Pages

Lawyers & Lawcourts Headline

Lawyers & Lawcourts

Wednesday, 13 July 2011

Former policeman to sue over alleged harassment

NEWS International is facing the prospect of a deeply damaging court case over claims that its reporters harassed and hacked the phones of a police officer investigating the role of one of the News of the World's hired private investigators in a murder case.
Lawyers for former Scotland Yard detective Dave Cook, right, said he would be suing publishers of the News of the World in what may be only the first law suit against the group following last week's revelations.

The alleged harassment took place when Mr Cook was investigating the 1987 murder of Daniel Morgan, a private investigator found killed outside a south London pub.

The man subsequently accused was Mr Morgan's business partner, Jonathan Rees, who is known to have worked for the News of the World as an investigator, trawling for information from corrupt police officers and bank clerks. Both Mr Cook and his wife, Jacqui Hames, are taking forward the case, a lawyer said yesterday

 

Tuesday, 12 July 2011

Refugee law firm fails

Thousands of refugees and asylum-seekers were left without legal support today after the overnight closure of Britain's largest immigration advice service.

The Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) closed its doors on Friday with workers only finding out it had gone into administration when they arrived for work this week.

The closure has been blamed on changes to the legal aid system imposed by the Legal Services Commission (LSC) which previously forced the closure of specialist legal firm Refugee and Migrant Justice last year.

IAS, a not-for-profit charity, had been the largest provider of legal aid in the asylum and immigration market.

It ran 14 offices across England and Scotland and operated outreach services in a number of different locations nationwide.

While IAS was not available for comment a post on the LSC website today stated: "Today, Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) announced that they have gone into administration.

"Our priority now is to work closely with IAS and the administrators to ensure clients of IAS continue to get the help they need, whilst safeguarding public money. We are now identifying alternative advice provision in the areas affected and arrangements for case transfer will follow as soon as possible."

Commenting on the news, Refugee Council chief executive Donna Covey said: "We were alarmed to hear news that the largest charity providing legal advice and representation for asylum-seekers has closed.

"After the sad loss of Refugee and Migrant Justice last year, this news from the IAS is hugely significant and very worrying and we are following events closely.

"Our clients already struggle to find good-quality legal representation.

"This development will only add to their difficulties."

A spokesman for the Law Society said: "While Parliament debates further cuts in legal aid, today's news of the collapse of IAS has left thousands of clients stranded.

"This is the true impact of funding cuts.

"The government claims that not-for-profit organisations like IAS will fill the gaps in public service provision.

"The fact that this is the second such collapse in the sector in less than a year shows that these claims are little more than wishful thinking."

 

Monday, 11 July 2011

Shareholders sue News Corp for failing to take early action on phone hacking scandal

The lawsuit, filed by Amalgamated Bank and a group of pension funds, accuses News Corp's board of "failing to exercise proper oversight and take sufficient action since news of the hacking first surfaced at its subsidiary nearly six years ago."
The failure of News Corp's board has led to a "piling on of questionable deals, a waste of corporate resources, a starring role in a blockbuster scandal, and a gigantic public relations disaster," said Jay Eisenhofer of Grant & Eisenhofer, the law firm that filed the suit in Delaware.
The legal complaint is an updated version of action that Amalgamated first bought in March, when they accused Mr Murdoch of "rampant nepotism" for paying 415m pounds for Shine, a UK television production company founded by his daughter Elizabeth. News Corp could not immediately be reached for comment.
News Corp's shares plunged more than 6.6pc on opening, as investors digested developments on both sides of the Atlantic.
Rupert Murdoch's biographer had earlier suggested that News Corp could even be mulling a sale of News International in an attempt to calm calls for it to shelve its proposed bid for BSkyB.

 

News Corp crisis hits shares

THE escalating phone-hacking crisis engulfing Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation slashed more than $2.2 billion from the company's market value yesterday as investors confronted the threat of action by British and US regulators.

Mr Murdoch flew into London on Sunday to take charge of efforts to contain damage from a scandal that has resulted in the closure of tabloid News of the World and derailed his takeover bid for broadcaster BSkyB.

Non-voting shares in News Corp fell 88¢, or 5.4 per cent, yesterday to close at $15.37 while the voting stock fell 85¢, or 5 per cent, to close at $15.92.

 

Sunday, 10 July 2011

Twelve people are facing jail over the News of the World phone-hacking scandal including nine journalists and three police officers

Twelve people are facing jail over the News of the World phone-hacking scandal including nine journalists and three police officers, according to The Sunday Times.

A report in today’s paper, which is owned by NoW publishers News International, quoted a senior Scotland Yard officer claiming it was “very likely” that further arrests would be made soon.

The claims comes after a 63-year-old man was questioned by police yesterday over allegations of phone hacking and bribery.

According to the Times, police moved to secure computers and other evidence at the NoW newsroom in Wapping following the publication of its final edition last night.

The paper claimed that a “cabal” of six journalists acted as “gatekeepers” to Glenn Mulcaire, the private detective who was jailed for six months after being found guilty of phone hacking on behalf of the NoW in 2007.

Scotland Yard is also alleged to have turned on the newspaper and accused it of “orchestrating a five-year cover-up”.

Assistant commissioner John Yates is alleged to have told officers: “If the News of the World had co-operated properly in 2005-6, we would not be where we are now. It was their cover-up.”

The Times also claimed that an internal report was commissioned by News International executives in 2007 which “uncovered evidence indicating that hacking was more widespread than previously admitted and that money might have been paid by the paper’s journalists to police”.

A News International source told the paper that “we were sitting on a ticking timebomb”, but the company’s chairman James Murdoch was apparently not told about the report.

The inquiry was launched after former royal editor Clive Goodman, who was jailed for four months for phone hacking in 2007, appealed against his dismissal by the company and claimed his colleagues were “all aware of phone hacking”.

The Times claimed that the inquiry was overseen by NoW editor Colin Myler.

Today’s report said: “Myler and Tom Crone, head of legal affairs for the NoW, subsequently assured the culture, media and sport parliamentary select committee in 2009 that the investigation had not revealed any wrongdoing by other reporters.”

But it added: “News International is now facing painful and searching questions about what was actually uncovered in 2007.

“The Sunday Times was told last night that a detailed internal report was compiled at the time. One source who has seen the report alleged that it contained possible evidence of both phone hacking and payments to police.”

ONCE YOU LEAVE, YOUR OFFICE IS CRIME SCENE

NEWS of the World Editor Colin Myers and his staff emerged from their office for the last time at about 10pm last night.
He was carrying a proof of the paper’s last front page, which carried the headline, “Thank you and goodbye”, set against a backdrop collage of past editions. The wrap cover also carried a quote about the News of the World by George Orwell and a letter from longstanding reader Jeanne Hobson, from Leamington in Hampshire. Mr Myler’s voice faltered as he said: “It’s not a record any editor wants, to close a title – though, of course, I’m not closing it. “I want to pay tribute to this wonderful team of people here who, after a really difficult day, have produced a wonderful newspaper.

“As I said to the staff this morning, this is not where we wanted to be – it’s not where we deserved to be. But as a final tribute to the 7.5million, this is for you and the staff, thank you.” Staff must have woken up yesterday hoping it was all just a bad dream, but the nightmare was very real and as the paper went to press, they bade farewell to their jobs and saw their workplace in Wapping sealed off. They had been told that once they had finished they could not return to pick up any forgotten items because the office was part of a crime scene.

Following a pep talk from Mr Myler in the morning, every member of staff showed up to ensure the paper went “out with a bang”. Some said they were paying for the crimes of previous journalists and many felt they had been treated unfairly. Alan Edwards, chief sub-editor, said: “There are 280 journalists working on this newspaper. None of them have any links to anything that is meant to have gone on many, many years ago. “It’s a bunch of hard-working, talented, honest, decent journalists up there, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.” Helen Moss, a sub-editor, said the day had been “extremely sad” but “we go out with heads held up high”.

