News

Prime Minister ‘broke the law’ in making Liz Truss Lord Chancellor, says ex-Lord Chancellor

By on
33

Theresa May’s bad week continues…

Lord Falconer, a former, well-respected Lord Chancellor, has attacked his Conservative successors’ commitment to the rule of law.

Speaking at the University of Cambridge earlier this week, Falconer said that the Prime Minister “broke the law” under section 2 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 by failing to ensure that Liz Truss was qualified to be appointed Lord Chancellor.

Later, he took the government to task for failing to defend High Court judges when the Daily Mail called them “ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE” because of their ruling in the Gina Miller case. Falconer said that Truss’s fate — being sacked by a Prime Minister who was too politically weak to sack anybody else — should be “a warning” to future Lord Chancellors of what happens if they lose the confidence of the judiciary.

The May-directed element of this sting is, unfortunately for the PM, one of a series of unfortunate events she’s experienced this week. A much-anticipated speech she gave at the Tory party conference will be remembered less for its substance and more for May’s coughing and spluttering throughout, a letter on the sign behind her falling down, and for its interruption by a prankster who tried to hand her a P45.

However, despite calling Truss and her predecessor as Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, “absolute duffers”, Falconer did defend the decision to open up the position of Lord Chancellor to non-lawyers. This was made possible by the Constitutional Reform Act, which Falconer steered through parliament when he himself was in the Cabinet.

Speaking more widely on the effects of the Constitutional Reform Act at the third annual Queen’s College Distinguished Lecture in Law at the Oxbridge university, Falconer said that it had “insulated” judges from government influence. While he noted there was “no going back”, he did say judicial independence needs political support. Take note David Lidington.

Jack Williams is studying a two-year BA in law at the University of Cambridge.

Have you spotted a news story and want to write for Legal Cheek? Get in touch.

33 Comments

Anonymous

‘Well-respected’???

(7)(1)

Anonymous

Fair adjective I thought. A pot plant would count as “well respected” compared to Truss and Grayling. Or a bag of manure. Or an actual truss (a section of Westminster Bridge perhaps). Or an actual grayling (caught from a Scottish loch a few hours previously)..

(8)(0)

Winston leachman

When people do wrong they get punish way should they get away with the wrong they do what sort of system are we running here to allow them to get to get away with the wrong it’s no good talking about it look at the innocent people they have denied the their rights because of the constitutional reform act 2005 which is a detrimental to people’s rights it does not protect their private law rights it’s there to depraved people for the rich and powerful yet they talk about the McKenzie Friends what a load of jokers who has no sense of responsibility

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Erm, what ?

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Hi, Liz!

(1)(0)

Anonymous

WTF

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Query: how does name dropping your BA from Cambridge lend any credibility to your story, which is essentially just reporting facts?

Surely credentials (using the word at a stretch here) would only be necessary if you offered some kind of analysis or opinion?

(17)(5)

Anonymous

I think it’s just because it’s a guest writer. You know, to establish who they are…

(5)(3)

Sir Ponsonby Smythe-Smallpiece

Do you know who I am?

You should!

I went to Cambridge, you know!

Prole!!!!

(1)(0)

Interloper

You’d think there’d have to be some law against appointing this dimwit as LC.

That said, I’m not sure what job she is qualified for. So Mayhem appointed her Chief Sec To The Treasury (and the economy’s doing really well isn’t it… Huzzah…)

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Ridiculous. Falconer was responsible for the removal of the requirement that the LC be a lawyer. In circumstances where legal qualification is not required, how on earth else do you measure whether a candidate is “qualified” for the position? I hate the lying Tory bastards as much as the next SJW, but even I will concede that prosecuting our politicians for appointing people we consider to be in some nebulous way “unqualified” is not brilliant for either democracy or the rule of law.

(7)(0)

Interloper

Can one not assess that they’re clearly not “qualified” for the position on the basis that there was concrete proof they were a total arsewit prior to appointment ?

I don’t think there’s much of a convincing argument against that where Ms Truss is concerned…

(1)(1)

Frustrated Writer

After the euphoria of Lady Hale’s swearing in, Katie had resolved to do something more serious to support her repressed sisters. She had considered a tattoo, somewhere prominent, to tell the world of her contempt for the patriarchy, perhaps a boot crushing a man. She had dismissed that, as her parents would probably write her out of their will, and she did not want her sister to get the house and the boat to herself. Plus, if she did get a tattoo, it would have to be a beautiful mandala like she had seen Alice on Tattoo Fixers do so many times. Katie had also considered shaving her head and joining the commune her friends were always on about, but she doubted they would allow her to have her glass of rosé in front of TOWIE on a Friday, and Katie felt she deserved that luxury. In the end, Katie had spent a few hours Googling how to change a name by deed poll. She felt so uncomfortable with her surname. It conjured up images of male oppression that, whilst she would be thinking about them anyway, were a constant reminder of her struggle and made her embarrassed around her friends. She resolved to try to get a new name as soon as she could. Something that would reflect her beliefs and values. Katie Queen was too obvious. Katie Proudman would be good, if not for the negative male connotations. Katie Amal-Clooney, perhaps?

Katie was interrupted mid thought by Tom arriving in the office, a little later than normal and not in his usual enthusiastic fashion. Instead he looked crestfallen, holding a paper Starbucks cup. Katie could tell that he needed cheering up, so turned in her chair to greet him warmly as he entered the office.

“Morning Tom, how are you?” she asked, offering a genuine smile.

“I’m brilliant” he responded in a dejected voice. Tom placed the coffee on Katie’s desk in front of her. “ “This is for you.”.

Katie smiled. He could be quite thoughtful. “Aw, thanks Tom.”.

