A YEAR IN THE LAW 2016-17
report merely tinker at the edges and will create more loopholes for unscrupulous operators such as Uber to exploit. On the case This year has seen some important cases, with two in particular standing out (see ‘The commercial year’ on p64 for a round-up of what happened in the commercial courts). In January the Supreme Court ruled that only Parliament has the power to trigger the Brexit process by invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union – the process a member state has to go through if it wants to leave. Theresa May and her government had tried to ensure that they could trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament. However, a legal challenge brought by businessperson Gina Miller led to a court battle, with judges ultimately deciding that the power to trigger Brexit rested with Parliament, not the prime minister. Some were bemused that the same people who had advocated Brexit to guarantee parliamentary sovereignty were the first to try to bypass Parliament on such a crucial issue. Meanwhile, the plight of terminally ill baby Charlie Gard attracted worldwide attention as a result of the legal fight between his desperate parents – who wanted to take Charlie to the United States
offences formerly used to criminalise homosexuality. The pardons were made under what has been dubbed ‘Turing’s law’ – after the famous Second World War codebreaker who was later persecuted and chemically castrated by the authorities for having romantic relationships with other men. Like Turing’s own pardon in 2013, many of the latest pardons were given posthumously. While this represents a welcome step towards equality, some argued that it does not go far enough – not least because the term ‘pardon’ intimates forgiveness for some act of wrongdoing, when those convicted under old indecency laws understandably feel that they did nothing wrong. Elsewhere, the conditions of those working in the gig economy have come under scrutiny, with one tribunal finding against Uber’s claim that the people who work for it are self-employed and thus do not qualify for full employment rights; a second tribunal is mulling a similar case brought by workers for Deliveroo. A report to the government by Matthew Taylor was pretty damning of such disingenuous practices, which are used to exploit workers, many of whom earn less than the minimum wage. However, trade unions and other critics have said that the recommendations to reform employment law set out in the Taylor
for experimental treatment – and his doctors, who believed that this treatment offered a very low chance of meaningful improvement and would only prolong Charlie’s suffering. The High Court, Supreme Court and European Court all agreed with the medical professionals, but that did not stop outside interests from interfering, with both Donald Trump and the Pope calling for Charlie to be given the experimental treatment. Charlie’s parents eventually agreed not to pursue further treatment after another medical expert was consulted and Charlie was allowed to die peacefully soon after. What’s ahead? One upcoming development that budding lawyers should keep a close eye on is the so-called Great Repeal Bill, which the government is expected to put forward to attempt to bring all the EU laws under which we currently live into UK law – if it isn’t forced into a general election first. In theory, doing this will ensure legal and economic continuity on the day that Britain leaves the European Union, rather than a chaotic legislative void. Whatever happens, it looks to be another seismic 12 months for the legal profession and the country as a whole.
By Josh Richman
62
Best in Law 2017
LawCareers.Net
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker