cases. The current government may have answers to many of these concerns.
But there is on any view serious cause for concern about the untransparent spending of huge sums of public money on entities with links to ministers and advisers. The BBC should be reporting this: and I simply don’t understand why it isn’t. @bbclaurak @bbcnickrobinson.
At the very least, one of the BBC’s excellent legal correspondents could be allowed to report near the top of a flagship BBC programme on the current legal actions, explaining what they are about and where they have got to (permission having been granted in at least one case).
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
15 Nov
Not sure that @timothy_stanley knows what he is talking about. Neither reducing the no. of judges nor “bringing in specialists” amounts to “rolling back” “Blair era” reforms. The HoL judicial committee had the same number of judges as now, and were no less (or more) “specialist”.
Entirely unclear what “specialist” means here, anyway. Though some have argued that there are too many commercial lawyers and not enough crime/family specialists.
The article is a mess anyway: perhaps because whatever is being discussed is also a mess.
Read 5 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
14 Nov
Visible not just from the top of a column but from space.
Note: this deal visible from space is still a really bad deal for the UK. It fails to obtain vast amounts that UK businesses and citizens will want. See eg this from @Howard_Goodall (and remember that our 🎵 industry is far more important in size and numbers involved than 🐟).
Similar problems throughout our services sector. Not to mention customs declarations, SPS issues for food exports.
Read 4 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
13 Nov
I suggest 4 questions about any such claim before it is given attention.
1. What is the quality of the evidence? Is it hearsay or double hearsay (“I was told by someone that someone told her that ...”)? Courts rightly either exclude or give little weight to such evidence (which can’t be tested).
2. Does the evidence directly show fraud or are we being invited to draw conclusions from facts that could easily have an innocent explanation. (Courts rightly are reluctant to find fraud to be established save on the basis of strong evidence.)
Read 6 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
11 Nov
Important part of this story: plan to pass more legislation breaching international law. ft.com/content/8c5330…
See
References to “extreme” interpretations here means “interpretations we don’t like” and “interpretations we don’t like but which are upheld by the dispute resolution mechanisms we agreed to”.
Read 7 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
10 Nov
We may have a vaccine against Covid. That means a decision for the government (@theresecoffey at @DWP) on whether to extend the scheme under the Vaccine Damages Act 1979 legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/17/… to vaccinations against Covid.
A brief description of the scheme here. gov.uk/vaccine-damage…
You’ll see that it entitles anyone suffering severe disablement (60% disabled) caused by a vaccine against listed diseases to a payment of £120,000 from the state. Unlike a product liability claim, it’s irrelevant what the manufacturer knew or should have known about its effects.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @GeorgePeretzQC