A Lawyer Talks

Joshua Rozenberg

Joshua Rozenberg KC (hon) is Britain's most experienced commentator on the law. This new podcast complements the daily updates he publishes on A Lawyer Writes. rozenberg.substack.com

  1. 12 MAR

    Justice for all

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com The rule of law, as a phrase, is opaque, the head of civil justice said this week. As Sir Geoffrey Vos explained, “non-lawyers and even many lawyers think it is about the enforcement of law against citizens rather than enforcing, or rather upholding, the rights of citizens against the state.” The master of the rolls wondered if we could find a better term for the concept. He offered no suggestions himself. But if lawyers were going to continue using the phrase when speaking to those outside the legal profession, he thought they should at least say what it meant. Vos continued: We should explain that, as proponents of the rule of law, we are proponents of the clear and accessible predictability of the legal system, that we support open justice and access to fair justice for all, that we are seeking to protect the fundamental rights of all, and we support those states that exercise proportionate and accountable power over their citizens in good faith and those states that comply with their obligations under national and international law. We should, perhaps, also explain that what we are talking about is not for the benefit or self-aggrandisement of the lawyers, but for the benefit of all citizens — to enable them to live and let live in a tolerant society where their rights are respected. It is, as I have said, all about tolerance and respect — not about protecting lawyers or even judges. The second most senior judge in England and Wales was speaking at a meeting of the Alliance for Lawyers at Risk, a charity that brings together prominent members of the British legal community to support lawyers and human rights defenders throughout the world who face personal danger because of their professional work. The alliance makes an annual award in memory of Sir Henry Brooke CMG (1936-2018), who was vice-president of the Court of Appeal from 2003 until his retirement in 2006. Brooke’s parents were both appointed to the House of Lords, as was his brother. A former president of the Society for Computers and Law, he launched a legal blog in 2015 that remains a model of its kind. This year’s Henry Brooke award went to Ruth López (pictured), described by the judging panel as one of the most prominent and courageous defenders of the rule of law in El Salvador. Her investigations, the panel added, have brought to light issues such as unlawful spyware surveillance, political patronage networks and unconstitutional legislative measures that restrict and undermine public access to information. Vos presented the award to Lopez’s husband. That was because her work as director of the anti-corruption and justice unit at Cristosal, a regional human rights organisation working across El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, led to her arrest and imprisonment last May. She has not been tried or convicted. Action taken against López by the authorities in El Salvador has been widely condemned by lawyers’ groups. Last July, the American Bar Association selected her for its annual international human rights award. To learn more about the Alliance for Lawyers at Risk — what it does and what impact its work can have — I spoke yesterday to its president, Dominic Grieve KC, the former Conservative MP who served as attorney general from 2010 to 2014 and then as chair of parliament’s intelligence and security committee. While interviewing Grieve for the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks, I took the opportunity to ask him what he made of the advice thought to have been given to ministers by Lord Hermer KC, the current attorney general, on the lawfulness of military action against Iran by the US and Israel. That issue struck me as particularly timely ahead of a forthcoming discussion between Professor Lord Verdirame KC and Professor John Bew CMG: My weekly podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol on the graphic at the top of this page.

    27 sec
  2. Life and death

    5 MAR

    Life and death

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com “Any decision about the care and treatment of a mentally incapacitated adult, including the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, must be taken in the patient’s best interests,” the Court of Appeal said on Tuesday. “There is no carve-out for ‘clinical decisions’,” the court added, overruling a decision by a highly experienced Court of Protection judge. That conclusion is so broad that it cannot possibly be correct, a leading lawyer in the field of health and social care told me yesterday. Victoria Butler-Cole KC said the ruling means that practical advice issued by the British Medical Association to assist doctors when making decisions in the best interests of incapacitated adults is now wrong. She thought the ruling would cause widespread difficulties and should now be considered by the Supreme Court with the benefit of more time and full legal argument. The one person who won’t benefit from any further appeal is the man at the heart of this tragic story. Robert Barnor, 68, suffered extensive and irreversible brain damage after a stroke nearly a year ago. He died last Friday, hours before a judge was due to consider whether a hospital’s decision to withdraw life-saving kidney dialysis would be in his best interests. You can hear my interview with Butler-Cole (pictured) in the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks. My weekly podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

    17 sec
  3. State immunities

    17 FEB

    State immunities

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com How is it possible to enforce a judgment from the courts of one state against the government of another? That’s the topic I discuss on this week’s episode of A Lawyer Talks. My guest is Jehad Mustafa, a partner at Farrer & Co who specialises in state immunity, and we spoke at the solicitors’ historic (and partly stone-floored) offices in Lincoln’s Inn Fields. He and I discussed two rulings delivered last month: * In Ghanem Al-Masarir v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the High Court awarded more than £3 million in damages to a UK-resident critic of Saudi Arabia who claimed the Saudis had hacked his phone and sent people to beat him up in the street. * In COL v The United Arab Emirates, the High Court awarded more than £145,000 to a woman from the Philippines who was found to have been the victim of modern slavery after she had worked as a domestic servant for a UAE diplomat in London. Another case mentioned in our discussion was Federal Republic of Nigeria v Ogbonna, decided by the president of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2011 (though reported in 2012). What are the chances of individual claimants being able to recover even a penny of the compensation they were awarded against foreign states? The answer is more encouraging than I had thought. My weekly podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

