Share this page!

George Peretz QC Profile picture
Twitter logo
13 Jul, 7 tweets, 2 min read
A note (in relation to the breach of the duty to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance) on “pretty dubious legally”.
The duty is to be found in s.1 of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.
That duty applies all the time. But if it isn’t complied with the Secretary of State must explain what has gone wrong (see (3) and what is being done to correct it (4)).
So it is hard to see how a policy of deliberately spending less than 0.7% on development aid and imposing further conditions before the target is met can be lawful.
Could this get to court? The problem is s.3.
This section attempts to exclude legal accountability (accountability to a court): even if the s.1 target isn’t met, nothing that Ministers have done is unlawful.
We shall have to see if that section works.

• • •

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
14 Jul
One possible answer to the West Lothian Question now abandoned. (The WLQ is why 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 MPs should vote on 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 - only laws (eg Covid restrictions when 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 MPs can’t vote on equivalents in 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 and 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿.)
One approach to the WLQ is simply to refuse to ask it.
The current government’s position is set out by Rees-Mogg in the debate yesterday hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-0….
Read 13 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
10 Jul
So far, 3 days later, no response from @ukhomeoffice. Assertions that the proposed offence doesn’t cover the RNLI rescuing asylum seekers at sea and landing them safely on shore aren’t any use without an explanation of why that is so.
Also, note the wording. What about individuals or shipping companies rescuing people in distress at sea? What, exactly, are the boundaries of the conduct to which this offence is said not to apply? What, for example, is meant by “distress” (would overcrowding be enough?)
Before you can answer those questions - important questions given the seriousness of the offence and the need to prevent loss of life at sea - you need to know where the alleged exception comes from and its legal basis.
Read 6 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
9 Jul
Comments on a couple of Supreme Court cases out today. Those who fear/hope that the Supreme Court is dominated by activist judges looking for any excuse to impose a woke agenda under cover of the Human Rights Act will be relieved/disappointed.
First AB. Facts here. Image
The issue was whether that treatment violated Article 3 of the ECHR (inhuman and degrading treatment). Answer: no. Reason: the Strasbourg Court has not said that solitary confinement of a child is automatically contrary to Art 3. Following earlier cases, explained here. Image
Read 12 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
9 Jul
Two immediate things leap from this list, from this side of the Atlantic. 1. The extent to which the US is regulated (see licensing requirements for many kinds of work).
2. The extent to which US regulation has not dealt with issues harmful to consumers that have, at least to some extent, been tackled by EU and U.K. regulation.
Very high level thought (treat it as an essay question): the combination of high regulation and regulatory failure to help consumers is a symptom of a seriously dysfunctional political system.
Read 5 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
8 Jul
The instinct is to attack this as a way of dispensing patronage and avoiding scrutiny. And that instinct, with this government, is natural and prudent.
But there is a problem with the relatively small talent pool available from the Commons majority. One way round has been to appoint to the Lords - but that inflates an already engorged chamber and means appointing a legislator for life.
(And any remotely radical government will want to replace the HoL anyway).
Read 6 tweets
George Peretz QC Profile picture
7 Jul
One aspect of this clause is that the RNLI would appear to be guilty of an offence if they rescue a boatload of people obviously seeking illegal entry and bring them safely to shore.
Criminalising the @RNLI is a somewhat unexpected development, even from the current government.
(Footnote with legal detail.)
Read 6 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 emails when @GeorgePeretzQC has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @GeorgePeretzQC!

Read all threads by @GeorgePeretzQC

:(