Tom tossed his coat and bag to the floor and flopped into his chair with a big sigh. “Another day in paradise. Fantastic.” He said under his breath, sarcastically.

“Something the matter Tom?” Katie asked, peering around her monitor. Tom was generally so cheerful, so this was odd.

“Don’t you ever feel like you’re stuck here forever Katie?” Tom said, bitterly, slumped in his chair as his computer was warming up. “Don’t you ever think that you made some massive mistakes and you’ll never get chance to rectify them?”.

Katie gave Tom a sympathetic look. “Come on, it can’t be that bad. Do you want to talk about it? Perhaps we could head out and grab a drink. We could go to that bar you like in Shoreditch tonight if you fancy?”

“No, there’s no point in talking.” Tom responded dismissively as he typed his password aggressively into his computer, hitting the keys more firmly than was really necessary. “I just need to accept that I’ll be here, churning out nonsense and getting trolled until they carry me out in a box.”.

Katie bristled slightly at the rebuke and decided to leave him alone. She had to get on with her latest diversity article and Tom was being too distracting.

As she brought up her Twitter feed Katie took a sip of the coffee, but almost spat it out. It was cold. “Thomas, why have you given me this cold coffee?” Katie said, an edge in her voice. “Be honest. Did you find it on the street? Are you trying to trick me?” Katie’s feminist self-defence group had warned her not to drink anything a man gave her, but she had trusted Tom.

Katie’s dark side was bubbling up. But today Tom just didn’t care. “No, Katie, I got it from Starbucks. It took a while to get here so it’s cold. Not rocket science”. His words were dismissive and he did not look up from behind his screen where he was now sat. “I was trying to be nice. I wish I hadn’t bothered now”.

“Pardon?” Katie said, incredulous. “Are you implying that a woman can’t be a scientist?”.

Tom snorted a fake laugh but did not respond.

Katie took a closer look at the cup. It had the name Fiona written in black marker pen on the side. The penny dropped. “Did you buy it for a woman who rejected you, Thomas? I know you don’t drink coffee” asked Katie in an accusatory tone. She was jealous and trying to hide it. “Is that why you’re so grumpy today?”.

Tom groaned. “No. I was just trying to be nice. Don’t worry. I won’t again if this is the response I get.”. He was matching Katie’s annoyance and she didn’t like it.

Katie stood up, walked around the desk and stood to Tom’s left, cold coffee in hand. He ignored her. “You’re a pig. Take this.”. She poured the contents of the cup over Tom’s head. As Tom stood, cold coffee soaking into his jumper, a shocked expression on his face, Katie casually returned to her desk, cup still in hand. “Enjoy your coffee, Thomas. Don’t talk to me again today please.”.

(17)(1)

Anonymous

This magnum opus of mysoginist fan fiction is nearly twice as long as the article itself.

(3)(7)

Anonymous

Brutal and believable!

(8)(0)

Anonymous

Keep em coming

(2)(0)

Anonymous

“Pardon?” Katie said, incredulous. “Are you implying that a woman can’t be a scientist?”.

^^^ Had me in tears^^^

(2)(0)

Anonymous

I do enjoy your prose, but if you insist on double punctuation, please at least sort out your commas

(1)(6)

Not Amused

Man who is responsible for incredibly bad law that allows this mess then pretends his bad law will actually solve it?

Nonsense.

Thanks to Charlie Falconer we got Liz Truss. If you broke it you own it.

(10)(1)

Interloper

But it says above that “Falconer did defend the decision to open up the position of Lord Chancellor to non-lawyers”. Did you miss that bit ?

As concerns the rest of the article, did you laugh when Lee Nelson handed the P45 to Tresemmé ? I thought it was qualityyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy….

(1)(1)

Anonymous

Where is Oxbridge University? And there is no Queen’s college at Cambridge – either the apostrophe or the university is wrong

(2)(1)

Anonymous

Who cares ?

(0)(1)

Satoshi Kanazawa

James Watson says women can’t be scientists.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

Lawyers can’t be scientists.

Seriously, the look of confusion when you chaps hold up a test tube.. “Erm have I acquired the beneficial interest in this vitreous open-ended cylinder or.. ?”

(0)(0)

Push me

What is art? Is art art?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Don’t care what the students say. She’s still fit.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

bashing if liz truss is trendy, but somehow, never rationalised…..

so CRA reforms state that the LC does not have to be a lawyer…..but “qualified” thereby broads ing the range of persons who can be appointed…..

im thinking no law was broken with the appointment of liz truss as she went to university (Oxford – PPE), held down a job as an economist, went on to hold down another job in economic policy, then became an MP…..
how is that “not qualified” enough within the meaning of the broadened CRA reforms????

both Lord Falxoner and consequently the article fail to explain the ways in which she is not qualified.. ..which is a bit poor

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Is the answer: cos she’s a total fucking idiot ?

That said, you couldn’t really describe her as the Osmium of the Conservative ministerial retinue as they’re all remarkably dense…

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Labour blames Tories shocka!

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Well, ‘and I’d like to be quite clear about this’ they have essentially fucked everything up beyond recognition – and furthermore look like they’re not about to stop doing this in the near, intermediate or long term.

So, you know, there is that.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

who is “they”?
what have they “fucked up”?

how does any of the above allegations support the idea that it was “against the law” for Truss to be appointed LC?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Merely responding to the above comment bellend !

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Far lesser criminals have literally lost their heads in History.

And they can say what you like about Henry the VIII, but these bunch of ‘Treasonous Thieves’ have nothing on him.

Queen Victoria must be spinning in her grave.

(2)(0)

Comments are closed.