Latest news with #barrister
Telegraph
02-06-2025
- General
- Telegraph
Lord Hermer, it is remaining in the ECHR that imperils our human rights
For an eminent barrister to regret a 'clumsy' choice of words is rather like a distinguished heart surgeon owning up to being wobbly with a scalpel. Just as we ordinary folk expect pillars of the medical profession to be careful with our atrial chambers and pulmonary veins, so we pay Lord Hermer KC to be precise in language and wise in judgment. When the Attorney General delivers a setpiece speech that is the exact opposite, forcing him to make amends for having compared anyone who questions our membership of certain international conventions to a Nazi jurist, then he is advertising his own incompetence. As it happens, I wrote speeches for three Foreign Secretaries and one Prime Minister and even I could work out that it was best to avoid 1930s or Nazi references. Apart from my stubborn belief that Basil Fawlty was not a model of public oratory, the inevitable row would obliterate the message of the speech. And what was Lord Hermer's message? I want to be fairer than he deserves and concentrate on his argument because I think he was trying to be reassuring. After 32 years at the Bar, he may even have changed his mind about something. Lord Hermer is trying to swim with the tide created by the Defence Review, published on Monday, which confirms plans to increase military spending to match the most perilous international situation arguably since 1945. It may sound strange but the Attorney General is re-positioning himself as, if not a hawk, then at least a realist. He denounced 'legal romantic idealists' for being 'dangerously naive' and willing to confine Britain to 'irrelevance in global affairs'. Instead, he argued that loyalty to international law was consistent with a 'hard-headed' approach to British interests in a dangerous world. Lord Hermer failed to repeat a doctrine he outlined last year that Britain must not just obey international law but 'go further than simply meeting our obligations' – surely the essence of 'legal romantic idealism'. But that was all of seven months ago; the new Lord Hermer no longer entertains such purism. He even thinks that treaties should be subjected to 'evidence-based criticism' and 'proposals to reform' while international organisations must avoid 'blindness or indifference to public sentiment in their member states'. When a human rights barrister shows sympathy for public sentiment, you know that something is afoot. Ironically enough, Lord Hermer's speech was his attempt to be moderate. He was trying to occupy the middle ground between 'romantic idealists' on the one hand and 'pseudo-realists' on the other, the latter being people who supposedly want to do away with international law altogether. But there is a problem: he doesn't mean it. Look at the asymmetry of his language: the idealists are naive, but the 'pseudo-realists' are imitating Nazis. And he stubbornly evades two central questions. Is it still the Government's position that Britain must go further than just obey international law? Or is that an example of Old Hermer-ism that is no longer operative? More seriously, why is it always wrong – even shocking – to withdraw from an international convention? They all provide for states to depart. Why would exercising that right imperil the whole system? Lord Hermer thinks that his critics want to 'pick and mix', breaking some elements of international agreements and obeying others. But if that were true, there would be no point withdrawing from any convention: we would just ignore them. The fact that Robert Jenrick wants to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not make him an enemy of the rule of law. It just means that he wants to use the procedure for withdrawal in Article 58 because he believes that continued membership no longer serves the British people. What is so wrong with that? For example, the British people have a security interest in their government being able to deport foreign nationals who commit serious offences. Keeping them here, no matter how dangerous they might be, breaches the state's obligation to protect its own people.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Tracy Chu eyes acting comeback
22 May - Tracy Chu recently revealed that she is looking to work as an actress again, and hopes to get a good project soon. The actress-turned-barrister, who appeared at the opening ceremony of Cirque du Soleil's "KOOZA" recently, said that she will definitely get back to acting as soon as she encounters a good script. "I don't need my husband's approval to film a drama. Instead, I have to consider how to manage my time. I want my husband to watch me acting because the drama I last starred in was seven or eight years ago," she said. Tracy said that she has been balancing her work as a barrister and taking care of her family since her son was born. "He just turned one and already knows how to walk. I have to chase him every day. Having a child is a lot of exercise," she said with a smile. She is also happy that her friends like Priscilla Wong, Jennifer Shum and Louisa Mak are all parents now, saying that she hopes that their kids can all be friends when they are older. (Photo Source: Tracy IG, Priscilla IG)
Times
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Times
Mooting? Keep calm and carry a cheat sheet
Being able to persuade a judge using clear and concise oral arguments is what being a barrister is all about. Mooting competitions that simulate court hearings — usually an appeal of a fictional case — enable students to practise and hone their skills of legal research, written submissions and presenting arguments. Most universities, Bar schools and the four Inns of Court hold moots, and there are several wider competitions. Not least the national competition organised for the past decade by 2 Temple Gardens (2TG) in conjunction with The Times, which is open to all students in tertiary education. To open the world of mooting to a broader section of students before they go to university, for the past three years the chambers has worked with
Daily Mail
21-05-2025
- Daily Mail
Primary school teacher and barrister win right to anonymity despite teacher 'strangling and abusing' one of their adopted sons
A primary school teacher and a barrister who specialises in children's cases 'routinely neglected' their adopted sons, with the teacher strangling and racially abusing one of the boys, a judge has found. The High Court heard how the couple's two youngest children, aged 10 and 15, were subject to multiple instances of abuse. The teacher, X, called the 15-year-old, who is of mixed ethnic heritage, a 'black b*****d', the judge found. On one occasion in January last year, X 'strangled the teenager', and on another, forced one of the older siblings to 'eat soap' for using inappropriate language. X also subjected the two children to emotional abuse by swearing at them and using threatening language. The parents also used food as a form of control, padlocking the pantry so the children did not have unsupervised access and punishing the boys by keeping them hungry. The brothers were also regularly left alone overnight, which caused 'significant emotional harm and was likely to subject significant physical harm', the judge said. The couple successfully made a bid at the High Court in London to be anonymised, meaning details including their names, genders, pronouns, and other details, which might identify them or their children, cannot be published. In a judgment issued on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Theis said: 'The parents have been together for over 30 years. They have both worked in professions for many years that involve them having frequent and regular direct and indirect contact with children.' She added: 'What the evidence demonstrates is the disconnect between the professional backgrounds of both X and Y and the lived reality in the family home.' X is a primary school teacher and Y a barrister specialising in children's cases, who also sits as a deputy district judge with authority to sit and hear private family cases. In total, the couple have adopted five children, two of whom are now over 18-years-old. Mrs Justice Theis said in one of five rulings published on Wednesday that the local authority in the case asked her to make findings that the two youngest children were subject to 'physical and emotional abuse by X, and a failure to protect by Y', at a hearing in December. The judge found that X 'has exercised a level of control over the children which goes beyond that of a reasonable parent'. This included putting a padlock on the pantry to prevent the children from being able to make their food. The teacher also subjected the children to a litany of emotional abuse by swearing at them, using threatening language, and racial abuse, the judge found. Mrs Justice Theis said that after the boys ran away from home in January last year to a foster home where an older sibling was staying, they told the police that X had also called the teenager the 'n word'. The teenager also told police that X 'hits him', giving details of an occasion when X put him on the bottom bunk bed and 'banged him up and down so his head banged on the top bunk'. The boys further reported that the teenager had to shower with the door open because X wanted to see that he had 'soaped up' sufficiently, because, as he is black, he 'has body odour'. One of the older siblings was able to detail some of the incidents described by the boys, and the court found X had also been aggressive towards him, on one occasion throwing a clothes airer across the kitchen and shouting 'I'm going to f*****g kill this kid', the judgment said. The allegations of physical and verbal abuse were investigated by police, who informed the parents in July 2024 that there would be no charges. She continued that on one occasion in January last year, X 'strangled the teenager', and on another, forced one of the older siblings to 'eat soap' for using inappropriate language. The judge also agreed with the local authority responsible for the care of the children that Y knew or ought to have known of X's conduct but failed to intervene or take any other action to protect the children from harm. She found that the parents' behaviour had led to the children choosing to leave their care, causing the children emotional harm. The parents do not agree with the court's findings in relation to the children, but did not challenge them, the judge said. Mrs Justice Theis further said in the ruling that in July 2024, the parents did not want the children, who are in foster care, returned to them, and supported an order that was made regarding care arrangements for the boys. In a ruling about their anonymity at the start of May, the judge said the parents 'present themselves as victims, yet have then displayed behaviour that demonstrates their position and way of operating has barely changed and shows they can behave in an aggressive and threatening way, similar to the behaviour described by the children'. But she concluded 'not without some considerable hesitation' that they should not be identified in these 'very unusual and complex set of circumstances'. Mrs Justice Theis said there was a public interest in the parents' professions being published and the 'public knowing that the parents hold positions of professional responsibility in respect of children'. In a statement written in January, the parents said they had struggled mentally since the start of proceedings, had had to sell their family home, and had no intention of returning to their professions. They also said: 'We are not monsters. We did everything that we could over the last 20 years to give our sons the best possible experiences and outcomes in their lives. 'There are times now when we both feel like we have failed completely as parents because of the final outcome that we knew at the start of the proceedings was inevitable.' Mrs Justice Theis said Y's regulatory body had determined that Y had failed to report to their leadership judge that they had been involved in proceedings 'that could have affected their position or the reputation and standing of the judiciary at large, even though those proceedings were discontinued'.
The Guardian
21-05-2025
- The Guardian
Teacher and barrister who ran abusive home cannot be identified, high court rules
A primary school teacher smashed their adoptive children's heads together, forced them to swallow soap and called one of them a 'black bastard'. Their partner – a barrister who also sat as a deputy district judge in the family courts – repeatedly failed to protect the children from their campaign of abuse. But despite the findings, the high court has ruled that the couple cannot be identified after The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) led a legal attempt to name them in the public interest. Mrs Justice Theis said she had reached the 'very difficult decision' after undertaking a careful balancing exercise between the rights of the media and the children's right to privacy. To the outside world the couple, who adopted five children, portrayed a happy family image which they used to promote their respective careers. But behind closed doors they ran a household controlled by what Theis described as an 'undercurrent of fear'. The barrister, who specialised in children's cases, was aware of the abuse but failed to intervene. The court found the children were subjected to physical assaults, denied proper meals and that a lock was placed on the pantry to stop them helping themselves to food. Punishments designed to humiliate included locking them outside the house without shoes on or making them stand against a wall. One child had his head flushed down the toilet and was referred to as 'a disease'. Another had his spectacles confiscated to prevent him from reading. Both parents deny the allegations but did not seek to challenge them. In a judgment published today Theis said the arguments put forward on each side relating to the issue of anonymity were compelling but was ultimately in the best interests of the children. At the heart of the case are three boys who find themselves back in the care system after suffering significant harm at the hands of their parents. Usually it is in the interests of children who have been the subject of abuse to keep the identity of their family confidential. In this case however, there were welfare arguments put forward on behalf of the children in favour of naming the parents. These included that identifying them would serve to validate their experiences and refute anything later made public by the parents who dispute the allegations and previously threatened to 'one day fight for justice'. Initially the guardian for the younger two boys, appointed by the court to represent their best interests, supported the naming of the parents in court judgments but shifted her position to neutral just over a week before a hearing in April. It came after the parents said they would be willing to have contact with the children on the condition their identities were protected. Previously they had been resolute about not seeing them despite being aware of the boys' wishes to do so. It was submitted there was significant public interest in naming the parents due to the jobs each had held during the time of the abuse. Both worked in roles that brought them into direct contact with children, while the judge was making important decisions about their welfare. Theis said the balancing exercise was 'exquisitely poised' and that TBIJ had set out 'powerful arguments' supported by other media organisations. However, she ultimately decided in favour of the children's rights to privacy. She said their welfare needs were best achieved away from the glare of any publicity. The two younger siblings left the family home in January 2024 and reported to police they had been abused by the teacher. The older sibling, who was separately represented in the court proceedings, and was already in foster care at that time, also disclosed abuse. One boy told police the teacher had pushed him against a wall, put their hands around his throat and threatened to kill him. He also said he had been made to wear shoes that were too small for him and that he'd been subjected to racial slurs, including the 'N-word'. Theis said the children were caused further significant harm as a result of delays to the court process, caused 'in very large part' to the conduct of the parents who said they suffered from fragile mental health. A police investigation into the teacher and barrister, who were bailed after being arrested, was closed in July 2024 and no charges were brought.
