Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech

Home » Posts tagged 'BPP'

Tag Archives: BPP

All universities are needed for the public good


I still remember my time at Cambridge with fondness. I am a Scholar of my College there, as I was awarded the second highest First in the whole University in finals (“Part II”) in 1996. I think it’s very hard to be overtly or covertly disloyal to any educational establishment you have attended, unless you truly had a terrible time. I remember being supervised by some outstanding academics, a few even Nobel prize winners. It’s crazy to think I once sat next to César Milstein, who was  awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology for physiology and medicine, for his invention of monoclonal antibody technology which has subsequently produced massive benefit and outcomes for the medical profession as regards therapeutic value. I also remember sitting next to the Head of Interpol at a conference on economic crime, as we raised a ‘Floreat’ toast to the Queen.

Cambridge then, in the mid 1990s, had too its fair share of appalling lecturers. Paid by one of the ‘best’  Universities globally, some University Teaching Officers were completely incapable of giving a one-hour lecture. At worst, I had almost post-traumatic stress disordered memories of paper aeroplanes and chicken noises during an explanation by a Professorial fellow at Caius College on ‘Starling’s Law of the Heart’. Lectures might over-run, there might be totally illegible acetates, or the sound of delivery was just too awful for words. Ultimately, it did not as such matter, as Cambridge tries hard to allow people to leave with at least a II.1, thought of (and assumed possibly unfairly) by many employers as a badge of merit. At Cambridge, I worked out before my undergraduate time was up that there was a schism between what was lectured and what was subsequently examined. I stayed on at Cambridge to do my Ph.D., where I published on a seminal finding in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, which has since been replicated many times over. It is even in the current Oxford Textbook of Medicine.

After my health took a turn for the worst, I ‘started again’ in a private learning establishment, known as ‘BPP Law School’ at Waterloo, London. I undertook to do the Graduate Diploma of Law, which is the qualification regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority to provide academic competence in the foundation subjects of the English law. BPP Law School’s learning officer, Fiona Dymond, was always at the end of the phone when my late father used to ring her up when he was worried that I was unconscious for yet another day at the Royal Free ITU due to bacterial meningitis. In negotiation with BPP Law School, I changed to the part-time weekend distance learning mode in due course. My late father used to wheel me to lectures in the wheelchair which I used for mobility between 2006-2008.

I received my Graduate Diploma of Law from BPP Law School in March 2009. The graduation ceremony was held at the Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn. This was an extremely proud evening for my mother, late father, and me. After that, I then successfully was awarded a Commendation in my Master of Law from the College of Law in December 2010. That course was a course which I did entirely through distance learning, but it was a difficult time for me as I was newly-disabled and starting my recovery from a common mental illness, alcoholism. The pastoral support I received from BPP Law School, which became BPP University this week, and the College of Law, which became the University of Law, was second to none.

My Master of Law in international commercial law, which I did at the College or University of Law, was very tightly focused on international practitioner skills. I was then kindly given permission by the Solicitors Regulation Authority to study the equally “practice facing” Legal Practice Course, after carefully discussing with them the personal troubles I had experienced with alcoholism. In the meantime, I had enrolled to do a Master of Business Administration at BPP Business School, which I completed in early 2011. I don’t regret learning about behaviours, skills and knowledge from the business and legal world for a moment, whatever I decide to do in the future. Giving clear advice (and I probably know how to argue convincingly both sides of any argument now thanks to any legal training) is a totally different skill to evaluating evidence critically for an hour for your finals at Cambridge.

Enough about me, me, me. Enough’s enough. I just wanted to say that if I had my time again and I wished to be a barrister or solicitor I would go to a private university such as BPP or the University of Law. This is because the course materials have clearly been refined to teach the behaviours, skills and knowledge needed to practise the law. I also think the link between the assessments and course is much clearer, but this could be an artifact of the course being so carefully regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I am clearly not in any hurry, as I am a person who lives ‘just for today’. However, BPP trains up the vast majority of accountants in England, and successfully trained many of those who ultimately go onto be called to the Bar or admitted onto the Roll of Solicitors. I am, though, a card-carrying academic, and wouldn’t swop what I know now for anything.

I have written this fairly short article, as I am very loyal to three Universities where I have been educated, Cambridge University, BPP University and the University of Law. I think the purpose of the law is exactly as Prof Michael Sandel describes it for the US jurisdiction in his seminal lectures on justice at Harvard. I think a superficial purpose of law is for a correcting mechanism for misdemeanours in all spheres of life. A second more absorbing purpose of the law is to enable the ‘public good’. Any person who is truly inclusive in philosophy, and I am a card-carrying socialist, will believe in the need to find value in all agents of society. If there is intense competition for places, as will be evidenced in England this thursday by UCAS in ‘clearing’, with people aged 18 wishing to pursue a University education for the next few years, we should as a society be welcoming the different educations which they all have to offer. No learning institution is wishing to undermine anyone else, so any feeling of suspicion is totally unmerited. Having now completed 8 degrees and my Legal Practice Course, at the age of 39, I wish everyone going up to University this Autumn the very best of luck. Private universities, like public universities, have a critical rôle to play for this public good. What you learn in life, though, will be probably just as valuable, if not more!

Now recruiting – new President of BPP Legal Awareness Society (closing 17/7; interviews 22/7)


The BPP Legal Awareness Society is a flagship leader in the BPP Students Association community.

The current brochure is available at:

As you’ll be aware, I myself presented 4 workshops on commercial awareness earlier this year in Holborn. Successful delegates who attended my workshops nationally were awarded a certificate of attendance.

As I hope to be leaving BPP soon, with much sadness, the last thing I should do is to appoint a new President and new Committee for next academic year (2013-4).

*The positions are: President (in charge of events, internal stakeholder meetings at BPP), Vice-President (assisting the President), Publicity Officer (self-explanatory), Events Co-ordinator (self-explanatory). Please feel free to propose an Officer for an ‘unmet need’.*

The selection committee will consist of me, Sonia Goodman (President of the BPP Commercial Awareness Society, London), and a member of the current student engagement team at BPP.

To be eligible to apply for any of these positions you must meet all of the following selection criteria:

1. A student enrolled on a BPP course of any discipline, at any site, for the substantial part of academic year 2013-4.

2. A commitment to hosting Society meetings of any nature, consistent with student conduct at BPP and with the stipulated aims of the BPP Legal Awareness Society. The Committee will be responsible for organising hosting of these meetings through room bookings at BPP, and will be responsible for all security at meetings.

3. The President and Committee will specifically extend the strategy of promoting commercial awareness, and endeavour to promote this value both locally and nationally.

All applications for any of the posts on the Committee must be received by 4 pm on this email address by Friday 12 July 2013.

Please do not hesitate to contact me on email should you have any inquiries. To apply send me an email as well. The email address is:

To apply:

Submit a brief statement containing

1. Name and relevant correspondence details
2. Educational past and present

3. Explain, in no more than 150 words, why you would like to become a student representative of the BPP Legal Awareness Society.

4. Why do you think commercial awareness, or an insight into how companies function, is important in the legal profession, and how can it best be promoted? (Please do not write more than 200 words.)

5. What position would you like to apply for and why do you think you are suited for this rôle? Please provide brief reasons. (Please do not write more than 100 words.)

6. What positions of responsibility have you held before? Also list any relevant extracurricular activities which you feel may be helpful. (Please do not write more than 200 words.)

7. Please add any further information which you feel will be useful for your application. (unlimited)

Shortlisting will occur in the week beginning Monday 15 July 2013, and students will be invited for interview on Wednesday 17th July 2013. We will be unable to contact unsuccessful applicants.

Interviews will be held on Monday 22 July 2013. It is likely that I will interview with Sonia Goodman or Shabnan Aziz, incoming Chief Executive of BPP Students, if either of them are available. Appointments will be made on that day.

Best of luck!

Shibley, BPP Legal Awareness Society President 2011-3.

I will be supporting the BPP Student Engagement team for the BPP Innovation Award

The BPP Students Association is quite new, but is growing very fast, and has the following aims:

  1. An independent voice for BPP UC students and to work closely with the institution to put students at the heart of everything BPP UC does;
  2. Information, support and guidance to students about their academic and personal life during their programme of study;
  3. Academic, cultural, social and professional enrichment through the development of clubs/societies/events/initiatives;
  4. Awareness and enhancement of students’ employability.

I will be supporting the BPP Student Engagement team for the BPP Innovation Award, not least because Olivia, Clare and Laila have always been extremely kind, helpful and thoughtful to me, as I go about my business with my BPP Legal Awareness Society, but because innovation matters hugely to me. Dr Vidal Kumar taught me innovation as a special elective over several autumnal months in the building next to the Gherkin, at BPP Business School. As it happens, I came top in the year in it with 72% (the pass mark was 50%). I remember the task well – it was all about network theory of innovation, a hugely explosive formulation of how innovation works. Innovation is a really important topic in business management. BPP Business School will be formally conferring my MBA degree on Wednesday 21 February 2012, and I was the first in my cohort to pass the entire exam at one go earlier this year.





The student engagement team behind the nominated best innovation comprises Olivia (based in London), Clare (based in Manchester) and Laila (based in London) but, each, in fact, travel all over to meet with BPP students, organising student societies and empowering students through the “Student Voice” process to contribute to the development of BPP. They are always at the end-of-the-phone, or contactable by email.

You can easily search for the BPP students collaboration through the internet:

They have designed their own website which features short videos from centres, created by students as a guide to each of BPP’s centres. You can find it here. This video provides a general overview, however.

Their unique BPP Students interactive website, representing the BPP Students Association, provides information about clubs and societies in general, discounts from local and national businesses (including those discovered by students on a weekly basis), there are student association’s organised social events (including fairs, balls, nights-out), and help with finding accommodation guides (including rooms, hotels, and halls, and fairs where you can meet people face-to-face). You can run for various rôles in “Student Voice”, where you can run for any number of positions of responsibility, or even write for one of two publications “Business Brief” and “Legal Incite”. Their Facebook page currently has over 1000 likes.

The whole point about an innovation is that it is more than an invention – the interaction with the adopter is what makes it unique. The adopter in this case is a BPP student, and the innovation has to be simple, accessible and useable enough to allow ready ‘diffusion’ to the end user. The whole success of an innovation depends upon its uptake.

Here you can see their uptake has been very successful:








That was from a Leeds student. This is from a Birmingham student.






This is from a Swindon student.





And finally, from where I started off, a BPP Business Student:





Furthermore, in this case, the success of the innovation is that it is all about building a collaborative network where the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. Through meaningful interaction between members of the network (and interestingly there is no hierarchy which can scupper such communications within (infra) a large organisation), links can be made between diverse areas of the network (e.g. a direct communication between a student, lecturer and professor) which would be hard to achieve otherwise. Building up such networks is a powerful way for any organisation to live in a dynamic way, and the organisation can take on a vibrant culture and learning of its own. In this way, students can directly contribute to their courses which they’re studying, and genuinely feel a part of it. I am a huge believer in inclusivity and accessibility, so this for me is very important. And finally – it is genuinely disruptive. In my day (I was a student at Cambridge in the 1990s originally where I did my undergraduate, Masters and graduate degree), we had cumbersome committees, with lots of pen-pushing, but where you didn’t get much done. I’m sure those still exist, with people taking minutes, etc., but this is a much more innovative way of doing things. The Government wished higher educational facilities to put students “at the heart of the system” in their White Paper published last year, and this for me is a perfect way for BPP to demonstrate innovative excellence in doing so.


Full text of Attorney-General's speech to BPP this week on parliament and judiciary

The full text of this speech is given on a page of the website of the Attorney-General’s Office. I am reproducing it here for educational, non-commercial benefit, but the copyright of the text itself lies with the author and owner of the speech.











I am very grateful to BPP Law School for giving me a forum to look at some current issue of political and legal interest.

For this afternoon I have chosen the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary.

It is some 127 years since Dicey in his magisterial fashion gave us his definition of that relationship that might remove it from all controversy.
He told us:

“The sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of the law of the land ….may appear to stand in opposition to each other, or to be at best only counterbalancing forces. .But this appearance is delusive; the sovereignty of Parliament …..favours the supremacy of the law, whilst the predominance of rigid legality throughout our institutions evokes the exercise and thus increases the authority of Parliamentary sovereignty”.

Today, however new polemic has emerged on the subject. Some have argued that the sovereignty of parliament is being eroded and that the power of the judges is increasing to the point of their becoming the governors.

So, this is a question that no Parliamentarian, Minister or Judge can ignore entirely. We live in a world in which the old orthodoxies of Parliamentary sovereignty, the separation of powers, and the deference of the judiciary to the judgment of the executive are no longer accepted without question. Where, once, the suggestion that Parliament was not sovereign would have been considered heretical; now the possibility is raised in every text book, and in judgments of members of our Appellate Courts.

Role of the Attorney General

As the Attorney General, my role places me close to the heart of these debates; and it may assist in illustrating why that is so, for me to give a brief outline of the role of the Attorney in our political and legal system.

In a nutshell, I have three main roles: first, as Chief Legal Adviser to the Crown; second, as the Government Minister responsible for superintending the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate; and third as guardians of certain public interest functions which include, for example, the role of protector of charity and of the administration of justice.

So there are specific aspects of my work that give me a particular insight into the relationship between Parliament and the courts.

First, I am (like my predecessors) a member of Parliament- although some of my predecessors have been members of the House of Lords rather than, like me of the House of Commons.

I would add that I am a proud to be a Parliamentarian. As such, I believe in Parliament’s right to make law and to be the ultimate arbiter of political questions because it is the bearer of democratic legitimacy in our system, and I believe in the Parliamentary process and in Parliament as a forum for testing and improving our law and scrutinising government.

Second, as chief legal adviser to the Crown, I advise Government departments on how policy can be achieved in a lawful and proper way; and the Solicitor General and I, together with the Advocate General for Scotland, have a specific role in the legislative process, considering each Bill as it approaches introduction for the same purpose. Ultimately the Law Officers (a term which includes all three of us) have the power to block a Bill if there are unresolved concerns about its legality or propriety.

Where possible, of course, the Law Officers endeavour to support the Government and Parliament in achieving its legislative aims in a proper and lawful way; and much of our time is spent saying “have you thought about doing it this way?” which is what all good lawyers should do for their clients. It is not the role of the Law Officers to thwart Government policy.

However that does not detract from the fact that in carrying out the function of legal adviser to the government, the Attorney General’s role is to support and protect the rule of law. I think that the role of the Attorney General as the Government’s Chief Legal Adviser was neatly summed up by a former Attorney General, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, who said:

“The Attorney General has a duty to ensure that the Queen’s ministers who act in her name, or purport to act in her name, do act lawfully because it is his duty to help to secure the rule of law, the principal requirement of which is that the Government itself acts lawfully.”

Third, some of my powers owe nothing to Parliament or government, and my involvement is to assist the courts in protecting the judicial process and strengthening the rule of law in this country. Let me just give two examples.

As guardian of the public interest, I have the power to intervene in legal proceedings in the public interest. For example, most recently in the sad Nicklinson case as to the law on assisted dying. I will also, from time to time assist the courts by acting as an impartial friend of the court, either in person or by appointing advocates to the court to help with questions of law.

And, in another distinct part of my role as guardian of the public interest, I have responsibility for bringing contempt of court proceedings. As part of this, I receive referrals from judges, the police and members of the public where it is thought that the conduct of some individual, company or organisation is prejudicing or impeding the fairness of court proceedings and the course of justice; and it is my responsibility to decide whether to bring an action to protect the court proceedings from such interference.

As a result of these varied functions, I have a role to play in Parliament, in Government, in assisting the courts, and in defending the rule of law; and it is something of the fruits of this perspective which I hope to share with you today.


In doing this, I want to consider the following areas in which there is particular interaction between the roles of Parliament and our courts.

They are:

  • the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty or Parliamentary supremacy itself;
  • the role of the courts in relation to the application of principles in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 and how it impacts on the doctrine; and
  • the issues that have been raised recently about the nature and extent of Parliamentary privileges, and the exclusion of judicial oversight from Parliament’s internal activities.

Parliamentary Sovereignty

Let me turn then to the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty.

Dicey regarded the legal supremacy of Parliament as the founding principle of the British constitution, and I agree. This talk cannot be the place to go into constitutional history. But it is worth bearing in mind that before the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 there were jurists such as Lord Chief Justice Coke who raised the question of whether royal authority even exercised though Parliament might not be circumscribed. In the famous Dr Bonham’s case he commented that:

“in many cases, the common law will controul Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge such Act to be void”.