Neil Ashton, the chief football correspondent, wrote on Twitter: “NotW employees devoted careers to history, tradition and commitment to campaigning journalism. Proud to have played a small part in it.” Showbiz editor Dan Wootton said: “Devastated to be spending the last day with my amazing colleagues at NotW, who took the rap for something that has nothing to do with us.” As some five million copies of the paper went to press, Mr Myler led his staff off to the local pub for “a drink or three”.




In an emotional email, he showed his appreciation for the “enormous sacrifices” his staff had made for the company. “I could not have been more proud or privileged to have you as my colleagues,” Mr Myler wrote. “Who could have imagined this time last week that we would be putting out the last edition of this great newspaper after 168 years? “But we are, and I know you will display the same consummate professionalism you have always done.”

Meanwhile News Corporation boss Rupert Murdoch was due to fly in to take control of the crisis yesterday, but was nowhere to be seen. He was expected to land at a private airfield in Kent after flying in on his private jet from Washington, but he failed to show up at the Wapping HQ of News International. He was later photographed at the Allen & Co media conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, in the US. He made no comment on the situation, but is now expected to arrive in Britain today.

 

delaying the BSkyB deal is likely to be Miliband's "weapon of choice"

delaying the BSkyB deal is likely to be Miliband's "weapon of choice" — it seems, now, that he's priming it for detonation. But the question, really, is who will help him push the button, and bring on the fallout. Labour types are confident of Lib Dem support, and understandably so. The Observer article that I've linked to above features an assortment of prominent Libs speaking out against Murdoch's proposed takeover. Lord Ashdown (him again) says that, "The public will be outraged and bewildered and trust in our politics will take yet another knock if this takeover goes ahead after what has happened." Sir Menzies Campbell advises the government to Just Say No, "thereby putting the onus on Murdoch to go for a judicial review." Shirley Williams is, apparently, in "no doubt whatsoever that the bid should be put on the back-burner". And so on, and so on.

This is another burgeoning problem for Downing Street. The Lib Dem's distaste for the BSkyB deal — which appears to be shared by Nick Clegg — is up there with AV as their most significant, voluminous and unequivocal alliance with Miliband's Labour party since the birth of the coalition. It calls to mind the words of Vince Cable, in those secretly-taped conversations last year: "I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we’re going to win." In this one battle, at least, the odds seem to be shifting Vince's way.

UPDATE: Speaking on Sky's Murnaghan show, Simon Hughes has just backed Miliband's call for a vote — and suggested that he will encourage his "colleagues" to vote in its favour.

The Murdoch empire fractured, a Conservative prime minister attracting bets on his resignation, the Metropolitan Police on the edge of yet another existential crisis and the political establishment in disarray.

The Murdoch empire fractured, a Conservative prime minister attracting bets on his resignation, the Metropolitan Police on the edge of yet another existential crisis and the political establishment in disarray.

Downing Street appeared to signal the end of the Press Complaints Commission yesterday

Downing Street appeared to signal the end of the Press Complaints Commission yesterday when David Cameron described the organisation as "ineffective and lacking in rigour" and called for a new system of regulation to uphold the "proper, decent standards that we expect".

Having been shocked by news of the closure the day before of one of Britain's oldest national newspapers, the PCC chairman Baroness Buscombe was suddenly confronted by the prospect of the demise of her own comparatively fledgling institution

Friday, 8 July 2011

James Murdoch and News Corp could face corporate legal battles on both sides of the Atlantic that involve criminal charges, fines and forfeiture of assets

James Murdoch and News Corp could face corporate legal battles on both sides of the Atlantic that involve criminal charges, fines and forfeiture of assets as the escalating phone-hacking scandal risks damaging his chances of taking control of Rupert Murdoch's US-based media empire.

As deputy chief operating officer of News Corp – the US-listed company that is the ultimate owner of News International (NI), which in turn owns the News of the World, the Times, the Sunday Times and the Sun – the younger Murdoch has admitted he misled parliament over phone hacking, although he has stated he did not have the complete picture at the time. There have also been reports that employees routinely made payments to police officers, believed to total more than £100,000, in return for information.

The payments could leave News Corp – and possibly James Murdoch himself – facing the possibility of prosecution in the US under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) – legislation designed to stamp out bad corporate behaviour that carries severe penalties for anyone found guilty of breaching it – and in the UK under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which outlaws the interception of communications.

Tony Woodcock, a partner at the City law firm Stephenson Harwood, said section 79 of the 2000 Act enabled criminal proceedings to be brought against not only a company, but also a director or similar officer where the offence was committed with their "consent or connivance" or was "attributable to any neglect on their part". Woodcock said: "This could embrace a wide number of people at the highest level within an organisation, such as a chief executive – not just the individual who 'pushed the button' allowing the intercept to take place or someone (perhaps less senior) who encouraged or was otherwise an accessory to the offence, such as an editor."

While the UK phone-hacking scandal has been met with outrage in the US, the hacking itself is unlikely to prompt Washington officials into action. But because NI is a subsidiary of the US company, any payments to UK police officers could trigger a justice department inquiry under the FCPA.

The 1977 Act generally prohibits American companies and citizens from corruptly paying – or offering to pay – foreign officials to obtain or retain business.

The Butler University law professor Mike Koehler, an FCPA expert, said: "I would be very surprised if the US authorities don't become involved in this [NI] conduct."

He said the scandal appeared to qualify as an FCPA case on two counts. First, News Corp is a US-listed company, giving the US authorities jurisdiction to investigate allegations. "Second, perhaps more importantly, the act requires that payments to government officials need to be in the furtherance of 'obtaining or retaining' business. If money is being paid to officials, in this case the police, in order to get information to write sensational stories to sell newspapers, that would qualify," he said.

Koehler said the US justice department was increasingly keen to bring cases against individuals as well as companies, because prosecuting people brought "maximum deterrence". He added: "Companies just pay out shareholders' money. There's not much deterrence there." Tom Fox, a Houston-based lawyer who specialises in FCPA cases and anti-corruption law, said most corporate cases were settled before going to court. But for individuals who are successfully prosecuted the penalties are severe.

In 2009 the former Hollywood movie producer Gerald Green and his wife, Patricia, were jailed for six months in the first criminal case under the FCPA. The Greens, whose credits included Werner Herzog's Rescue Dawn, were convicted of paying $1.8m in bribes to a government official in Thailand in exchange for contracts to manage the Bangkok international film festival.

FCPA charges can carry up to five years in jail for each charge but the Greens' short prison sentence was not the harshest element of their sentencing. The "biggest hammer" prosecutors hold is forfeiture of assets, said Fox. "The Greens lost everything. Their house, savings, retirement plan. They are destitute now."

Bringing an FCPA case against the company would be far easier than bringing an action against James Murdoch. As yet there appears to be no evidence that he was directly linked to authorising the police payments. "If you don't know about it, that is a valid defence for an individual," said Koehler. In New York, media executives believe that with or without an FCPA case James Murdoch has already fatally damaged his chances of taking his father's crown.

One said: "There has been a sense of unravelling at News Corp for a while. The Daily, MySpace, Project Alesia – they look like News is chasing rainbows. [Rupert] Murdoch is looking old. It affects his ability to appoint an heir and I don't think James even has the backing of his family any more." Speculation is that Chase Carey, the chief operating officer, is most likely to take the top slot when and if the media mogul steps aside. "He is the ultimate Murdoch operative. He is not interested in the trappings of the media business. What would he do? Close the New York Post, sell the Times. Why not? It's a rational thing to do."

Wednesday, 6 July 2011

Emergency legislation designed to reverse a controversial judgement on police bail will go before MPs on Thursday.



The Leader of the Commons, Sir George Young, said the legislation would pass all its Commons stages that day.

The emergency bill has been prompted by a High Court judgement that severely restricts how police can bail suspects.

