Politics

Local and mayoral elections

The Conservative party, currently in government, did badly in the local and mayoral elections last week. On polling day, the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, under whose tenure the government had introduced voter ID requirements, was himself initially prevented from voting for want of proof of ID.

When the results were announced, one Conservative regional mayor, Baron Houchen of High Leven, who is in charge of regenerating the industrial wastelands of Teesside, retained his position; but another popular Conservative mayor, Andy Street, lost his position in the West Midlands; and the Labour party held the mayoral positions of Sadiq Khan in London, Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester and nine others. Labour gained 186 council seats, the Liberal Democrats gained 104, the Greens gained 74, and the Conservatives lost 474.

One party that made a lot of noise, but failed to win more than two local councillor seats, was Reform (formerly the Brexit Party), whose principle electoral effect may have been simply to divert some more right wing voters away from the Conservatives, to the benefit of more left wing parties. Funny thing, politics.

The other funny thing about Reform is that, unlike most political parties, it is a company owned by shareholders, the majority one of whom (53%) is former leader Nigel Farage. But the company is largely financed by Richard Tice, who owns a third of it, but has used two other companies to channel more than £2 million into Reform over the last four years, according to an analysis of corporate filings and other disclosures by the Democracy for Sale newsletter, writes Peter Geoghegan in a recent post: Richard Tice has given millions to keep Reform afloat — why? Tice, who made millions in property, told the newsletter that he was “very proud” to have put his money into Reform, which he described as a “entrepreneurial political start-up.” He seems to think Reform can take over from the Tories as the “true opposition to Labour”, according to a report by the BBC. That suggests Reform believes in a future Labour government, even if the Conservatives can’t quite bring themselves to do so: according to the Daily Telegraph, the Prime Minister’s team believes Britain [is] headed for [a] hung parliament. That belief is derived from analysis of local election results, but others have questioned the reliability of the comparison given the different behaviour of voters in parliamentary elections.

All of which leaves us with, probably, another three to six months of political uncertainty and chaos. It’s also unclear how much good or bad legislation will either be enacted or washed up or abandoned altogether, which must make it difficult for people to focus their priorities.

Legislation

SLAPP Bill amendments

A number of amendments to the Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill have been put forward by Sir David Davis MP before it returns to the House of Commons for its Committee Stage on 8 May 2024. According to Inforrm’s blog, these include the removal of the requirement to prove intention and a provision for the award of damages to a defendant against whom a SLAPP claim is brought.

The Bill has already been the subject of complaints of poor drafting and comments by an Anti-Slapp Coalition of writers, editors, academics, lawyers and campaigners, and the Society of Media Lawyers: see Inforrm’s blog, SLAPPs Bill: Serious issues remain to be addressed.

For more about the Davis amendments, see SLAPPs Bill: New Amendments, delete all and replace with ill-thought out “Model Anti-SLAPP law”

The Safety of Rwanda Act

Previous commentary on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 (“RA”) has concentrated principally on its deeming of Rwanda as a safe country whilst ousting the supervision of courts. A new post on the UK Human Rights Blog by James Robottom considers a separate issue — section 4 of the Act as it applies to victims of slavery (“VOS”).

Robottom argues that, read in the light of the common law constitutional prohibition of slavery (“POS”), s.4 should prevent all suspected and confirmed victims of slavery from being removed against their will to Rwanda without, at the least, a detailed assessment of their specific risks of re-trafficking there.

Another post on the UK Human Rights Blog reports that several groups have announced legal challenges to the UK’s Rwanda Migrant Scheme in the wake of the passing of the Act last month, including Asylum Aid and The FDA Trade Union. In the meantime, as Al Jazeera reports, the UK has begun mass arrests of potential Rwanda deportees, despite having lost contact with many of them; and in one highly publicised case, as reported by Reuters, a man has accepted £3,000 to go to Rwanda voluntarily, as a sort of Deportee Zero, having failed in his bid to remain here.

Media law

Regulation

Ofcom recently ruled that Politicians acting as news presenters on GB News broke broadcasting rules. Under the Broadcasting Code, news, in whatever form, must be presented with due impartiality. Additionally, a politician cannot be a newsreader, news interviewer or news reporter unless, exceptionally, there is editorial justification. Yet Ofcom found that five programmes on GB news featuring politicians acting as news presenters broke broadcasting due impartiality rules.

Ofcom huffed and puffed over this breach, but all they did by way of sanction was declare that “GB News is put on notice that any repeated breaches of Rules 5.1 and 5.3 may result in the imposition of a statutory sanction”. Given the blatancy of the breach it seems a bit feeble.

Stephen Cushion, Chair Professor, Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University comments on the decision on Inforrm’s blog: Ofcom has rules on broadcaster impartiality: so why is GB News getting away with breaking them?

Dr. Irini Katsirea, Reader in International Media Law, School of Journalism, Media and Communication, University of Sheffield, also comments on the decision and the problems of news media regulation in another post on Inforrm’s blog, Of politicians as newsreaders and other curiosities of our brave new digital world

Another blog, this time by media lawyer David Allen Green, comments On how regulating the media is hard — if not impossible — and on why reviving the Leveson Inquiry may not be the best basis for seeing what regulations are now needed. He points out that now most people have access to the means of publishing and broadcasting to the world, via social media, so it is far harder to say what is now news media. But even if you can, it is unlikely the further investigation of misdeeds of the past would necessarily offer a solution as to its future regulation. It might be a problem for whcih there simply is no solution.

Bodies like Ofcom and IPSO appear to prove him right.

The toothlessness of watchdogs is also the subject of a recent (ish) post by Joshua Rozenberg, marking the publication of Trust in Public Life: Restoring the Role of Constitutional Watchdogs by Professor Robert Hazell, founder and former director of the Constitution Unit at UCL, and Sir Peter Riddell, former commissioner for public appointments and now an honorary professor at the same university.

Post Office Inquiry

Lawyers in the spotlight

A number of Post Office lawyers have been giving evidence to Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry into the notorious miscarriages of justice caused by reliance on Fujitsu’s Horizon IT accounting system. You can watch them give evidence via the Inquiry website, but there has been a steady stream of commentary from, among others:

Prof Richard Moorhead (Thoughts on the Post Office Scandal):

Nick Wallis (Post Office Scandal blog):

Recent case summaries from ICLR

A selection of recently published WLR Daily case summaries from ICLR.4:

COMMONS — Town or village green — Deregistration: R (Strack) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 25 Apr 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 420; [2024] WLR(D) 194, CA

COMPETITION — Investigatory powers — Warrant: R (Competition and Markets Authority) v Competition Appeal Tribunal (Competition and Markets Authority v Another), 22 Apr 2024 [2024] EWHC 904 (Admin); [2024] WLR(D) 192, DC

EMPLOYMENT — Protected disclosure — Detriment: William v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, 24 Apr 2024 [2024] EAT 58; [2024] WLR(D) 193, EAT

ENVIRONMENT — Protection — Statutory nuisance: R (Ball) v Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council, 29 Apr 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 433; [2024] WLR(D) 191, CA

IMMIGRATION — Leave to remain — Application to vary leave: Al-Azad v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 25 Apr 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 407; [2024] WLR(D) 185, CA

LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Housing duty — Council’s duty: Ghaoui v Waltham Forest London Borough Council, 24 Apr 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 405; [2024] WLR(D) 184, CA

PRACTICE — Pleadings — Claim form: Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors, 18 Apr 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 376; [2024] WLR(D) 174, CA

PRACTICE — Trial — Failure to attend: Leeson v McPherson, 23 Apr 2024 [2024] EWHC 976 (Ch); [2024] WLR(D) 188, Ch D

SOCIAL SECURITY — Benefits — Universal credit: Simkova v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MS), 26 Apr 2024 [2024] EWCA Civ 419; [2024] WLR(D) 189, CA

Recent case comments on ICLR

Expert commentary from firms, chambers and legal bloggers recently indexed on ICLR.4 includes:

Law & Religion UK: Navigating housing rights, education and religious freedom: Ghaoui v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2024] EWCA Civ 405; [2024] WLR(D) 184, CA

12KBW Personal Injury Law Blog: Liability for Negligent or Reckless Tackles: Elbanna v Clark [2024] EWHC 627 (KB), KBD

Becket Chambers: Quantifying whiplash and non-whiplash injuries in RTA claims: Rabot v Hassam [2024] UKSC 11; [2024] 2 WLR 949, SC(E)

Hailsham Chambers: Updated: Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation v PW [2024] EWCOP 16, Ct of Protection

Gatehouse Chambers: Denial in the Nile: intention and contract formation: Smit Salvage BV v Luster Maritime SA [2024] EWCA Civ 260, CA

Guildhall Chambers: Can workers be subjected to detriment for participating in lawful industrial action? The Supreme Court decision in Mercer v Alternative Future Group Ltd [2024] UKSC 12; [2024] WLR(D) 165, SC(E)

Doughty Street Chambers: ‘Failure to remove’ claims and Article 3S: ZR v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2024] EWHC 598 (KB), KBD

Hailsham Chambers: Solicitors owed a duty to beneficiaries of an inter vivos trust: Lonsdale & Ors v Wedlake Bell LLP [2024] EWHC 712 (KB), KBD

Exchange Chambers: High Court gives guidance on “substantial injustice” exception to rules on fundamental dishonesty in personal injury claims: Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports Holdings Ltd [2024] EWHC 806 (KB); [2024] WLR(D) 167, KBD

Legal Futures: Leading law firm obtained order for client’s divorce “in error”: Williams v Williams [2024] EWHC 733 (Fam), Fam D

Doughty Street Chambers: Cara Hall secures damages of over £30k for disrepair, including damages equivalent to 90% of the rent for the period that the property was unfit for human habitation: Engmann v The London Borough of Lambeth (Unreported), County Ct

Nearly Legal: Service of prescribed documents — deemed or actual?D’Aubigny v Khan, 01 Dec 2023 Transcript PDF, County Ct

And finally…

Tweet of the week

Marks a major anniversary in Human Rights law and policy:

That’s it for now. Thanks for reading, and thanks for all your toots, tweets, posts and links. Work hard, be kind, take care.

This post was written by Paul Magrath, Head of Product Development and Online Content. It does not necessarily represent the opinions of ICLR as an organisation.

Featured image: Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash