Latest news with #LordSumption
Telegraph
27-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Lucy Connolly's supporters should be wary of framing her as a martyr
SIR – Once again, Jonathan Sumption is the voice of reason ('The case of Lucy Connolly shouldn't distract the defenders of free speech', Comment, May 2 7). I find it impossible to have any sympathy for a person who, like Lucy Connolly, advocates violence – no matter the circumstances. Her supporters have a just cause but the wrong martyr. Peter Little Herne Bay, Kent SIR – In calling Lucy Connolly's punishment for inciting racial hatred 'an attack on freedom of thought', D S A Murray (Letters, May 27) has rather missed the point. If Mrs Connolly had kept the thought to herself, there would have been no punishment. Her crime was to disseminate it using social media. John Pini KC Stamford, Lincolnshire SIR – In dismissing Lucy Connolly's case as clear-cut, I believe Lord Sumption is wrong. Judges use nuance and context as tools for passing judgment. Furthermore, swearing and strong language are part of the way we communicate. I would suggest that what Mrs Connolly wrote was not intended to be taken literally; rather, she was expressing her anguished state of mind, having previously lost a child of her own, among other possible factors. The state has no business in withdrawing her freedom. Marcus Lawrence Hillingdon, Middlesex SIR – The system has not made an example of Lucy Connolly. It has made a martyr of her. P J Carroll London SW17 SIR – In his attempted justification of the lengthy prison sentence handed to Lucy Connolly as a result of her unwise tweet, Lord Sumption evades the principal point. It is not that she is a free-speech martyr. Rather, the problem is the disproportionate length of her sentence, compared with some of those handed to people who have committed actual physical violence. Furthermore, the system wishes to keep her locked up when others whose crimes are more serious are released on licence to preserve their family relationships. William Tarver Wokingham, Berkshire SIR – Few would disagree with Lord Sumption that Lucy Connolly committed a serious offence, albeit in a fit of anger. Who can doubt that there have been similar intemperate, perhaps naïve, tirades elsewhere, including online? It is just that the severity of her sentence seems disproportionate. Paul Meredith Sevenoaks, Kent
Telegraph
27-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Only a very clever man like Lord Sumption could be so stupid when it comes to Lucy Connolly
Lord Sumption concedes: 'English law has generally been on the side of freedom of expression… it has always drawn the line at threatening language which is likely to provoke a breach of the peace… If a rabble-rouser stood on a soap-box in front of a howling mob and urged them to head for the nearest immigration hostel and burn it down, this point would be obvious. Doing it on social media is worse because the reach of social media posts is much greater. Its algorithms thrust words like Mrs Connolly's under the noses of people who are already likely to agree. The internet can whip up a howling mob in minutes.' But there is zero evidence that Lucy's words, posted on the evening of the Southport murders, incited violence. Riots did not break out 'in minutes'. They started days later following Sir Keir Starmer's infamous and insulting 19-second laying of a wreath in Southport before a jeering crowd. And after the authorities had done their sly best to conceal from a distraught public key information about the killer, Axel Rudakubana – compare the alacrity (and sigh of relief) with which they announced that the alleged Liverpool car attacker was a white, middle-aged male. Funny what can be disclosed when an alleged offender doesn't belong to a protected minority, eh? No normal person agrees with Lord Sumption that fleeting tweets are worse than, to take just one example, what suspended Labour councillor Ricky Jones is alleged to have done in person at the time Lucy was arrested. Jones was filmed at an anti-fascism demonstration apparently urging a crowd to attack rioters: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists and we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' For reasons which I'd quite like the Ministry of Justice to explain, Jones was granted bail while Lucy Connolly had her bail application rejected twice. Jones has been a free man since January (no pressure to plead guilty for him, no kangaroo hearing within days) and his much-postponed trial will finally take place in August (unless the judge has a pressing lunch engagement or pigs are seen flying over the Old Bailey). By which time, Lucy will have served a whole year behind bars. It is this apparent two-tier justice which Lord Sumption did not address in a piece where he loftily dismissed the claim that Lucy is a free-speech martyr or 'even a political prisoner'. I am no student of jurisprudence (a lucky escape as I got into Cambridge to read law) but to me, and to millions of others, it is perfectly obvious that a political prisoner is exactly what Lucy Connolly is. Prison authorities at Drake Hall in Staffordshire have just punished their exemplary prisoner for 'press engagement' – that's communicating her predicament via her husband, Ray, to yours truly. 'Auntie Judith', AKA your columnist, has sadly been struck off the list of people Lucy is allowed to phone. She has also repeatedly been denied release on temporary licence (ROTL) with her child and sick husband. 