Các bài luận Tiếng Anh hay dùng tham khảo cho việc dạy và học Tiếng Anh - Phần 3

Các bài luận Tiếng Anh hay dùng tham khảo cho việc dạy và học Tiếng Anh

Trong quá trình học tập, học sinh không chỉ luyện tập các bài tập dạng trắc nghiệm mà cũng thường phải viết các bài luận để đánh giá khả năng sử dụng ngôn ngữ. Đây là một bài tập thường gây khó khăn cho học sinh vì không chỉ đánh giá khả năng thông thạo ngôn ngữ mà còn kiểm tra kiến thức, khả năng suy luận, diễn giải vấn đề một cách logic của học sinh.

The Union and Devolution ~ House of Lords Constitution Committee

The House of Lords Constitution Committee has published its 10th report of session 2015-16 - The Union and Devolution (pdf - 144 pages).  Underlying the report is concern for the future stability of the United Kingdom as a UNION in the light of devolution of power.  At the start of the report is this assertion: "The four nations of the United Kingdom are stronger united than apart. The Union has brought stability, peace and prosperity to the United Kingdom."   

Devolution

Inquests - legal aid for families

An amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill aimed at getting parity of representation for families at inquests failed in the House of Commons on 13th June.

At the end of the debate Mr Andy Burnham MP said - "It is disappointing that the Government were not even able to accept the principle that we should have equal funding. It would have been a step forward if they had been able to do so. I understand that they are asking Bishop James Jones to look at these matters, but of course, this issue goes much broader than Hillsborough. It is about fairness in our criminal justice system, and I believe that the Government are missing an opportunity by not acting on it quickly. Quite frankly, it is obscene for police forces to continue to spend large amounts of money on hiring aggressive lawyers to challenge families in the way that they do at inquests. This scandal should not be allowed to continue, and we in the Opposition will continue to fight against it until there is real change.​"

UK and the EU (12) - Final post of this series

On Thursday 23rd June, the United Kingdom will make its decision in the EU Referendum: Remain or Leave.  This series of 12 posts and an earlier post (Brexit ~ referendum ~ a few points) are an attempt to present factual information to assist with what is undoubtedly a most difficult decision about the future of our nation.




I spent a considerable amount of midnight oil writing a longer piece setting out my view and the reasons for it.  It was an interesting exercise but it led me to the conclusion that it is not the role of a law blog to seek to persuade anyone to vote one way or the other.  I have therefore settled for setting down the links to the main official information issued by government and Parliament as well as links to the earlier posts in this series.

Above all, cast your vote.  As Abraham Lincoln said - "Elections belong to the people. It's their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” 


The main official information:



The results of the Prime Minister's negotiations with EU leaders are set out in European Council Conclusions of 18 and 19 February 2016.  This "deal" will only apply if the UK referendum is in favour of the UK remaining a member.  This analysis by Slaughter and May takes a useful look at the deal. 

The Referendum Act 2015 required that certain material be published to inform the referendum -

The best of both worlds: the UK's special status in a reformed EU

Alternatives to membership: possible models for the UK outside the EU 

Rights and Obligations of EU Membership

Parliament has published - The UK's EU Referendum 2016 explained and  EU Referendum: impartial information to help you decide and - Impact of an EU exit in key UK policy areas 

The Balance of Competencies Review conducted between July 2012 and December 2014 produced 32 reports.   This was an extensive examination of most key policy areas.  It looked at what the EU does and how it affects the UK.

: Earlier posts in this series :

20th February - Brexit ~ referendum ~ a few points - including link to the deal secured by the Prime Minister

UK and the EU (1) - History and Background

UK and the EU (2) - The EU Treaties - key points

UK and the EU (3) - The Parliament, the Commission and the Court

UK and the EU (4) - Freedom of movement of persons

UK and the EU (5) - Referendum - People need facts not slogans (Lord King)

UK and the EU (6) -Will Brexit be a simple process?