So I think that the language of “parliamentary supremacy” or “parliamentary sovereignty” can conjure images of unconstrained power which does not fairly reflect the reality, as Parliament might find to its cost if it really sought to do something which was either wholly tyrannical or plainly absurd and its problems might come from the people rather than the courts. What we are really referring to when we speak of Parliamentary supremacy is no more and no less than the present Parliament’s right to make or repeal any law, and the inability to prevent a future Parliament from doing the same.

That is a well established theoretical position, but it has consistently attracted critics; and so I want to consider a few of the ways in which it has been suggested that the courts of this country may apply and enforce legal limits on the sovereignty of Parliament.

Firstly, it has been suggested that the process of interpretation of legislation by the judiciary allows the courts effectively to limit the sovereignty of Parliament. It is my view that the courts do no such thing. I realise that this may go against the fashion (at least in certain parts of the media) for presenting the judiciary and Parliament as pitted against each other; but it is my sincerely held view that the courts interpret and apply the laws that Parliament makes faithfully and dispassionately.

The starting point for statutory interpretation today remains the literal interpretation of the text, and it is only if there is genuine ambiguity and uncertainty that extraneous material can be relied upon as a tool. There are, of course, interpretative tools such as the presumption against legislation having a retrospective effect, or ousting the ability of the courts to exercise judicial review of government actions. Such rules of interpretation are not however unique to statutory interpretation. The interpretation of private contracts is also performed with the assistance of such techniques. No one suggests this limits freedom to contract.

In my view these rules of interpretation demonstrate a fundamental respect for Parliament and its legislative role. They are founded on norms shared by Parliament and the courts as to how it will typically be fair for legislation to take effect, and the courts proceed on the assumption that Parliament acts in the interests of justice when it legislates. It also recognises the reality that however well Parliament legislates (and we have only ourselves to blame when we don’t) some interpretation may be needed.

Secondly, views are periodically expressed about the possibility that the courts could in the future identify constitutional principles so fundamental that legislation in breach of those principles would not be enforced by the courts, however Parliament expressed itself-a return to the ideas raised by Coke.

One example of this can certainly be seen in the House of Lords in the case of Jackson v Attorney General

In that case, Lord Steyn said that:

“…the supremacy of Parliament is still the general principle of our constitution. It is a construct of the common law. The judges created this principle. If that is so, it is not unthinkable that circumstances could arise where the courts may have to qualify a principle established on a different hypothesis of constitutionalism. In exceptional circumstances involving an attempt to abolish judicial review or the ordinary role of the courts, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords or a new Supreme Court may have to consider whether this is a constitutional fundamental which even a sovereign Parliament acting at the behest of a complaisant House of Commons cannot abolish”.

This is, of course, a doomsday scenario which is entirely hypothetical. These suggestions have not been tested in our courts because thankfully no court has ever suggested that an act of Parliament comes close to such a violation of principle. Ours is country with a long history of the legislature and judiciary co-existing peacefully and of governments and parliaments legislating with respect for individual rights and the rule of law. If it were to arise it would probably mean that our constitution was broken.

So, I am reluctant to agonise about theoretical future events which are so unlikely to arise: there is quite enough to be getting on with in the here and now. However, if pushed it would be my view that as long as the House of Commons remains a democratically elected assembly representative of the electorate it serves, the courts would have a duty to apply Parliament’s legislation, although judges might always exercise the right to resign. I have every confidence however that the voters of the United Kingdom and the process of Parliament will ensure that this is not a point on which I will ever be proved right or wrong.

In this regard, the recent Supreme Court case of AXA v Lord Advocate is instructive. The case was concerned with an Act of the Scottish Parliament which deemed the development of pleural plaques- an asbestos related condition – should be deemed an actionable personal injury. One of the issues was an application for judicial review of the legislation on the basis that it was unreasonable, irrational or arbitrary for the Scottish parliament to do this. In his judgment, Lord Hope referred to the debate regarding whether there is any limitation on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in exceptional circumstances; and some commentators have suggested that this judgment raises important questions for the prospect of the courts judicially reviewing acts of the UK Parliament . That does not seem to me to be right.

There is no more critical distinction in the constitutional law of the United Kingdom than that between, on the one hand, laws made by a sovereign parliament (which the Parliament of the United Kingdom is) and laws made by a body to which decision making powers have been delegated by law, which is not sovereign. Lord Hope’s judgment draws this distinction with great care. He said:

“[The Scottish Parliament] does not enjoy the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament that, as Lord Bingham said in Jackson is the bedrock of the British constitution. Sovereignty remains with the United Kingdom Parliament. The Scottish Parliament’s power to legislate is not unconstrained. It cannot make or unmake any law it wishes.”

The determination that decisions made by the Scottish Parliament may (in certain circumstances) be judicially reviewable followed from its differences from the UK Parliament, not from its similarities. ]

Thirdly, and perhaps most persistently, is the suggestion that the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom has been curtailed by the legal doctrine of the ‘supremacy’ of EU law.

It is that the effect of the 1972 European Communities Act in our law is that our domestic courts may disapply legislation enacted by Parliament if it conflicts with EU law. This audience will no doubt be familiar with the case of Factortame (No. 2).

And it cannot be disputed that the disapplication of subsequent statute if it conflicts with the EU law incorporated under the 1972 and subsequent European Union Acts entails a refinement of the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, at least to this extent: the European Communities Act is not itself impliedly repealed by any subsequent conflicting legislation.

However, I consider that it is clear that this is the limit of the extent of the constitutional consequences of European legislation in this country, and that the substantive sovereignty of Parliament has not been curtailed. Just as the foundation of the binding effect of European law is the will of our Sovereign Parliament, so too it is equally clear in our law that the European Communities Act did not alter the existing legal principle that what Parliament did in incorporating European law, Parliament can also undo.

