The lord chancellor is dismantling the rule of law – kittysjones

grayling

“Ministers keep using the mantra that their proposals are to protect the most vulnerable when, quite obviously, they are the exact opposite. If implemented their measures would, far from protecting the most vulnerable, directly harm them. Whatever they do in the end, Her Majesty’s Government should stop this 1984 Orwellian-type misuse of language.”  – Lord Bach, discussing the Legal Aid Bill.Source: Hansard, Column 1557, 19 May, 2011.

Kitty S Jones, who started her article with the quotation above, contined: “Chris Grayling has been caught out again by the high court, this time for trying to protect insurance companies from people who have only a couple of years to live.Tomorrow he will try to scrap legal protections available to British citizens from the European Convention of Human Rights. It is a damning charge sheet. What we are witnessing is a full scale assault against the rights of citizens and an attempt to bolster the powers of the state and private companies. And it is being conducted by the lord chancellor himself.

“These were the victims he picked: mesothelioma sufferers. People who inhaled asbestos, usually through work. It is a horrible disease. From the point of diagnosis you usually have two years to live. That is why the House of Lords exempted them from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (Laspo).

“This legislation forced people winning compensation to pay up to 25% of it in costs. It’s supposedly intended to address those personal injury claims you see on daytime TV.

“But mesothelioma is not a typical personal injury claim. Sufferers have two years to live, through no fault of their own except for doing their job. So Section 48 of the bill exempted them from the payback requirement until the lord chancellor had conducted a review.

“But he did not conduct a review. He brought in what the Ministry of Justice later pretended was a consultation. It wasn’t.”

You get the idea. Read the rest in the article.

Ms Jones moves on to the Tories proposed Bill of Rights: “Grayling is preparing tomorrow to unveil Tory plans to scrap Britain’s human rights laws. As published here, the plans would repeal the Human Rights Act and break the formal link between the European Court of Human Rights and British law. Its judgement would now be treated as advisory and need to be approved by parliament.

“Let’s be clear what the human rights attack really is. It is not about euroscepticism or common sense or any of the other justifications they are using. It is about scrapping legal protections against the state.

“Grayling has tried to take legal aid from the poorest and most vulnerable, in a move branded contrary to the very principle of equality under the law. He turned legal aid into ‘an instrument of discrimination‘.

“He has tried to dismantle a vital legal protection available to the citizen – judicial review – which has been used to stop him abusing his powers again and again.

“He has tried to restrict legal aid for domestic abuse victims, welfare claimants seeking redress for wrongful state decisions, victims of medical negligence, for example.

“And now he wants to take away citizens’rights to take their case to the European court.

“His every action is intent on tearing up British legal protections for citizens and massively bolstering the powers of the state.”

Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
bringing you the best of the blogs!

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

12 thoughts on “The lord chancellor is dismantling the rule of law – kittysjones

  1. just passing

    The Tories might have an overarching dislike of the idea of human rights – but it’s quite clear that Chris Grayling is driving this to prevent anyone from stopping Chris Grayling from doing what he pleases.

    That man has the potential to be our very own Mussolini. He must be stopped, now, by whatever means it takes.

  2. Peter Lewis

    Chris Grayling as self appointed Lord Chancellor, is unduly influencing the Judiciary to make “arbitrary decisions” based on fraud (false representation for financial gain). Which is a criminal offence of Fraud

    Arbitrary Decisions Dictionary meaning
    1. Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system: an

    More example sentences Synonyms
    2. (Of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority: a country under arbitrary government.

    Fraud is a type of criminal activity, defined as:
    ‘abuse of position, or false representation, or prejudicing someone’s rights for personal gain’.
    Put simply, fraud is an act of deception intended for personal gain or to cause a loss to another party.
    The general criminal offence of fraud can include:
    • deception whereby someone knowingly makes false representation
    • or they fail to disclose information
    • or they abuse a position.
    Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain (adjectival form fraudulent; to defraud is the verb). As a legal construct, fraud is both a civil wrong (i.e., a fraud victim (any British citizen) may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud and/or recover monetary compensation) and a criminal wrong (i.e., a fraud perpetrator may be prosecuted and imprisoned by governmental authorities)

    Does this copy paste from a dictionary above apply to the present Lord Chancellor

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      He’s not self-appointed; otherwise I leave your question open for readers to consider.

  3. Linari

    If I have got this right…The ECHR was set up to scrutinise the decisions of governments and to protect European Citizens being mistreated when the governments interpretations of The Human Rights Act differ and the Supreme Court (in the UK, not sure of the courts in other EU countries) find in favour of the Government, hence the next stage being the ECHR. The dictatorial UK Government want to introduce their own Bill of Rights which will be left to the scrutiny of Supreme Courts in Britain with no further scrutiny… The arrogance of the British Tory government is astounding.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      And his party is supposed to be opposed to the power of the state. Interesting, that.

  4. Mr.Angry

    I note he sporting one hell of a sun tan as a result of his long vacation, it helps divert the evil in his eyes.

    Loathsome waste of DNA I wonder how they sleep or do their type actually sleep.or just dream of further injustice they can inflict on their fellow man.

  5. John

    There is one aspect to this matter which it would be interesting to hear from someone more knowledgeable about these matters than me.
    My understanding is that it is now a requirement of EU membership that all member-states must be signed-up to the European Charter, which is largely based on the ECHR.
    If the UK rejects the terms of the ECHR it is also rejecting membership of the EU.
    Is that what this issue is really all about?

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      It seems to be the subtext in my view as well.
      Can anyone with inside knowledge help out?

      1. casalealex

        Asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme whether he would be prepared to withdraw from the convention, Grayling said: “If we cannot reach agreement that our courts and our parliament will have the final say over these matters then we will have to withdraw.
        We have a treaty right to withdraw, it is specifically provided for in the convention. We would exercise that right. There is always a first time for everything.”

        Do the Tories think you can pull out of ECHR but still stay in the EU and if so what’s the legal basis for that?

        A complex question. Tories say in effect, rules of the club need to change for the UK. If that’s not acceptable, UK will withdraw from ECHR. Justice of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, says withdrawing from Strasbourg Court would require the UK to leave the EU. Many lawyers agree with this analysis.

Comments are closed.