Draft Communications Bill
Law Society President John Wotton said: 'Vast quantities of
communications data are generated about UK subjects through their
telephone calls, web, and social media use. Such data can build a
highly detailed picture of people's lives, including their
associates, location and interests.
'In a democratic society the needs of law enforcement will
always need to be balanced against the rights of the individual.
However, proposals for mass surveillance of the kind proposed in
the Draft Communications Data Bill raise far for serious questions
than more limited and targeted measures. In a global internet
environment in which more data than ever is already available to
the authorities a clear need to collect more data must be
demonstrated and a firm legal basis for collecting the specific
data and effective mechanisms to ensure compliance by government
and redress for individuals are required.
'The relationship between developing technologies, government IT
and surveillance systems and the legal frameworks which govern
them, has not always been a happy one. Individuals have a right to
privacy and the Law Society and its members will seek to contribute
to the debate which is already underway.'
Justice and Security Bill
Secret Courts:
A Law Society spokesperson said: 'It is a long
established principle that justice should be open. Being able to
see your opponent's case ensures fairness.Allowing justice to be
seen maintains trust in the system.
'There is no doubt that the work of the security services will
sometimes be sensitive and therefore not for the public eye, but
that needs to be balanced sensibly with the need for our justice
system to be transparent, and the principle of holding the
Government to account.
'The secret justice proposals in the Justice and Security Bill
must not become a cloak for a Government to hide its blushes nor be
allowed to deny justice to deserving cases.
'It seems a difficult task to reconcile the principles of the
Draft Communications Bill which seeks to closely monitor the lives
of individuals, with the Justice and Security Bill which could do
the opposite for Government. The Law Society, which
represents many of the lawyers who will be working in and with any
new legal framework, will seek strenuously to ensure that the
fundamental principles of British justice are maintained.'
Crime and Courts Bill:
Television cameras in court: 'We welcome measures
designed to improve public confidence in and knowledge of the
justice system, and support the principle of open
justice.
'We have concerns, however, that allowing TV cameras into courts
may lead to selective and sensational reporting, and cause even
more stress to victims of crime, witnesses and defendants
alike.
'We are pleased the government intends to introduce live
broadcasting in limited circumstances only, and we look forward to
considering their detailed proposals.'
The Judiciary:
On reforming the judicial appointments process: 'We support many
of the changes which reflect Baroness Neuberger's recommendations,
however, we have concerns over what appears to be an enlarged
involvement for the Lord Chancellor in, for example, the
appointment panel for the President of the Supreme Court and the
Lord Chief Justice. This may raise questions over the true
independence of the judiciary.
'Moves to encourage flexible judicial deployment are positive
and will make it possible for High Court judges to work part time
or opt for flexible working and help to ease the transfer of judges
between courts and tribunals.'
Children and Families Bill
Shared parenting:
'Most separating and divorcing couples are able to reach
informal or formal parenting arrangements without the need to go to
court. For the minority who go to court, often the most
high-conflict cases, it is not simply true that the courts are
biased towards mothers: there is and can only be one bias -
the welfare of the child.
'The risk is that 'shared parenting' or 'shared parental
responsibility' is too easily misinterpreted as meaning equal time
with each parent. This can lead to a focus on the rights of parents
over the rights of children, and an understanding that the starting
point is 'equal time'. Unfortunately, this is only likely to
entrench attitudes among litigating parents.'
'The Family Justice Review had good reason for reaching the
conclusion that 'no legislation should be introduced that creates
or risks creating the perception that there is a parental right to
substantially shared or equal time for both parents.'
Defamation Bill
'The Law Society welcomes the announcement in the Queen's Speech
that the Government will be bringing forward a Defamation Bill in
this Parliamentary session. If the Government's response to the
Joint Committee report provides an accurate indication of the new
Bill's content, then we expect the vast majority of its provisions
to lead to a clearer, more proportionate defamation law regime, and
we look forward to examining them in detail.
'We do however hold deep reservations about the proposals to
introduce a requirement that statements cause 'serious harm' to be
actionable. We agree that a mechanism is needed to discourage
trivial claims, but this proposal is likely to inhibit many people
trying to validly protect their reputation from doing so.
'If the purpose of this law is to stop the protection of
reputation from becoming the sole preserve of the rich, then this
proposal is the wrong way to go about it, as it will create an
unreasonably high threshold to overcome at a very early stage,
necessitating extensive and costly pre-action work. In combination
with the recent changes to no-win, no-fee agreements, ordinary
people, small businesses and charities may simply not be able to
afford to protect their reputation if this provision becomes
law.'