A clear statement of the true position was given by the Divisional Court in the case of Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, known as the “Metric Martyrs” case. In that case, it was suggested that EU law had somehow become so ingrained in our legal system that, even if the European Communities Act 1972 were repealed, our domestic courts would still be bound to give primacy to EU law over legislation enacted by Parliament.

That is not the case, as Lord Justice Laws explained:

“Parliament cannot bind its successors by stipulating against repeal, wholly or partly, of the 1972 Act. It cannot stipulate as to the manner and form of any subsequent legislation. It cannot stipulate against implied repeal any more than it can stipulate against express repeal. Thus there is nothing in the 1972 Act which allows the Court of Justice, or any other institutions of the EU, to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament’s legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom.”

It is this, the position at common law, which has now been restated by section 18 of the European Union Act 2011, introduced by the present Government. That provision states that:

“Directly applicable or directly effective EU law (that is, the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures referred to in section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972) fall to be recognised and available in law in the United Kingdom only by virtue of that Act or where it is required to be recognised and available in law by virtue of another Act. ”

What Parliament has done by that Act is to place beyond speculation the constitutional position explained in the Metric Martyrs case and to guard against any risk that common law jurisprudence might drift away from the orthodox constitutional position, by placing the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in relation to EU on a statutory footing.

This is not to say that there are not very interesting issues which arise out of European Law. The way it is created, applied through directives and incorporated into our law through statutory instruments and the interpretation of that law by the Commission and the ECJ and its application by our own courts are serious issues for discussion. But none of that alters the fact that this system has been willed on us by ourselves and is subject to Parliamentary sovereignty.

Human Rights Law

Which brings me to Human Rights Law.

As is well known, I was and remain broadly comfortable with the Human Rights Act and the incorporation of the ECHR into our own statute law. The advantages are easily rehearsed. It avoided a continuous stream of cases going to Strasbourg, a stream that was clearly going to accelerate regardless of incorporation. It afforded an opportunity for our national courts to develop their own jurisprudence in relation to the ECHR.

In an environment where the intrusive power of the state had increased and was and is still increasing, it seemed to me wise to follow in the tradition of our forefathers and provide extra protection for rights and liberties as they did, whether in Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights of 1689, to reinforce the common law.

So too, there is no doubt that there are many examples of the Human Rights Act helping to improve the way that public authorities make decisions. For example, few could disagree with the outcomes of cases such as R v East Sussex County Council (No. 2), which overturned a ban on manual lifting of severely disabled patients which had been imposed solely with regard to rules for the health and safety of carers and without sufficient thought as to its impact on the disabled people they were serving. The court did not seek to interfere with the balance the local authority might ultimately decide to strike between these competing interests but it did ensure that both interests were properly taken into account by the local authority in formulating its policy.

Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that in some cases the application of the Human Rights Act and the nature of the judgments which must be made in some human rights cases can be intensely political, and may stray into what Lord Justice Laws has previously described as areas of ‘macro-policy’.

In his impressive F.A. Mann Lecture last year, Lord Sumption described the way in which the Human Rights Act (to quote) ‘has significantly shifted the boundaries between political and legal decision-making’ because when judges make decisions involving qualified Convention rights, the determinations almost always involve striking a difficult balance between competing public interests, which is an inherently political exercise.

It is true that in judicial review cases the courts may also become involved in areas of macro-policy but the common law limits of judicial review mean that there is at least some recognition that it is for the policy maker to make the initial decision. In areas where the law provides the policy maker with a discretion, the elected decision maker may opt for one of a range of permissible approaches and the common law principles of judicial review recognise that their choice should normally be respected by the courts in a democratic state. The Human Rights Act does not, on its face, recognise the same limitations.

A second issue arising out of the incorporation of the ECHR is the differences which can sometimes be seen in the application of the Convention rights between our domestic courts and the Court in Strasbourg; put simply, the two do not always reach the same conclusions in relation to ECHR challenges.

To take one example, the UK law that those convicted of a sufficiently serious offence that it warrants imprisonment should not be entitled to vote while they are imprisoned came before the Divisional Court in 2001 in the case of Hirst v Attorney General The Court reviewed the English, European and international authorities and, to my mind quite logically, found that it was for Parliament to determine the appropriate policy on this issue.

The Court said:

“As Parliament has the responsibility for deciding what shall be the consequences of conviction by laying down the powers and duties of a sentencing tribunal or other body it necessarily follows that lines have to be drawn, and that on subsequent examination a case can be made in favour of the line being drawn somewhere else, but in deference to the legislature courts should not easily be persuaded to condemn what has been done, especially where it has been done in primary legislation after careful evaluation and against a background of increasing public concern about crime”.

The matter reached the Strasbourg Court in 2004 and the Court found that the ban was disproportionate, and therefore that it was in breach of Article 3 of Protocol 1. That decision is, in my view, a mistaken interpretation of the law; and it is not without interest that this view is shared by a large majority of the members of the House of Commons. Indeed, a vote to retain the current ban in 2011 was agreed on a division by a margin of 234 to 22, with the Government abstaining from the vote.

In early 2012 the Strasbourg Court further considered the matter in the case of Scoppola. It affirmed the requirement on the UK to take action to correct the breach of Article 3 in the existing blanket ban on prisoner voting without being prescriptive as to what detailed changes should be made. The Government is currently considering how to address that issue.
But none of this makes Parliament subservient to the Strasbourg court. Observing its judgements is an international legal obligation arising by Treaty but it is possible for Parliament to take no action on the judgment, although that would leave the Government in breach of the Treaty and liable to criticism and sanctions from the Council of Europe by its fellow signatories and to damages awarded by the Court.