'You've offended a lot of people, Lucy,' one official chided. Probation officers and prison guards alike have expressed astonishment that Lucy is still not free. After the Court of Appeal's heartbreaking decision last Tuesday, her cell was full of officers coming to commiserate: they all assumed she was going home, and other prisoners had already distributed Lucy's stuff among themselves. After months of unfair treatment, when Lucy dared to complain to someone outside the prison that she wasn't being allowed the leave on licence to which she was entitled, the prison authorities said she would, yet again, not be allowed that leave, because of, yes, complaining to someone outside the prison. What does that sound like to you? Joseph Heller called it Catch-22. I am told that prison authorities have been 'rattled' by The Telegraph 's coverage of Lucy's case. Good. So they bloody well should be. The free press – are we still allowed one of those, Prime Minister? – will not stay silent when we perceive a carriage of misjustice. I could easily fill this column with examples of heinous cases where an offender was afforded more lenient treatment than Lucy Connolly. One that leaps out concerns the Court of Appeal, which just dashed Lucy's hopes. In March 2023, the court cut the jail term given to former Labour peer Lord Ahmed of Rotherham for sexually abusing two children in the 1970s. Ahmed was convicted of trying to rape an underage girl on two occasions and seriously sexually assaulting a boy under the age of 11. He was jailed for five years and six months at Sheffield Crown Court in February 2022. The judge told Lord Ahmed: 'Your actions have had profound and lifelong effects on the girl and the boy, who have lived with what you did to them for between 46 and 53 years. They express more eloquently than I ever could how your actions have affected and continue to affect their lives in so many different and damaging ways.' However, in their infinite wisdom, three Appeal Court judges, including Lord Justice Holroyde who decided that Lucy Connolly's 31-month sentence was 'not manifestly excessive', reduced the jail term of the sexual abuser and Labour Muslim peer to two years and six months because his age at the time of the offences was not given sufficient weight. Let us pause for a moment, lords, ladies and gentlemen, and marvel at the very clever stupid men who think that a mother who put something hateful for four hours on social media deserves a longer prison sentence than a man who tried to rape and molest children, and got away with that dreadful crime for half a century. 'I shall not waste any sympathy on Mrs Connolly,' quoth the finest legal mind of his generation. 'What she did was a serious offence.' She didn't try to rape a child though, did she, Lord Sumption? She didn't sexually assault a little boy and claim that two traumatised children told malicious falsehoods about her. She didn't use power and influence to put herself above the law. She didn't get her outrageous sentence reduced by privileged men who seem to have a problem relating to white women from ordinary families with sensible views about immigration. Honestly, the way the judiciary extends leniency to sex offenders is repellent to the point of warped. At least 177 paedophiles have walked free since Lucy Connolly was sentenced on October 17 2024. A devoted mum jailed for two years and seven months while depraved men in possession of the worst category of images of children being violated don't lose a single day of their liberty. (Huw Edwards being just one notorious example: a six-month suspended sentence for the BBC boy-groomer!) By now, it should be amply clear to the British people that our justice system is broken and politicised. Here is a retired judge who emailed the Planet Normal podcast: 'For 40 years, I felt proud and privileged to be a member of what I perceived as a noble and learned profession. Alas! No longer it seems. The way the judiciary has treated poor Lucy Connolly and her family is nothing short of an outrage and scandal that should offend all decent people, while those who bring terror and mayhem to the shores of this nation are admonished (if they are even caught) with little more than a slap on the wrist. I am actually surprised that a senior member of the judiciary has not resigned in the most public of ways to distance himself from the heartlessness of his brothers. Lucy Connolly's treatment has a political motive behind it. Of that there can be no doubt, despite the Separation of Powers being one of the cornerstones of our unwritten constitution. Keep up the good fight, Allison, for all our sakes.' And here is a Telegraph reader who styles himself DC Anonymous: 'I'm a serving police officer of 25 years. I've been a detective on specialist crime units, so I know my way around the justice system. The grossly disproportionate sentence and treatment of Lucy is an embarrassment to the justice system. Her tweet was vile and nasty. However, a community sentence would have been more appropriate. My colleagues and I often work long hours to get convictions over the line and often see paltry sentences dished out to some of the most dangerous offenders with all mitigations taken into consideration. Only for a lady who poses no threat to society to be given two years, seven months. It sickens me to my stomach. Most of us joined the job to arrest real criminals, not see innocent members of the public criminalised for hurty words. My colleagues and I are sick to death of woke management, judges and politicians making our difficult jobs even tougher. No wonder the public has lost respect for us.' I am close to tears when I read emails like those, and as I watch Lucy's crowdfunder appeal edge towards £150,000. Thank God there are still good people who are appalled that 'hurty words' – Orwellian thought crimes no less – receive swingeing sentences while villains go free. It's not hard to foresee that this institutional madness could end up in the serious civil unrest that making a scapegoat of Lucy was meant to forestall. On Tuesday, Tommy Robinson, the far-Right activist, was released from prison after his 18-month sentence was reduced by four months at the High Court last week. Looking like an Old Testament prophet, eyes blazing with religious fervour, a heavily-bearded Robinson (who endured weeks of solitary confinement) said that a war was being waged 'against free speech in Britain '. Citing Lucy Connolly, Robinson said she was 'not a violent criminal' and demanded to know why she had been jailed for so long. While Sir Keir claimed not to have heard of Lucy (does the dreadful man expect us to believe a word he says?), Boris Johnson said that 'Starmer's Britain is losing its reputation for free speech and turning into a police state'. Too right. On Tuesday, Nigel Farage became the latest heavyweight to champion Starmer's political prisoner, saying: 'I want to make it absolutely clear that Lucy Connolly should not be in prison… Although she should not have said what she said, there were millions of mothers at that moment in time after the Southport [massacre] feeling exactly the same way.' Beautifully put. Compare and contrast with Lord Sumption's cold, contemptible, 'Lucy Connolly is in prison where she belongs'. This is what happens when judges have minds so brilliant they cannot be polluted with common sense – or mercy. I just spoke to Ray Connolly, who is at home in Northampton. Ray said that he had read The Telegraph article and Sumption seemed to be a 'stupid git' (possibly the first time the law lord has been described in that way!) and that Sir Keir must be 'regretting the day he tried to make an example of Lucy Connolly'. So, where do we go from here? Drake Hall prison authorities told Lucy that a previous ROTL had been denied because she had expressed 'extreme views' in her phone conversations (possibly with 'Auntie Judith'). But that had now been downgraded to 'strong opinions'. 'Are they saying that Lucy's ROTL is now good to go?' asks Ray, who is desperate for his wife to be able to come home and hug and reassure their daughter even for one day and a night. What further ridiculous excuses and delaying tactics can the justice system come up with for denying Mrs Connolly the temporary leave to which she is entitled? 'The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country,' Lord Sumption said when free speech was brutally suppressed during Covid lockdown.
Telegraph
27-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
The Foreign Office is now a national embarrassment
Only a very clever man like Lord Sumption could be so stupid when it comes to Lucy Connolly
Saba Yemen
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Saba Yemen
800 legal experts call on their government to impose sanctions on "Israel"
London - (Saba): More than 800 lawyers, academics, and retired senior judges, including former Supreme Court judges, called on the British government to impose sanctions on the Israeli occupation government and its ministers, and to also consider suspending its membership in the United Nations to fulfill its basic international legal obligations. In a letter to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, they welcomed the joint statement he issued last week with the leaders of France and Canada, in which he warned of their readiness to take "concrete measures" against the occupation. They urged him to act immediately, to take urgent and decisive action to prevent the destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza. The signatories to the letter, including former Supreme Court judges Lord Sumption and Lord Wilson, Court of Appeal judges, and more than 70 Supreme Court judges, stated that war crimes, crimes against humanity, and serious violations of international humanitarian law are being committed in Palestine. The letter stated that "there is mounting evidence of genocide, or at least a serious risk of it, being committed," highlighting recent comments by Israel's far-right Finance Minister Smotrich, who said the Israeli military would wipe out the rest of the Gaza Strip. The signatories noted to Starmer that "all states, including the UK, are legally obligated to take all reasonable steps within their power to prevent and punish genocide; ensure respect for international humanitarian law; and end violations of the right to self-determination. The UK's actions so far have failed to meet these standards. The international community's failure to respect international law in relation to the occupied Palestinian territories contributes to a deteriorating international climate of lawlessness and impunity and puts the international legal order itself at risk. Your government must act now, before it is too late." Whatsapp Telegram Email Print
The Guardian
26-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
UK must impose sanctions on Israel to meet legal obligations, say more than 800 lawyers