The UK's highest court will separately consider that judgment later this month.

Sir George Young said a draft of the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill would be made available to parliamentarians by Monday evening, with the final draft published on Tuesday.

The legislation already has the support of the Labour opposition which means that ministers will be able to steer it through each of the houses of Parliament in hours rather than weeks. Sir George Young said he hoped that the Bill would pass its House of Lords stages early next week.

Doubt
The crisis was sparked by a High Court ruling in the case of murder suspect Paul Hookway who had been released on police bail while detectives from Greater Manchester Police continued their investigation.

The judgement said that officers could not bail someone beyond the maximum four day - or 96-hour - period, that they are allowed to hold someone in custody without charge.


Bail ruling - who knew what and when?

19 May: Judge rules orally against Greater Manchester Police. GMP informs officials at Home Office soon after
17 June: Written version of judgement circulated to Home Office officials, Crown Prosecution Service lawyers and police chiefs. Full scale of the problem becomes clear
24 June: Ministers informed about the situation. Association of Chief Police Officers commissions further legal advice
30 June: Acpo recommends emergency legislation. Ministers say it will be introduced "as soon as possible"
That decision overturned a quarter of a century of policing practice because officers regularly release suspects on bail for weeks or even months as their inquiries continue.

Under the system operated by every force in England and Wales until the ruling in May, the detention clock only began ticking again once a suspect was back in a police station. Bailed suspects must comply with restrictions, such as not approaching the victim or witnesses.

Last week, Policing Minister Nick Herbert told the Commons that the judgement would seriously effect the ability of forces to investigate crime unless it was overturned either at appeal or through emergency legislation.

"It is likely that in most forces there will not be enough capacity to detain everybody in police cells," he said.

"In other cases it risks impeding the police to such an extent that the investigation will have to be stopped because the detention time has run out."

The minister said that with about 80,000 suspects currently on bail, the government could not wait weeks for a full Supreme Court appeal and judgement.

Labour's frontbench said it would support the emergency bill - but has accused ministers of failing to realise the seriousness of the ruling.

Shadow Leader of the House Hilary Benn said: "It has taken Home Office Ministers far too long - six weeks - to respond to the court judgement which was originally given on 19 May.

"The result has been a complete mess with doubt about the enforcement of bail conditions - for example in domestic violence cases."

GMP alerted the Home Office to the judgement in May - but Mr Herbert told MPs that its full implications only became clear after officials and leading barristers analysed the written judgement a month later.

Separately, Greater Manchester Police, which lost the original bail case, has asked Supreme Court to "stay" the judgement, a legal tool which temporarily suspends a ruling ahead of an appeal.

The supreme court seemed to be exercising powers it does not have when it offered to consider suspending the bail ruling

"We can change the law more quickly than you can." That seemed to be the message to parliament from the supreme court at the end of last week. A spokesman told the Press Association news agency that the court would consider a belated application by Greater Manchester police to "stay", or suspend, the high court ruling on bail that has caused such consternation during the past week.

That raised legal eyebrows. "I didn't know the supreme court had the power to stay a ruling ahead of an appeal," one criminal lawyer told me. I immediately asked the court's spokesman whether it did.

There was no reply until Tuesday, when the spokesman – not the court – admitted that it was "questionable whether it would be open to the court to grant this relief".

It turned out that one or more unnamed judges, sitting in private, had dismissed the police application for a stay. Whether this was because the court had no power to suspend the judgment pending an appeal scheduled for 25 July or whether it was because the court did not want to pre-empt the government's fast-track legislation was far from clear.

I have some sympathy for Mr Justice McCombe, the judge whose ruling is to be reversed by parliament. Trying to do justice on the cheap often costs much more in the long run.

James Richardson QC, editor of criminal lawyers' bible Archbold, reminded us last week that criminal appeals to the high court by way of judicial review must be heard by two or more judges, at least one of whom is normally very senior. Richardson says that listing the bail case before a single judge was not only unlawful but a scandal. It was done, of course, because there are not enough judges available.

And McCombe himself said it would have been of "some assistance" to have heard submissions on behalf of the defendant, a murder suspect called Paul Hookway. Again, I suspect legal aid was not available.

What the judge decided was that the police couldn't "save up" unused detention time and spend it when a defendant reported to the police station some weeks after being bailed. Putting it another way, he ruled that the police could not pause the "detention clock" when a suspect was released and restart it if they needed to question him later.

McCombe had been asked to interpret provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which limit the time a (non-terrorist) suspect can be held for questioning. The initial period is 24 hours but this can be extended to a maximum of four days.

The judge well understood that his ruling would reverse the practice adopted by the police since PACE came into effect some 25 years ago. But he thought it would not make much difference in practice because there was usually fresh evidence on which a suspect could easily be rearrested.

This is where the court would have benefited from argument from an experienced criminal lawyer. Defendants do not want to be rearrested, at home or at work; they would much prefer to answer bail at an agreed time.

More importantly, the police cannot run the risk that a suspect released unconditionally will simply disappear; officers would therefore need to charge all defendants at the end of the end of their initial detention period. Those charges might be dropped later but they would still cause problems for defendants, not least if they ever needed a visa to visit the US.

On Thursday, MPs will be asked to pass the police (detention and bail) bill. It is a very short bill, accompanied by 11 pages of explanatory notes.

The bill would amend section 47(6) of PACE to make it clear that the time during which a person is on bail does not count towards the period for which he may be detained. McCombe was not persuaded that section 47(6), in its unamended form, could override the strict time limits laid down by the act; the bill now makes this clear.

The legislation will come into force as soon as it completes all its parliamentary stages and will take effect as if it had been passed in 1984. Retrospective criminal legislation is always a matter of concern but the government goes to some lengths to justify this in its explanatory notes.

Without retrospective effect, the government says, "the potential for disruption and distraction to the police and the courts is very significant indeed".

That being the case, you would have thought that Greater Manchester police would have moved a bit more quickly. Their lawyers heard the oral judgment delivered on 19 May. They had access to the corrected transcript on 17 June. If emergency legislation was needed, why did they wait another week or more before dialling 999?

 

Tuesday, 5 July 2011

Suspects caught up in the police bail row will not be able to sue forces over the fiasco, under moves by the Home Office yesterday.

Police chiefs feared suspected criminals would be able to take legal action after the High Court effectively tore up a 25-year practice of bailing them while officers continue investigations.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, yesterday published an emergency bill to restore the police power to bail and made it retrospective meaning forces will be protected from any possible compensation claims.
The proposed changes will be rushed through parliament and are expected to be law by next Tuesday amid fears that the police investigations were on the “verge of disaster”.
The emergency legislation was made all the more important yesterday after the Supreme Court refused to stay the original ruling pending a full appeal.
The 25 – year practice was effectively ended in May when the High Court upheld a ruling by a district judge that police must question and charge a suspect within four days of detention. It led to fears that suspected murderers and rapists could walk free if police cannot build up a case in time.
It centres on a rule that suspects can only spend a maximum of 96 hours in police custody before being charged or released.
The proposed change in the law will make it clear that time spent on police bail does not count towards those 96 hours and the “clock” only runs while suspects are detained.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, said: “The ability to bail suspects is a crucial part of how the police investigate criminals and protect victims.
“I will always give police the powers they need to protect the public, that is why emergency legislation is required.”
Supreme Court justices dismissed the "unusual" application from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to stay the judgment pending a full appeal at the same court on July 25, a court spokesman said.

 

The Metropolitan police says it has 14,029 people on bail including 5,024 with conditions it could no longer enforce by detaining them.

The supreme court has dismissed an application from the police to suspend a ruling that triggered a bail crisis, leaving the legal position of 85,000 suspects in doubt.

The justices said the situation was unusual and they were not even sure that they had the power to suspend the ruling but they felt the decision by ministers to bring forward emergency legislation meant they should refuse the application.

