Barrister goes to Court shocker

I am in Court for the next few days.

Normal service will resume shortly.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

FARCE

Read this and then wonder at whether the administration of justice has been brought into disrepute.

What a mess.

Rozenberg gets it right.

CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU ALL

QUEEN'S COUNSEL 2010

(appointees in alphabetical order)

Mr David Jeffrey Aaronberg

Mr Piers Dyke Acland

Mr Mark Roger Anderson

Mr Mohammed Jalil Akhter Asif

Mr Nicholas Michael Bacon

Mr Alexander Bailin

Mr Rupert Patrick Craig Baldry

Mr Charles Jefferis Woodburn Benson

Miss Jane Bewsey

Miss Zia Kurban Bhaloo

Miss Claire Blanchard

Ms Veronique Eira Buehrlen

Mr John Malcolm Burton

Mr David John Cavender

Mr Patrick Chamberlayne

Mr Jeffrey Paul Chapman

Mr Julian Mark Carmichael Christopher

Mr Michael Jeremy Patrick Coburn

Mrs Michelle Diane Mary Colborne

Mr John Gordon Cooper

Mr Nigel Stuart Cooper

Miss Jane Elizabeth Cross

Mr Derrick Ralph Dale

Miss Katharine Louise D'Arcy

Mr Arthur Alan Dashwood

Mr Michael James Davie

Ms Anuja Ravindra Dhir

Mr Paul Simon Downes

Mr Michael Simon Edenborough

Mr Philip Douglas Edwards

Miss Naomi Lisa Ellenbogen

Mr John Cowie Elvidge

Miss Susan Louise Carr Evans

Mr Francis Thomas Feehan

Mr Francis George Herbert Dillon FitzGibbon

Mr William David Wingate Flenley

Mr Steven Charles Ford

Mr Gerard Forlin

Ms Isabella Louise Forshall

Mr Rudi Fletcher Fortson

Mr Kerim Selchuk Fuad

Mr Joseph John Bela Leslie Giret

Mr Paul Richard Greaney

Mr Andrew James Dominic Green

Miss Sally Harrison

Mr Neil Ashley Hawes

Ms Sioban Mary Healy

Mr Kevin John Hegarty

Mr Mark Adrian Heywood

Mr David Seymour Hislop

Miss Katharine Jane Holland

Mr David John Hooper

Mr George Hugh-Jones

Mr Syed Raza Husain

Mr Paul Richard Hynes

Mr Thomas Victor William Kark

Mr Lee Nadesalingam Karu

Mr Christopher Laurence Paul Kennedy

Ms Judith Khan

Mr Charles Dominic Kimmins

Mr Cyril Kinsky

Mr Jonathan Kirk

Mr Stephen Knafler

Mr Steven Laszlo Kovats

Mr Sean Larkin

Mr Nicholas Peter Le Poidevin

Mr Thomas Alexander Crispin Leech

Mr Robert Stuart Levy

Mr John Letablere Litton

Mr Andrew James Lloyd-Eley

Mr Andrew William Jardine Lockhart

Mr Amjad Raza Malik

Mr David Buchanan Mason

Mr Harold Nsamba Matovu

Mr Richard Andrew Matthews

Mr William Thomas McCormick

Mr Angus Maxwell Thomas McCullough

Mr Bryan Nicholas McGuire

Mr Manus Anthony McMullan

Mr Alexander Hugh Milne

Dr Timothy John Moloney

Mr Neil Robert Moody

Ms Helen Mountfield

Mr Gordon Lawrence Nardell

Mr Cairns Louis David Nelson

Mr Andrew Bennett Newcombe

Mr Peter Robert Oldham

Mr Brian Patrick O'Neill

Mr Daniel Richard Oudkerk

Mr Benedict Joseph Patten

Mr Robert Roger Peel

Mr Simon Benjamin Phillips

Mr Julian Mark Picton

Mr Timothy Sheridan Pitt-Payne

Mr Nigel John Power

Mr Piers Charles William Pressdee

Mr Thomas Price

Mr Philip Carslake Rainey

Mr Paul Stuart Malcolm Reed

Mr Jonathan David Rees

Mr Andrew James Rigney

Mr Jonathan Huw Sinclair Russen

Mr Matthew Conrad Ryder

Mr James Timothy Norman Scobie

Mr Akhil Shah

Mr Andrew John Short

Mr Richard Penkivil Slade

Mr Marcus Alexander Smith

Mr David Hugh Southey

Mr Paul Mallalieu Stanley

Mr Daniel Malachi Stilitz

Mr Christopher Paul Stoner

Miss Jemima Lucy Stratford

Mr Jonathan Mark Swift

Mr David Travers

Mr George Marcus Arthur Trinick

Mr Paul Geoffrey Tucker

Mr Ian Stephen Unsworth

Mr Adam Skanda Vaitilingam

Mr Ian Wade

Mr Robert Thomas Macdonald Weir

Mr Martin Trevor Westgate

Ms Philippa Jane Edwards Whipple

Mr Jonathan Whitfield

Miss Anne Lynne Whyte

Miss Joanne Wicks

Mr Sean David Henry Wilken

Mr Rhodri John Williams

