Papers divided on decision to release Bulger killers.Unsurprisingly, the decision by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, to release James Bulger's killers after eight years - as recommended by the original trial judge - was the hot legal topic of the week.

The papers fell broadly into two camps: the 'hanging's too good for 'em' opinion was best exemplified by the ever-reliable Sun; its leader of 27 October claimed to 'speak for all of us' when blasting Lord Woolf as 'WRONG' in his decision.

The boys' impending freedom will 'horrify every parent', and the paper dismissed as 'laughable' the suggestion that the two boys would be corrupted in a young offenders institute.

Condemning the whole affair as a 'legal mess', the Sun gloomily predicted that the boys' right to privacy post-release 'will be paramount in the eyes of the law - just wait and see'.

Equally predictable, The Guardian best summarised the other side of the media opinion when it described Lord Woolf's decision as 'not popular, but right' (27 October).

Although the anger felt by the Bulger family is 'wholly understandable', the paper said that nonetheless, 'the point of having a criminal justice system is to rise above the traditions of mob rule'.

Another legal bigwig had a rough week, with The Times (24 October) reporting the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, would be challenged under the Human Rights Act when his appeal against being found guilty of sexual discrimination goes ahead this month.

Lord Irvine was found guilty last March of failing to advertise the post of 'special adviser' - instead appointing City solicitor Garry Hart, a close friend of his and godfather to Tony Blair's daughter - but his appeal has taken 18 months to come to trial.

Solicitor Jane Deighton, who brought the claim, has expressed concern about the delay and accused Lord Irvine of purposefully dragging his feet.

This would be a 'breach of the right to a speedy determination of the issue', she claimed.

The Human Rights Act might also come into play in a challenge to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which came into force last week to give employers access to staff e-mails and telephone calls.

Both The Express (24 October) and London Evening Standard (24 October) reported how the new 'snooper's charter' could be challenged by unions under the Act.

The Act is not all-conquering, however.

The Evening Standard (25 October) reported how Family Division president Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss ruled that the Act would not reverse existing law on the right to life.

In a judgment allowing doctors to turn off life support for two women in a persistent vegetative state, she ruled that the convention 'imposed an obligation to give life- sustaining treatment only when it was in the best interests of a patient to do so'.

A London solicitor has emerged as the surprise front runner in the race to succeed Sir Edward Heath as the Tory candidate in his Old Bexley constituency (The Times, 26 October).

Jill Andrews of Langley & Co is apparently the 'favoured choice' of Conservative Central Office because she is a woman and a 'potential high flier'.

However, her pro-European views might count against her, it speculated.

There is more than one way to leave the law.

An editorial in The Times celebrated the emergence of Philip Jolowicz, whose previous incarnation as a financial lawyer with Merrill Lynch has given way to a 'six- figure deal' to write legal thrillers.

The Times claimed that 'inside every fat-cat lawyer a best selling author is scribbling to get out'.

This is good news, apparently, because the lawyer author 'causes less harm and public expense than his brothers-in-law who stick to their briefs'.Victoria MacCallum