Morning round-up

Morning round-up: Wednesday 6 July

By on
2

The morning’s top legal affairs news stories

newspapers4

Deadline approaches for government response to Brexit legal challenge [The Guardian]

Chilcot Report: Parents of major killed in Iraq say Blair must now face legal action [The Independent]

Legal loophole likely to offer Tony Blair escape from any war crimes trial [RT]

Don’t abuse the Brexit litigants: their action shows that we live in a free country [Barrister Blogger]

Review mandatory life sentences for murder, says joint enterprise report [The Guardian]

Lap dancing lawyer tries to block Brexit [Guido Fawkes blog]

Michael Gove’s EU tweet prompts hilarious insults from Twitter users [Huffington Post]

Ex-judge wants to work as barrister [Irish Examiner]

Transgender Christian takes pension claim to Supreme Court [Premier]

Investigation after defendant bypasses court security and spends half an hour in magistrates’ waiting room [Manchester Evening News]

Jolyon Maugham QC: Those who fear democracy [Waiting for Tax]

Kim Kardashian’s ex Ray J is considering legal action over rapper’s Famous video [Mail Online]

Prominent Chancery and commercial set Radcliffe Chambers is seeking a 3rd six pupil [Legal Cheek Hub]

“I don’t see how he managed to pull it off for so long. The amount of evidence I needed to provide ahead of beginning my training contract was immense and even perhaps a little invasive at times.” [Legal Cheek comments]

2 Comments

Not Amused

Supported Ed Miliband. Desperately pro Remain.

With such a track record of displaying political acumen, is Jolyon Maugham the Russell Brand of the legal world?

(2)(2)

Corbyn. Sympathiser.

I’m not sure the comparison is entirely valid, given that Mr. Brand’s focus is generally on people’s revolution, whereas this article seems to be questioning whether the responsibility for triggering Article 50 lies with parliament, rather than the PM.

It’s an interesting point to consider, but ultimately academic, I think. Although it seems he’s trying to use this ambiguity to angle at an argument of ‘parliament could reject the non-binding referendum’, which is a pretty untenable ask of any politician, and it seems a bit ridiculous to say “we must overrule a referendum in the name of democracy”. I wanted to remain, but we’re here now and must make the best of it.

(0)(1)

Comments are closed.