Mr Ian Wise

NOTES

I warned medical regulators to be ready for a new appellate force and indeed I see that Nicola Davies J has granted the first professional discipline appeal to come before her......

The new QC list will be out tomorrow - good luck everyone.

This is good on Binyam Mohamed http://www.headoflegal.com/2010/02/24/binyam-mohamed-finally-an-end/

And did it really take 8 Lords and 1 Lady to decide this:

it was more accurate and helpful to say that the consequences of interference with art.8 rights had to be exceptionally serious before they could outweigh the importance of extradition, 

If being away from your family meant that you shouldn't face criminal prosecution (whether here or abroad) then we wouldn't have prisoners on remand nor anybody awaiting extradition (and consequently no countries prepared to extradite people to us).  I can't really understand how Mr Norris was going to succeed on this point,  absent some evidence of exceptionally serious interference with his family life?

CAN YOU BUY YOUR WAY OUT OF A FINE?

I am a bit disturbed by this decision (19/2/10) from the Criminal Division of the C of A:


Thames Water has a sewerage works in South Croydon.  It wanted to clean them out using highly toxic chemicals (essentially bleach) and then this happened:

1. The sodium hypochlorite cleaning process was begun at about 10 a.m. on 17 September 2007. It was carried out by two of the Appellant's employees. They had not been given any training in the risks involved, nor were they supervised. The first three tanks were, however, cleaned without incident. When the penstock valve to the fourth tank was closed it registered as being fully shut. However it was not, and effluent continued to flow into the tank. No dipstick test was carried out as to the level inside the tank, nor was a lookout posted on the weir, and therefore the two employees failed to notice the continuing ingress of effluent. Mr Barnard for the Appellant conceded that a moment's reflection would have revealed the need for safeguards, and that the mistake in failing to post a lookout on the weir was a 'juvenile' one. Thus when the 1,600 litres of sodium hypochlorite was poured into the tank, the great majority of it was flushed out over the weir and into the main effluent carrier. Although the employees realised that some of the chemical had been flushed out, it appears that they thought that it was only a small proportion, and thus the matter was not reported.
2. Downstream however, the catastrophic consequences soon became obvious. Within half an hour, local residents noticed a very strong and nauseating smell of bleach coming from the main effluent carrier, that the  water  in it had turned cloudy and was bubbling, and that fish were dying in numbers. Police officers were called to the scene and, as one of the officers put it, saw that the chemical was killing the fish and stripping the river of life. The public had to be kept back from the river bank for their own protection from the effects of the bleach. Suspecting that the problem had come from the Works, an officer went there and was informed about the cleaning process. The officer contacted the Environment Agency and they attended the affected area (which, by then, extended along the whole of the main effluent carrier, and also about 2.7 kilometres downstream from its confluence with the river). The officials from the Environment Agency were eventually joined by a senior employee of the Appellant company.
3. A sample of the polluted  water  was taken by a member of the public. Analysis of the sample showed that it contained 150 milligrams of bleach per litre. The Environment Agency's recommended limit for discharge from the Works was .005 milligrams per litre.

