FT post on the Panama Papers: public interest disclosure v the right to private legal advice

6th April 2016

I have posted over at FT.com on the Panama Papers and whether their disclosure raises concerns about the right to private legal professional advice.  The post is here.

Here are a couple of excerpts:



header banner image

Regular blogging at Jack of Kent is made possible by the kind sponsorship of Hammicks Legal Information Services.  

If you value this this blog and its free content, please do two things.

First, click on this link to Hammicks and have a browse.

Second, please subscribe for alerts for my new posts at Jack of Kent and the FT, and anywhere else.  Just submit your email address in the “Subscribe” box on this page.  Twitter and other social media platforms may not always be around – and so by subscribing you will get alerts for my posts.


4 thoughts on “FT post on the Panama Papers: public interest disclosure v the right to private legal advice”

  1. I have a different way of looking at this.

    In our society surveillance is overwhelmingly targeted at those with the least power, whilst the opposite is true regarding the powerful. To consider an obvious example, witness how quickly politicians move to limit surveillance of their own activities.

    In terms of “natural justice” (if there is such a thing), many including me would feel that this situation should be reversed. The more power somebody has, the more influence they have, so the regulation and surveillance of those individuals should be the greater. After all, it’s exactly those people who have the greatest opportunity for harm. A prime minister should have 50 people looking over his literal shoulder scrutinising his every action.

    Look at it this way, and it seems reasonable to call for greater surveillance of the rich (and therefore powerful), while at the same time calling for less surveillance for the rest of us.

    1. Similarly…

      Should we apply a different legal standard to lawmakers?

      The “One Law For Them” Act: A defence of “there’s no law against it” is only available to accused persons who have no responsibility for making laws. For all others it is a mitigation at best.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *