Round-up

Monday morning round-up

By on
3

The top legal affairs news stories from the weekend

Rebecca Long-Bailey vows to abolish House of Lords [The Independent]

Harry and Meghan seek global trademark for ‘Sussex Royal’ brand [The Guardian]

PM “trying to seize the legal system from parliament” [The Times]

Long delays are damaging faith in our justice system [The Telegraph]

Raising the bar: Hashi Mohamed’s journey from child refugee to top lawyer [The Observer]

Alan Blacker slapped with nine-month suspended jail sentence for benefit fraud [Legal Cheek]

Junior lawyer event: How to build a career at a US law firm in London, with lawyers from Cleary Gottlieb, Kirkland & Ellis, Shearman & Sterling and Skadden — this Thursday evening: REGISTER TO ATTEND

Extinction Rebellion could sue police over extremist ideology listing [The Guardian]

Gay dads’ £26,000 legal battle for custody of surrogate twins after mum refuses [The Mirror]

Government backs Martyn’s Law airport security for venues [BBC News]

“NQ 8 + will be on nowhere near 250k. Probably closer to 140-160.” [Legal Cheek Comments]

Law events coordinator sought for full-time role at Legal Cheek [Legal Cheek Noticeboard]

Junior lawyer event: How to build a career at a US law firm in London, with lawyers from Cleary Gottlieb, Kirkland & Ellis, Shearman & Sterling and Skadden — this Thursday evening: REGISTER TO ATTEND

3 Comments

Anonymous

“Boris Johnson is trying to take control over a “fundamental aspect” of Britain’s independent legal system that will damage the integrity of the courts, a senior lawyer has warned.”

How bizarre. The said senior lawyer – Lord Pannick QC – spent two court cases lecturing us as to how Parliament was supreme under our constitution and should be allowed to do whatever it liked.

So why does he now suddenly have a problem with a sovereign and supreme Parliament passing Boris Johnson’s suggested reforms?

Oh of course, silly me, Remoaners only cared about the supremacy of Parliament because they (then) controlled Parliament – and naively thought they always would.

How silly of them.

Ex Barrister

Absolutely. They controlled Parliament so thoroughly that it voted through the Article 50 legislation within weeks of the first Miller case.

Anonymous

You know perfectly well that the 2017-19 Parliament would have rejected any and all forms of Brexit put to it – as it in fact did.

Join the conversation

Related Stories