This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/04/labour-condemns-newspaper-attacks-on-judges-after-brexit-ruling

The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
MPs condemn newspaper attacks on judges after Brexit ruling MPs condemn newspaper attacks on judges after Brexit ruling
(about 3 hours later)
The shadow justice secretary has called on the lord chancellor to defend British judges against “hysterical” attacks from rightwing, pro-Brexit newspapers. The refusal of the lord chancellor, Liz Truss, to defend three senior judges from “the vitriol” of sustained media attacks following the Brexit judgment has been condemned by Lord Falconer, who previously held the post.
Richard Burgon urged Liz Truss, who is responsible for upholding the independence of the judiciary, to defend the high court from vituperative headlines. The former Labour cabinet minister asked why Truss, who is also justice secretary, remained silent in the face of personal denunciations in the rightwing, pro-Brexit papers.
The Daily Mail’s front page on Friday branded the three judges who delivered the pivotal article 50 judgment – which said that only parliament has the legal power to trigger Brexit – as “enemies of the people”. The Daily Mail described the judges – the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the master of the rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales – as “enemies of the people”.
The Daily Telegraph carried front-page pictures of the three senior judges – the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the master of the rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales – with the headline: “The judges versus the people.” The Daily Telegraph carried front-page pictures of them with the headline: “The judges versus the people.” Their judgment on Thursday declared that only parliament has the legal power to trigger article 50, which would initiate Brexit.
Brendan Cox, widower of the Labour MP Jo Cox, also cautioned against allowing the tone of the debate about Thursday’s judgment to become too febrile. Writing in the Guardian, Lord Falconer, who was lord chancellor between 2003 and 2007, said: “The British public continues to have confidence in the independence and quality of judges. But both are undermined by this Brexit-inspired media vitriol.
He tweeted: “Whatever our views on the court ruling I hope we can take a step back & debate it soberly. Inciting hatred has consequences.” Jo Cox, who represented the Batley and Spen constituency, was killed in the run-up to the EU referendum. “The lord chancellor, Liz Truss, has a constitutional duty to defend the judges. She needs to make it clear immediately the government has no quarrel with the judges and has total confidence in them.
Labour’s Burgon condemned the personal attacks on judges. “Respecting the EU referendum result is the right and democratic thing to do,” he said. “Strong views were expressed by both sides. “Disagreement with the judges is dealt with by appeal not by abuse. Liz Truss’s silence feeds the sense the government is either hopeless at avoiding conflict or couldn’t care less about the constitution.”
“Judges in the high court are there to interpret the law regardless of their personal views and that is what they have done. There is a constitutional process which must be followed. Some of the headlines in today’s newspapers personally attacking the judges who heard this case are unacceptable. Labour’s justice spokesman, Richard Burgon MP, also urged Truss, to uphold the independence of the judiciary in the face of “hysterical headlines … Some of the headlines in today’s newspapers personally attacking the judges who heard this case are unacceptable,” he said.
“As lord chancellor, Liz Truss should not stay silent. It is the lord chancellor’s job to uphold the independence of British judges and she must speak out urgently against the hysterical headlines of some papers and these attacks on British justice.”“As lord chancellor, Liz Truss should not stay silent. It is the lord chancellor’s job to uphold the independence of British judges and she must speak out urgently against the hysterical headlines of some papers and these attacks on British justice.”
The former attorney general Dominic Grieve also expressed alarm at the attacks on the judiciary. He said: “They are entirely unjustified and are either made in ignorance or out of malice, it’s impossible to know which. The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said: “Where is Liz Truss? Her job is to uphold the rule of law and defend the judiciary and yet she is utterly silent while judges are being attacked by some newspapers. Our hard-fought rights and freedoms are protected by the law, British law that the Brexiteers claim that they wish to uphold.”
“The judges are the safeguarders of our unwritten constitution. Nothing they have done ought to take anybody by surprise. To accede to the principle that you can change primary legislation by royal prerogative is a constitutional monstrosity and would totally undermine everything that our forebears struggled to give us. It would trash the constitution. Truss is under a statutory obligation to defend the independence of the judiciary, the solicitor and legal blogger David Allen Green has pointed out. Section 3(6) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 sets out the lord chancellor’s duty to protect judicial independence.
“There seems to be a paranoid hysteria around that this is being done [to reverse] the referendum. But it’s simply that there has to be a process followed if parliament is to give effect to and express the wish of the electorate.” Asked whether Truss wished to comment, the Ministry of Justice said she would not be making a statement.