UK and the EU (7) -Your Rights

UK and the EU (8) - Trading bloc or emergent State

UK and the EU (9) - A monumental referendum - information to assist

UK and the EU (10) - What if it is Brexit 

UK and the EU (11) - The event horizon approaches - What if it is Brexit

Lord Judge ~ Ceding power to the Executive

Most members of the public would be surprised to learn that Parliament frequently hands to Ministers massive powers to make legislation.  The outcome is an enormous volume of material and that is, in itself, a cause for concern.  Whilst Parliament exercises some controls over this "Ministerial legislation" it is more often than not quite minimal.  Even more concern arises from the insertion of Henry VIII provisions into many Acts of Parliament.  Here is a brief look at the issue.

Henry VIII clauses:


The Childcare Act 2016 is, by any standards, a very short Act with a mere 8 sections.  The Act requires the Secretary of State to secure free of charge childcare for qualifying children of working parents for, or for a period equivalent to, 30 hours in each of 38 weeks in any year.  

To enable the Minister to do this he is given extensive powers to make "Regulations" and those regulations may, amongst other things, amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under an Act (whenever passed or made).

This is an example of a so-called Henry VIII power - a reference to the despotic Tudor King.  In essence, the Minister is empowered to write the detailed law.  The Childcare Act is therefore little more than skeleton legislation enabling Ministers to devise a scheme and enact legislation to implement it.  Flexibility to alter the scheme is retained without the need to go back to Parliament to seek an amending Act.

Another example of Henry VIII in action is section 51 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 which enables Ministers to "amend, repeal or revoke" any "existing statutory provision." 

Parliament should ensure that - (a) any such clauses inserted into legislation are strictly justified and (b) that there is adequate control over legislation made using such powers.  Unless Parliament does those things then Ministerial power (that is Executive Power) is increased at the expense of Parliamentary control over the executive.

Often, Parliament will require that any legislation made under such powers requires an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. In practice, debate on the detail will not usually be extensive and there is no power to amend the draft legislation.  It has to be either affirmed or rejected.  Parliament could alter that arrangement if it were to be so minded.

Concern and criticism:

Concern about Henry VIII clauses is not new but, in recent years, there has been repeated criticism.  

Lord Judge of Draycote had  a distinguished judicial career culminating in him being Lord Chief Justice from 2008 to 2013.   On 13th July 2010 he spoke at The Mansion House, London and, as part of his speech, he expressed serious concern at the extensive and growing use of Henry VIII powers  - Lord Judge's 2010 speech may be read here and Joshua Rozenberg published an article about it in The Guardian 15th July 2010.

Recently, in a speech at King's College London on 12th April 2016, Lord Judge has renewed his attack on such powers.  His speech concluded by saying  - "Unless strictly incidental to primary legislation, every Henry VIII clause, every vague skeleton bill, is a blow to the sovereignty of Parliament. And each one is a self-inflicted blow, each one boosting the power of the executive. Is that what we want? Is that how our constitutional arrangements must continue to develop? Should we allow the powers of the executive to increase and the sovereignty of Parliament to be diminished?

Examples of others criticising the use of Henry VIII clauses are:

Richard Gordon QC - Why Henry VIII clauses should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Committee - 3rd report of session 2012-13.

House of Lords Constitution Committee - 9th report 2015-16

In his latest speech, Lord Judge noted how the Parliament of the day reacted to the Statute of Proclamations 1539 by placing some limits on the use of Proclamations by the monarch.  Perhaps there is a lesson there for modern Parliamentarians though they will have to find time in a busy Parliamentary schedule that is largely controlled by the executive!  Certainly, the reports of the various committees seem to have been placed in the dustbin!