    27 sec
  4. Jury reforms in weeks

    6 FEB

    Jury reforms in weeks

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com After months of uncertainty, the government is pressing ahead with its plans to curb the right to trial by jury in England and Wales. Legislation is to be introduced “next month”, a minister says. Sir Brian Leveson expects the government to publish its bill even sooner, he tells me in this week’s episode of A Lawyer Talks. The former head of criminal justice was talking to me about the second and final part of his report on the criminal courts, which recommends no fewer than 135 efficiency improvements. But inevitably we spent much of the interview discussing the structural reforms Leveson had recommended in part one of his review last July. The most eye-catching of these is a new bench division of the crown court, which will try cases without a jury. Leveson thought it should consist of a judge and two magistrates but the government says it will be a judge sitting alone. He was careful not to comment on the government’s proposals — or indeed on whether ministers might let magistrates sit in the bench division if concessions have to be made in the House of Lords. But Leveson was perfectly happy to tell me why he stood by his original recommendations — those that ministers had accepted and those they had not. My column for this week’s Law Society Gazette looks at how Leveson’s initial proposals were handled by the government. It also reports how he feels about the government’s decision to remove a defendant’s right to choose jury trial on charges that can be tried in the magistrates’ court. He would have limited the right to elect trial by jury rather than abolished it outright. Pieces I write for the Gazette are always free to read. The Gazette also carries a two-page analysis of Leveson’s latest recommendations by Monidipa Fouzder. My weekly podcasts are a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

    28 sec
  5. Phone hacking

    19 JAN

    Phone hacking

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com As the High Court begins hearing allegations today that the publishers of the Daily Mail hacked into phones used by the Duke of Sussex and other public figures, I thought it would be a good time to look at the most successful phone hacking operation ever carried out by law enforcement organisations in the United Kingdom and across Europe. Between 2016 and 2020, drug dealers and others involved in organised crime were using what they believed to be a secure messaging service called EncroChat. The system was cracked as a result of work by the Netherlands Forensic Institute. As a result, nearly 40,000 smartphones were infiltrated by the authorities and some 2,200 offenders were convicted in the UK alone. But although courts in England and Wales found ways of declaring the evidence admissible, prosecutions were far from straightforward because the law does not allow material intercepted in the course of transmission to be used in evidence. Without intercept material, prosecutors have to rely on phone hacking — so-called “equipment interference” — to dig out stored data. But that’s not something the agencies like to talk about. Among those calling for intercept evidence to be admissible is Professor Peter Sommer, an academic specialising in digital forensics, cyber security and electronic communications. In a recent paper, he drew on his experience as an expert witness in criminal prosecutions to explore some of the problems now facing the courts. You can hear Sommer outlining his concerns — and explaining how EncroChat was cracked — in this week’s episode of A Lawyer Talks. My weekly podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can listen a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

    24 sec
  6. Principled and pragmatic

    13 JAN

    Principled and pragmatic

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com Reducing the availability of jury trial is neither principled nor pragmatic, the incoming chair of the bar argued last night. In her inaugural address, Kirsty Brimelow KC said her first priority was to lead the Bar Council’s opposition to planned Ministry of Justice reforms. She said: The constitutional principle is deep — with its importance being cemented in 1670 when Edward Bushel and his fellow jurors, a disinterested group of property owners, would rather have gone to prison than convict the Quakers Penn and Mead of causing tumultuous assembly by preaching in Gracechurch Street… The pragmatic points are that the reduction of juries would have no impact on the existing backlog as it would take effect towards the end of this parliament. Impact even then is highly uncertain. Meanwhile energy and focus are drained from implementing the urgent reforms now that would decrease the backlog. You can hear Brimelow outlining her priorities in the latest episode of A Lawyer Talks. As well as criminal justice reform, we discussed increasing the age of criminal responsibility; lawyers under attack; bullying and harassment at the bar; human rights; and violence against women and girls. I was particularly interested in Brimelow’s experience of witchcraft. My weekly podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

    23 sec
  7. Gibraltar rocked

    5 JAN

    Gibraltar rocked

    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rozenberg.substack.com Gibraltar’s senior police officer was “in effect… forced out” of his job in 2020 as a result of assertions by the British overseas territory’s acting governor Nick Pyle and the chief minister Fabian Picardo KC that they had lost confidence in him, an inquiry by a retired British High Court judge has found. In a 700-page report published by the Gibraltar government on 23 December, Sir Peter Openshaw said he had no doubt that the real reason Picardo had lost confidence in Ian McGrail, the police commissioner, was that the Royal Gibraltar Police had obtained a search warrant against Picardo’s friend, James Levy KC, which the chief minister was “determined in one way or another to thwart”. Levy denied any wrongdoing and was never charged. Picardo had misled the police authority, the inquiry found: “by suppressing the truth, he was in effect suggesting a falsehood”. Openshaw said that although McGrail realised his position had become untenable after the governor and chief minister had lost confidence in him, he retired only because he believed he was being unfairly and unlawfully compelled to do so. He felt he was being put under improper pressure to alter the course of a live criminal investigation. The former judge found that Picardo had behaved grossly improperly when he tried to interfere in an active criminal investigation. But when Openshaw’s report was published two days before Christmas, Picardo announced that he had been vindicated and the Gibraltar government had been exonerated. The chief minister said: Crucially, the report completely exonerates the government from the many spurious allegations made against it. I am also very pleased that the inquiry chairman has found that I genuinely believed the then commissioner of police lied to me. My reading of the report, therefore, is that it vindicates my position on this crucial issue. Most of the barristers who took part in the inquiry are based in London. McGrail was represented by Adam Wagner KC from Doughty Street Chambers (pictured at the inquiry). On the latest edition of A Lawyer Talks, he told me about the inquiry’s findings and gave me his reaction to Picardo’s comments. My weekly podcast is a bonus for paying subscribers to A Lawyer Writes. Everyone else can hear a short taster by clicking the ► symbol above.

    1 min

About

Joshua Rozenberg KC (hon) is Britain's most experienced commentator on the law. This new podcast complements the daily updates he publishes on A Lawyer Writes. rozenberg.substack.com

You Might Also Like