Judges Need Fewer Powers, Not More
The Hillsborough Law is well-intentioned, but its effect will be to transfer yet more power from elected members of Parliament to judges – the opposite of what is needed to restore public trust and democratic accountability, says Toby in the Spectator. Here’s an excerpt.
The purpose of the bill, as set out in clause one, is “to ensure that public authorities and officials perform their functions in the public interest…”. That goes far beyond what’s necessary to prevent another Hillsborough. As my colleague Lord Goodman has pointed out, it could lead to civil servants refusing to carry out the orders of a Reform government – or, indeed, any government – on the grounds that doing so wouldn’t be in the public interest. The ultimate arbiter of such a stand-off would be the courts, meaning the bill will transfer even more power from Parliament to judges. The sclerosis of the British state, unable to tackle any of the country’s long-term problems because of the erosion of Parliamentary sovereignty, is about to get worse.
Then there’s clause 11, which creates a new criminal offence of misleading the public: “A public authority or public official commits an offence if, in their capacity as such an authority or official, (a) they act with the intention of misleading the public or are reckless as to whether their act will do so, and (b) they know, or ought to know, that their act is seriously improper.” If you’re wondering whether MPs and peers will be exempt, the answer is no. They’ll still have Parliamentary privilege, but if they say anything “misleading” on television or radio, even if they don’t intend it to be and don’t know that their behaviour is “seriously improper”, they could go to prison.
Does this mean Rachel Reeves would be liable for prosecution if she raises taxes in the Budget, given that she promised not to? Could Ed Miliband be clapped in irons for saying average household energy bills would fall by £300 a year? Even if the police decided not to investigate these malefactors, there would be nothing to stop a political activist bringing a private prosecution. The thought of Jolyon Maugham being armed with this new weapon under a Reform government is terrifying. For a politician to be found guilty of this offence, even if they were spared a custodial sentence, would be career ending. The casting director of I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here! will be spoilt for choice.
Advocates of the bill claim it will help restore public trust in elected officials, but I’m not so sure. The main reason the public is disillusioned with politicians isn’t because they’re corrupt. Transparency International’s 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks the UK 20th out of 180 countries. No, it’s because they keep promising to fix problems like illegal immigration, only to do sod all about them. Why? Because when they move into their swanky ministerial offices they quickly discover they lack any real power. By further restricting their room for manoeuvre and placing them even more firmly under the thumb of judges, this bill will increase the public’s contempt for politicians.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I am not entirely sure which is worse, the government, the judiciary (including the war criminal’s Supreme Court) or the civil service. I could easily add the police, the NHS and local government to that list. And then there are the quangos. And the BBC. They all quite openly work against the interests of the people who pay their wages. It cannot end well.
‘It cannot end well.’—-If indeed it ends at all BB.
All our institutions have bee infiltrated and hijacked. None serve us any more, and often now work against us.
Ah, great. Let the act pass and Reform will dis apply it with effect from the day after the next GE. That way Starmer and his success(ors) get stuffed and prosecuted Refirm not.
This is one of the most important issues of our time: the sinister rise of a Global Kritocracy = Rule by Judges, overriding all other branches of government, including the executive and the legislature. Here is another outrageous example in the news today: Religious education: Supreme Court rules the Christian-focused RE taught in NI schools is unlawful – BBC News The BBC reports this as “Family wins appeal in UK Supreme Court over religious education”, and that the case was brought by the little girl and her father, but that is a ridiculous lie by the parents. Here’s how the case started: “‘Grace before meals’ prayer sparked family’s legal challenge” “The child went to primary school [from 4-7 years old] and her parents noticed that when the child was coming home and eating, she was saying her prayers before meals.” “They were a non-religious family – they didn’t have any strong religious beliefs – and they asked: “Why?” “The child basically said this is what she had been taught to do in school.” So instead of simply withdrawing her from the Religious Education lessons, the child’s atheist mother and father launched a court case against the school, to STOP THEIR… Read more »
No doubt the case of the little girl relied on human rights laws to succeed and probably the ECHR. It’s yet another reason for the UK to leave the ECHR and there to be a complete overhaul of our human rights laws to prevent these sorts of activist cases ever coming before a judge. I’d go as far as questioning whether anyone should be able to go to court to challenge decisions made by an elected body, either the government or local authorities. The example of the little girl shows how easy it is for activist parents or groups to set the agenda provided they have access to enough money and is the opposite of democracy where, at least in theory at the ballot box, everyone’s opinion carries equal weight.
Well I think parents should absolutely have control over their children’s education. I think the state should get out of education altogether- both the provision and the regulation. Then parents can send children to a school that suits them, or educate them at home. Of course they may not find the perfect school, but that’s life and at least they will have a choice- a choice that everyone else is not forced to pay for
The way to give all parents, not just those that have the time/money to engage in lawfare, a say in their children’s education is to adopt the US system of elected school boards that, within reason, determine what is and isn’t taught in schools and if there’s some form of collective worship/prayers and what form this takes.
I don’t want to be forced to pay for state provided education and I don’t want the school my kids go to to be regulated by the state
If people like the elected school board system they are more than welcome to set up a school system and the governance thereof – just don’t force me to pay for it
All the parents had to do was what other parents do: WITHDRAW THEIR CHILD from the Religious Education class !!!
And all parents have the right to send children to a school that suits them.
Nobody is stopping them.
And nobody is trying to force JEWISH OR MUSLIM SCHOOLS to teach Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism or Wiccan Paganism to their students.
This whole legal action is an ANTI-CHRISTIAN outrage, and none of the UK Supreme Court’s business, so they should keep their noses out of it !!!
All excellent points you have made! What right should ONE WOMAN (the little girl’s mother, who is using her child as a shield to hide behind, claiming anonymity by the clever deception of forcing her husband and blameless child to be the “aggrieved parties” in this case)… What right should this ONE WOMAN have to force her own personal views upon the whole nation of Northern Ireland?
And what right do the UK Supreme Court judges have to enable her outrageous action?
Regarding the US, I think it’s likely that at the time the Establishment Clause was adopted, Christian school prayers were commonplace in the US as I suspect almost everyone in the US at that time apart from the American Indians would have been Christian. I can’t see how the people that voted to adopt the clause could possibly have thought they were rendering school prayer unconstitutional.
Therefore claiming it’s now unconstitutional is basically saying that you’ve decided to change the meaning of the law to suit your opinion. That’s not really how constitutions are meant to work. They are meant to be hard to change.
Nota Bene – this destruction of our constitution was initiated by Blair; it is Starmer’s intent to complete that work, and hence rendering Parliament to be the same as the EU one, unable to make law, and only able to rubber stamp the decision of others.
Yes, I think you are right.
If you want to keep track on just how appalling the Judiciary has become, follow David McGrogan’s Substack “News from Uncibal”; He’s a Professor of Law at Northumbria University and knows his stuff.