Anna Soubry, experienced criminal barrister, refuses to serve under legal novice Truss at Ministry of Justice

By on

No, minister


The former business minister Anna Soubry (pictured top), who practiced as a criminal barrister in Nottingham for 15 years, has turned down the chance to be Miss Truss’s number two describing the job offer as an “insult”.

She was particularly irked to be asked to work under someone both less qualified than her and nearly twenty years her junior.

No stranger to doling out the insults herself, on the Andrew Marr Show she, rather magnificently, described Nigel Farage as looking “like somebody has put their finger up his bottom and he really rather likes it.” An image which once registered is hard to dislodge.

Soubry studied law at Birmingham University and was the only Conservative on the Executive of the National Union of Students. Working first as a presenter in regional television and then as a barrister she entered the Commons in her early fifties and quickly made a name for herself. A fan of Ken Clarke she is described by Jacob Rees-Mogg as the leader of the left of the Tory Party.

Her refusal was regretted in the Twittersphere:

Soubry is the second lawyer to refuse to work with Truss after Lord Faulks resigned as justice minister saying

I have nothing against Ms Truss personally. But is she going to have the clout to be able to stand up to the Prime Minister when necessary, on behalf of the judges?

Truss is the third Lord Chancellor in a row to have no legal qualification.



So rather than stay and work hard to ensure the rule of law is protected she’s thrown jet toys out the pram as she didn’t get picked first.



She, she does realise she was a Minister in the Cameron Ministry doesn’t she? “less qualified than her and nearly twenty years her junior.” nonsense!


Not Amused

She’s no loss.

Not that I like Truss.



“less qualified than her and nearly twenty years her junior” is something extremely widespread that most have to deal with in this management-led era where technical specialists have to be super-sales people to ensure best evidence is acted upon.



The profession sold the pass on the role of Lord Chancellor when the then Labour government, supported by the House of Lords, changed the requirement so that the holder of the office no longer needed to be a lawyer. There was no meaningful protest by any part of the profession. What should have happened was a statement by the then Chairman of the Bar that the Bar would not recognise a non-lawyer Lord Chancellor and any instructions etc emanating therefrom would be disregarded as invalid/unlawful/possibly illegal. It’s too late now to change anything.


Probably Anonymous

I missed the bar council’s constitutional supremacy, or even that it matters one iota.



It’s not a matter of constitutional supremacy, it would have been hugely embarrassing for the government if the legal profession had said ‘no’ to a non-lawyer Lord Chancellor and refused to recognise their authority or co-operate with the newly created MoJ until a lawyer was appointed.



I guess you could say…they Miss Truss(t) her.



It’s funny how Faulks didn’t have a problem serving under the last two LCs, neither of which were legally qualified, I wonder what could possibly have changed here?



Well, she isn’t Pob and she isn’t Humpty Dumpty. Maybe Faulks only likes LCs that are an aide-mémoire to childhood?



The previous incumbents were both vegan?



It’s not that long ago that appointing a junior criminal barrister with 15 years experience as LC would have seemed ridiculous. Now it is apparently more than we can expect.. But seeing as Anna didn’t say a word publicly to criticise The Graything and his wholescale destruction of access to justice I’m not sure she’d be any better an appointment than Truss.



Why was Lord Harley overlooked?


Comments are closed.