Features

The pro bono case of Compton—challenging a decision to close a local hospital—has clarified the law relating to protective costs orders. Guy Opperman explains why pro bono work really can make a difference.  

A court case is like a battle. And a test case, involving nine hearings and 12 judges over two years, is the mother of all military campaigns. So it was with the pro bono epic that culminated in the various decisions in R (on the application of Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust (see [2008] EWCA Civ 749).  Pro bono provides assistance for those who are unable to afford legal representation. This case in its various forms took two years and multiple hearings. What began as a case protesting about the closure of hospital units in Wiltshire developed into a test case on the extent to which ordinary citizens can use protective costs orders (“PCOs”) to challenge decisions of public bodies. 

Is the creation of the new UK Supreme Court a triumph of form over substance? William East investigates 

With the new Supreme Court opening last month, and countless programmes, speeches and articles on the new-found separation of powers in the British constitution, the weary reader has had to endure rather a lot of Montesquieu. For it was this now rather better-known French philosopher who, in his essay The Spirit of Laws, is credited with outlining the principle of the separation of powers for the first time. A mere 261 years later, with the opening of the new court, we are said to have avoided the apocalyptic scenario in which: “There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people to exercise [the] three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.” 

16 October 2009: “One of the signs of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one’s work is terribly important.” — Bertrand Russell 

I have become very concerned about swine flu or Influenza H1NI, to use its proper name. First, I dislike the name: it sounds rather “dirty”. I prefer geographical names, such as Spanish Flu, which have a dash of romance to them. Guadalajara Flu would sound much better in my view. However, this is not my real concern. It is the way in which anyone who succumbs to the illness, or indeed nearly any other politically inconvenient medical emergency, is said to be suffering from “underlying health problems”. 

Melissa Coutinho reports on the Employed Bar Conference.  

Hogarth’s painting of St Paul’s impassioned plea before Felix in the Old Hall at Lincoln’s Inn provided a fitting backdrop to the Employed Bar Conference on 21 July entitled “One Bar – thriving by Unity.” 

This year’s Young Bar Conference was as popular as ever. Alexander Learmonth rounds up the highlights.  

The Young Bar Conference is the highlight of the Young Barristers’ Committee’s  calendar and so it is fantastic that it remains so popular among barristers – and pupils – up to ten years’ Call. Thanks to the support of Circuits, many of which funded delegates’ costs, more than 200 barristers, pupils and Bar Vocational Course students attended the 2009 conference – held on Saturday, 3 October at London’s Hotel Russell – from all corners of the country: Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Cardiff and Bristol. And given sponsorship from commercial sponsors and several Specialist Bar Associations, delegates enjoyed 5 hours of accredited CPD, coffee, lunch and tea – all for £40. 

Nigel Pascoe QC shares his personal highlights from this year’s Edinburgh Fringe. 

Aficionados of Fringe theatre will recognise two useful tips: scour the Traverse programme and see what Guy Masterson has on the stocks. This year he had ten shows under his belt, acting in one and producing and/or directing the others. Austen’s Women was the ideal warm up to what was my fifteenth year in Edinburgh. Rebecca Vaughan, demurely changing in front of her dressing table, gradually progressed to her ball gown, taking a dozen or so characters in her stride. Enchanting stuff and excellent characterisation. Then Masterson himself in a very atmospheric two-handed thriller: The Sociable Plover was remote bird watching with a difference; homicide, to be precise. Unsurprisingly, it has already been a television film. Masterson is always worth watching and his pedantic and scary psychopath did not disappoint, splendidly supported by Ronnie Toms. 

Name: Gerard Hickie
Position: Chief Executive
Chambers: Littleton Chambers 

David Wurtzel provides a guided tour of inside the new building 

However much it cost, the Supreme Court building (formerly the Middlesex Guildhall) provides a splendid home for a new institution. Whether you are public, barristers, staff or the Justices, you can see where the money went. Those who knew it in its criminal court days will be glad that English Heritage insisted on retaining a substantial part of the interior. This includes the art nouveau light fittings, the tiled walls, some panelling and furniture and the paintings and sculpture. The latter have been cleaned and rearranged: the bust of the bon vivant Edward VII no longer greets you as you enter but now watches over the public canteen. 

Under the Circuit Diversity Mentor Scheme senior QCs are the first point of contact for barristers interested in applying for judicial appointments or Silk. Desmond Browne QC explains what is involved.  

The Circuit Diversity Mentor Scheme was launched last year by my predecessor, Tim Dutton QC. The aim was to encourage the widest and most diverse possible range of applicants for the judiciary and Silk and appointment to the Attorney General’s Civil Panels. It was strongly endorsed by the Judicial Appointments Commission (“JAC”) which has amongst its statutory objectives “the need to encourage diversity in the range of persons available for selection for appointment”. 

Debate on the future of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA 1998”) illustrates a number of contemporary political themes.  

There is convergence – both Labour and the Conservatives invoke the spirit of the Glorious Revolution with arguments for a new Bill of Rights. There is divergence – in essence, Labour and the Liberal Democrats are for the HRA 1998 and the Conservatives against it – though all sides have their mavericks. There is an awful lot of confusion, if not wilful obfuscation. And, underneath the politics, there are, largely unacknowledged, constitutional principles that limit what can practically be done.