By Steve0606 - 7 Apr 13 4:11 PM
The new filtering rules for convictions/cautions have already been passed by Parliament and are official legislation. However, the Government chose to appeal the decision by the Court of Appeal which forced them into enacting the legislation in the first place. The case is going to be heard soon by the Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/current-cases/CCCaseDetails/case_2013_0048.html.
My question is, what happens if the court decides in the Governments favour? Isn't it true that they could just simply re-legislate against the filtering rules and we'd be stuck at square 1 again? What is the Governments actual position on this: do they actually agree with the changes they introduced or just did so because they were forced to?
|
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM
Hi. If the court of appeal overrules the initial ruling the filtering will be removed. The government (Secretary of State for the Home Department & Secretary of State for Justice) do not agree or they wouldn't filing an appeal. The government does not like European Convention on Human Rights as it restricts their power e.g. the deportation of cleric Abu Hamza. And it seems they don't want convictions to be forgotten either.
|
By Steve0606 - 7 Apr 13 4:11 PM
Aim, thanks for the reply. Are you sure they would be able to just remove it? I mean, the legislation was passed by Parliament. Surely they would need to pass new legislation in order to have it revoked. Also, they are appealing against the judgement, the legislation was actively approved by Parliament. I find it all confusing to be honest. For example what would have happened if the Government had tried to make the SI and Parliament rejected it?
|
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM
Hi Steve. This wasn't a change made by parliament. It was a ruling. There are two sources of legislation: 'English law' and United Kingdom Parliament. Senior Courts of England and Wales can make decisions which have to be obeyed (English law) but can be appealed which is what the government is doing. In this way the government can be overruled by judges.
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
I'd just like to add a note of caution here. An appeal against a judgement can be on various grounds. We've got to be careful not to jump to conclusion about the motivation of the appeal.
|
By aim - 8 Oct 10 11:54 AM
Agreed Chris. Additionally it would be good if the government were to give a reason why they are appealing. I can't see a reason given on the appeal being granted.
|
By caterpillar - 6 Jan 12 6:36 PM
Has there been any movement on this, since the hearing date was scheduled for 9th December, 2013?
|
By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM
Judgement 'reserved'. Likely to hear around Easter.
|
By Steve0606 - 7 Apr 13 4:11 PM
Chris, what were the main arguments used by the Government? Were they very convincing? I was busy during the time of the hearing and was unable to watch it. Also, did they say anything about removing the filtering legislation if their appeal were to be successful?
|
By Anonymous - 22 Dec 13 6:48 AM
Both parties in the Supreme Court were in agreement that the new Legislation addressed the incompatibility ruling of the Court of Appeal. The arguments were mainly concerned with whether or not the incompatibility ruling should have be applied to the Exemption Order in its entirety or not. Luckily, Lady Hale was one of the Justices so that should add a great deal of sense to the judgement. However, I had concern that a number of issues were not appropriately addressed, particularly the Chief Police Officers discretion for enhanced disclosures.
Legal academic and adviser.
|
By Steve0606 - 7 Apr 13 4:11 PM
CMCC thank you very much for the reply. I wish I would have been able to have seen the hearing. I still don't really understand what would happen if they allowed the appeal: would the Government re legislate or would they leave it? I suppose the obvious answer would be that they would re legislate but it just seems bizarre how a piece of legislation could be actively passed by Parliament (I see the committees in both houses vote on it) and then just change their mind and vote against it? But I suppose this is more of a political argument as opposed to a legal one.
|
By Anonymous - 22 Dec 13 6:48 AM
Like I said, no-one appeared to say that the blanket disclose of convictions was compatible with Art. 8 ECHR. The issue seemed to centre upon the scope of the deceleration of incompatibility.
Legal academic and adviser.
|