Some have also argued that the solution for the UK in view of these problems is to withdraw from the Convention altogether on the grounds that it is an undesirable and unnecessary fetter of national sovereignty in decision making, I disagree. Withdrawal would result in reputational damage to the UK’s status as a country at the forefront of the promotion of the rule of law and Human Rights. But nothing in that debate undermines Parliament’s ultimate sovereignty either.
But it does seem to me to be right and appropriate that the way the ECHR is applied at British and European level, and the way in which its principles are incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom should involve procedures which ensure that proper account is taken of democratic decisions by national parliaments. Let me just identify two points.

First, is the importance of subsidiarity in the application of the Convention. Subsidiarity in the context of the Convention means- as I firmly believe should be the case- that the national authorities of Member States (that is, their governments, legislatures and courts) have the primary responsibility for guaranteeing and protecting human rights at a national level and the European Court of Human Rights has a subsidiary role in supervising the protection of Convention rights.

The principle of subsidiarity recognises the fact that, as I was saying earlier, the Court is at times having to make intensely political judgments and the balance to be struck between competing interests should often be decided at a local level. As Lord Sumption has said ‘rights are necessarily claims against the claimant’s own community, and in a democracy they depend for their legitimacy on a measure of recognition by that community.’

Of course, the United Kingdom should still be subject to the judgments of the Strasbourg court, but Strasbourg should not normally need to intervene in cases that have already been properly considered by the national courts applying the Convention. It is to be hoped that as a result of the Brighton Declaration and the forthcoming amendments to the convention and to its preamble there will be a shift in the court’s approach.

Second, is the way in which Convention law is enshrined and applied in English law. The Human Rights Act is not synonymous with the Convention. Nor is it some sacred tablet of stone. It is simply the method by which the United Kingdom has chosen to incorporate the Convention into our domestic law. And as many of you will know, the Government has set up a Commission on a UK Bill of Rights to investigate the case for replacing the Act with a UK Bill of Rights which will ensure that the Convention rights continue to be enshrined in UK law.

The intention is not to limit or erode the application of any of the rights and freedoms in the Convention. However, deciding how best to incorporate the Convention into UK law requires an understanding of the nature of some of the judgments which have to be made in human rights cases and the fact that where there is a balance to be struck between competing rights, there may be more than one permissible answer.

Parliamentary privilege

The last aspect of the relationship between Parliament and the courts which I want to touch on today is the exclusion of judicial oversight of Parliament’s activities. This exclusion is referred to as parliamentary privilege. It is, in essence, a rule that the conduct of Parliamentary business cannot be subject to judicial challenge. The way in which Parliament makes its laws is controlled and policed by Parliament, and not by the courts.

Parliamentary privilege is an aspect of the supremacy or sovereignty of Parliament as a lawmaker. I have already discussed the fact that the courts of this country cannot review primary legislation to determine whether it is constitutional, fair or proportionate. But Parliament would not be truly sovereign if the courts were able to exercise oversight of the way in which it made its laws, because it would then follow that the courts, and not Parliament, could determine whether a law had been properly made and therefore whether it should be enforced.

Perhaps the most topical of the aspects of Parliamentary privilege is the freedom of speech of all those who participate in Parliamentary proceedings. That freedom is enshrined in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 which says: “That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament”.

Whilst its assertion by the Speaker of the House of Commons at the commencement of every parliamentary session is nowadays more of a formality that in by gone centuries; in my view privilege remains of paramount importance to ensure that Parliament in carrying out its functions is independent , and that any person contributing to its work, is able to speak out without fear or favour.

Although Article 9 is an absolute privilege, Parliament has for some time accepted in its own procedures a sub judice rule; that it should not bring up matters in debates, questions or motions which are awaiting adjudication in a court of law. This rule reflects the long-standing comity between the Parliament and the courts which means that each takes care not to intrude on the other’s territory, or to undermine the other’s authority. The overwhelming majority of Parliamentarians are careful to observe this convention.

In recent years, however, there have been a number of cases in which information has been revealed during parliamentary proceedings which was subject to anonymised injunctions granted by the High Court. No doubt you will all remember the examples as they attracted wide-spread media coverage and debate. I agree entirely with the point made by the Lord Chief Justice in the press conference he held with the Master of the Rolls when the Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions was published in May 2011: “There has never been any question in any of these orders… of the court challenging the Sovereignty of Parliament. This is not the issue”.

There are circumstances in which may be appropriate for Parliamentarians to refer to matters which are sub judice. The current resolutions of each House provide that reference to matters which are sub judice may be made “where a ministerial decision is in question, or in the Opinion of the Chair a case concerns issues of national importance…”.

That though, is a high threshold. It ill serves the Parliamentary process if court orders are flouted without very strong reasons; and a member must therefore be able to demonstrate that the threshold has been clearly crossed before she or she acts contrary to the rule. That is, not least because parliamentary privilege belongs to each House as a whole, not just the individual member, and if that privilege is abused it is Parliament as a whole which is affected. Furthermore it has the capacity to undermine the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary by impeding the operation of the courts and fair trial processes.

Certainly, any decision to refer to matters which are sub judice should be taken on the basis that the business of Parliament requires it and before any reference is made the agreement of the Speaker should be sought. To ambush Parliament without due warning is a gross abuse of the privilege.

As I have said, the recent cases were high-profile. However, breaches of the sub judice rule are in fact rare. Were they to become more commonplace then as Attorney General and advisor to Parliament I would not shy away from advocating more stringent regulation of what members can say during parliamentary proceedings. But those would be regulations imposed and enforced by Parliament, and not by the courts.

