Latest news with #LordSumption
The Independent
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Palestine Action terror ban too heavy-handed, former Supreme Court judge warns Starmer
The terror law that saw hundreds arrested for supporting Palestine Action is 'not consistent with basic rights to free speech' and should be changed, a former Supreme court judge has warned. Writing for the Independent, Lord Sumption said the Terror Act's definition of what amounts to support for a proscribed organisation is 'far too wide'. He warned that one of the criteria – wearing, carrying or displaying something that supports the group – goes too far and should be rowed back to avoid the more than 500 people arrested at Saturday's protest against the group's ban under terror laws from being criminalised. Urging the government to amend the Act, he said, 'merely indicating your support for a terrorist organisation without doing anything to assist or further its acts should not be a criminal offence'. He also suggested that many of the more than 500 people arrested over the weekend, nearly half of whom are over the age of 60, should not be prosecuted, saying there was a 'simple solution' for the prosecuting authorities. 'The director of prosecution's consent is required for any prosecution of those who have been arrested. Where a demonstrator acted peacefully, he would be wise not to authorise a prosecution.' But he said that 'in the longer term' the 'right course would be to amend the Terrorism Act so as to redefine in a more sensible way the offence of supporting a proscribed organisation'. Sir Keir Starmer is facing a furious backlash against the arrests and has been warned he is making a mistake of 'poll tax proportions'. Politicians from across the political divide have warned of an excessive use of counterterrorism powers that were riding roughshod over the right to peaceful protest. The Metropolitan Police confirmed on Sunday that 532 arrests were made, 522 for displaying an item in support of a proscribed organisation at the march in central London. Civil liberties groups, including Amnesty and Liberty, said the arrests were 'disproportionate to the point of absurdity' and that the government's terrorism laws were a threat to freedom of expression. Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti told The Independent the 'proscription of Palestine Action is in danger of becoming a mistake of poll tax proportions' – a reference to Margaret Thatcher's unpopular policy that triggered civil disobedience and riots. Home secretary Yvette Cooper has defended the police but suggested those who were arrested may not 'know the full nature of this organisation'. Her comment led to calls for the authorities to be more 'clear-cut' about why they proscribed Palestine Action last month. The group hit the headlines earlier this year when four members were accused of causing around £7m worth of damage to aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. After the arrests, Downing Street defended the move to ban the group, saying it was 'violent', had committed 'significant injury' as well as criminal damage, and that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre had found the organisation had carried out three separate acts of terrorism. But former Conservative cabinet minister Sir David Davis told The Independent the arrests were an 'excessive use of counterterrorism law', adding 'they've gone over the top'. He said: 'We've not really been given any evidence for the reasoning behind proscribing Palestine Action. I mean, they broke in and painted an aircraft, they did not set bombs or anything. So that's the first question. What was the criteria? And then secondly, should you be arresting lots of people because they support a particular side and put up a banner?' He added: 'The authorities should be more clear cut about why they have proscribed Palestine Action.' Meanwhile, veteran backbencher Diane Abbott said the government is in danger of making itself look 'both draconian and foolish'. And former Labour cabinet minister Peter Hain described the mass arrests as 'madness' and said Palestine Action was not 'equivalent to real terrorist groups like al-Qaeda or Islamic State [which is] why I voted against its ban'.
Telegraph
07-08-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour wrong to give 16-year-olds the vote, says former supreme court judge
Labour should not give 16-year-olds the vote while it blocks them from accessing adult content online, one of Britain's most senior former judges has warned. Lord Sumption, a former justice of the Supreme Court, criticised Sir Keir Starmer's decision to extend the franchise to 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds at the next general election and said the limit should have remained at 21. He accused the Government of a 'crude' attempt to increase the number of Labour voters, although said much of the new electorate will vote for Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Lord Sumption is a retired judge and was considered one of Britain's most important barristers. He is now a notable historian of the mediaeval period. 'I think that it is a mistake to lower the voting age to 16,' he told the Policy Unstuck newsletter. 'I would actually not have reduced the voting age below the age of 21. I think it's a fairly crude attempt to change the electorate so as to introduce a large number of people whom Mr Starmer thinks will vote Labour. 'He may be wrong about that. The polls suggest that quite a lot of them will vote Reform. 'And quite a lot of those who might, last year have voted Labour will vote for Jeremy Corbyn's party. So, he may end up stabbing himself in the back.' He added that there was a tension between the Government's policy and the newly-enforced Online Safety Act, which bans under-18s from accessing adult content online. Tech firms, which have been threatened with huge fines for breaching the rules, have begun to enforce them by stopping underage people from listening to explicit music online or reading some innocuous social media posts. 'The reality is that there are many things that we do not allow 16-year-olds to do,' Lord Sumption said. 'For example, under the Online Safety Act, they can't access significant parts of the internet. I don't have an objection to that in itself. 'But that's some indication of where we think that the boundary lies between responsible adulthood and childhood.' New polling by the research firm More in Common finds that a majority of parents of 16 and 17-year-olds say they should not be able to vote. Fourteen per cent of the parents polled said their child would vote for Labour, while the same proportion said they would vote for Reform. One percentage point less – 13 per cent – think their child would vote for the Green Party. Sir Keir pledged to lower the voting age to 16 when he ran to be Labour leader in 2020, allowing children to cast a ballot in general elections for the first time ever. Sixteen and 17-year-olds are already allowed to vote in elections for the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales. Among the population more generally, 70 per cent of people think that teenagers are too immature to vote. That view is especially popular among people who voted for Reform last year and the over-75s.
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