The River Wandle is one of those suburban London Rivers which the Enviornment Agency has managed to salvage from its post industrial state to water which fish actaully live in:

1. There then followed a significant operation to clean up the damage to the main effluent carrier and the river. It involved the Environment Agency, the Appellant's contractors, members of angling clubs and members of the public. The clean up operation lasted several days.
2. A report prepared by a Fisheries officer indicated that, on a conservative estimate, over 2 tonnes of fish had been killed by what was, in environmental terms, a short sharp shock to the controlled  waters . Substantial quantities of the fish were of very high quality, with many of the larger specimens likely to be over 10 years old, and thus effectively irreplaceable. Also killed were the vast majority of the  water  hog lice, fresh  water  shrimp and other invertebrates in the affected area, along with all the flora touched by the pollution. Further destruction at Morden Hall Park had been averted by closing sluice gates after information from an alert member of the public about events upstream.
3. The Chairman of the Trustees of the Wandle Trust (otherwise relied upon by the Appellant – see paragraph 24 below) described the offence as follows:-

"The pollution event from [the Works] was completely inexcusable; a tragedy for the Wandle that with one wrong turn of a stopcock destroyed many years of hard work by local people to restore the river".

4. In terms of the 5 kilometre area affected this was plainly therefore a catastrophic event. It is clear that it will take many years to restore the fishery of the river to its pre-pollution condition. Nevertheless, happily, re stocking of the river was able to begin some three months after the offence.

So Thames Water could see a public relations nightmare on the build and no doubt also a prosecution in the offing. So what did they do?

1. In the aftermath of the incident, the Appellant opened the Works to the Environment Agency, and co-operated fully with the Agency's investigation. At a public meeting on 3 October 2007 the Appellant's Chief Executive Officer accepted responsibility, and pledged £500,000 in compensation to restore the river.
2. In the result, the following sums have been paid or pledged:-
• £7,000 project funding for a local education project;
• £10,000 in compensation for the two local angling clubs;
• £30,000 to meet the costs of restocking and an ongoing survey to assess damage to the river's ecology;
• £200,000 core funding for the Wandle Trust to include support for the cost of an employee who will raise additional project funding to deliver access and habitat improvements along the length of the river;
• £250,000 to be paid over 5 years for a restoration fund to support local projects to improve the river environment

The inevitable prosecution came before Daphne Wickham (sitting as a Recorder rather than in her usual place as extradition and terrorism specialist and national Deputy Chief Magistrate at Westminster Mags Court).  She took into account the £500k of reparations and other matters (e.g. a guilty plea) and reduced the fine from a starting point of £250k to £125k.  Thames Water appealed the sentence.  The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to £50k:

i) As we have already indicated, it seems to us that on its facts, including consideration of the aggravating and mitigating features of the offence itself, this was an extremely serious offence of its type. Thus the learned Recorder was plainly entitled to regard it as such.
ii) Given that assessment, and after consideration of the Appellant's very considerable means, it seems to us that on the facts of this case the appropriate notional fine after a trial, combining both the punishment and deterrent elements of sentence, was a notional fine in the order of £250,000 to £300,000 (with the punishment element of that sum being in the order of £75,000 to £80,000). Thus the learned Recorder's starting point of £250,000 was within the appropriate bracket.
iii) It was not possible to make a compensation order, as the total sum of £30,000 to £40,000 in compensation that might have been the subject of such an order, or orders, had already been paid as part of the voluntary reparation, and thus fell to be considered as part of it.
iv) The nature and amount of the voluntary reparation made and pledged in this case was clearly exceptional. It was, in all, substantially more than the amount of the notional fine after a trial that we have identified above. Although there was an obvious element of public relations gain, and also payment (in substantial part) over a longer period than would have been the case under a court order, the Appellant had thereby clearly brought the necessary deterrent message home to its managers, to its shareholders, and (as a result of the attendant publicity) to others. In the result, the nature and amount of the reparation in this case was such, in our view, as to mean that the proper course should have been for the learned Recorder, in consequence, to have reduced the deterrent element of the notional fine to nil. She therefore fell into error by making a much smaller reduction. We have further considered, with particular care, whether this is one of those rare cases in which the learned Recorder should have gone even further and reduced the punishment element of the notional fine at this stage of the process too. Given, in particular, the extreme seriousness of the offence, it would not have been right for her to have done so, in our view, in this particular case.
iv) We have not identified any further mitigating feature which ought to have reduced the punishment element of the notional fine.
vi) Taking the figure at the bottom of the bracket that we have identified above for the punishment element, namely £75,000, and applying (as she otherwise rightly did) full discount for the early plea, the learned Recorder should thus have arrived at an actual fine of £50,000.


Just a minute - if a corporate defendant does something incredibly stupid which causes a lot of damage and which amounts to a serious criminal offence  - should the fine be reduced because it is has voluntarily put its hand in its pocket to put right the damage it has caused?  The answer is probably yes - it must be a material mitigating factor - but can it really always just be mathematically deducted from the deterrent element of the fine to reduce it to nil?  Can you essentially buy your way out of the deterrent element of the fine?  I'm not sure this sits easily with me?

FRIDAY ROUND UP

Joshua Rozenberg has noted what was  posted on this blog in his latest Law Soc Gazette article about terrorists and their assets and 'The Magistrate' has sparked some debate on another recent post on this blog (civil sanctions for criminal conduct).

Plus this chap seems to be (allegedly) on a sticky wicket: News

Plus this is an excellent post: A “legitimate question” for Cherie Booth? | Opinion | The Lawyer

Plus looks like Her Majesty may have some new Counsel from next week - there must be some nervous chaps and lasses in the Inns of Court today...............

HSE TO HAND OUT CIVIL SANCTIONS

If you think that this is ridiculous imagine a nightmare scenario whereby the Government is able to give the HSE and other regulators the power (by Henry VIII order and with little parliamentary scrutiny) to bypass the criminal courts (with their inconvenient burdens of proof and rules of evidence and independent juries and JPs) and hand out civil sanctions (a bit like expensive parking tickets) for criminal offences which the recipient would have a right to appeal to an administrative tribunal (where the civil burden and standard of proof would be on the wrongdoer to prove that he had done no wrong).  Oh sorry that's not a nightmare - but is actually on the statute books - see Part 3 of this scary Act of Parliament.

NEW JUDGES! WELCOME TO THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT BENCHES

• Circuit Bench Appointments - Stockdale QC and Jakens
  
  

  HM The Queen has appointed David Andrew Stockdale QC to be a Circuit Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP.  The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned him to the Northern Circuit, based at Manchester Crown Court (Crown Square) with effect from Monday 15 March 2010.

  
  

  HM The Queen has appointed Claire Jakens to be a Circuit Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP.  The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned her to the South Eastern Circuit, based at Kingston County Court with effect from Monday 19 April 2010.
  15 February 2010 00:01
• Appointment of a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) - Redhouse
  Appointment of Circuit Judges - Staite and Walden-Smith
  
  

  HM The Queen has appointed Sara Elizabeth Staite to be a Circuit Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP.  The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned her to the South Eastern Circuit, based in the Essex County Courts with effect from Wednesday 17 March 2010.

  
  

  HM The Queen has appointed Karen Jane Walden-Smith to be a Circuit Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP.  The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned her to the South Eastern Circuit, based at Chelmsford Crown Court with effect from Wednesday 17 March 2010.
  12 February 2010 08:50
• HM The Queen has appointed Naomi Redhouse to be a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP. The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned her to the North Eastern Circuit, based at Sheffield Magistrates’ Court with effect from Monday 15 March 2010.
  12 February 2010 00:01
• District Judge Appointments - Dodd and Molineaux
  HM The Queen has appointed Christopher John Dodd to be a District Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP. The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned him to the North Eastern Circuit, based at Gateshead County Court with effect from Monday 1 March 2010.
  
  HM The Queen has appointed Samantha Michele Molineaux to be a District Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP. The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned her to the South Eastern Circuit, based at Southend County Court with effect from Tuesday 6 April 2010.
  10 February 2010 00:01
• Appointment of a Circuit Judge - James
  District Judge Appointment - Musgrave
  HM The Queen has appointed Richard John Preston Musgrave to be a District Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP. The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned him to the Midland Circuit, based at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre with effect from Monday 1 March 2010.
  02 February 2010 00:01
• HM The Queen has appointed Simon John James to be a Circuit Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP.  The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned him to the South Eastern Circuit, based at Canterbury Crown Court with effect from Tuesday 16 February 2010.
  01 February 2010 00:01
• Appointment of a District Judge - Corkill
  Appointment of a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) - Brailsford
  HM The Queen has appointed Jeffery William Brailsford to be a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP. The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned him to the Northern Circuit, based at Blackpool Magistrates’ Court with effect from Monday 1 February 2010.
  27 January 2010 00:01
• HM The Queen has appointed Glennis Marianne Corkill to be a District Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP. The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned her to the North Eastern Circuit, based at Barnsley County Court with effect from Monday 1 February 2010.
  27 January 2010 00:01
• Circuit Bench Appointment - Knowles QC
  HM The Queen has appointed Graham Roy Knowles QC to be a Circuit Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP.  The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned him to the Northern Circuit, based at Preston Combined Court Centre with effect from Monday 15 February 2010.
  26 January 2010 00:01
• Circuit Bench Appointment - Sanders
  HM The Queen has appointed Neil John Tait Sanders to be a Circuit Judge on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, the Right Honourable Jack Straw MP.  The Right Honourable The Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has assigned him to the South Eastern Circuit, based at Snaresbrook Crown Court with effect from Tuesday 16 February 2010.

A guide to how to suggest amendments to a judgment for Sumption QC

The Practice Direction to Part 40 to the Civil Procedure Rules contains the following rules on providing comments to a Court on a draft judgment prior to handing down - Sumption note the bit in bold

Corrections to the draft judgment

3.1

Unless the parties or their legal representatives are told otherwise when the draft judgment is circulated, any proposed corrections to the draft judgment should be sent to the clerk of the judge who prepared the draft with a copy to any other party.

And now see this http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/2686

IT TURNS OUT THEY DIDN'T TAKE ANY NOTICE IN THE END

As I blogged yesterday 4 Noble and Learned Lords tried to raise a point of fundamental importance which undermines a Government Bill (raised earlier on this blog and others) and the Government took absolutely no notice: Royal Assent was given to the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010 yesterday:

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Act 2010

The Act repeats the error of the Bill in what is now section 2:

2 Protection of things done or omitted in interim period

(1) The following provisions have effect in relation to things done or omitted in the period beginning with 4 February 2010 and ending with the coming into force of this Act.

It would appear that neither the Ministers responsible, parliamentary counsel (who presumably drafted the Bill), the civil servants from the sponsoring Departments nor the Attorney General were prepared to stop and think and act on Lord Pannick QC's (et al) point.  The result - a defective Act of Parliament passed in a rush to replace some ultra vires orders of the Privy Council - which have the effect of seizing people's money (alleged terrorists - but still entitled to the protection of the law).  

A disaster all round.

