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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: digital economy act, judicial review, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Nothing to see here !!! move along !
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 !!.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !
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! :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing to see here !!! move along !
Action - reaction ... now get me a silk cloth to wipe my ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not much of a chance he'll learn anything, either, sad to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=dontdisconnectus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital Economy Act, Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Bill, ACTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Digital Economy Act, Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Bill, ACTA
:(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"only six percent of MPs attending"! -- It's already illegal.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "only six percent of MPs attending"! -- It's already illegal.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "only six percent of MPs attending"! -- It's already illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judicial review of uk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]