UK High Court Announces Judicial Review Of The Digital Economy Act

from the review-up dept

Well, well, well. Even as the current UK leadership seeks to review UK copyright law, it appears that the most recent change, the infamous Digital Economy Act, will undergo a judicial review by the UK High Court. As you may recall, the Digital Economy Bill was "proposed by the unelected, debated by the ignorant and voted on by the absent." The whole process appeared to be pretty corrupt, right from the very beginning, so it's nice to see the court take an interest in the overall proceedings.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    darryl, Nov 10th, 2010 @ 8:59pm

    Nothing to see here !!! move along !

    Every ACT has a Judicial Review.

    Its just to make sure everything is legal and above board, and that no errors in law have been made.

    because (as you should know) if a decision is made on the basis of this Act, and it is found to contradict an existing law, or not be in itself lawfull, or worded in a 'legalese' way.

    Then the court with 'review' the Act and check it for 'legals'.

    Quite frankly you would be STUPID not too, would you not Mike, after all, Im sure when you get legal issues you get your lawyers to review the situation ?

    You know its common practice, so why make an issue from a non-issue. As if it is something amazing that DMA would be reviewed experts in the law !!.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 10th, 2010 @ 9:39pm

    Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !

    Crazy Darryl "almost" seems lucid :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    mike allen (profile), Nov 10th, 2010 @ 10:02pm

    Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !

    that is what the house of lords do not the courts you are wrong. The courts do not have time to review every act. Going against other laws or international law has never stopped any UK gov. before.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 10th, 2010 @ 10:05pm

    darryl

    Before you pop off about something you seem to know nothing about, the High Court in England no more reveiws legistlation of a regular basis any more that the Supreme Court of Canada does or that the US Supreme Court does.

    The legal system in all three countries assumes that the legislature has the resources to check the sorts of things you are saying the courts should do before passage, in this case the UK Parliament.

    In the UK the goverment has the Attorney-General for that. A sitting MP, by the way. In the Lords there's a group called the Law Lords who make up the English version of a supreme court who often steer clear of these debates so they aren't placed in a conflict of interest should the bill, once passed, come before them.

    The High Court in England gets involved in these things after passage and the bill receiving Royal assent (meaning it's now the law of the land) and something some case(s) that are troubling the High Court.

    In this case BT and TalkTalk have requested the review and the Court has granted it.

    Normally, in both England and Canada this isn't something a government wants to hear as it indicates the Court believes there is something very wrong with the law as it stands.

    It doesn't mean that BT and TalkTalk will be able to convince the Court of their stand but it also doesn't mean that once the reveiw begins that the plantiff's objection(s) are the only ones the Court may consider.

    The High Court may reject sections of the Act, it may nullify others or it may just decide the whole thing is such a mess that they'll completely over rule it and send it back to Parliament to try again.

    Now, repeat after me, darryl, the courts in Canada and England are independant of the legislature, they are NOT a part of the political process and are NOT part of government so they do NOT review bills on a regular basis.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 10th, 2010 @ 10:06pm

    Re: Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !

    Wait, what? Darryl is wrong? Hah! Next you'll be telling me that the sky is blue!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 10th, 2010 @ 10:09pm

    Re: Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !

    And, as I mentioned to darryl the Law Lords will largely stay out of it except for technical details just in case it comes before them again in the Privy Council.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 10th, 2010 @ 10:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !

    darryl hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.

    Remind me never to hire him should he ever graduate from Law School, assuming he can pass the bar.

    And yes, the sky is blue! :-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Paul Hobbs (profile), Nov 10th, 2010 @ 10:53pm

    Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !

    Hey Dazza,

    First of all, take a chill pill. And second, "the darryl doth protest too much, methinks." I realise I am misquoting the Bard, but your objections/comments have a distinctly contrived air about them. I can't help thinking you enjoy the attention you receive from other commenters as a result of your obviously inflammatory comments.

    You don't by any chance live under a bridge and harass passing billy goats?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 10th, 2010 @ 11:44pm

    This is no review, this is "You forgot to pay us too" LoL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    martyburns (profile), Nov 11th, 2010 @ 2:07am

    Re:

    I guess there's not a snowballs chance he'll come back and admit he's wrong but thanks for the lowdown.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Nov 11th, 2010 @ 2:53am

    I had a response from the government when signing an on-line petition. The response was shitty to say the least:-

    http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=dontdisconnectus

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 11th, 2010 @ 3:06am

    Re:

    Yeah I signed that petition and thought it was the worse response ever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    pacelegal (profile), Nov 11th, 2010 @ 4:31am

    Digital Economy Act, Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Bill, ACTA

    This raft of legislation is pretty scary. Combine it with a mandatory filter at the ISP level in Australia and it makes me wonder.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 11th, 2010 @ 7:41am

    "only six percent of MPs attending"! -- It's already illegal.

    I don't care what "rules" they use, it's not representative gov't. -- My bet is that they'll just rubber stamp it now that practical objections have been raised, and thereby END further dissent. That's the inescapable trend. -- Remember, optimists get only unpleasant surprises.

    The Supreme Court *should* be required to review each and every new statute to see that it's not obviously flawed. -- There aren't so many that they can't, and if a statute is too complex for a Supreme Court justice to grasp on first reading, it's ipso facto tyranny, nullify it and send it back to be re-written at least. -- The current NON-system puts the burden on those accused under new statutes, and those are often selected cases to ensure that statutes become imposed as actuality. It's a lousy system, not enough safeguards against *known* tricks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 11th, 2010 @ 9:03am

    Re: "only six percent of MPs attending"! -- It's already illegal.

    England doesn't have a Supreme Court. The equvialent is the Law Lords (Judges all) reviewing a case under the authority of the Privy Council.

    For now, the High Court is the right place for this.

    As for your proposal the Supreme Court, or it's equivalent, would waste an enourmous amout of time reviewing legistaltion that hasn't even passed yet This would be of particular concern under the American legislative system where poorly worded law is placed, debated and passed on a regular basis due to the fact that anyone can place a bill on the floor.

    In the parliamentary system the job of ensuring the bill is properly written and constitutional is the job of the Attoreny-Genral not the courts.

    Then there's the small issue that many flaws don't appear until they actually happen in a case when someone suddenly goes "whooops!" and the courts need to respond. It's called the "law of unintended consequences" though, perhaps, in this case it's more likely intended consquences that the court must now review and rule on.

    The English courts of law are fiercely independent and have moved to protect that indepenence when governments of the day have moved to limit it.

    As for the number of MP's present when the bill passed if it's a whipped vote then it really doesn't matter given that Labour had a majority when the vote took place. So I'm not surprised that the Opposition didn't bother to show up.

    Yes, like democracy, freedom and liberty it's a rotten system UNTIL you look at the alternatives.

    BTW, I keep saying England because there are sometimes/often differences in law in Scotland, Wales, Northern Island, The Isle of Mann, The Isle of Wight and the Channel Islands to take into account.

    Just as there are, in civil law, important differences between Quebec and the "rest of Canada" as Quebec's civil law is based on French civil law as it existed before England and the English colonies in North America booted the French out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 11th, 2010 @ 9:19am

    Re: Re:

    No chance at all, actually.

    Not much of a chance he'll learn anything, either, sad to say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Nov 11th, 2010 @ 9:21am

    Re: Digital Economy Act, Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Bill, ACTA

    I have the sinking feeling that it's getting harder and harder to refer to Australia as "free and democratic".

    :(

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Nov 11th, 2010 @ 10:22pm

    Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !

    I really have to pipe in here. The IP types have awakened the citizens of the EU. People are complaining about IP laws to their MPs in the UK and else where.

    Action - reaction ... now get me a silk cloth to wipe my ass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    mike allen (profile), Nov 12th, 2010 @ 6:32am

    Re: Re: "only six percent of MPs attending"! -- It's already illegal.

    check again UK has now a supreme court above the law lords.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 10:12am

    Re: Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !

    Without an effective appreciation of judicial review the core principle of respect,protect and fulfil of human rights will be at stake

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Syeda nasrin, Feb 9th, 2011 @ 10:20am

    Judicial review of uk

    Without an effective and meaningful appreciation of judicial review the core principle of protect,respect and fulfil of human rights will be at stake. Though uk believes in parliamentary soverignty which is apparently considered as a little bar on judicial review but uk can follow several alternative way for judicial review with due respect to parliamentary sovereignty,such as, separation of powers,etc.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This