This week’s roundup of legal news and commentary is mainly about Brexit and what’s been happening – or not happening – in the courts, here and abroad.

Brexit

Trigger warning

On 29 March, some 9 months after it had been mandated by the ‘will of the people’ as expressed in the EU referendum, Theresa May sent notification under article 50 of the EU Treaty of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. It was quite a long letter in the end, self-consciously rather tactfully expressed (for consumption by grown up European leaders, rather than the hysterical tabloid mob back home) and was duly received by Donald Tusk, the current President of the European Council. Given its historical significance, one wonders why it was not inscribed on vellum; at any rate, it was important enough not just to send a text or tweet. As a letter, it may not be the longest suicide note in history (that was reputedly the Labour Party manifesto of 1983) but it must be the longest anticipated.

It set in motion a two-year period of negotiations over the terms of the UK’s de-accession to the European Union. There will be, if not hell to pay, some very large sums of money. The figure of £60bn has been mentioned. Accusations of bad faith began, if they had not already begun, almost immediately. Mrs May was said to be prepared to use cross-border cooperation on security as a bargaining chip, as well as the fate of expat Brits and Europeans, but to be fair that is not how the letter reads. Rather, it reads as though May is anxious to ensure that those matters are settled as soon as possible and thus preserved from the risk of compromise in the cross-fire of tit-for-tats over travel and trade.

The following day the government issued its white paper on the procedural and legislative challenges involved in preserving and maintaining the domestic continuity of EU-derived law following Brexit. What is called the Great Repeal Bill should probably be called the Great Repeal, Re-enactment and Consequential Amendment by Delegated Powers Bill.

Among the points discussed was the continuing relevance and applicability of the case law of the European Court of Justice: we wrote about this in a post entitled Is reporting EU case law now a waste of time?

For more commentary, see:

• Professor Mark Elliott, Public Law For Everyone: The Government’s White Paper on the Great Repeal Bill: Some Preliminary Thoughts
• Professor Steve Peers, EU Law Analysis: The White Paper on the Great Repeal Bill: Invasion of the Parliamentary Control Snatchers
• Jolyon Maugham QC, Waiting for Tax: Can we unilaterally revoke article 50? An answer to concerns
• Joshua Rozenberg, Law Society Gazette: Transfer window (Brexit should shift power from Brussels to Westminster — not Whitehall)
• Angela Patrick, background paper (dated October 2016) for Thomas Paine Initiative (via Rights Info) Mapping the Great Repeal Bill

Digital government

NAO report on GDS finds ‘mixed success’

The National Audit Office issued its report on Digital Transformation in Government on 30 March 2017. It concludes that attempts to transform government have had mixed success, and although it did well in the early days after it was first set up, there is now a risk that the expanded Government Digital Service (GDS) is trying to cover too broad a remit with unclear accountabilities.

Digital transformation has a mixed track record across government. It has not yet provided a level of change that will allow government to further reduce costs while still meeting people’s needs. To achieve value for money and support transformation across government, GDS needs to be clear about its role and strike a balance between robust assurance and a more consultative approach.

See also: Public Technology, Verify business case ‘undermined’ by its performance, as GDS ‘struggle to adapt’ to changing role

In the courts

Marine A sentence varied

The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) sitting as the Court Martial Appeal Court delivered its sentencing remarks following the successful second appeal of Sgt A Blackman, aka Marine A (R v Blackman (No 2) [2017] EWCA Crim 190), which we last wrote about in Weekly Notes —20 March 2017. Having reduced the offence to manslaughter, the court also reduced the term of Blackman’s imprisonment, so that he is expected to be released fairly soon.

Monroe v Hopkins appeal blocked

A late application by Katie Hopkins for permission to appeal against Warby J’s judgment [2017] EWHC 433 (QB) awarding damages for defamation and interim costs to the claimant, Jack Monroe, was refused by the judge in a further judgment [2017] EWHC 645 (QB). We wrote about the judgment on liability in Weekly Notes — 13 March 2017.

UPDATE: Inforrm’s blog reports that Hopkins has now applied to the Court of Appeal for permission, and sets out the grounds of appeal. It appears that Hopkins has now instructed solicitor advocate David Price QC as well as Jonathan Price.

Late sittings (1)

Lord Neuberger has proposed raising the age of judicial retirement from 70 to 75, to avoid the waste of experienced wisdom and talent that the current cut-off point mandates. See The Guardian, Allow judiciary to work until 75, says Britain’s most senior judge. It might also help resolve the current recruitment crisis in the judiciary, reported here.

Late sittings (2)

While many courts have been closed, to save money, the Ministry of Justice has now proposed that those which remain open should sit for longer hours, until as late as 8.30pm. Pilot schemes in six courts will run in May, according to the Law Society Gazette. Professional bodies such as the Law Society and Bar Council have questioned the benefits of late sittings, while pointing out the adverse impact on the work-life balance of lawyers, many of whom do considerable amounts of work before and after court hearings each day, as well as often spending considerable time travelling.

See also the response of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association.

A petition has been launched in response to the MOJ’s proposal, urging the government not to proceed further with the late sittings plan. It points out that

It is unfair and discriminatory for Court staff, Judges, Barristers, Solicitors, and court users, particularly those with children. It will have a detrimental impact on well-being and diversity at the Bar and Judiciary.

Arguably the same sort of problems must be faced by other late-night workers, such as NHS doctors, nurses and staff, the police and emergency services, and shop and restaurant workers when expected to work at late or unsocial hours. But the response to this question on Twitter was overwhelmingly to point out that most other kinds of shift work was (a) dictated by the job itself, whereas there is no essential reason for courts to sit at night; and (b) work itself was confined to within the shifts (and possibly travel) because those other types of work did not involve hours of intensive preparation, often at short notice, before the next court shift, as it were.

April follies

There were some amusing spoofs to mark April Fool’s day on Saturday. We round up the best of them here.

Dates and Deadlines

London Legal Walk — Monday 22 May

In 2016 over 10,000 people took part and raised over £740,000. For details on how to register your team for the 10km walk and start fundraising, see London Legal Support Trust

Law (and injustice) from around the world