Site menu:

Site search

Get Updates

Enter your email address to hear about new posts. (You can view my privacy policy here.)


 

RSS Recent Posts

Archives (month)

Topics

How cool is necrophilia, Judge?

On Wednesday, the Lord Chief Justice (the appropriately named, Lord Judge) bemoaned the continuing move towards overly prescriptive legislation, saying:

“There is a guideline for judges passing sentence on those rather odd people who have sexual intercourse with a corpse. There’s a different possible approach depending on whether it’s with the same corpse or a different corpse. It’s all to do with the idea that you can legislate for just about every possibility.”

On the same day, I was at the AGM of the Civil Mediation Council, hearing about more regulation of mediators. Why?

I am in favour of regulation when there is some harm that might occur in the absence of those regulations. But I remain to be convinced that mediators have the capacity to do great harm.

Going to mediation is an entirely voluntary process. The costs are low – very low, in comparison with the costs of paying lawyers to take a case to trial. And settlement is an entirely voluntary decision by the parties involved. Mediation may not always lead to a settlement, but I have yet to hear any evidence to suggest that there is a problem to be regulated away. So why not leave well alone? At least until a specific problem has been identified.

The Lord Chief Justice’s example of overly prescriptive regulation reminded me of a line from a rock musical I saw 35 years ago: “Necrophilia is no longer cool.” I have worked in the regulatory arena for long enough to know that regulation hasn’t lost its “coolth” yet. But, as I have written here before, we do need to think carefully about how we regulate – and how much.

See also:  Is this the way to maintain public faith in the lockdown?

Sign up for updates by Email, Twitter or RSS Feed.

Related articles on this website
It seems that, when it comes to Brexit, we can’t trust anyone to get their facts right. Not even lawyers. At least, not Lawyers for a People’s Vote (LfaPV). I don’t ...
Read the complete article
I keep hearing that last Friday's agreement between the UK and the EU 27 means that a hard Brexit is off the table. Well, I'm looking at the table and ...
Read the complete article
What are the chances of being able to write a 2,000 page report on press regulation and walk away with all-party support (or even all-Party support)? Plainly, not very high. ...
Read the complete article
From working as an independent expert witness, I know only too well that it is not unusual to find one’s client acting as though nothing the opposing party says can ...
Read the complete article
Lovers of Life on Mars may have thought that DCI Gene Hunt was giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday. In fact, it was a real (ex-)cop, former ...
Read the complete article
Like many people, I have been following The Leveson Inquiry intermittently. As someone with a background in regulatory policy, I am particularly interested in the way that many witnesses have ...
Read the complete article
The press are against statutory regulation of their activities. That is the message they have been sending to the Leveson Inquiry. But most people fear that, without a legislative underpinning, ...
Read the complete article
I’m not sure quite how to say this. So I’ll say it twice:Yesterday, a young graduate won her claim against the government’s back-to-work scheme. She argued that the regulations and ...
Read the complete article
Lawyers for Alternative Facts?
Hard Brexit is dead. Long live … hard Brexit
Leveson – Is the battle already lost?
We disagree … so you must be lying?
“I’m Hayman and I’m ’aving hoops”
Leveson and the Living Trees
Leveson could legislate for a non-statutory regulator
Journalists in a tiz at Supreme Court’s win-win decision