Expert Witness Blog

Government proposals are like lambs to the Slaughter, while Leveson seeks new targets

Your Expert Witness blog logoNot long ago the name Andy Slaughter was not a household one. His constituents knew who he was, as did the wide circle of followers of Parliamentary and political intrigue; now, however, Labour's Shadow Justice Secretary has been catapulted into the limelight, thanks to a series of controversial proposals to save money in the judicial system by making the process more difficult to access.

First there was whiplash, with the aforementioned Mr Slaughter finding himself an unlikely bedfellow with Karl Tonks of the personal injury lawyers (tip: if Googling for APIL whiplash, DON'T let it search instead for 'April Whiplash'). Then there came the proposals from Chris Grayling to implement Dave's attacks on judicial review.
Seems that everywhere he looks, there is a sacrificial lamb just heading his way.

 Lord Leveson is continuing to make waves, and indeed is widening his sights. Speaking in Australia, where he headed following the publication of his report on press ethics, he argued that bloggers and users of social media for the dissemination of information and opinion should be subject to the same guidelines and legal obligations as the established print media.

Now I don't know about the blogging fraternity as a whole, but as far as I was concerned that had always been the case. A libel is a libel is a libel: and hacking into somebody's bank account is an offence whether it's done to rob them or expose their nefarious business dealings.

There is a difference between the blogging that arose from a similar activity in print format (editorials) and the sudden realisation by people with, shall we say, 'unconventional views' that they suddenly had a whole world for an audience. All online publications that grew out of the print press have bloggers and most are content to inform and entertain.

The world His Lordship was referring to, however, see themselves as not bound by the same laws and standards as the rest of us; they see the internet as a new universe where anything goes and they are outside the rule of law.

Lord Leveson said of that view: "In many ways this is a pernicious and false belief: false because the law can be enforced against those who blog and tweet; pernicious because the idea that the law does not apply to some while it applies to others undermines the rule of law as it is inconsistent with the idea of equality before the law."

 The BBC, meanwhile, is continuing to be in denial regarding the original Leveson Report. The channel that bought you false accusations against a senior politician still refers to 'the press' as if it wasn't a part.

In Question Time, David Dimbleby challenged Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times, thus: "Do you trust yourself to regulate yourselves?"

 Finally, perhaps the most touchingly naïve expectation that the law will protect your property rights comes from South Yorkshire, as reported in the Police Oracle review. Police in that part of the world received a report from a member of the public complaining about the theft of three of his cannabis plants. I kid you not; when the Bobbies turned up they found a further three unstolen plants and equipment for growing them. Needless to say, he was arrested.

The judge said: "The fact that you yourself phoned the police to report this is not a mitigating factor."

Chris Stokes