What David doesn't mention (though he kindly mentions me) is that it was he who persuaded me at one of our much missed #LegalBlogging events to go onto Twitter in my own name. I was terrified of doing so because I was so junior a lawyer and didn't want to embarrass myself....
I was tweeting from the @ukhumanrightsb account - David (who I think had recently stopped tweeting as Jack of Kent) sold me on the virtues of being out there in your own name. He was absolutely right
Whether in the past 11 or so years I have ultimately embarrassed myself is for you to decide!
The Attorney General's Reference in the Colston statue case has succeeded in Court of Appeal. Lots in the judgment but key outcome is that causing "significant" damage to property during a protest is not protected by human rights to free speech/assembly.. judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…
... however "minor or temporary" damage such as scrawling a message on a pavement using water soluble paint is protected by Articles 10/11 and should not generally be prosecuted as would not be proportionate.
As I said, a lot in the judgment including the Court of Appeal confirming Cuciurean (on aggravated trespass) was correctly decided, although two of the three judges were the same (LCJ and Holgate J) so this is not a surprise.
There are many extraordinary things about what is happening at the moment but one of the most important lessons for our politics is that we have elections, manifestos and formal budgets for a reason - radical policies shouldn't just arrive out of nowhere
If there is a line to trace between Johnson 2019 to Truss 2022 it's a disregard for democratic accountability. Prorogation (2019), COVID regulations (2020-2022), extreme tax cuts (2022-?) - all done with little or no regard for democratic norms. Turns out they exist for a reason
No democracy is perfect, all systems rely on leaders not taking advantage of loopholes (e.g. mini-budget, mid-parliament leadership election, prorogation, too-permissive public health legislation), taking a moment to think: scrutiny has value, it's not just an inconvenience
I respect this view as the House of Lords can be a valuable check but I think in this country we rely too much on "you would *never* chose it as a system but, hey, it kinda works!". I think that underestimates the collateral damage of hereditary and patronage power being central
This is the latest in the ever-expanding use of court injunctions obtained by private companies and public authorities to effectively create new criminal laws covering large swathes of the UK without Parliament's involvement
/2
Ordinarily, and historically, court injunctions could only be obtained against named individuals. Then, c20 years ago, Bloomsbury obtained one against "persons unknown" who were counterfeiting Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
/3