The Accidental Terrorist

So, it's all over bar the shouting in the David Miranda judicial review, heard in front of Lord Justice Laws (whose name I don't think I will ever stop finding amusing.  Once when I was meant to be revising for the GDL I spent longer than I care to admit searching to see if I could find a case that had been heard by (the then) Mr. Justice Laws and Mr. Justice Judge. I succeeded. What does that say about me?), Mr. Justice Ouseley and Mr. Justice Openshaw.

Carl Gardiner did a tremendous job on Twitter and subsequently on his blog live-tweeting and analysing both days' proceedings in court.  As former Court of Appeal judge Sir Henry Brooke noted

.@carlgardner @CivilLitTweet  Informative tweets from two courts today have shown how valuable this new mode of media communication can be
— Henry Brooke (@HenryBrooke1) November 7, 2013

Unlawful Questioning of David Miranda

A judgment was handed down on Wednesday that raises further questions about the legality of some aspects of David Miranda's detention at Heathrow in August.  I have been mulling the contents of the David Miranda judicial review hearing, and should have a blog post on it soon, but in the interim I want to look at the potential bearing that this judgment, Elosta v Commissioner of the Met, has on the facts of Miranda's case as we (I) know them.

Essentially, it affirms the right of someone being detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to consult a solicitor before being interviewed, face-to-face and in private.  None of these are particularly controversial (and the Met Commissioner conceded and apologized for the fact that Mr. Elosta was not given privacy to talk to his solicitor over the phone), but this is Schedule 7 we are talking about here, and this is also the Met.  It was the Met's position that someone being detained under Schedule 7 at a place other than a police station did not have the right to consult a solicitor, and if they did they were only to do so under conditions dictated by the police.  To be fair to them, this is what a straight reading of the legislation could imply, but one that was sensibly rejected by Mr. Justice Bean.

Looking again at the details of the Miranda detention, and reading it along with the judgment in Elosta, it seems to me that much of the questioning of Miranda was probably unlawful.

Hurray for the Guardian! They Fixed Their Error! With Another One!

Well done to The Guardian. As I pointed out yesterday, between the 'staff and agencies' to whom the column was accredited (read 'wire-stories and someone on work experience'), they had managed to mislabel David Owen as a "party stalwart". I pointed this out to them, and was pleased to find an email this evening from the paper generously admitting that it was a "good point", and declaring that they had amended the story accordingly.

Bravo for them.

David Owen has now been rebranded as "a senior figure from the liberal movement", (something that I am sure causes as much embarrassment to Lord Owen as it does to those of us in the liberal movement.)

Naturally I have once again contacted The Guardian pointing out the error...

Oi, Owen! Shut it!

So, David Owen has been opining about how Ming Campbell should hand over the leadership of the Liberal Democrats to a "young Turk". O.K., so a man whose party (the S.D.P.) at its last electoral outing finished behind the Monster Raving Loony Party has given his opinion on the leadership of the Lib Dems. Fair enough. But rather more egregious is the coverage given to his remarks in The Guardian.

The opening paragraph of their story is:

"Sir Menzies Campbell's leadership of the Liberal Democrats suffered a fresh blow today after a party stalwart called for him to be replaced by a 'young Turk'."

I just fired off this email to The Guardian, (politics.editor@guardian.co.uk)

"Dear Sir/Madam,

The above-mentioned story of Tuesday, February 6, 2007 begins with the sentence, “Sir Menzies Campbell’s leadership of the Liberal Democrats suffered a fresh blow today after a party stalwart called for him to be replaced by a ‘young Turk’.”

Anyone with the most basic knowledge of British political history would be aware that David Owen is not a “party stalwart”, nor even to my knowledge a member of the Liberal Democrats. He broke away from his own party, the S.D.P., after the majority of that party voted to merge with the Liberal Party and form what is now the Liberal Democrats.

He sits in the House of Lords as a cross-bencher, not a Liberal Democrat.

If Lord Owen is a stalwart of any party, rather than a bitter old man whose own party went against his wishes, it is of the S.D.P – which has one branch in Bridlington, I believe, and about a dozen members."

I suggest others do the same.