More on the Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill

On this blog and on another there were wonderings as to why the Government were not using the Bill to protect actions taken under the ultra vires orders since the date they were made rather than the date on which the Supreme Court declared them ultra vires.  


In the House of Lords last night (the Bill is fast tracking through Parliament and is being considered for only a short period in each House) this point was spotted by Lord Pannick :


Perhaps I may also ask the Minister about the retrospective effect of the Bill. He mentioned that Clause 2 has a retrospective effect, back to 4 February, to protect the interests of the banks. However, as I understand it, the Bill has no retrospective effect for the period before 4 February. That means, I assume, that someone whose funds were frozen last year and who asked the bank to release the funds on 27 January-the date when the Supreme Court handed down its substantive judgment-would have a good claim against the bank for damages. Will the Minister please clarify whether my understanding is correct, because I do not understand what is the point in distinguishing in this temporary Bill between what occurred on 3 February and what occurred on 4 February? 


Lord Myners for the Government did not seem to understand the point and replied with this, there is an intervention and then he says he will think about it:

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also said that he was a little puzzled as to why Clause 2 gives retrospection to the banks only back to 4 February, and raised the question of what would happen if banks were to be sued for having maintained frozen accounts on 27 January, after the first Supreme Court judgment. We believe that retrospection should be used only where absolutely necessary, especially in a fast-track Bill. The reason we do not provide banks with retrospective cover predating 4 February in this Bill is that the Supreme Court judgment did not take effect until 4 February. Prior to that date, the banks were therefore in a position where they could reasonably argue that they properly thought they had a valid legal base to freeze terrorist assets. The noble Lord also expressed concerns about why we-

Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I hear what the Minister says on retrospection. Am I right in thinking, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, indicated, that as a result of the Supreme Court decision, these orders have been null ab initio-from the very beginning? Therefore, previously, if a person failed to comply with a prohibition or obligation-prior to 27 January, for example-they might have been guilty of a crime. However, is the Minister saying that no crime will have been committed if a person failed to comply with a prohibition or obligation under these orders prior to 4 February, or even 27 January?

Lord Myners: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his intervention. I will no doubt reflect on that question while I complete my answers to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. With assistance, I might provide him with the accurate and precise answer that his question justifies, and which I know that he would expect. As I think I said, we abhor retrospection-particularly in a fast-track Bill-and would only seek to use it where we believed that the arguments for so doing were compelling.

He did not actually return to the question as far as I can see and the Bill passed second reading.


Later the Bill was in Committee and the Attorney General said this about the retrospective validation clause:

The clause validates actions taken by any person, except the Treasury-a very important exception-to maintain existing asset freezes during the period between the court quashing the terrorism order on 4 February and this Bill receiving Royal Assent by providing that the orders will be treated as validly made, should their actions be questioned. 


It seems that she didn't get the point about the orders being void from their promulgation either


But then she also said this:


I have to confess to the noble Baroness that having had intimidate dealings with the Bill only today,


I think she meant intimate.


Lord Thomas of Gresford (a QC) did note the point:


It was confirmed by the later decision of the Supreme Court that it had no discretion to suspend the order. It had the effect of declaring that the 2006 order had never possessed legal force and that it had been void from the start. It was therefore never an order in any legal sense.


But nobody apparently took it any further.


Lord Pannick did say this:


I hope I am not the only noble Lord for whom the constitutional principles set out by the Supreme Court matter. I hope I am not the only noble Lord who is most reluctant to wave a magic wand over these measures to validate, even temporarily, what is otherwise constitutionally objectionable. It is ironic indeed that when the Supreme Court has found these orders to be invalid because of the absence of parliamentary debate and parliamentary approval we are now asked to negate that invalidity by a procedure which allows for the most limited debate in Parliament. 


Here Here


But what about the retrospective effect point - the Bill passed third reading last night without any amendment (as far as I can tell) to deal with the issue and will probably receive Royal Assent today.  


But is anybody from the Government going to answer and deal with Lord Pannick's question?