"This application is unusual and it is questionable whether it would be open to the court to grant this relief," said the supreme court statement. "In any event, however, the judgment was given on 19 May and an application for permission to appeal was made on 21 June. The government has announced its intention to introduce emergency legislation this Thursday, 7 July. In these circumstances, the court has decided that the application should be dismissed."

MPs are expected to approve the emergency legislation then and peers early next week to become law on 12 July.

The bill will make clear that time spent on bail will not count towards the 96-hour time limit on pre-charge detention.

The Metropolitan police said on Tuesday morning that it had 14,029 people on bail including 5,024 with conditions it could no longer enforce by detaining them.

 

Thursday, 30 June 2011

Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, faced a protest outside Parliament over his proposals to restrict the availability of Legal Aid.

As he outlined the Government's plans to reform the criminal justice system, Mr Clarke said Legal Aid would no longer be routinely available in cases including most private family law, clinical negligence, non-discrimination employment, and immigration.
The Sound Off For Justice campaign led a protest in which they presented Mr Clarke with a "Magna Carta cake" to remind him of the "obligations to protect the ancient document’s promises to the British people".
The "Let Them Eat Cake!" party on College Green saw members of the public and MPs gather to cut up the cake to symbolise the "cutting of access to justice for large swathes of the British population".
The Law Society’s president, Linda Lee said: “Back in 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed, it was set out that ‘to no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice’.
"The principles set out by Ken Clarke and this Coalition Government are set to go back on all that we have fought for in this country and creates a two-tiered justice system, that favours the rich and leaves the vulnerable and needy with nowhere to turn, when they need it the most. Cameron’s Big Society will be the big loser, if he does not believe that the law is for all.”

Mr Clarke defended the proposals, telling the House of Commons:
"Few of these are easy choices, but they are often disputes about financial issues, rather than life and liberty - it's sensible to give them a lower relative priority," he said.
"Across some of these areas, reformed no win, no fee arrangements will be available.
"But our broader ambition is that people will be encouraged to use alternative, less adversarial means of resolving their problems.
"For private family law cases, the Government is increasing spending on mediation and legal advice in support of mediation by two thirds or £10 million, to £25 million each year. Mediation has a high rate of success in family cases."
He spoke of concern across the House about the future of not-for profit advice centres.
"I agree that they do very important work in providing quality, worthwhile advice of the kind required by very many people who should not need adversarial lawyers," he said.
"However, Legal Aid only represents one of several income streams for many organisations, with 85 per cent of Citizens Advice Bureaux funding coming from other sources, and half of all Bureaux getting no legal aid funding at all."
The Coalition will provide extra funding of £20 million this financial year to improve the effectiveness of advice services, he said.
Under the Bill, defendants who decline legal aid and pay privately in the higher criminal courts will no longer be able to recover the costs of an expensive private lawyer if acquitted.
Firms will be expected to insure against criminal prosecutions and will no longer be able to recover costs.
Mr Clarke also said he had never proposed replacing short-term prison sentences with community sentences for female offenders.
"However if we can increase confidence that they will be meaningfully punitive I think they could make the justice system more sensible in some situations," he said.
He concluded: "If we get this right, the prize is a justice system that properly contributes to a safer, fairer society - a justice system that is user-friendly, that works, that doesn't deny access to justice, and has less daunting waste with costs under control.
"This is a major reforming Bill that I would have liked to introduce 20 years ago if I had stayed long enough at the Home Office."

 

Wednesday, 29 June 2011

Bank of America pays £5.3bn to settle sub-prime mortgage claims

Bank of America has agreed to pay $8.5bn (£5.3bn) to settle claims that the bank sold poor-quality mortgage loans to investors ahead of the housing collapse.

The deal represents the single biggest settlement so far tied to the sub-prime mortgage boom and bust. The bank said the settlement covers nearly all the residential mortgage-backed securitisation (RMBS) investments tied to its controversial Countrywide lending unit. The RMBSs had an original balance of $424bn.

The settlement follows legal action from a group of 22 investors including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Pimco Investment Management, and Blackrock, which argued Countrywide enriched itself at the expense of investors by continuing to service bad loans while running up servicing fees.

The payment would wipe out all the profits that BoA, the US's largest bank by assets, has made since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008. The bank will pay $8.5bn in cash to settle the claims and set aside $5.5bn for further possible liabilities tied to sub-prime loans.

Bank of America's chief executive, Brian Moynihan, said: "This is another important step we are taking in the interest of our shareholders to minimise the impact of future economic uncertainty and put legacy issues behind us. We will continue to act aggressively, and in the best interest of our shareholders, to clean up the mortgage issues largely stemming from our purchase of Countrywide."

The bank bought Countrywide for $4.1bn in 2008 just as the largest sub-prime home lender was running aground. It has proved a costly purchase. This is the third settlement Bank of America has made relating to Countrywide in the past six months. In January, the bank paid $2.8bn to settle claims that it mis-sold mortgages to state-sponsored lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In April, the company and Countrywide signed a $1.1bn agreement with Assured Guaranty to resolve the bond insurer's claims that it to had been misled by the bank. Assured Guaranty's chief executive Dominic Frederico said negotiating with BoA had been like "Chinese water torture".

BoA's shares rose at it appeared to be putting its Countrywide woes behind it. But there are likely to be more settlements to come for BoA and its competitors. The banking industry is being investigated by all 50 state attorneys general over alleged abuses by the biggest mortgage firms. They are pressing the banks to pay up to $30bn in fines and penalties.

In an April research note, Paul Miller of FBR Capital Markets projected that Bank of America could face a total of $25bn of losses from the bad loans. Its rivals JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo also have large exposures to legal claims.

 

Police are urgently reviewing the cases of tens of thousands of crime suspects following a court ruling which restricts officers to bailing suspects for up to 96 hours before they have to be charged or released completely.

Police are urgently reviewing the cases of tens of thousands of crime suspects following a court ruling which restricts officers to bailing suspects for up to 96 hours before they have to be charged or released completely.
The ruling – made by a district judge at Salford Magistrates’ Court and upheld in the high court by Mr Justice McCombe – overturns the previous system, under which suspects could only be detained in the police station for a maximum of 96 hours (four days) but were regularly released on bail for weeks or months while further enquiries are made and then brought in later for more questioning.
More


But under the new rules, bail will be included as time in police custody and if no charge has been issued within four days, suspects will have to be released and can only be arrested again if new evidence is found. Police are concerned that thousands of criminals from shoplifters to murderers could escape prosecution if they cannot be charged within the shortened timeframe.
Sir Norman Bettison, chief constable of West Yorkshire Police, said that police forces were running around “like headless chickens”.
“It’s on the verge of a disaster now because the question being asked by my custody sergeants is, ‘What do we do, boss?’,” Sir Norman said.
“I cannot countenance turning people away from the charge office and telling them all bets are off and they are free to go ... my holding position with my officers is that I can’t believe this is what was envisioned,” he said, adding that the force was awaiting advice from the CPS.
Sir Norman said that West Yorkshire police, which represents 5 per cent of the national force, currently has around 4,260 suspects on bail – meaning that around 85,200 suspects are on bail around the country.
The only route to appealing the ruling is through the Supreme Court, which has confirmed that this case has been lodged. However, there is likely to be a significant delay since the three justices who will decide whether the case should be heard by the court have until the end of July to make their decision.
Theresa May, home secretary, acknowledged that the ruling was a matter of “great concern”, and said she was working with the Association of Chief Police Officers on how to advise the police.
“There may be an opportunity to appeal this decision,” Mrs May said. “We are also looking at whether or not it’s necessary to introduce legislation in order to deal with this issue. We are conscious of the concerns this judgment has brought in terms of operational policing.”
The ACPO’s lead for custody, assistant chief constable Andy Adams, said the ruling had a “profound impact” on how police worked and changed the system that had operated for the past quarter of a decade.
“This issue needs clarification so that all those involved in the administration of justice can be clear about the impact and consequences,” Mr Adams said. “We are working in partnership with colleagues across the criminal justice system, particularly the Crown Prosecution Service, and have commissioned a QC to advise on the ruling and its impact on policing.”
“We are working with the Home Office to seek to reduce any immediate impact before the expedited hearing at the Supreme Court,” he added.