The prime minister’s spokesman refused to condemn the language, saying: “I don’t think the British judiciary is being undermined.” He added: “I’m not commenting on newspaper coverage.”
Brendan Cox, widower of the Labour MP Jo Cox, cautioned against allowing the tone of the debate about Thursday’s judgment to become too febrile.
He tweeted: “Whatever our views on the court ruling I hope we can take a step back & debate it soberly. Inciting hatred has consequences.” Jo Cox, who represented the Batley and Spen constituency, was killed in the run-up to the EU referendum.
During the high court Brexit case the claimants challenging the ministers’ right to trigger Brexit received death threats and online abuse.
The term “enemies of the people”, coined in Roman times, was adopted by Robespierre during the French Revolution and was later favoured by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
Politicians from the three main parties leapt to the defence of the judges. A former attorney general, Dominic Grieve, expressed alarm at attacks on the judiciary. “They are entirely unjustified and are either made in ignorance or out of malice, it’s impossible to know which,” he said.
“The judges are the safeguarders of our unwritten constitution. Nothing they have done ought to take anybody by surprise. To accede to the principle that you can change primary legislation by royal prerogative is a constitutional monstrosity and would totally undermine everything that our forebears struggled to give us. It would trash the constitution.”
The Conservative chair of the Commons justice select committee, Bob Neill, and Anna Soubry MP, a barrister, also condemned the headlines. She described the coverage in a tweet as: “Hysterical, dangerously inaccurate & bullying”.
Jonathan Marks, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, said: “The headlines in much of the press today and the anti-judge rhetoric from some politicians is extremely worrying. This hostility to the rule of law is irresponsible; the personal attacks on judges are plain nasty.Jonathan Marks, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman, said: “The headlines in much of the press today and the anti-judge rhetoric from some politicians is extremely worrying. This hostility to the rule of law is irresponsible; the personal attacks on judges are plain nasty.
“British citizens won our freedoms from the tyranny of the crown painfully and over many centuries. The rights of minorities to think as they will, to live at peace and to claim the protection of the law against an over-mighty state are at stake here. “British citizens won our freedoms from the tyranny of the crown painfully and over many centuries. The rights of minorities to think as they will, to live at peace and to claim the protection of the law against an over-mighty state are at stake here.”
“Our rights and freedoms are protected by the law, British law that the Brexiteers claim they wish to uphold. We are lucky to have fearless judges, determined to apply the law and to stand up to governments when they are wrong. I hope the government does appeal. The authority of the supreme court is needed to reinforce the rule of law.” Lord Macdonald of River Glaven QC, a former director of public prosecutions, said: “These are risible and constitutionally illiterate attacks from politicians who should know better. The high court has reaffirmed the sovereignty of parliament within the rule of law. In other words, it has fulfilled precisely its most critical function in a democratic society. The idea that judges would be better employed kowtowing to the executive is shameful heresy from political pygmies.”
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven QC, the former director of public prosecutions, said: “These are risible and constitutionally illiterate attacks from politicians who should know better. The high court has reaffirmed the sovereignty of parliament within the rule of law. In other words, it has fulfilled precisely its most critical function in a democratic society. The idea that judges would be better employed kowtowing to the executive is shameful heresy from political pygmies.”Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, the chair of the Bar Council which represents barristers across England and Wales, said: ““Publicly criticising individual members of the judiciary over a particular judgment or suggesting that they are motivated by their individual views, political or otherwise, is wrong, and serves only to undermine their vital role in the administration of justice. It also does no favours to our global reputation.” Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, the chair of the Bar Council, which represents barristers across England and Wales, said: “Publicly criticising individual members of the judiciary over a particular judgment or suggesting that they are motivated by their individual views, political or otherwise, is wrong, and serves only to undermine their vital role in the administration of justice.”
The prime minister’s spokesman refused to condemn the language used, saying: “I don’t think the British judiciary is being undermined.” He added: “I’m not commenting on newspaper coverage.” The Welsh Assembly announced on Friday that it would seek permission to intervene in the anticipated supreme court hearing in which the government will appeal against the high court ruling.
Announcing the Welsh government’s involvement, Mick Antoniw, an assembly member and counsel general for Wales, said he would raise concerns about the impact of Theresa May’s attempt to use royal prerogative powers on the devolved assembly.