The Baronetcy of Pringle of Stichill ~ Reference under Judicial Committee Act 1833 s.4

Updated 20th June:

On Monday 20th June, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will give its advice to Her Majesty in the Pringle Baronetcy reference - see Judicial Committee website.  On the 10th of November 2014, HM The Queen made a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 so as to obtain the Opinion of the Committee as to which of the Applicant (Norman Murray Pringle) or Respondent (Simon Robert Pringle) should be entered on the Official Roll of the Baronetage in respect of the Baronetcy of Stichill.



Previous post 14th October 2015.

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has advised Her Majesty that Norman Murray should be enrolled as the Baronet - Judgment (PDF) and Press summary (PDF)

UK and the EU (11) - The event horizon approaches - What if it is Brexit

Event Horizon

Suppose that the outcome of the EU Referendum is Leave.  The UK will then start its journey along Brexit Road - a road without any detailed road map.  This post takes a somewhat speculative look at some of the matters that might arise along the way.  First of all, a couple of points of law:



1.   The referendum result does NOT bind the UK government or Parliament in law.  There is nothing in this Referendum Act (or elsewhere) to require - as a matter of law - the government or Parliament to either do anything at all or to do any particular thing.  For further discussion on this point see the article by David Allen Green in the Financial Times (£) - Can the UK government legally disregard a vote for Brexit?

2.   The Treaty on European Union (TEU) Article 50  sets out the ground rules for withdrawal.  Art 50(1) - "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

So, what are the constitutional requirements in the UK?  Since this referendum result will not, in domestic law, bind the government or Parliament it would seem that Parliament ought to somehow endorse the result.  Unless that is done there may not actually be a "Decision" for the purposes of Article 50.

The formal process set out in Article 50 does not begin until the British government gives notice to the European Council.  The notice would trigger everything including the 2 year (possibly extendable) timescale as set out in the Article - see Art 50(3).  Precisely what constitutes "notice to the European Council" seems not to be specified but it probably requires a formal communique of some sort from the British government to the European Council President.



The process of leaving - some issues arising:

Things would undoubtedly be very tricky POLITICALLY and there would be much to do BEFORE any formal Article 50 notice of Brexit is given to the EU.  

1.   The government will have to respond in an appropriate way to the Brexit vote.  That will require a sensible withdrawal plan setting out clearly the steps to be taken.  There would be little point posting a letter straightaway to the European Council giving notice of withdrawal as required by Article 50 (TEU). All that would do is kick start the withdrawal process without any clear idea of how the process would be conducted.  The government would do well to take a sensible period (say 6 months or so) to establish and consult about such a withdrawal plan.

2.   Parliament itself may feel the need to assert its right to be consulted at all stages.  That might entail some form of Parliamentary Committee being established to monitor and report on events as they unfold.

3.   Talks with the EU about the withdrawal process would be essential and these should take place before any notice is given under Article 50.  That would enable both sides to have a clear understanding of the process to be followed.

Article 50(2) requires that an agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the TFEU and it shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

Article 218 TFEU sets out a procedure for negotiation of agreements: - "The Commission, ........, shall submit recommendations to the Council, which shall adopt a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and, depending on the subject of the agreement envisaged, nominating the Union negotiator or the head of the Union's negotiating team" - [Art 281(3) with some words omitted].

In passing, it can be noted that Art 218(11) provides that a Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission may obtain the opinion of the Court of Justice as to whether an agreement envisaged is compatible with the Treaties.

4.   A further point is Art 50(4) which would operate to exclude the UK from certain discussions in the European Council including any decision on whether to extend the 2 year timescale.  Particular clarity would be required on the matter of participation.  Crucially, this could make it very difficult (if not impossible) for the UK to assume the EU Council Presidency planned for July 2017.

5.  Before giving formal notice, the UK would have to have some clear idea about whatever trading and other arrangements it wanted to have with the EU in the future.  Similarly, the European Union would need to have a clear view as to what it was prepared to accept.  At least that would form a starting point for Brexit negotiations.