There is one final area of Parliament’s work which needs mention. To operate properly Parliament requires and possesses coercive and punitive powers towards those it summons before it to give evidence and because of Parliamentary sovereignty the exercise of those powers will properly not be amenable to domestic judicial scrutiny. But it is important that any action it takes meets the international benchmarks provided by articles 5 and 6 of the ECHR and the very rare use of the powers and their archaic origins means that these may require modernisation.


These three issues- the sovereignty of Parliament, the way in which Human rights are guaranteed in our law, and the privileges which Parliament enjoys in relation to its own proceedings – all have one thing in common. They are issues about the extent of and limits to the legislative authority of the democratically elected representatives of the people of this country.

Those limits are part of our law, and therefore will inevitably have at times to be scrutinised by the courts as happened for instance when some MPs sought to assert Parliamentary privilege in respect of not being put on trial for fraudulent claims for expenses.

Inevitably, the courts sometimes apply the law in a way with which someone does not agree. Every decided case in the law has at least one disappointed litigant. Nevertheless, I believe not just that there is no conflict between the principle and operation of the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law; but rather, to the contrary, that the two are mutually reinforcing just as Dicey identified.

The respect of the courts in this country for the sovereignty of Parliament is integral to their role as guardians of the rule of law. So, too, Parliament’s respect for the courts as interpreter of our law is essential to its legitimacy as a supreme legislator.

It is only in a system of government where the rule of law is respected that the law is truly legitimate, and legitimacy is the essence of the authority of a democratic government. The origins of Parliament lie in the need for medieval monarchs to have the approval of a representative assembly to legitimize their decisions. Today the authority and sovereignty of a democratic Parliament is supported and legitimized daily by the work of our courts.

'LegalAware' is ideal if you're at, have been, or will be at BPP seeking a training contract









Looking for a training contract is unfortunately necessary to complete your legal training, unless you’ve gone certain routes. You need to complete your training in order to be admitted to the Roll of Solicitors.

You can now ‘top up’ your LPC to make a LLM at certain institutions, including BPP Law School and the College of Law. You can also top up your LPC to make a MA Law with Business at BPP Law School, for example.

The BPP Legal Awareness Society page is here. Even if you’re not at BPP, I strongly recommend you join our mailing list to receive updates on our various activities. Whilst we are based in Holborn, we realise that sometimes it’s not possible for students to attend physically our events, fortnightly on Thursday evenings. We try to put a lot of material here on the blog, and advertise new posts through our active Twitter (@legalaware) with over 6000 followers currently. Please feel free to share this with anyone you wish.

If you’re yet to immerse yourself in the jungle that is the hunt for the training contract, you might not have yet encountered the online verbal reasoning test. The Society has been developing learning resources for this test, a necessary part of the training contract application process, and they can be found on the ‘Legal Recruit‘ website. Please note that, whilst these resources have been developed by students in our independent society, these learning materials are nothing to do with BPP whatsoever and thus should NOT be confused by any learning media of BPP. You will find, however, on this website plenty of free sample worked examples, videos, and factsheets.

We have been holding fortnightly meetings, which are well attended, for the last two years nearly. We discuss interesting new commercial and corporate news, including noteworthy transactions, and developments of the law of contemporary significance. On our website, we have special educational videos, also produced by members of our society, on common legal specialties of commercial and corporate law firms, which may be of particular benefit to you. You might find these videos useful preparation before a ‘commercial awareness problem scenario’ for you to do during an interview at a law firm.

These videos may be found on the following pages:


Climate change & the law


Corporate social responsibility

Debt finance


Employment & pensions


Intellectual property

IPOs & rights issues

Islamic finance

Joint ventures

Share acquisitions

Technology & Media

We hope that through our meetings, our blog and Twitter, you may develop your ‘commercial awareness’, and you are able to evidence this on your training contract application form.

Please contact us at if you’re interested in helping us run our activities at Holborn in any small way (you’d then be on our executive committee), if you’d like to give a short presentation on a corporate client you find interesting (this is our “corporate client project”), or if you would like to be a member of a small podcasting team (our recordings are quite infrequent, but are good fun and once every few months).


BPP Legal Awareness Society


Our brand new brochure : BPP Legal Awareness Society

The Corporate Client Project – now receiving applications







The corporate client project for students


We are currently looking for law or business students with an interest in commercial or corporate law to give mini-presentations on the corporate strategy of their choice.


This might be a real client of a firm engaged by a firm after his or her training contract, or a real client which is genuinely otherwise of interest to the law or business student.


If you know of anyone who might be interested in this new innovative project, please feel free to forward this email to him or her.


There is no application process to take part, save to say the applicant should be genuinely motivated about explaining the relevance of corporate strategy to people in the commercial or corporate law disciplines, at whatever level.


Please respond by emailing this account as soon as possible, stating who you and what course you are studying, or have studied, or will study, with BPP.


If you are at a loss in thinking about a suitable client, or a suitable area of client, you might find it interesting to watch our short presentations on the ‘LegalAware’ website.


They are to be found as follows:




Climate change & the law




Corporate social responsibility


Debt finance




Employment & pensions




Intellectual property


IPOs & rights issues


Islamic finance


Joint ventures


Share acquisitions


Technology & Media

To provide inspiration, you may be particularly interested in the FTthe EconomistLegal Week, or Lawyer 2 Be.


Best of luck! Law firms are particularly interested in those trainees who are very knowledgeable about the economic, business or financial climate around them; and graduate recruitment partners and their colleagues look for ‘commercial awareness’ amongst a plethora of other competences.


BPP Legal Awareness Society

BPP Law School, Holborn

24 October 2012


Flier: Corporate Client Project

The brand new "Corporate Client Strategy" project of the BPP Legal Awareness Society

We will be at the Freshers’ Fair this Friday, 1 – 5 pm  Victoria House, Bloomsbury Square, London WC1B 4DA. A chance for new and existing BPP students to sign up to BPP’s clubs and societies as well as meet loads of external exhibitors (companies, organisations and charities of all kinds!) It’s one of the biggest events in the BPP student calendar so MAKE SURE YOU’RE THERE!

