Latest news with #lawreform
Times
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Times
Assisted dying vote ‘too close to call' as MPs turn against bill
Advocates of assisted dying believe their bill will pass its final Commons vote on Friday, despite a shift among MPs against it. Opponents said that the last chance to block a change in the law was too close to call, with turnout likely to decide the outcome. Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, warned that defeat for the bill would end hopes of changing the law for another decade as she rejected claims of rushing through reform. Only five amendments from MPs opposed to the bill will be put to a vote before the Commons decides whether to approve the bill in its third reading. Critics said this left key problems unaddressed and have unsuccessfully pleaded for more time.
BBC News
17 hours ago
- Health
- BBC News
Work under way to reclass chemical found in cannabis
A proposed law change could see a chemical found in cannabis products reclassed as a Class B Tom Binet, minister for Health and Care, said the Misuse of Drugs Advisory Council had advised "Cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives be rescheduled from Class A to Class B within the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law 1978".He was answering a written question by Deputy Inna Gardiner who was following up on a 2024 call for the decriminalisation of cannabis use. Binet said moves to make reclassification possible "were issued on 12 May".Cannabinol can be found in products like cannabis oil, which is used by some people who say it manages pain and improves sleep. "Law drafting is under way and is currently envisaged that the draft Amendment Order will be finalised later this summer," Binet added."Conversations with stakeholders regarding the operational actions required by the reclassification are also under way and progressing well."
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Louise Casey criticises Tories for politicising her grooming gangs report
Update: Date: 2025-06-17T08:17:25.000Z Title: Louise Casey Content: Good morning. After the Home Office yesterday published 's audit of the grooming gang scandal, none of the political parties at Westminster seriously challenged any of her conclusions, or recommendations. But, of course, that does not mean there was consensus. As reported here yesterday, an almighty blame game commenced (or resumed, to be more accurate). In an interview on Newsnight last night, Casey said she was 'disappointed' by the way her report was being politicised and criticised the Conservatives in particular. Asked what she felt about the 'politicisation' of her report, Casey replied: I'm disappointed by it, to put it mildly. I really hoped – and hope still – that the report is so clear, it's so straightforward. We need to change some laws. We need to do a national criminal investigation. We need to get on with the national inquiry with local footprint in it. And ideally, wouldn't it be great if everybody came behind that and just backed it and got on with it? Asked what she felt about the proceedings in the Commons yesterday, Casey said: I just felt, dare I say it, I felt the opposition could have just been a bit, 'Yes, we will all come together behind you.' Maybe there's still time to do that. I think it's just so important that they do. It almost doesn't matter right now, does it, what political party people are part of. We've identified there's a problem, it's been a problem there a long time, and it's about time we drew a line in the sand. There does not seem much chance that Kemi Badenoch will take any notice. She has scheduled a press conference today and, judging by her X feed last night, she intends to celebrate what she perceives as a victory for her campaigning. The 10 most recent posts on her feed are either tweets or retweets about the grooming gang scandal. This is the one she has pinned. This national inquiry is a hard-won victory for the brave survivors who refused to be silenced — who gave up their anonymity to expose the institutions that failed them. Labour fought it every step of the way. They voted against it. Mocked campaigners. Smeared them. Branded it a 'far-right bandwagon' and a 'dog whistle.' Now they're pretending they supported it all along? Disgraceful. Their hand was forced. Our job now is to make sure this inquiry delivers justice for every survivor. No more delays. Here is the agenda for the day. 9.30am: Angela Rayner, deputy prime minister, chairs cabinet. Keir Starmer is still in Canada at the G7 summit. 10.30am: , the crossbench peer and former civil servant, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee about her grooming gangs report published yesterday. 11am: Kemi Badenoch holds a press conference. Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing. 1pm: John Swinney, Scotland's first minister, gives a speech on independence at the Scotland 2050 conference in Edinburgh. Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, is speaking at 2.10pm. Early afternoon (UK time): Starmer takes questions from British print journalists and broadcasters at the G7 summit. Late afternoon: MPs debate amendments to the crime and policing bill relating to abortion. They will vote at 7pm. If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can't read all the messages BTL, but if you put 'Andrew' in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word. If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @ The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary. I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can't promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
MPs set to approve biggest change to UK abortion law in 50 years decriminalising termination at any point before birth