The UK must impose sanctions on the Israeli government and its ministers and also consider suspending it from the UN to meet its 'fundamental international legal obligations', more than 800 lawyers, academics and retired senior judges, including former supreme court justices, have said. In a letter to the prime minister, they welcome Keir Starmer's joint statement last week with the leaders of France and Canada warning that they were prepared to take 'concrete actions' against Israel. But they urge him to act without delay as 'urgent and decisive action is required to avert the destruction of the Palestinian people of Gaza'. The signatories, including the former supreme court justices Lord Sumption and Lord Wilson, court of appeal judges and more than 70 KCs, say that war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law are being committed in Palestine. There is mounting evidence of genocide, which is either being perpetrated or at a minimum at serious risk of occurring, the letter states, highlighting recent comments by the Israeli finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, who said Israel's army would 'wipe out' what remains of Palestinian Gaza. The signatories tell Starmer: 'All states, including the UK, are legally obliged to take all reasonable steps within their power to prevent and punish genocide; to ensure respect for international humanitarian law; and to bring to an end violations of [the right to self-determination]. The UK's actions to date have failed to meet those standards … The international community's failure to uphold international law in relation to the occupied Palestinian territory contributes to a deteriorating international climate of lawlessness and impunity and imperils the international legal system itself. Your government must act now, before it is too late.' The UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, last week announced the suspension of negotiations over a new free trade deal with Israel, but the two-page letter, backed by a 35-page legal memorandum, says he must go further, faster by reviewing existing trade ties, suspending the 2030 roadmap for closer UK-Israel partnership and imposing trade sanctions. The legal experts call on him to immediately sanction Israeli ministers or senior officials in the Israel Defense Forces who they accuse of having incited genocide or supporting and sponsoring illegal settlements. They note that so far financial sanctions and travel bans have been limited to individual settlers, settler outposts and settler organisations. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has previously said: 'The charge of genocide levelled against Israel is not only false, it's outrageous, and decent people everywhere should reject it.' The letter, also signed by the former court of appeal judges Sir Stephen Sedley, Sir Anthony Hooper and Sir Alan Moses, a former chair of the bar of England and Wales (Matthias Kelly KC) and of the bar of Northern Ireland (Brian Fee KC), says Israel has been responsible for 'an unparalleled assault on the United Nations'. It points to Israel's banning of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, Unrwa, which it calls the 'backbone of aid' for the Palestinian people, from operating in the occupied territory and 'attacks on UN premises, property and personnel'. These acts are said to 'go beyond isolated breaches. They amount to a broader challenge to the UN charter system itself.' Accordingly, as a permanent member on the UN security council, the signatories say the UK should consider initiating proceedings that provide for suspension of a member state. Moses said: 'We, in the UK, cannot expect peace unless we fulfil our obligations under international law. That is what upholding the rule of law means. It is an exercise in futility for a government to say it upholds the rule of law, if it then does nothing to demonstrate it.' Prof Guy Goodwin-Gill, a signatory and emeritus fellow of All Souls College, University of Oxford, said: 'Now is the time for the UK to show its commitment to the rule of law and to a future in which Palestinians can freely fulfil their right to self-determination. Everyone must be free from persecution, from displacement and ethnic cleansing, from the devastation and death deliberately inflicted on them in their homes, schools and hospitals, in their farms and villages. No one should ever be a refugee in their own land.' Lammy's strongest intervention on Israel to date came amid anger at Israel's refusal to allow thousands of aid trucks access to starving Palestinians. While an 11-week blockade has officially been lifted, the letter says that the limited aid allowed in 'remains gravely insufficient to address the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe'. More than 53,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli offensive in Gaza since 7 October 2023 when a Hamas attack on southern Israel killed 1,200 people. An Israeli strike early on Monday on a school turned shelter, while people inside were sleeping, killed 36, according to health officials. Also on Monday, one of Israel's staunchest allies, Germany, added to international condemnation, with the chancellor, Friedrich Merz, saying the harm inflicted on civilians 'can no longer be justified as a fight against Hamas terrorism'. In order to meet its legal obligations, the UK is also urged in the letter to secure an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, the resumption of aid and the lifting of Israel's ban on Unrwa. Finally, it says the UK should confirm that it would execute the international criminal court's arrest warrants against the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his former defence minister, Yoav Gallant. The letter increases the pressure on Starmer to act in the same week that the attorney general, Lord Hermer KC, is due to deliver the Rusi thinktank's annual security lecture on 'the condition of the international-rules-based-order'. Many Labour and Tory backbenchers have already said that the suspension of talks on the free trade deal does not go nearly far enough. A previous letter from members of the UK legal community sent last year said the UK was breaching international law by continuing to arm Israel. Weapons sales are not addressed in the latest missive because the issue is awaiting judgment by the high court in London after a legal challenge.
