Debates between Lord Pannick and Lord Elton during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Lord Pannick and Lord Elton
Monday 8th July 2013

(11 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Elton Portrait Lord Elton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder if he could enlighten me; I am only an ignorant layman. Am I right or wrong in believing that judges can in fact pass a case to another judge if they have difficulties with it, such as we have been talking about?

Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick
- Hansard - -

I am not aware that judges have an ability to refuse to hear and determine cases on the basis that they disapprove of the particular law of the land that they are charged with the duty to enforce. They accept as part of the job that their job is to apply the law; the law is made by Parliament.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Pannick and Lord Elton
Tuesday 18th December 2012

(11 years, 11 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Elton Portrait Lord Elton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, forgive me. I want to make, not a pre-emptive remark, but an introductory one. I apologise to your Lordships for intruding on your discussions on this particular amendment, but I am very surprised by the form and volume of the Marshalled List at Third Reading. Having been here for 39 years I do not recall there being anything like this in the past. I draw your Lordships’ attention to paragraph 8.142 of the Companion, and suggest that this is a matter to be considered by the Procedure Committee before we continue in the next Session.

Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I understand that Amendment 5, to which I wish I speak, arises in particular out of concern that the House may unintentionally have been misled on Report. I support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on Amendment 5. I fully understand the argument deployed by the Government on Report—it would be absurd to allow a person regarded as dangerous back into the country in order to pursue an appeal. My concern is that legal practitioners understand the policy of the Home Office to be to wait until a person with leave to remain travels abroad before then making the decision to curtail their leave, with the express intention of depriving them of the right of appeal from within the United Kingdom. That seems to be difficult to reconcile with the rule of law. I ask the Minister in his response to Amendment 5 at least to give the House an assurance that decisions to curtail leave to remain will not be deliberately delayed until a person travels abroad, with the intention of depriving them of a right of appeal from within this country.