MPs will vote on decriminalising abortion tomorrow with the Commons expected to back the biggest change to abortion law in Britain for half a century. If approved by MPs women would no longer face prosecution if they aborted their own baby based on its sex, after the legal limit of 24 weeks, or without approval from doctors. The vote is shaping up to be fractious with two Labour MPs who are both seeking to decriminalise abortion competing to have amendments that will radically alter the law selected. Currently abortion is a criminal offence in England and Wales unless it takes place before 24 weeks into a pregnancy and with the approval of doctors. There are limited circumstances allowing a woman to access an abortion after 24 weeks, including when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. Six women have appeared in court in the last three years charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy - a crime with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. But the two amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill that will be debated and voted on by MPs tomorrow would put an end to this. Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle is expected to select just one of the two amendments, leaving the MPs behind them competing to show who had the most support tonight. One of the amendments, from Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, is seeking to decriminalise abortion for women 'acting in relation to her own pregnancy'. This legislation would amend the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act - which outlaws abortion - meaning it would no longer apply to women aborting their own babies. However Ms Antoniazzi's amendment would maintain sections that allow criminal prosecutions for doctors who carry out abortions beyond the current 24-week legal limit or abusive partners who end a woman's pregnancy without her consent. A second amendment, from Labour MP Stella Creasy, would also repeal the sections of the 1861 Act, decriminalise abortion up to 24 weeks, and ensure that late-term abortions did not result in prison sentences. However Ms Creasy's amendment would go further still and make it a human right for women to access abortion so that parliament could not, in future, roll back abortion rights as has happened in other countries. Crucially, this amendment would also repeal certain abortion-related criminal laws, meaning that medical professionals who assisted with an abortion would not face prosecution either. Sir Lindsay is only expected to select one of the two amendments and as Ms Antoniazzi's had more than 170 backers last night - compared to over 110 for Ms Creasy's - it is expected that hers will be debated and voted on by MPs on Tuesday. It comes as a legal opinion commissioned by Tory veteran Edward Leigh said that if either amendment becomes law women will be able to abort their pregnancies for any reason at any point up to birth without facing prosecution. The legal opinion by leading criminal barrister Stephen Rose KC - seen by the Mail - said that Ms Antoniazzi's amendment would mean that it would no longer be illegal for a woman to carry out her own abortion 'at home, for any reason, at any gestation, up to birth'. But Mr Rose KC said this amendment would still retain criminal prosecution for medical professionals who assisted in an abortion beyond the current legal limit. However he said that Ms Creasy's amendment would go further, rendering the 24-week time limit 'obsolete', and would mean that medical practitioners who helped with an illegal abortion would only face disciplinary proceedings through their professional body rather than prosecution. The legal opinion said it would also effectively allow abortions to be carried out based on the sex of the foetus, adding: 'The effect of the amendment is that a woman who terminated her pregnancy solely on the basis that she believed the child to be female would face no criminal sanction in connection with that reason, or at all.'
CBC
6 days ago
- Politics
- CBC
Sex assault trial reforms followed Ghomeshi case. Some experts worry Hockey Canada trial could spark more
Social Sharing Following the public outcry over the Jian Ghomeshi case, some legal scholars and sexual assault survivor advocates lauded changes made to the Criminal Code that would prevent defence lawyers from surprising complainants at trial with past emails or text messages with the defendant. However, those changes have proven frustrating for many defence lawyers, and some legal experts say they've significantly delayed and complicated sexual assault trails and made them more unfair for defendants. Now, experts are concerned that the high-profile trial of five former World Junior hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman in 2018 may also lead to legislative changes that could further complicate the system. "I think there are many who … would be concerned or very troubled if some or all of the players were acquitted, as there were many in the public who were concerned or troubled by Ghomeshi's acquittal," said Lisa Kelly, an associate professor of law at Queen's University. She says her concerns are about what she called "this kind of reactive lawmaking." WATCH | Closing arguments wrap up in Hockey Canada sex assault trial: Closing arguments wrap at hockey sexual assault trial 6 hours ago Duration 1:56 'Ghomeshi rules' introduced after trial In 2016, Ghomeshi, the former CBC Radio host, was acquitted of all charges relating to sexual assault allegations made by three women. During the trial, Ghomeshi's lawyer, Marie Henein, surprised some of the complainants during cross examination by confronting the with emails they had sent to Ghomeshi, suggesting inconsistencies in their testimony about contact they'd had with him following the alleged assaults. In 2017, Parliament introduced bill C-51 that amended sections of the the Criminal Code, in part, to remove deterrents that might prevent victims of sexual offences from coming forward. The amendments, referred to by defence lawyers as the "Ghomeshi rules" or "reverse disclosure," meant that defence lawyers could no longer surprise complainants with such communications. Now, if the defence wants to include them at trial, they must make an application to the judge, who determines their admissibility. Complainants can then hire their own counsel to get access to these communications and also argue whether they should be admitted as evidence. "It prevents trial by ambush, which we really shouldn't be having in Canada," said Daphne Gilbert, a law professor at the University of Ottawa. "The surprise factor shouldn't be a part of how trials get won or lost." Often, these records are letters or texts that sometimes contain sexual content that should be vetted under prior sexual history before coming to trial, Gilbert said. "But because there was no screening mechanism, all of that was coming in without that vetting," she said. "It was inappropriate evidence all along that should never have come in, but there was no way to catch it ahead of time." Yet some criminal defence lawyers argue that these rules violate their clients' Charter rights to a fair trial and eliminate a potentially important legal tool to challenge the credibility of the complainant on the spot. Rules mean element of surprise 'undermined' Vancouver-based criminal defence lawyer Sarah Leamon says the amendments definitely have impacted the way defence lawyers handle sexual assault cases. "Before, you could just hang on to those [communications] and not disclose it and present them at a nice, pivotal point in your cross-examination to have the effect," she said. "And now, that element of surprise is undermined." Defence lawyer Nick Cake says the amendments give the complainant an opportunity to prepare and shore up their evidence. If the communications are relevant to the defence, he says they should have the right to use them without the application process. The amendments mean the defence now has to disclose the communications it wants to use, but also swear out an affidavit that outlines what it will do with those communications and why it's relying on them, Cake said, noting that this means clients can be cross examined on that affidavit. "It runs contrary to the principles of fundamental justice that our legal system is based on," he said. "If you make this application … you open your client up to that loss of the right to remain silent and you have to show your hand." In 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of amendments, ruling that "the broad principle of trial fairness is not assessed solely from the accused's perspective; fairness is also assessed from the point of view of the complainant and community." This decision meant "women can breathe a sigh of relief," Elizabeth Sheehy, a law professor emerita for the University of Ottawa, wrote in a column for the Globe and Mail shortly after the ruling. "Parliament and the Supreme Court have taken a vital step to protect complainants." Amendments can result in trial delays Lisa Dufraimont, a law professor and associate dean at York University's Osgood Hall Law School, says these amendments help ensure complainants' voices are heard regarding the admissibility of evidence that could violate their privacy and dignity before it's aired in court. "There's value in that, and that really is the purpose behind the legislation and I think that's laudable," she said. The bigger problem with these amendments and application processes, Dufraimont says, is that they can slow down trials at a time when the Supreme Court of Canada has been trying to move them along and generally reduce delays in the criminal justice system. Dufraimont says it's become very challenging for judges to keep sexual assault trials on the rails when communications between complainants and defendants come up all the time as evidence in just about every sexual assault case. Criminal defence lawyer Peter Sankoff says the new amendments mean sexual assault trials are putting enormous stress on the system and he isn't convinced they've done anything positive for anyone when it comes to the treatment of records. "The biggest problem is that every sexual assault trial has become a lengthy ordeal, and that's not good for the accused or the complainant." Sankoff says he believes most of the material that defence lawyers submit for applications are text messages and communications between parties and says judges are spending much of their time scrolling through text chains that are thousands of pages long. "It seems insane to me that anyone thinks that a lengthy vetting process through this is actually helping anybody." Lawyers worry more changes could follow Sankoff says he's concerned the World Junior sexual assault trial could prompt more of what he calls "reactionary legislation," particularly as it pertains to the definition of consent, something that's been at the centre of the trial. He says it wouldn't shock him if he started to see new laws that make the definition of consent even more grey, for example, by making presumptions that consent could not be given for certain sexual acts. Kelly, the associate professor of law at Queen's, says that when Parliament acts quickly to make or change legislation in response to public outcry, it doesn't necessarily allow the careful weighing of consequences for various parties in the criminal justice system.