6.  Before giving formal notice the British government would have to have a very clear understanding of the position of the devolved governments in the UK.  As an example, if the referendum result was a Brexit majority in England but not in Scotland then what would happen?  Even to ask such a question is to get a glimpse of the Pandora's Box which may open.

7.  Would the approval of Parliament be required before giving formal notice of withdrawal?

Article 50 is not in play here since the Article states that "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

Negotiations to enter into a new Treaty are normally the province of Ministers who negotiate under prerogative powers (see Ministry of Justice Consultation Paper 26/2007).  Parliament is involved in the ratification of treaties - see Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

Negotiations about withdrawal from the EU Treaties would be conducted by (or on behalf of) Ministers.  Parliament would inevitably become involved since the European Communities Act 1972 would have to be repealed (and replaced with appropriate new legislation).


At least, all of this seems to point to a political need to obtain the approval of Parliament before entering into formal negotiations.   In any event, Parliament would expect to have its say on the outcome of any talks with the EU prior to the time of formal notice.

Could the UK give notice under Article 50 but rescind the notice later?

Art 50(5) - If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

It seems that there is nothing legally to prevent the UK rescinding its notice to quit but it is a moot point whether this situation would ever arise.  It appears that it would be a matter for agreement between the UK government and the EU.

Could a Brexit Vote lead to a General Election?

One possibility is that the Prime Minister resigns having been unable to win his Remain argument.  The most recent Prime Ministerial resignation is that of Tony Blair in 2007.  HM The Queen appointed Gordon Brown as Prime Minister and he held the office until the General Election in 2010.  Thus, a Prime Ministerial resignation does not trigger a General election.  (Whether it should do so is another issue).

The Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (FTPA) determines when there may be another General Election.  The FTPA is discussed in UK and the EU - No. 10

Essentially, the next election will be in May 2020 unless a general election is called because one of the procedures in section 2 of the FTPA is applied.  These are basically - (1) that the House of Commons votes for an early election (note the two-thirds requirement) or (2) that there is a successful motion of no confidence in the government and that is not reversed within 14 days.  Parliament cannot be otherwise dissolved.

The only other way to a General Election would be for Parliament to repeal the FTPA and, as part of doing so, put other arrangements in its place.  (Note: I do not think that simple repeal of the FTPA would result in a return to the "Prime Minister can call the shots" system that existed before the FTPA though Parliament could legislate for such a system).

Could a Brexit vote be ignored or not acted upon?

It would be politically impossible to simply ignore a Brexit vote.  The more likely approach will be that Ministers will enter into talks with the EU - (not at this point formal negotiations) - to see what the EU position is.  Similarly, they will see what the view of the devolved governments is.

It is quite possible to envisage scenarios where the government (or Parliament) might think that the result was not decisive enough. An article by Lord Lisvane (a former Clerk of the House of Commons) and published by the Constitution Unit suggests this possibility -

"If the result is narrow and the turnout is low then the possibilities become a lot more complicated. Remember that the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum was 55.3 per cent No, 44.7 per cent Yes, on an extremely high turnout of 84.59 per cent. If the result on June 23 was, say, 51 to 49 in favour of Leave on a turnout of 55 per cent then that would move quite a lot of goalposts – especially if Scotland had voted to stay and England to leave. The Prime Minister could say that such a result is not sufficiently decisive and so we will negotiate heads of agreement on withdrawal, and then have a second referendum to decide whether to trigger the exit process on that basis."

How would Brexit itself be handled?

Legislation will be necessary to deal with the vast volume of legislation involved in the UK's membership of the EU.  The aim of any such legislation would be to implement the final withdrawal agreement by whatever date membership ceases.  It would not necessarily involve the removal from domestic law of everything linked to the EU since the withdrawal agreement will have to deal with the on-going UK-EU relationship.  It is perfectly possible to envisage a number of matters remaining in place such as the European Arrest Warrant system.

To cope effectively with what is likely to be a lengthy and complicated process, it seems likely that Parliament will enact enabling legislation and leave it to Ministers to make implementing legislation.  I have a vision of yet another Act amounting to an enormous Henry VIII power !

Endpiece:

Withdrawal from the EU will be a legally interesting process but it is potentially a nightmare politically.  The UK government would need to obtain the best possible deal for the British people.  The EU will obviously act (as it must) in its own best interests.  What those are in these circumstances must be a matter of speculation at the moment.

Those who have read the above may well think that Brexit is a process best avoided.  Alternatively,   you may think that the difficulties are not insurmountable and that travelling along Brexit Road is necessary.   You might think either of those things - I cannot possibly comment! 
 

: Earlier posts in this series :

20th February - Brexit ~ referendum ~ a few points - including link to the deal secured by the Prime Minister

UK and the EU (1) - History and Background

UK and the EU (2) - The EU Treaties - key points

UK and the EU (3) - The Parliament, the Commission and the Court

UK and the EU (4) - Freedom of movement of persons

UK and the EU (5) - Referendum - People need facts not slogans (Lord King)

UK and the EU (6) -Will Brexit be a simple process?

UK and the EU (7) -Your Rights

UK and the EU (8) - Trading bloc or emergent State

UK and the EU (9) - A monumental referendum - information to assist

UK and the EU (10) - What if it is Brexit
    

Justice Committee - The Magistracy (2)

The House of Commons Justice Committee is conducting an Inquiry into the Role of the Magistracy and has concluded its evidence sessions.  The first of those sessions was covered in an earlier post on 24th March - Justice Committee - The Magistracy. 

A second session was held on 10th May and this took evidence from six Magistrates.   The final session was held on 7th June 2016 with evidence from the Magistrates' Association; the Senior Presiding Judge (Lord Justice Fulford) and the Chief Magistrate (Mr Howard Riddle) and, finally, from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara MP).





These sessions are reasonably lengthy but are worth watching for those seeking to be informed about the many issues confronting the Magistrates and the Magistrates' Courts.  This post does not seek to address all of those issues but they included whether Magistrates ought to specialise more; the relationship between Magistrates and District Judges (Magistrates' Courts); the new Single Justice Procedure; Court closures; Recruitment of Magistrates and Diversity; Sentencing Powers etc.

The future?

Perhaps we see through a glass darkly* as to what the future may hold.

Clearly under consideration is a "Unified Criminal Court" and it seems that it will have "lay justices" as part of its judiciary though no details are available.  A similar "unification" process took place in the family jurisdiction with the creation in 2014 of the Family Court - Crime and Courts Act 2013.

The Unified Criminal Court is referred to in the January 2015 Report by Sir Brian Leveson - Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings - (page 92). 

It seems from the evidence given by Lord Justice Fulford that there is support within the senior judiciary for trial by jury for many lower level offences to be removed.  This may be linked with additional sentencing powers for Magistrates.  Limitation of trial by jury is essentially cost driven.  It is claimed that jury trial is expensive and that it can be disproportionate to the issues in the case.  For the moment I will leave that topic to one side and concentrate on another - Legal Aid.

Legal Aid seems to have had no mention at all in the committee's sessions.  In the present legal system, criminal cases are either dealt with by the Magistrates' Court or by the Crown Court.  The rules to obtain legal aid differ between the two.  In the Magistrates' Court, legal aid will not be granted for representation unless the defendant meets BOTH a means test AND an interests of justice test.  If more work is ever to be given to Magistrates then it is, I submit, vital that the whole question of legal aid for representation is reconsidered carefully since the issues in cases can be more complex and the consequences for individual defendants greater.  It was sad to observe a Parliamentary Committee talking about increasing the powers of Magistrates without also saying that legal aid needs to be examined.

It is also rather surprising that the Justice Committee's evidence sessions did not look at the role of Justices of the Peace in Scotland since those reforms may hold possibilities for England and Wales.

