Some detail (via @gabrielquotes) on the question I have been wondering about for a few months - why Lord Sumption is no longer on the Supreme Court supplementary panel. whatdotheyknow.com/request/765192…
According to this interesting set of emails he resigned "in view of public criticisms which I was making of the government"
Lord Hodge to Lord Reed upon hearing about Lord Sumption's resignation:
"That is a relief"
Some concern from the Supreme Court communications team that a quote Lord Sumption gave to the Daily Mail "might look as though we were happy to have him as a member of the panel despite everything he has been saying".
Perhaps I am reading too much between the lines but I wonder if there was a discussion between Lord Sumption and Lord Reed which precipitated Lord Sumption's resignation. This email exchange is a bit odd if he resigned out of the blue
And it is also interesting that a code of conduct for Supplementary Panel members just popped up on the Supreme Court website
Anyway, it makes sense that someone who has been a trenchant public critic of the government doesn't sit on Supreme Court cases. I suspect this incident has precipitated a review of policies over panel members and the handling of complaints received in relation to them
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Although, a recent judicial review permission decision which I will post soon (not publicly available) says people aren’t detained (strictly ‘deprived of liberty’) despite being stuck in a guarded hotel room with 15 mins exercise in the car park per day. I think that’s wrong
Here is the judgment in Khalid - permission decision (first stage of Judicial Review). Mr Justice Linden held that hotel quarantine (which for most people is 23 hrs 45 mins per day stuck in a guarded room) is not even arguably a deprivation of liberty (!) …ughtystreetchambers-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal…
"Applications are considered by trained Departmental staff, following detailed procedures designed by public health professionals and are supported by medically qualified public health professionals"
What does "are supported by" mean? Who knows
In May over 35,000 people had been through the hotel quarantine system, so it stands to reason that it is tens of thousands more by now
I think many would be forgiving of the "tear up the rule book to get results" approach if the results didn't so obviously demonstrate why the rule book matters in a crisis - it prevents government contracts going to donors/friends and profiteering
Have been thinking about the term "profiteering" for a bit - seems so apt to some of those PPE contracts. Doesn't seem to be illegal in the govt procurement context but would be in consumer law (blakemorgan.co.uk/law-in-a-time-…)
🚨As expected, changes to travel regulations from Monday to allow EU & US vaccinated Amber List travellers to avoid quarantine
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021 legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/914/…
Important judgments - Supreme Court (Lords Sales/Burnett giving judgment) decided test for challenging non-statutory government policy is if it "sanctions, positively approves or encourages unlawful conduct by those to whom it is directed" not whether it is "inherently unfair"
Meanwhile, although rolling back the years in public law (80s are BACK!), the Supreme Court continues to expand the boundaries of various duties of care, in this case for tour operators. A sad case on its facts but ultimately helpful judgment for customers supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-201…
Artists' rendition of the Supreme Court Justices deciding that the 1986 Gillick case would now be the test for policy unlawfulness