*/
The government was forced to publish the legal advice from the Attorney General on the controversial Brexit deal.
The six-page letter was published the day after MPs voted by 311 to 293 to find the government in contempt of Parliament for its failure to reveal the contents. The Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox QC, had previously published an overview, but argued that disclosing the full advice would compromise client confidentiality and be against the national interest.
The ministerial code states that neither the fact that the law officers have given advice, nor its content, may be disclosed outside government without ministers’ consent.
Andrea Leadsom, Leader of the House of Commons urged referral to the Privileges Committee for consideration of the motion in its ‘full constitutional and historical context’.
But lawyers were divided over the issue. The former Solicitor General, Lord Garnier QC, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘It is a matter of convention that the law officers don’t disclose their advice – and it used to be the convention that they don’t disclose whether they had given advice on a particular issue.’
In The Guardian human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC wrote: ‘There is no political “convention” more misguided and less examined than the supposed rule that legal advice to ministers must remain confidential.’ He said that public money is spent instructing counsel to provide an opinion on the law, which everyone is entitled to know.
Crossbench peer Lord Carlile said in The Times that as a matter of law, it is up to the client and there was no contempt of Parliament to refuse to publish privileged legal advice.
The government was forced to publish the legal advice from the Attorney General on the controversial Brexit deal.
The six-page letter was published the day after MPs voted by 311 to 293 to find the government in contempt of Parliament for its failure to reveal the contents. The Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox QC, had previously published an overview, but argued that disclosing the full advice would compromise client confidentiality and be against the national interest.
The ministerial code states that neither the fact that the law officers have given advice, nor its content, may be disclosed outside government without ministers’ consent.
Andrea Leadsom, Leader of the House of Commons urged referral to the Privileges Committee for consideration of the motion in its ‘full constitutional and historical context’.
But lawyers were divided over the issue. The former Solicitor General, Lord Garnier QC, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘It is a matter of convention that the law officers don’t disclose their advice – and it used to be the convention that they don’t disclose whether they had given advice on a particular issue.’
In The Guardian human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC wrote: ‘There is no political “convention” more misguided and less examined than the supposed rule that legal advice to ministers must remain confidential.’ He said that public money is spent instructing counsel to provide an opinion on the law, which everyone is entitled to know.
Crossbench peer Lord Carlile said in The Times that as a matter of law, it is up to the client and there was no contempt of Parliament to refuse to publish privileged legal advice.
Chair of the Bar sets out a busy calendar for the rest of the year
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Examined by Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
Time is precious for barristers. Every moment spent chasing paperwork, organising diaries, or managing admin is time taken away from what matters most: preparation, advocacy and your clients. That’s where Eden Assistants step in
AlphaBiolabs has announced its latest Giving Back donation to RAY Ceredigion, a grassroots West Wales charity that provides play, learning and community opportunities for families across Ceredigion County
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
Come in with your eyes open, but don’t let fear cloud the prospect. A view from practice by John Dove
Anon Academic explains why he’s leaving the world of English literature for the Bar – after all, the two are not as far apart as they may first seem...
Review by Stephen Cragg KC
