Sir Stephen Sedley | |
---|---|
Personal details | |
Born | Stephen John Sedley 9 October 1939 |
Nationality | British |
Spouses |
|
Children | 3 |
Parent(s) | William and Rachel Sedley |
Residence(s) | London, England |
Education | Law |
Alma mater | Queens' College, Cambridge |
Occupation | Barrister, judge |
Sir Stephen John Sedley (born 9 October 1939) is a British lawyer. He worked as a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales from 1999 to 2011 and was a visiting professor at the University of Oxford from 2011 to 2015. [1]
Sedley was born to Rachel and William "Bill" Sedley. [1] His father, who came from a Jewish immigrant family, operated a legal advice service in the East End of London in the 1930s. [2] [3] In the Second World War, Bill (1910–1985) served in North Africa and Italy with the Eighth Army. [4] He founded the firm of lawyers of Seifert and Sedley in the 1940s with Sigmund Seifert, and was a lifelong Communist. [2] Stephen himself joined the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1958, and left in the early 1980s. [5] He was an unsuccessful Communist candidate for the Camden ward on Camden London Borough Council at the 1974 local elections. [6] Sedley was described as a "former member" of the party by The Daily Telegraph in 2007. [7] Sir Stephen's younger brother is Professor David Sedley.
Stephen Sedley attended Mill Hill School, followed by Queens' College, Cambridge, from which he graduated in 1961. [1]
After graduation, Sedley worked as a musician and translator from 1961 to 1964. [1] Sedley was called to the Bar (Inner Temple) in 1964 [8] and practised in Cloisters chambers with John Platts-Mills, [4] David Turner-Samuels and Michael Mansfield.
Sedley had a particular interest in the development of administrative law (the judicial review of governmental and administrative decision making). He was involved in cases which broadened the scope of judicial review and established the modern procedure for judicial review, [9] and in ground-breaking cases in relation to employment rights, sex and race discrimination, prisoners' rights, coroners' inquests, immigration and asylum and freedom of speech. He was counsel in many high-profile cases and inquiries, from the death of Blair Peach and the Carl Bridgewater murder appeal to the Helen Smith inquest and the contempt hearing against Kenneth Baker, then Home Secretary. [10]
In 1976, Sedley attended, as one of a group of observers, the "Luanda Trial", sometimes called "the Mercenaries' Trial", held by the then recently-victorious MPLA government in Luanda, Angola. [11]
He became a QC in 1983. He was appointed a High Court judge in 1992, serving in the Queen's Bench Division. In 1999 he was appointed to the Court of Appeal as a Lord Justice of Appeal. [8] He was a Judge ad hoc of the European Court of Human Rights and a Member ad hoc of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [12] His retirement from the Court of Appeal in 2011 coincided with the publication of a collection of his essays and lectures. [13]
In September 2017, Sedley appeared at the launch of Jewish Voice for Labour, described by activist Jonathan Rosenhead as "a new organisation for Labour Party Jews who don't want to buy into the Jewish Labour Movement's pro-Zionist agenda". Sedley spoke on the subject of "Free Speech, Antisemitism and criticism of Israel". [14]
As a first instance judge, Sedley delivered important judgments in the field of administrative law, notably in relation to the concept of legitimate expectation as a ground for judicial review, [15] and the duty to give reasons. [16]
In the Court of Appeal he was one of the first English judges to recognise the right of privacy as an aspect of human autonomy and dignity, [17] and was influential in developing the now well-established principle of proportionality (which he described as a "metwand" for balancing competing rights) in the fields of human rights and judicial review. His dissenting judgments in two appeals in 2008 concerning anti-terrorist measures were eventually to be vindicated on appeal to the House of Lords and in the first appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court in 2009. [18] His judgment in the Chagos Islanders litigation developed the ambit of modern judicial review, [19] and in a judgment in 2010 he developed his view that the basis for judicial review is to control abuse of power. [20]
He also made a number of judgments in the field of immigration and asylum law. Always interested in freedom of speech his judgments also made important contributions to the modernisation of libel law. [21] His formulation of the real significance of freedom of expression in a case involving the unlawful arrest of a street preacher has been much quoted: "Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having." [22]
He formulated what has come to be known as "Sedley's Laws of Documents" after experiencing the tribulations of litigation: [23]
Sedley has provoked considerable debate about the role of government in collecting and keeping DNA samples. At present criminal suspects detained by the police in the UK are automatically given cheek swabs and their DNA kept, in perpetuity, by the government. This has created the situation where different races are differently represented in the United Kingdom National DNA Database. On the grounds that this situation is indefensible, Lord Justice Sedley discussed the case for a blanket DNA collection policy, including collecting samples from all visitors to the UK. [24]
Ian McEwan said of Ashes and Sparks: Essays on Law and Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2011) "you could have no interest in the law and read his book for pure intellectual delight, for the exquisite, finely balanced prose, the prickly humor, the knack of artful quotation and an astonishing historical grasp". [25]
In February 2012, the London Review of Books published an essay by Sedley in which he criticised soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption's FA Mann lecture. In this lecture, Sumption had argued that the judiciary had overstepped the boundary between its legitimate judicial function and illegitimate political decision making in the context of the remedy of judicial review. [26] The critique centred on Sedley's conceptions of the precise interplay of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches, and made reference to the grey areas within which Parliament had not expressed any set opinion.