* 1 Corinthians 13:12

Extending the Voter registration deadline

Update 10th June:  The Regulations were approved by both Houses of Parliament on 9th June.  It seems likely that House of Commons will examine further the problems that arose.  See The Regulations - "made" at 6.29 pm on Thursday 9th June.  Somewhat in excess of 400,000 people were added to the electoral register over 8th and 9th June.



Original post:

Here is a link to the draft Regulations which are to be put to Parliament for approval today (9th June) - The European Union Referendum (Voter Registration) Regulations 2016.   See also House of Commons - Debate on Voter Registration Regulations.


The power to make these Regulations is stated to be - sections 4(1) and (5), 9(5) and 11(1) of the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

The reason for the extension (from midnight Tuesday 7th June to midnight Thursday 9th June) is that the computer system handling registrations was unable to cope with late demand on Tuesday evening - BBC News 8th June.

Convoluted law-making:



The UK does not have specific tailor-made legislation for referendums and so it has been necessary to legislate on each occasion that a national referendum has been held.  The process adopted (so far) is to apply existing electoral law to the referendum but with some changes where appropriate.

The Referendum Act 2015 section 4 enables Ministers to make "Conduct Regulations" and permits those regulations to apply (with or without modifications) the Representation of the People Act 1983 to the referendum.  The European Union Referendum (Conduct) Regulations 2016 were duly made.

The European Union Referendum (Voter Registration) Regulations 2016 will amend Schedule 1 (cut and paste technique) of the The European Union Referendum (Conduct) Regulations 2016

Individuals will have registered between midnight 7th June and the making of the Regulations.  Questions of retrospective legislation may arise.  Even if the Interpretation Act 1978* ensures that registrations on 9th June are in order then it is possible that registrations on 8th June may not be covered.  However that may be legally, I cannot see anyone actually trawling the computer system to see who registered on 8th June - but you never know!

For now, let's see how this goes!

Extra note 10th June - Having said the above, the actual Voter Registrations Regulations were made at 16.29 hours on 9th June and they come into force (according to regulation 1) when they are made - i.e. 16.29 hours on 9th June.  This may mean that there is a legal gap between midnight 7th June and 16.29 on 9th.  Whether this will matter is a moot point but it's of interest.  On this see Carl Gardner's Head of Legal blog 9th June 2016.

Individual Voter Registration explained 

Footnote:

*Section 4 states ....

An Act or provision of an Act comes into force—

(a)where provision is made for it to come into force on a particular day, at the beginning of that day;

(b)where no provision is made for its coming into force, at the beginning of the day on which the Act receives the Royal Assent.

This extends to subordinate legislation because of section 23.

EU Referendum - Voter Registration - A nightmare of a paper chase!

I had planned to do a walk today: fresh air and exercise and all that.  Unfortunately, the weather turned dull with bouts of heavy rain so I abandoned the idea of the walk.  I suppose that I could have found something better to do but I ended up delving into the law behind Voter Registration for the EU Referendum.  Get a life I hear you say!  OK - but it demonstrated what an absolute mess our statute law is in.



It is now over 14 years since Lord Justice Laws expressed dismay in the "Metric Martyrs" case about the "nightmare of a paper chase" involved in weights and measures legislation.  He was dealing with criminal offences relating to how vegetables were weighed out for customers and said - "I regard it as lamentable that criminal offences should be created by such a maze of cross-references in subordinate legislation."

The same could be said of Voter Registration.  I will try to demonstrate - as briefly as possible - why.

Our journey begins with the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA).   

This already heavily amended Act was amended again when the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 section 16 inserted section 13AB into the RPA.    

Section 13AB was then amended by the Recall of Members of Parliament Act 2015 (Schedule 2 paragraphs 1 and 4). 

Parliament then enacted the European Union Referendum Act 2015 and sections 4(1) and (5), 9(5) and 11(1) of the Referendum Act made it possible to make subordinate legislation so that the RPA could be applied to the EU Referendum.  

Enter the European Union (Conduct) Regulations 2016.   Schedule 1 paragraph 4 of this beings - "In relation to England, Wales and Scotland, section 13AB of the 1983 Act applies for the purposes of the referendum but as if ...." and then a lengthy set of changes to the RPA section 13AB follows.

Earlier this week, when the need to extend Voter Registration arose, the Conduct Regulations were amended by the The European Union (Voter Registration) Regulations 2016.  These amended the European Union (Conduct) Regulations 2016 which, as already noted, amended the RPA section 13AB.

So there you have it!  I still don't have an accurate text of the RPA as amended by all of this.  I suspect that very few will have one!  It may emerge in the next few days or so once the "cut and paste" experts have burned some midnight oil.

There may be a problem.  The European Union (Voter Registration) Regulations tell us precisely when they were made - 16.29 hours on 9th June.  According to Regulation 1, these Regulations commence when made - i.e. 1629 hours on 9th June.  It seems, as Carl Gardner points out in his Head of Legal post of 9th June, that the period from midnight 7th June to 16.29 on 9th June may not be covered.  Whether this will matter remains to be seen.  Probably not.

In any event, I think that in this instance it is clearly implicit that Parliament intended the Voter Registration Regulations to cover the period from midnight 7th to midnight 9th.  Any common law presumption against retrospective legislation may be overcome by necessary implication especially where the new law is made to deal with a matter of such fundamental democratic importance as the right to vote.  

Perhaps next time I will do my planned walk but it's a pity that, in a democracy where voting is vital, our statutory electoral law is in such a mess.   Time for a pint in the local.  Yes, beer may still be legally sold in pints!

Deepcut

Update - Addendum 6th June 2016 

Privates Sean Benton (died June 1995) - Cheryl James (died November 1995) - Geoff Gray (died September 2001) - James Collinson (died March 2002).  They were all at Deepcut Barracks and all died from gunshots - BBC News 1st February 2016.

The website Deepcut The Truth has the following about each of the soldiers - Sean Benton (5 wounds to his chest) - Cheryl Jones (a gunshot to the head) - Geoff Gray (two gunshots to the head) - James Collinson - (a gunshot to the head).



An inquest into the death of Cheryl James has just ended. 
This inquest was ordered by the High Court in 2014 and was conducted by Brian Barker QC (sitting as Nominated Coroner)- see the Inquest Factual Findings 3rd June 2016.  The inquest was Article 2 compliant (see para 3.13).  Art 2 compliance has arisen from recognition at the highest levels of the judicial system that the European Convention on Human Rights requires States to look at the circumstances in which death occurred where authorities of the State (e.g. Police or the Military) may be involved.  In the words of the Coroner: "... the circumstances in which Ms James came by her death, as well as the means by which she died, must be considered and, at very least, any causative matters included in the record of inquest."  (Note also - Coroners and Justice Act 2009 section 5).

The Coroner considered whether to make a report under Regulation 28 of the Coroners (Investigation) Regulations 2013 but decided that it was not necessary given improvements already made but he noted that the Army "has still some way to go in changing attitudes and culture" (para 65.5).

The death was recorded as suicide.  The circumstances were that Ms James was posted as a lone female guard contrary to Army Policy; the risk of self-harm to trainees during lone armed guard duty had not been adequately recognised nor had adequate steps been taken to reduce that risk.

Reaction of Cheryl James' parents:

It is reported that Ms James' parents are disappointed at the outcome of the inquest and their statement makes serious criticisms - Statement by Cheryl James' parents - and expresses the view that the "evidence did not lead to this verdict."  They find it deeply regrettable that the experiences of other young women and men were ruled out of scope at the inquest."

Concern is expressed that "some individuals have been less than truthful" and it is noted that the Commanding Officer (at the time) of Deepcut continues to deny the extent of the problems and denies any responsibility for overseeing such a brutal and abusive environment.  Counsel for Surrey Police - Mr John Beggs QC - does not escape their criticism - " ... we found Mr Beggs' approach to be unnecessarily adversarial and unpleasant." 

Further inquiry?

Former Chief of the General Staff General The Lord Dannatt agreed on TV that there should be an Inquiry into the Deepcut deaths - BBC Newsnight. Lord Dannatt was CGS from 2006-9.

In March 2006 a review conducted by Nicholas Blake QC reported - The Deepcut Review (508 pages).   Mr Blake made 34 recommendations but also recommended that a public inquiry was not necessary.  That would not of course prevent the Minister from establishing one and there appears to be a strong case for one to be held in order to understand matters such as how the culture at Deepcut developed and the extent to which bullying and sexual offences took place.  There is also a need for the public to be assured that the Army is now a better place for recruits that it was at Deepcut in the 1990s and early 2000s.

The government's response to the Deepcut Review is available and indicates that government accepted most of the recommendations and agreed that a Public Inquiry was not required (see para 8 of the government's response).

It was disappointing to note that the response said - "Recommendation 31 (availability of legal representation for families at inquests) is not readily reconciled with the general character of inquests."  According to the government response, the reasoning behind that statement is that "an inquest is an inquisitorial, non-adversarial fact finding process of limited scope which does not make findings of civil or criminal liability."  Exceptional funding may be available and an application should certainly be considered if Article 2 may be engaged- see the Guidance issued in August 2015.  The guidance followed on from the case of Letts v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWHC 402 (Admin).

The Defence Select Committee's Third report of session 2004-5 is also highly relevant.  

Addendum 6th June 2016:

The BBC programme (59 mins) - Deepcut: The Army's shame is available until about the end of June via iplayer.


Statement by LIBERTY 

Liberty represents the families of three of the four young recruits who died at Deepcut between 1995 and 2002 – including Ptes Sean Benton and James Collinson – and will continue to seek the fresh inquests they and their families deserve.

Statement by Cheryl James' parents 

The Telegraph - General Sir Nick Carter - Deepcut tragedy will be constant reminder of the debt of care we owe recruits

A few items of legal interest

Whilst the impending EU referendum is dominating the news, here are some other items of interest.

1) Excellent BBC Law in Action on history of crimes against humanity and genocide as international crimes. By Joshua Rozenberg.

2) Julie Hambleton - The Justice Gap - The hierarchy of justice: why Yewtree but not the Birmingham bombings?  .... and, it seems, New Inquests have been ordered.    Video - Birmingham pub bombings: Inquests reopened.   For a view that this can only lead to heartache see the article by Chris Mullin - The Guardian 1st June 2016 


My post of 26th November 2014 - The Birmingham Pub Bombings 1974 - another day that should live in criminal infamy.  In that post I looked at the case, the trial, the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, various improvements to the law but cautioned against any complacency that miscarriages of justice cannot occur today.

See also the website Justiceforthe21

In McCaughey [2011] UKSC 20 the UK Supreme Court held (by a 6:1 majority) that, a Coroner holding an inquest must comply with the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  This applies even where the death occurred prior to the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 (i.e. 2nd October 2000).  The McCaughey case arose from death in 1990 at the hands of British Forces in Northern Ireland.

On the Coroner's decision to resume the inquests see the article by Nageena Khalique QC 1st June 2016. The coroner held that the power to resume the inquest was preserved notwithstanding the changes in legislation between 1974 and 2016. It was held that the inquests were suspended and the requisite power to resume the inquest was preserved by paragraph 8, Schedule 1 of the CJA 2009.

3) The Round-up: Criminal justice close to breaking point - UK Human Rights blog 31st May.

4) Michael Gove's new advisory panel on how to improve the Criminal Justice System - Law Society Gazette 28th May.

5) The secret family courts narrative has a lot to answer for - John Bolch on the Marilyn Stowe blog

6) Here is a useful website by Scoop It! covering Children in Law

7) The Guardian - The conviction of Hissène Habré: Africa points the way