** To download our new brochure, please go here **

At BPP, some law students already have training contracts to go to, after they have successfully passed the core practice areas and the electives of the Legal Practice Course. According to Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regulations, it is necessary to pass the academic stage of training, through for example a law degree or the GDL, to be able to do the Legal Practice Course (LPC). All LPC students must be allowed by the SRA to be able to do the LPC in the first place.

The BPP Legal Awareness Society is a student club based in Holborn, but inclusive of all students at BPP through widespread publication of our activities on our blog, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter (@legalaware). The Society has regular meetings here in Holborn, in Central London.

The main function of the BPP Legal Awareness Society is to discuss how corporate clients maximise competitive advantage in their chosen sector, with reference to an in-depth discussion of corporate strategy, domestic and international marketing, operations management, innovation management, organisational culture and structures, leadership, performance management, and management accounting. The Society is suitable for law students of any background who do not have a formal qualification in economics, business, finance or accounting, but who do wish to understand the precise context of commercial law.

To this end, being introduced for this intake, including students for the ‘accelerated LPC’ who wish to do well in their LPC before going onto their chosen firms to complete their contract firm, we will be launching a brand new “Corporate Client Strategy” project, where members of our Society are invited to give presentations on clients of their firms. All research will be done only on the basis of information only in the public domain, and the aim of these presentations is to offer a high-level interactive discussion of business strategic decisions faced by corporate clients and their law firms, and to further competences in research, commercial awareness, teamwork and communication.

To support this new project, please email ; you could be a student of any level of your studies (GDL, LLB, LLM or LPC), or may even be a professional involved in commercial and corporate law or education. Please use as the subject “CCSP” in sending an email, and you will receive an immediate reply.



Brand new promotional fliers for this academic year (2012/3):

The brand new ‘Corporate Client Strategy’ project of the BPP Legal Awareness Society

Take part in blogging for Legal Aware

Apply to be a member of the executive steering committee of the BPP Legal Awareness Society

Be a member of our podcasting team



Time to get involved in the BPP Legal Awareness Society!


Despite all the Twitter whingeing, the Legal Awareness Society has been, since January 2011, a popular society at BPP, independent of BPP. I founded this Society at BPP (here on the BPP students website here).

This year, the BPP Freshers Fair will take place in the afternoon of 28 September 2012.

I will be writing more about this Society next month in the BPP Careers newsletter. I spoke with Eric this morning from Careers, and he explained the design of this new newsletter. There will be much more crosstalk between the different sites of BPP in different disciplines. I am very much in favour of this, personally. The BPP Legal Awareness Society, with its popular Twitter, Facebook and blog, has as its sole purpose a wish to cultivate an informal and pleasurable environment for individuals interested in either law or business to consider how businesses make strategic decisions in the real world, and how the law influences or affects them.

This Society started life at the BPP Business School, when I commenced my MBA next door to the Gherkin, St. Mary Axe. Earlier this year, I indeed completed my MBA while studying (at the time) the full time Legal Practice Course at BPP Law School, Holborn. I will be sitting property law for the first sitting in December this year, which is my final core practice area, having passed business law and litigation previously, and I will be doing my the final assessments for the two outstanding electives (employment and advanced commercial litigation) next February 2012. I have already been to all the SGSs and done the rest of the course, but BPP acknowledged my need for flexibility. I am 38, and I am disabled – I also campaign actively for dementia awareness, and so I couldn’t ask for more in how I’ve been supported by BPP.

However, having done the LLM in international professional legal practice across a broad range of commercial and corporate subjects, at the College of Law between 2008-2010, and having successfully completed the MBA, I think personally it’s important for law and business students to have a sense of the ‘big picture’. I am seeking new committees of our committee who might be able to advance discussion of the importance of business strategy for training in commercial law.

Please do contact me on if you feel you can help with this, even if you are not at BPP. A new group of ‘accelerated LPC’ students have started at BPP here in Holborn – such students may, who have nothing particularly to prove as they have already secured their training contracts, wish to become immersed in an intelligent, mature, debate of the real issues facing corporates and their lawyers.

Our new brochure

Please feel to share on Twitter or Facebook. We should like our outreach to be as wide as possible, including law firms, law centres, CABx, law schools and academics; as well as of course members of society who are interested in how law and regulation affect our society.

To download our new brochure click here.


Talk this evening 6.15pm @BPPLawSchool Holborn on innovation implementation in technology

This evening, I will be giving a presentation in room 2.6 here in the BPP Law School, Holborn, on disputes involving Apple, Samsung and HTC involving tablets and smartphones.

The learning objectives of this talk are as follows:

  • To give an overview of two disputes in intellectual property between multi-national parties in the technology sector.
  • To contextualise the importance of two intellectual property rights (patents and design rights) in how multinational companies create ‘competitive advantage’.
  • To improve the “commercial awareness” of applicants for training contracts this summer.

I wished to give an explanation of how multi-national companies involved in technology use innovation to create competitive advantage to generate profit, but look at it from the perspective of the industry of intellectual property protection in the form of design rights (tablet) and patent (“slide-to-view” mechanism of smartphones).

The handout for this talk is here.

Students on the LPC might find the talk interesting  as these intellectual property rights have been introduced on the Legal Practice Course special elective on commercial law and intellectual property. The subject-matter is also a valid topic for a recent interesting example of ‘commercial news’, which might be aired in the training contract application form or in the interview itself.

A “calico” – all will be revealed….

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech