Listening to Sir James Timpson's interview, it is clear that he would like to see a sea-change in sentencing policy. If the new PM supports such a change, I think it would have very significant ramifications for our political culture. Let me explain. /1
It would take a brave government to announce that it wanted to send fewer people to jail. It immediately allows the opposition an attack line: the Govt is soft on crime and there will be more of it as a result. /2
By contrast, the expectation is that creating new offences and pushing endlessly for "tougher" sentences will play well with the public. If you can drum up a little fear while you're at it, it will boost the benefit to be had from ever more exaggerated "toughness". /3
Commentators sympathetic to the Conservative Party are expressing bewilderment at the intensity of the looming catastrophe. What, they ask rhetorically, has the party done to deserve it? I think there are a number of factors at work /1
First, there is, most obviously, what the party has done in power - its record. The question assumes that the record alone is insufficient explanation. For some voters it will be more than enough. But what else? /2
Second, I think the party has for many years now given the impression that their first priority is not service but power. The factional concerns of the party were always a more pressing concern than the needs of our society. In short, the party had “main character” syndrome. /3
There are some lies here that have pulled their boots on, so it’s time, wearily, to set off after them. What is this “positive action” that they are talking about? /1
It seems to be a reference to section 159 of the Equality Act 2010. There is no 2010 Equalities Act. There’s a T-shirt available to help politicians remember that: (Profits go to @savechildrenuk) /2billablehour.teemill.com/product/equali…
The picture painted is one in which meritocracy is “destroyed” because a better qualified, let’s imagine white, candidate is passed over for a less-qualified minority ethnic one because the Act forces an employer to take “positive action” in favour of the latter. /3
I appreciate people honestly differ on this, but my own view is that at the root of opposition to cab rank is the idea that the world would be better if certain people couldn’t get advice and representation and were left to their fate.
Those people deserve what’s coming to them and a system that offers them any assistance in pursuit of an abstract concept of fairness is, at best, a naive and extravagantly wasteful way to delay the inevitable. At worst, a way of ensuring the deserved fate is escaped.
I don’t recognise that as a better world. If the world’s authority were handed to me and I were permitted to set about punishing those I thought deserved it, I would still want those on my little list to have benefit of advice and representation.
I’m at @chelseafc buying a kit for a 10 yo girl. When I get to printing, I’m asked if I want a Premier League patch. I say she’d rather have the Women’s super league. They say I’m not allowed that. I ask why and the rabbit hole opens /1
They explain that they only have the men’s numbers and lettering available and that the patch gender has to match the lettering number. I blink. Don’t worry, I say, she won’t know the difference. /2
No, they say, it’s not permitted. I ask if they are joking. They say they are not. I’m used as a Sports Lawyer to players being subject to restrictions on what they can and cannot wear. But this is a 10 year old girl who wants to kick a ball in the street. /3
One criticism I am seeing of the Privileges Committee is that it permitted evidence from anonymous witnesses. It is said no fair procedure could allow that. /1
It’s well established in Employment Law that a fair dismissal may result from a disciplinary investigation in which evidence was obtained from anonymous witnesses (see e.g Linfood Cash and Carry v Thompson [1989] ICR 518) /2
Nor in fact does a fair dismissal require the ability to cross examine witnesses (Ulsterbus v Henderson [1989] IRLR 251 NICA) nor representation by a lawyer, nor even to be given copies of witness statements (for the latter point, see Hussain v Elonex plc [1999] IRLR 420 CA) /3