Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Jonathan Jones

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 1d

I’m quoted here. I’m perhaps more sceptical now about the idea of affecting the interpretation of the ECHR by domestic law alone. The detail will matter. But it’s preferable to leaving. And will be quicker than trying to amend the Convention itself www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

How Britain's ECHR membership became a political hot potato - BBC News

The extent to which leaving the Convention would make a difference to immigration has been greatly exaggerated, argues Lord Sumption

www.bbc.co.uk

3 4 10

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 1d

Good Q. Obvious risk that Strasbourg disagrees. But (as I say in the IfG piece) it’s just possible that, with a sensible good-faith attempt to interpret (say) Art 8, and the right facts, Strasbourg might go along with it

1 2

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 1d

Including this: Changes to human rights laws, even if effective, will not alone solve the problem of small boats or prevent legal challenges, including successful ones. That will require wider policy changes along with improvements to the quality and speed of decision making by the UK authorities.

3 7

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 1d

I’ve written more here.
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/keir...

What does Keir Starmer mean by “looking again” at international law? | Institute for Government

The government plans to remain in the ECHR but change how it is interpreted.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

1 4 3

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 1d

I’m quoted here. I’m perhaps more sceptical now about the idea of affecting the interpretation of the ECHR by domestic law alone. The detail will matter. But it’s preferable to leaving. And will be quicker than trying to amend the Convention itself www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...

How Britain's ECHR membership became a political hot potato - BBC News

The extent to which leaving the Convention would make a difference to immigration has been greatly exaggerated, argues Lord Sumption

www.bbc.co.uk

3 4 10

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 1d

Wise

1

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 1d

Well misprints and typos do happen. A former colleague of mine once made an announcement congratulating the Pubic Sector Lawyer of the Year

7 2 31

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 2d

Would seem odd if such prosecutions are time-bound to the current administration (short of getting evidence from former ministers??)

2

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 2d

Good piece as usual. “… it is open to the government today to say that it considers that China was a threat to national security in 2021–23”.
If not, it’s difficult to see how the CPS could begin or continue ANY prosecution for such an offence occurring before the current government took power

1 6

Reposted by Jonathan Jones

Paolo Sandro @paolosandro.bsky.social · 4d

Lord Wolfson's legal advice to Kemi Badenoch on ECHR withdrawal has now been published. In this thread I'll highlight a few passages that stood out for me - not meant to be a full analysis (in [] are the paragraph numbers). /1

rozenberg.substack.com/p/how-uk-cou...

How UK could leave ECHR

Withdrawal would allow EU to end criminal law enforcement co-operation

rozenberg.substack.com

1 14 25

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 4d

I’ve written probably more than my fair share about the ECHR, but lord I wish our politicians would stop banging on as if leaving it would achieve world peace and solve all society’s ills

2 9 31

Reposted by Jonathan Jones

Ben Yong @bymyong.bsky.social · 4d

I‘m giving a public talk at UCL on Thurs 16 Oct. The title is “Bureaucracy and distrust: the civil service in the constitution” looking at the civil service’s constitutional foundations, and how it might respond to a populist govt. @sirJJkc.bsky.social will chair!
www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/events/...

Hybrid | CLP - Bureaucracy and Distrust: The Civil Service in the Constitution

This lecture will be delivered by Dr Ben Yong, as part of the Current Legal Problems Lecture Series 2025-26

www.ucl.ac.uk

3 24 46

Reposted by Jonathan Jones

Joshua Rozenberg @joshuarozenberg.bsky.social · 4d

The next Conservative government will take the UK out of the ECHR and repeal the Human Rights Act. Kemi Badenoch announced her decision after taking advice from Lord Wolfson of Tredegar KC, who had warned her that withdrawal would not be a “silver bullet”.

rozenberg.substack.com/p/how-uk-cou...

How UK could leave ECHR

Withdrawal would allow EU to end criminal law enforcement co-operation

rozenberg.substack.com

12 15 28

Reposted by Jonathan Jones

Lewis Graham @lewisgrahamlaw.bsky.social · 5d

Here’s the Wolfson Report recommending the UK leaves the ECHR

www.conservatives.com/wolfson-fina...

Take a shot every time Policy Exchange is cited as authority for a dubious legal proposition and you’ll be drunk before the end of the first chapter

Wolfson Final Report | Conservatives

Wolfson Final Report

www.conservatives.com

3 8 18

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 6d

The train manager on this train (which divides to go to 2 destinations) has advised us to “take a long hard look at where we are and where we want to go”. Wise advice I feel

3 4 53

Reposted by Jonathan Jones

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 6d

This weeks cocktail - a Manhattan, courtesy of Oriole Covent Garden

2 3 39

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 6d

This weeks cocktail - a Manhattan, courtesy of Oriole Covent Garden

2 3 39

Reposted by Jonathan Jones

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 7d

My thoughts on what Keir Starmer might mean by “looking again” at international law (including the ECHR) in the context of migration, how that might be done and whether it would work www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/keir...

What does Keir Starmer mean by “looking again” at international law? | Institute for Government

The government plans to remain in the ECHR but change how it is interpreted.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

3 13 20

Reposted by Jonathan Jones

Institute for Government @instituteforgovernment.org.uk · 7d

What does Keir Starmer mean by “looking again” at international law?

@sirjjkc.bsky.social assesses the PM's comments on how the ECHR and other treaties apply to immigration cases www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/keir...

What does Keir Starmer mean by “looking again” at international law? | Institute for Government

The government plans to remain in the ECHR but change how it is interpreted.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

3 9 9

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 7d

My thoughts on what Keir Starmer might mean by “looking again” at international law (including the ECHR) in the context of migration, how that might be done and whether it would work www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/keir...

What does Keir Starmer mean by “looking again” at international law? | Institute for Government

The government plans to remain in the ECHR but change how it is interpreted.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

3 13 20

Reposted by Jonathan Jones

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 7d

Rather extraordinary to publish this. “We wrongly thought the government’s case was going badly, so we increased our offer, which the government rightly rejected and went on to win far more”

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 7d

This is the confidential settlement offer Barrowman/Mone made to the Government, offering to settle the litigation for £23m.

(We'd never normally see this, but for unfathomable reasons, Mone posted it on X.)

8 19 53

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 7d

Rather extraordinary to publish this. “We wrongly thought the government’s case was going badly, so we increased our offer, which the government rightly rejected and went on to win far more”

Dan Neidle @danneidle.bsky.social · 7d

This is the confidential settlement offer Barrowman/Mone made to the Government, offering to settle the litigation for £23m.

(We'd never normally see this, but for unfathomable reasons, Mone posted it on X.)

8 19 53

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 8d

“This public hearing and published judgment are just for show!”

1 3

Jonathan Jones @sirjjkc.bsky.social · 8d

The case that was “too big for the government to lose”

Because the government famously never loses big cases, which is why government ministers never get cross with judges who rule against them

3 11 53

Reposted by Jonathan Jones

dag @davidallengreen.bsky.social · 9d

This is the judgment on the PPE/Medpro claim.

A cracking £122m win for the Government Legal Service

And is wonderful to see the government bringing a claim in contract against a shoddy supplier.

This does not happen often, and it should happen far more.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/u...

www.judiciary.uk

62 300 1.1K