Sedley was knighted in 1992, and became a Privy Counsellor in 1999. [1]
He has been made an Honorary Fellow by the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies (1997) and Mansfield College, Oxford (2012). Sedley was awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of North London in 1996. A number of universities have given him an honorary LLD (law degree): Nottingham Trent (1997); Bristol (1999); Warwick (1999); Durham (2001); Hull (2002); Southampton (2003); Exeter (2004); and Essex (2007). [1]
In 1968, Sedley married Ann Tate. The couple had a son and two daughters; they were divorced in 1995. The following year, he married Teresa Chaddock. He lists his recreations in Who's Who as "carpentry, music, changing the world". [1]
William John Kenneth Diplock, Baron Diplock, was a British barrister and judge who served as a lord of appeal in ordinary between 1968 and until his death in 1985. Appointed to the English High Court in 1956 and the Court of Appeal five years later, Diplock made important contributions to the development of constitutional and public law as well as many other legal fields. A frequent choice for governmental inquiries, he is also remembered for proposing the creation of the eponymous juryless Diplock courts. Of him, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell wrote that "to his generation Diplock was the quintessential man of the law".
Mary Howarth Arden, Baroness Mance,, PC, known professionally as Lady Arden of Heswall, is a former Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Before that, she was a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
Sir William Aldous was an English judge and a judge in the Gibraltar Court of Appeal.
Jonathan Philip Chadwick Sumption, Lord Sumption,, KC, is a British author, medieval historian and former senior judge who sat on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom between 2012 and 2018.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation was first developed in English law as a ground of judicial review in administrative law to protect a procedural or substantive interest when a public authority rescinds from a representation made to a person. It is based on the principles of natural justice and fairness, and seeks to prevent authorities from abusing power.
Leonard Hubert "Lennie" Hoffmann, Baron Hoffmann is a retired senior South African–British judge. He served as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary from 1995 to 2009.
Sir Patrick Elias, PC, is a retired Lord Justice of Appeal.
David Edmond Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury is an English judge. He served as President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2017. He was a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary until the House of Lords' judicial functions were transferred to the new Supreme Court in 2009, at which point he became Master of the Rolls, the second most senior judge in England and Wales. Neuberger was appointed to the Supreme Court, as its President, in 2012. He now serves as a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and the Chair of the High-Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom.
Andrew Stephen Burrows, Lord Burrows, is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. His academic work centres on private law. He is the main editor of the compendium English Private Law and the convenor of the advisory group that produced A Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment as well as textbooks on English contract law. He was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on 2 June 2020. As Professor of the Law of England, University of Oxford and senior research fellow at All Souls College, Oxford at the time of his appointment, he was the first Supreme Court judge to be appointed directly from academia.
Sir Colin Percy Farquharson Rimer is a former judge of the English Court of Appeal; he retired in 2014.
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.
United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.
Sir Malcolm Thomas Pill is a former Lord Justice of Appeal, who was the longest-serving member of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales upon reaching mandatory retirement at age 75.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation in Singapore protects both procedural and substantive rights. In administrative law, a legitimate expectation generally arises when there has been a representation of a certain outcome by the public authorities to an individual. To derogate from the representation may amount to an abuse of power or unfairness. The doctrine of legitimate expectation as a ground to quash decisions of public authorities has been firmly established by the English courts. Thus, where a public authority has made a representation to an individual who would be affected by a decision by the authority, the individual has a legitimate expectation to have his or her views heard before the decision is taken. Alternatively, an individual may also have a legitimate expectation to a substantive right. The recognition of substantive legitimate expectations is somewhat controversial as it requires a balancing of the requirements of fairness against the reasons for any change in the authority's policy. This suggests the adoption of a free-standing proportionality approach, which has been said not to apply in administrative law.
The failure of a public authority to take into account relevant considerations and the taking of irrelevant ones into account are grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. They are regarded as forms of illegality.
The British Post Office scandal is a miscarriage of justice involving the wrongful civil and criminal prosecutions of an unknown or unpublished number of sub-postmasters (SPMs) for theft, false accounting and/or fraud. The cases constitute the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history, spanning a period of over twenty years; aspects of the scandal remain unresolved.
In public law, abrogation is the proposing away of a right, power or value, by a public body in delegating power or failing to carry out a responsibility or duty. The abrogation of such a responsibility or duty, unless required by primary legislation would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of power to a foreign government or other sovereign power.
Watkins v Home Office and others[2006] UKHL 17, was a United Kingdom legal case heard by the House of Lords where the Home Office made an appeal as to whether the tort of misfeasance in public office was actionable in the absence of proof of pecuniary losses or injury of a mental or physical nature. The appeal was upheld, ruling that the tort of misfeasance in public office is never actionable without proof of material damage as defined by Lord Bingham of Cornhill.