Upload
teegan-tran
View
22
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Campaigning litigation Liberty’s approach. James Welch 3 rd February 2011. “Campaigning organisation”. Policy Media Legal casework Advice and information. Campaign priorities (1). (N.B. currently under review) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Campaigning litigation Liberty’s approach
James Welch
3rd February 2011
“Campaigning organisation”
PolicyMediaLegal casework
– Advice and information
Campaign priorities (1)
(N.B. currently under review)
We must fight punishment without trial and the worst excesses of the War against Terror.
We must promote criminal due process and resist wider police powers, especially those that limit peaceful dissent.
Campaign priorities (2)
We must protect the right to privacy and halt the introduction of ID cards.
We must advance the rights of asylum seekers and other vulnerable minorities.
We must broaden respect and understanding of human rights and their universal application.
“War on terror”
Control orders Closed trials and secret evidence Rendition Collusion in torture Refusal of security clearance
Due process, police & protest
Extradition Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 Disproportionate use of search powers
against BME groups “Kettling” Obstacles to protest
Privacy
Retention of DNA
Criminal Records Bureau
Surveillance and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Asylum seekers
Conditions of detention
Detention of children
Discrimination claims?
Culture of rights
“Common values” campaign
Religious freedom / expression Rights of young people Victims’ rights
Legal work
Domestic cases– Typically judicial review
Cases before the European Court of Human Rights – Lack of domestic remedy where legislation is
clearly incompatible with the Convention
Interventions (both domestic and before ECtHR)
Strategic litigation
Small number of cases Don’t aim to do lots of cases on the same
issue
But– “DNA clinic”– CRB issues
Sources of cases
Advice and information – Written and telephone advice
Referrals Media
– Reports in the media– Working with journalists
Seeking cases out
Factors relevant to case selection
Campaigning valueLegal meritsFunding & costs risk
“Dual key”
Campaigning value
Does the case come serve our campaigning priorities?
Can we campaign on the back of the case? Is client willing for us to publicise the case? How will case / client play in the media?
Interplay with policy
Legal merits
What will we achieve through litigation?– Show that a policy, practice, action was unlawful– Achieve a compatible reading (s.3 HRA 1998)– Achieve a declaration of incompatibility (s.4 HRA)– Damages (?)
What are the prospects of success? What will the impact of the case be?
– Value as a precedent– Potential to set an unhelpful precedent
Funding & costs risk
Does the client face a costs risk?– ECtHR cases– Tribunals with no / limited power to award costs
Is the client eligible for legal aid?– “Costs protection”
Conditional fee agreements / pro bono– After the event insurance– Protective costs orders– Indemnity– Client taking the risk him/herself
Pro bono resources
Counsel– Interesting cases– Career advancement
Solicitors’ firms– Pro bono commitment– Association with Liberty– Chance to engage / train staff, particularly junior
fee earners
Interventions
“Third party intervention” “Amicus brief” Greater use and acceptance in recent years
Written or oral?
Supreme Court
“Non-governmental organization seeking to make submissions in the public interest”
Application for permission (Rule 15 Supreme Court Rules 2009)
Substantive appeal (Rule 26) Presumption that no costs order will be made
either in favour of or against an intervener (Rule 46(3))
ECtHR
“Any person concerned who is not the applicant” “Reasoned” application within 12 weeks of the case
being communicated or case being taken on by the Grand Chamber
www.echr.coe.int “Pending cases” Usually limited to 10 typed pages Exceptionally leave to make oral submissions
“Added value”
Additional information Additional arguments Explain wider significance of the case Position espoused by neither party Marker of the significance of a case (?)
Danger!
In re E (a child) [2008] UKHL 66
“An intervention is however of no assistance if it merely repeats points which the appellant or respondent has already made. […] It is not the role of an intervener to be an additional counsel for one of the parties. This is particularly important in the case of an oral intervention.” Lord Hoffmann
Benefits to interveners
Influence development of the law in a case in which they are not instructed by one of the parties
Position from which to comment in the media Not constrained by duties to a client
No right answers
Things go wrong Supportive Board / management committee Trumpet your successes Success breeds success