Criminals could walk free if they are not charged within 96 hours

The ruling, made by a district judge at Salford Magistrates' Court and backed by the High Court, means an end to the practice of releasing people on bail and calling them back for further questioning later - a common practice in most major inquiries.
Police forces can no longer put anyone out on bail for more than 96 hours without either being in a position to charge or release them.
After the four days is up, officers can no longer question suspects and can only rearrest them if they have new evidence, the ruling says.
Police chiefs have been left baffled by the "bizarre" ruling and both the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are currently considering the ramifications for forces across England and Wales.
Home Secretary Theresa May said: "I think this is a matter of great concern.

 

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

UK extradition rules are unfairly weighted

THE UNFAIRLY WEIGHTED UK extradition treaty with the US needs a thorough reworking, according to a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) that found that UK citizens, like Gary McKinnon, are not afforded the same legal protection as Americans.
"The committee concludes that the current statutory framework does not provide effective protection for human rights," wrote the group. "The rights most often relevant to extradition are: prohibition of torture; fair trial; liberty and security; private and family life; and prohibition of discrimination."
Because of this the group is asking the UK Government to do more to improve protection for its citizens and specifically their human rights.
"Human rights provisions in the Extradition Act are clearly inadequate. The Government should spell out detailed safeguards in the statutory framework. Parliament should be asked to commence the 'most appropriate forum' safeguard in the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2006 and a requirement to show a prima facie case should be added when a person is requested for extradition," explained Dr Hywel Francis MP, the chair of the committee.
"A most appropriate forum safeguard would require the judge in an extradition case to consider whether it is in the interests of justice for the individual to be tried in the requesting country."
Cases like Gary McKinnon's have really highlighted how unfair the current laws are, and fittingly extraditions to the US are given some attention in the recommendations.
McKinnon faces a very long sentence if he is extradited to the US, and although at times it has looked likely that the UK secretary of state - it doesn't matter which one - would deny the US request, this has never happened.
This should change, according to the report, and the committee urged that judges be granted the power to refuse extradition requests before they end up before the Home Secretary. This would be a significant change, according to at least one commenter quoted in the report, the human rights group Liberty.
"The flaws of the extradition system have also been highlighted by numerous judges whose role in relation to extradition has, in many cases, been confined to a rubber stamp," it is quoted as saying, while the Freedom Association added this, "the national judiciary's role in the process is just to rubber stamp the extradition of a UK citizen, even if it has grave concerns about the case and about the treatment the citizen will receive."

 

Sunday, 19 June 2011

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls has been told to pay more than £1,000 to his former landlord, following a county court ruling.



Paul Sampson, 48, succeeded in parts of a legal battle against the former Cabinet Minister over a dispute surrounding offices the Labour MP had rented in Normanton, West Yorkshire.

The dispute centred around four offices the MP rented from Mr Sampson for £80 a week from June 2005 until July 2010.

After he left them last summer, Mr Sampson claimed that there were a number of issues regarding the property and initially sought a total payment of almost £2,000 to cover the costs.

Mr Balls eventually conceded three issues before the case was heard at Leeds County Court yesterday, agreeing to pay a total of £830 for the redecoration of the property, the removal of rubbish and also the removal of furniture left behind.

The MP, who did not attend the hearing, was also ordered to pay £265 towards Mr Sampson’s legal costs.

Mr Balls won his battle against the disputed claims of rent owed to Mr Sampson, paying for a replacement burglar alarm after he had taken one with him and the replacement of a stained carpet.

Mr Sampson claimed he had agreed a five per cent increase in rent with Mr Balls with a gentleman’s handshake, the court heard.

He said he was subsequently owed over £300 as a result, but District Judge John Flanagan turned down his claim, saying there was no memorandum to prove this agreement.

Mr Sampson also asked for £306 to replace a carpet which he claimed had been damaged beyond repair in the space of two areas.

The judge again refused his claim, saying he could have put a point in the tenancy agreement about the maintenance of the carpet but had failed to do so.

Finally, Mr Sampson asked for the replacement of a sophisticated burglar alarm. Nicholas Toms, representing Mr Balls, said that there was no burglar alarm when the MP took over the office and he had to install a new one.

He had to apply to the House of Commons to cover the cost and subsequently took the alarm with him when he moved to his new office in Morley, near Leeds.

Mr Sampson claimed there had been an alarm when Mr Balls moved in and that he should pay to replace it.

The district judge again found in Mr Balls’s favour, saying the evidence suggested there was not an alarm when he had taken over the premises




Monday, 13 June 2011

Juror faces charges after contacting defendant on Facebook

A MEMBER OF A JURY in a drugs trial allegedly contacted a defendant through Facebook and is now facing contempt of court charges.
Joanne Fraill from Blackley in Manchester sat on the jury of a major drug dealing trial that had run for 10 weeks and cost upwards of £6m, but the case has been aborted after allegations of juror misconduct.
Fraill is accused of using Facebook to contact one of the defendants in the case, Jamie Sewart, who allegedly asked her to provide information on the jury's ongoing deliberations.
It's not clear how the two came into contact, but presumably Fraill searched for Sewart on Facebook and added her as a friend. We do not yet know the motivations for this contact, but even if it was intended in an innocent manner it throws the entire case into jeopardy.
Both Fraill and Sewart will be brought before Attorney General Dominic Grieve in the High Court in London on Tuesday, where the case against them will be heard by the Lord Chief Justice, Igor Judge.
The case raises questions about what kinds of communications access juries should have. Juries are usually commanded not to discuss the case with anyone outside the courtroom, while in some cases they are sequestered in hotels to prevent them from talking with family and friends.
Social networking, which can be accessed from smartphones and other portable devices, is a new challenge for the courts, but the Administrative Offices of the US Courts issued guidance in February 2010 that jurors should not use websites like Facebook and Twitter.
Members of the press and public in the UK were allowed to send tweets after Lord Judge approved the use of Twitter in the courtroom last December, providing it did not interfere with the case. He might reconsider this decision after this latest court disaster.
Another of the defendants in the case, Gary Knox, who was previously convicted for dealing drugs, is using the revelation to apply for a mistrial on the basis of the juror's inappropriate behaviour, according to The Times.
If Knox and the other defendants manage to get off on the basis of this juror's actions then Fraill could face heavy sanctions. It's likely, however, that the entire jury will be dismissed and the case will be retried with a new jury and tighter rules over what they can and cannot do.
With the cost of this prosecution already in the millions, this case could become even more expensive.

 

The fate of six West Indian prisoners on death row will be decided through the adjudication of the privy council this summer amid fresh pressure from the Caribbean to limit the UK's role in determining capital punishment cases

.

In July, senior British lawyers will fly to St Kitts and Nevis to represent, in local courts, four islanders who have been condemned to hang after being convicted of murdering a key witness in a gangland trial.

The lives of Romeo Cannonier, Louis Gardener, Sheldon Isaac and Ruedeney Williams were saved in 2009 when judges on the judicial committee of the privy council sitting in Westminster granted them a temporary stay of execution – known formally as a "conservatory order". One of the men, Sheldon Isaac, has suffered brain damage from a gunshot. Their appeals could yet return to London.

Next month, the JCPC will hear the case listed as Ernest Lockhart v the Queen. Lockhart faces the rope in the Bahamas; he was found guilty of a fatal shooting on the evidence of a co-defendant.

At the end of the summer, the same court will consider evidence against Marcus Daniel, who has been condemned to death for the murder of a young woman in Trinidad. Doubts have been raised about his mental health and whether he suffers from a severe personality disorder.

A decade after the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) was set up to act as a supreme court for the region, supposedly replacing the JCPC, death penalty cases and other complex appeals are still being sent to London for adjudication. Only three states – Belize, Barbados and Guyana – have signed up to the CCJ; even Trinidad, where the court is situated, is not a member.

No one expected the historical anomaly of British supreme court justices ruling on such high profile and politically sensitive Caribbean cases to persist for so long. Even the UK judges appear to resent the additional judicial workload.

Reviled by critics in the Caribbean as an obstructive hangover of colonial rule, the work of the JCPC has, however, become increasingly influential around the world. Campaigners against the death penalty claim its jurisprudence has helped to reprieve almost 5,000 prisoners from death row in African states.

The farthest-reaching decision approved by the Privy Council came in a judgment that outlawed mandatory death sentences for murder on the grounds of their being unconstitutional.

That ruling has now been adopted by Kenya, Uganda and Malawi. "Death sentences on 900 people in Uganda were commuted; another 4,000 were taken off death row in Kenya last year and about 40 in Malawi - all as a result of those countries adopting privy council precedents," explained Saul Lehrfreund of the London-based Death Penalty Project, which represents most of the applicants who come before the privy council.

The latest influx of capital punishment cases comes as pressure grows for more hangings in the Caribbean. Kamla Persad-Bissessar, the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, has extolled the death penalty as "a weapon in [our] arsenal" to fight the murder rate.

Her government introduced a bill to alter the constitution and sidestep restrictions imposed by the privy council, particularly a 1994 ruling that bans executions not carried out within five years from the date of sentence.

"[The legislation] simply seeks to plug some of the loopholes that have been exploited and manipulated by murderers who have been properly convicted and sentenced to death according to law," Persad-Bissessar said earlier this year. The bill was defeated but the issue remains live.

Trinidad and Tobago's top judge, chief justice,Mr Justice Ivor Archie, commented (pdf) last year: "It takes at least three trips to the privy council and the expenditure of enormous time, financial and other resources to facilitate an execution." The country has more than 40 inmates on death row, but its last hanging was in 1999.

Saul Lehrfreund and Parvais Jabbar, who run the Death Penalty Project out of the Soho offices of the solicitors Simons Muirhead and Burton, remain unconvinced.

"If [Caribbean countries] made as much effort to try to improve the standard of policing and standard of forensics, that would significantly reduce the crime rate," they said.

"The problem is that the real solution costs too much and won't be done in four years. No one is interested in long-term solutions. Executing a few people is considered [to be] the answer.

"The people are more sophisticated that the politicians. They don't believe the death penalty will have an impact on the crime rate, [though] they may believe [that murderers] need to be killed as retribution."

Most of the British lawyers involved in death row cases work on a pro bono or voluntary basis. Lehrfreund and Jabbar will be joined by Edward Fitzgerald QC and Julian Knowles QC when they go out to St Kitts in July.

The tiny island was the scene of the last execution in the Caribbean in December 2008. Charles Laplace, who was sentenced to death for killing his wife, had not been informed of his right to appeal and was said to hav been suffering from a serious mental imbalance.

In praise of the privy council, Fitzgerald told students at Sussex University last month: "It has outlawed executions after delay; introduced judicial review and natural justice at the mercy stage; struck down the mandatory imposition of the death sentence for murder as unconstitutional; and introduced a new, restrictive approach to the imposition of the death penalty in murder cases."

Appeals from West Indian colonies to the privy council were first heard in 17th century. In a more recent tradition, each country's flag is now raised inside the JCPC courtroom opposite parliament when cases are considered.

In the 1920s, at the height of the British Empire, it was said that people living on a quarter of the world's land could technically bring their appeals to the privy council. There are still 27 jurisdictions outside the UK for which the privy council is the final court of appeal. They include the Channel Islands, British overseas territories such as the Falklands and Gibraltar, and former colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific.

Several Caribbean states have recently tried to quit this relationship. Jamaica and St Vincent both signalled their intent to join the CCJ. Jamaica's attempt was struck down as unconstitutional on the grounds that it required a referendum for approval; in St Vincent a referendum was held but lost. "This may indicate that people don't necessarily trust their politicians and may feel that the JCPC gives an added level of protection," Lehrfreund comments. (The CCJ has been more successful in its functions as an international tribunal, resolving disputes between Caricom nations.)

The outgoing president of the court, Michael de la Bastide, whose tenure comes to an end in August has expressed disappointment that more countries have not signed up to the CCJ. In March this year, he said it would be a "regional catastrophe" if the court was allowed to fail. "The region continues to be beholden to a foreign government for its final court of appeal and, in so doing, is failing to take full responsibility for its legal process."

Two years ago Lord Justice Phillips, the first president of the UK's supreme court, questioned whether some privy council cases needed to be heard by a panel of five justices, as Caribbean cases were taking up a lot of time. He supported the idea of Commonwealth countries establishing their own final courts of appeal.

Mr Justice Archie of Trinidad and Tobago has claimed that "less importance" is given to appeals from the islands. "If you will pardon the cricketing analogy, it looks as though the test side is not necessary to deal with us any more so they could send the 'B' team," he said.

"Do we have to await the final humiliation of being asked to leave? ... After 48 years of supposed independence, it astonishes me that there is even a debate about whether the the CCJ should be our final appellate court.

Asked about its role, a JCPC official said: "The judicial committee of the privy council does not lobby or encourage countries to join or leave its jurisdiction. It is the government's policy to continue to make this service available, and a number of Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries countries have long appreciated the service that some of the UK's most senior judges have offered in providing their final court of appeal. Those judges sit as part of their duties as privy counsellors, and as part of their wider judicial commitment to upholding common law principles."

On its website, the CCJ has a series of frequently asked questions. One inquires about the role of its rival, the privy council in London. Its answer includes the statement: "Persons interpreting and applying the law should be attuned to the relevant dynamics of social interaction, which determine the quality and intensity of human intercourse, and the values conditioning such dynamics… In short, the decisions may tend not to reflect the needs of the society, because the people applying the law would not understand the society."

Disagreements with states that have the death penalty have become politically more pronounced since the UK government made opposition to capital punishment more of an international policy priority. "Abolition of the death penalty is an area that the government is keen to emphasise and put at the forefront of its human rights agenda," Jeremy Browne, the Foreign Office minister and Liberal Democrat MP, declared in January, shortly after visiting Trinidad.

Saturday, 11 June 2011

Experts are warning that the UK tax authority is more inclined to prosecute evaders as figures show millions of pounds of unpaid tax has been recouped.


Follow-up enquiries have added millions to the collections made following high-profile disclosure campaigns.

Criminal investigations have been launched into 10 people with offshore accounts and six in medical trades.

Maximum fines for tax evaders have recently increased, but can be reduced for those who come forward voluntarily.

"Criminal investigations have not been the weapons of choice for HM Revenue and Customs, but now they are part of the armoury," said Gary Ashford, representative for the Chartered Institute of Taxation.

Campaigns
Tax evaders include "chip shop owners, taxi drivers and landladies", HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has said. It has been set targets by the government to harvest unpaid tax.

The original campaign aimed at evaders with offshore accounts was launched in 2007 and gathered £400m after 45,000 came forward.

Subsequent inquiries have brought in another £91m and 1,000 enquiries are continuing, the BBC has been told.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote

This is proof of HMRC's determination to increase the number of prosecutions we take forward in all areas”

Chris Harrison
HMRC
A second campaign was launched in September 2009. This garnered £85m from 5,500 disclosures. Follow-up inquiries yielded another £6m.

Ten criminal investigations are ongoing, although these will not necessarily lead to prosecutions.

New penalties were introduced in April which raised the maximum fine level for those with offshore accounts to 200% of unpaid tax, in addition to the repaying the tax owed.

Mr Ashford said HMRC was taking a "very tough line" against these evaders.

Medics
The tax authority has also threatened to publish the names of people who deliberately evaded tax.

This could have serious implications for those in medical professions who were uncovered as part of a campaign by HMRC targeting that sector, according to Mr Ashford.

Some £10m has been gathered from 1,500 disclosures during the campaign. Six criminal investigations have been launched.

Medical professionals who admitted unpaid tax before 30 June could pay past tax, plus interest, and a penalty of 10% of the unpaid tax.

Mr Ashford advised evaders to make a disclosure, as they could still reduce the penalties they faced by coming forward voluntarily.

More recently, HMRC has launched tax payment campaigns against plumbers and restaurant owners.

"We are confident that these and more cases will be taken forward in the future," said Chris Harrison, HMRC criminal investigations deputy director.

"This is proof of HMRC's determination to increase the number of prosecutions we take forward in all areas. We are committed to ensuring everyone pays what they owe so that the maximum is available to spend on public services used by everyone."

Spain has lodged a complaint about plans for an EU-wide patent system with the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which is obliged to hear the case.



The European Commission has defended the plans, claiming they are not unfair to countries that do not join up.

Plans to streamline cross-border patent protection processes were proposed by 12 EU countries last year, were backed by the European Commission in April and have been supported in all by 25 of the EU's 27 member states.

Under the new plans a European patent holder will make only one application to the European Patent Office for patent protection across the 25 EU countries that have signed up to the scheme, with successful patents being published in English, French or German. The countries hope it will make it easier and cheaper for inventors to safeguard against infringement.

The two countries that have not signed up the plan are Spain and Italy. Though reports have emerged that Italy has also objected to the plans, an ECJ spokesman told OUT-LAW.COM that it has only received an objection from Spain.

Implementation of the plans would not lead to discrimination of businesses in Italy and Spain, Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier has said, according to reports.

"I am confident that the enhanced co-operation procedure presented by the Commission is not discriminatory," Barnier said according to a Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) report. "We are assured that Italian and Spanish business will suffer no discrimination."

The OHIM website and EurActiv news service have reported that Italy, too, has lodged a complaint about the plans, which were made possible by an 'enhanced cooperation' mechanism introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. This allows groups of nine or more EU countries to use EU structures to make agreements that will bind only those countries which opt in to them.

Italy said that a patent agreement between the other EU countries was an attempt to create a "clique of power" and contravened "the equal right to dignity and the respect for the languages and culture of each member states", according to the EurActiv report.

"Enhanced cooperation was never intended to be used as a divisive instrument, effectively stretched in order to nullify the norms of the European Treaties which call for humanity, but as methods for groups of states to develop means of integration in which other states are not interested," the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, according to a report on the Eur Activ news website.

"The use of enhanced co-operation within the patent sector is contrary to the spirit of the single market, because it tends to create division and distortion within the market, and will thus prejudice Italian businesses," the Ministry said, according to the report.

Spain said future European patents cannot be based on linguistic discrimination, according to the Eur Activ report.

"We cannot understand why Spanish and other languages cannot have the same status of French, English and German," Spain's EU affairs minister Diego Lopez Garrido said, according to the report.

"[The Spanish government] insists that the reinforced cooperation mechanism was used to impose a solution which excludes Spain with a mechanism which, paradoxically, was thought up to facilitate the integration of the Member States,” Lopez Garrido said, according to the report.

“Spanish is a great European language and Spanish companies, Spanish innovators and patentors cannot be discriminated against for reasons of language," Lopez Garrido said, according to the report.

The European Commission has been trying to establish a unitary patent protection system for many years without success.

At the moment obtaining Europe-wide patent protection is only possible by validating a patent registered with the European Patent Office (EPO) in each individual country. To be valid in a country a patent must be translated into its language. The Commission has sought a cheaper system because of what it has said is the prohibitive cost of that process.

In December, 12 member states got together to push for new unifying patent protection regulations. Since December a further 13 countries have backed the proposals.

The countries were forced to revise their plans in March after the European Court of Justice said that the creation of a pan-European Patent Court to rule on disputes would contravene EU laws.

The Court would exist outside of the judicial structures already in place and so would leave citizens potentially without recourse to action though existing EU courts, the ECJ said at the time.

The Council of Ministers, along with the European Parliament, is currently reviewing the enhanced cooperation agreement plans of the 25 EU countries. It recently published draft amendments to the plans that include proposals to establish a dispute system that works within the existing EU judicial structures.

Competition ministers will discuss Italy and Spain's legal challenge at a meeting at the end of this month, according to reports.

Tuesday, 31 May 2011

Serbian government jet carrying Bosnian Serb military commander Ratko Mladic has landed in the Netherlands, where he will be tried by a UN court for genocide.


The plane touched down at Rotterdam airport hours after judges in Belgrade rejected his appeal to delay his extradition on grounds of ill health, and Serbian justice minister Snezana Malovic authorised his handover to UN officials in The Hague.

Mladic was arrested last Thursday in a village north of Belgrade after 16 years on the run.

Advertisement >>

His defence had argued the 69-year-old is not mentally and physically fit to stand trial.

Mladic is charged at the tribunal for atrocities committed by his Serb troops during Bosnia's 1992/95 war.

They include the notorious Srebrenica massacre that left 8,000 Muslim men and boys dead - the worst atrocity against civilians in Europe since the Second World War.

Earlier Mladic was briefly released from the jail cell, travelling in a secret high-security convoy to a suburban cemetery where he left a lone candle for his daughter who killed herself during Bosnia's bloody ethnic war.

Mladic - accused of some of the worst horrors of the 1992/95 war - was accompanied by a convoy of several armoured vehicles on a swift and quiet trip.

At the black marble grave, Mladic left a lit candle and a small white bouquet of flowers with a red rose in the middle.

His 23-year-old daughter Ana, a medical student, committed suicide in 1994 with her father's pistol.

She reportedly never wrote a suicide note, but media reports at the time said she ended her life at Mladic's Belgrade family house because of depression caused by her father's role in the war.

Mladic has rejected the official investigation into his case and claimed she was killed by his wartime enemies, saying the pistol was found in her left hand, although she was right-handed.

In addition to the appeal, defence lawyer Milos Saljic asked for a team of doctors to examine Mladic, who is said to have suffered at least two strokes.

Yesterday Serbian president Boris Tadic rejected speculation that authorities had known of Mladic's hiding place and delayed his arrest to coincide with a visit by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

The rumours have persisted because Mladic was found living not far from the capital, Belgrade, with relatives who share his last name.

"Any such comment makes no sense," Mr Tadic said. "The truth is that we arrested Ratko Mladic the moment we discovered him."

The president also said it was time for the European Union to do its part by boosting his nation's efforts to join the bloc, arguing that the arrest of Mladic proves it is serious about rejoining the international fold.

"I simply ask the EU to fulfil its part," he said. "We fulfilled our part and we will continue to do so."

The EU had repeatedly said that Serbia could begin pre-membership talks only after it arrested Mladic. Some EU nations have already said Serbia needs to do more, including arresting its last fugitive, Goran Hadzic, who led Croatian Serb rebels during the 1991/95 war.

Mr Tadic said Hadzic will be arrested as soon as possible.

The plane carrying Mladic pulled into a hangar after landing in Rotterdam, out of view of reporters and television cameras.

A Dutch police helicopter stood just outside the hangar's entrance, and police vehicles also pulled up nearby.

Mladic will be taken to the UN detention unit near The Hague to undergo a formal identification process. Within a few days he will be brought before a UN judge for a preliminary hearing.

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

Russian court upholds Khodorkovsky conviction

Russian appeals court upheld a multibillion-dollar theft and money laundering conviction against jailed former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky on Tuesday and reduced his 14-year prison sentence to 13 years.

The Moscow City Court ruling means former Yukos chief Khodorkovsky, who fell foul of the Kremlin during Vladimir Putin's presidency and has been jailed since 2003, is to remain in prison well into 2016.

 

Friday, 20 May 2011

former Labour minister was jailed for 16 months on Friday after admitting dishonestly claiming 30,000 pounds of parliamentary expenses

former Labour minister was jailed for 16 months on Friday after admitting dishonestly claiming 30,000 pounds of parliamentary expenses for mortgage repayments, including for a loan that had already been paid off.

Elliot Morley, who was fisheries and later environment minster between 1997 and 2006, was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court in London after pleading guilty to two charges of false accounting at a hearing last month.

He had claimed 800 pounds a month for 3-1/2 years for interest payments on a mortgage on his home in Winterton, Lincolnshire.

But the interest payments were actually far lower, varying between five and 50 pounds a month. When the mortgage was redeemed in February 2006 Morley continued to submit his 800 pound monthly claims, an act the judge, Mr Justice Saunders, described as "blatant dishonesty."

"When it was discovered, Mr Morley's answers to the inquiries that were made were lies," Saunders said.

Morley had blamed "sloppy accounting" when the claims, totalling more than 30,000 pounds, were first revealed.

Saunders said the case was tragic for Morley, who he said had enjoyed a distinguished political career and had been a "positive force for good" in the community.

"He has thrown away his good name and good character," Saunders said.

The Labour party said it had already suspended Morley from membership and following his jailing was expelling him.

Morley is the first former minister jailed over an expenses scandal that rocked parliament and angered the public.

Three other former Labour MPs have already been jailed over their expenses claims.

John Taylor, a former Conservative member of the House of Lords, is awaiting sentencing after being found guilty in January of false claims for overnight travel and subsistence.

Media organisations should be told in advance about applications for gagging orders against them, one of Britain's top judges recommended

Media organisations should be told in advance about applications for gagging orders against them, one of Britain's top judges recommended on Friday, amid growing tensions over media freedom and the right to privacy.

Media groups and politicians have expressed concern about a perceived rise in gagging orders, which they fear could be being used to quash information of genuine public interest rather than as a legitimate tool to protect someone's privacy.

"Where privacy and confidentiality are involved, a degree of secrecy is often necessary to do justice," David Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, told a briefing.

"But where secrecy is ordered it should only be to the extent strictly necessary to achieve the interests of justice."

The use of injunctions, especially super injunctions, has come into sharp focus after politicians used the right to speak freely in parliament to expose an order bought by former bank chief Fred Goodwin, and after messaging site Twitter published names of celebrities it said had brought injunctions.

Super injunctions have prompted most criticism because they prevent anyone from reporting even the existence of the order.

Former RBS chief Goodwin attracted criticism for bringing such an injunction, whose existence was revealed by a politicians using the right of parliamentary privilege, which protects comments made in parliament.

A court relaxed that order on Thursday.

PRIVACY LAW

The Neuberger review did not deal with whether Britain needed an explicit privacy law, which is a question for parliament. Prime Minister David Cameron has said previously he was "a little uneasy" about the way injunctions were being used.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke welcomed the report.

" contains important recommendations which will ensure that injunctions are only granted where strictly necessary," he said in a statement. "The government is considering the wider issues around privacy and freedom of expression."

Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge told a briefing he believed it would be tough for parliament to tackle the issue, saying that the question of a privacy law had come up repeatedly as a question for lawmakers but they had never legislated for it.

He also questioned whether politicians were abusing parliamentary privilege.

"It is, of course, wonderful for you if a Member of Parliament stands up in parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.

"But you do need to think ... whether it's a very good idea for our lawmakers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or for that matter because they disagree with the law of privacy which parliament has created."

Court injunctions banning the media from reporting that the rich and famous have won gagging orders should only be granted where strictly necessary

Court injunctions banning the media from reporting that the rich and famous have won gagging orders should only be granted where strictly necessary, a long-awaited judicial report said on Friday.
Newspapers and broadcasters who may be silenced by such bans should also be informed beforehand, according to senior judge David Neuberger.
But in a note of warning, he urged MPs opposed to injunctions to think twice before using their centuries-old right of unrestricted freedom of speech in parliament to undermine them.
Neuberger began an inquiry last year after a row over a super-injunction granted to married England football captain John Terry to stop the media publicising his affair with a teammate's ex-girlfriend.
Super-injunctions ban the publication of details of the case in question and any mention of the ban itself, and their increasing use has sparked concern that the principles of press freedom and open justice were being undermined.
The report revealed that only two super-injunctions had been issued in the past year, but said there had been number of anonymised injunctions, where media can report the existence of the ban but not the person who brought it.
It stressed the importance of conducting justice in the open and said judges should depart from this only where "strictly necessary", and then injunctions should be short-term and kept under review by the court.
It recommended the media be alerted in advance about applications for injunctions, subject to a confidentiality agreement.
"Where privacy and confidentiality are involved, a degree of secrecy is often necessary to do justice," Neuberger, known as the Master of the Rolls, told a press conference in London.
"However, where secrecy is ordered it should only be to the extent strictly necessary to achieve the interests of justice."
Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge, Britain's top judge, acknowledged that injunctions are often ignored by bloggers or users of social networks such as Twitter, and there is little that the authorities can do to stop them.
He said the Internet offered "by no means the same degree of intrusion into privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front pages of newspapers", which are more trusted.
But he added: "I'm not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through technology may not one day be brought under control."
The judges meanwhile issued a warning to MPs who have used their right to free speech, known as parliamentary privilege, to deliberately undermine injunctions.
On Thursday, a member of the House of Lords revealed that Fred Goodwin, the former boss of the bailed-out Royal Bank of Scotland, had won an injunction banning publication of details of an alleged affair with a colleague.
Goodwin's name had already been revealed in March by a member of the House of Commons, and the High Court subsequently quashed the anonymity order that had been protecting him.
Judge questioned "whether it's a good idea for our lawmakers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or they disagree with the privacy law created by parliament."
Prime Minister David Cameron said last month he felt "uneasy" about the creeping use of injunctions to gag the media, echoing the concerns of many MPs.
However, Judge said they were only a reflection of the 1998 Human Rights Act, which enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights and created a British privacy law for the first time.
Cameron's spokesman said the report was "very useful" and would be considered "very carefully".
In a note of caution to the media, the report warned that journalists' right to repeat parliamentary proceedings without fear of legal action may be undermined if the information concerned aimed to frustrate a court order.

Top judge attacks MPs who reveal injunctions

The Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge questioned whether it was a good idea for MPs and Lords to be "flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or for that matter because they disagree with the law of privacy which Parliament has created".
His comments, which will be seen by critics as an attempt to censor parliamentary proceedings, came at a launch of a major review of injunctions which found that reports of comments made by MPs and peers which set out to contravene court orders may be in contempt of court.
Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls and the senior judge who chaired the inquiry, said the law surrounding the issue was "astonishingly unclear" which was "very unsatisfactory".
It comes after Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming recently highlighted two cases in Parliament.
He asked in the House of Commons about an order obtained by former Royal Bank of Scotland chief Sir Fred Goodwin, which banned the media from calling him a banker, and about another order which banned a constituent from talking to his MP.

A gagging order obtained by Sir Fred was partially lifted by the High Court yesterday after allegations that he had an affair were made public by a Liberal Democrat peer in the House of Lords.
The move, which was not opposed by Sir Fred, came after Lord Stoneham of Droxford used parliamentary privilege to name him in relation to the alleged affair in the Lords.
Addressing the media at the Royal Courts of Justice in central London today, Lord Judge said: "It is, of course, wonderful for you if a Member of Parliament stands up in Parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.
"But you do need to think, do you not, whether it's a very good idea for our law makers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or for that matter because they disagree with the law of privacy which Parliament has created.
"It's a very serious issue in my view.
"There has never been any question, in any of these orders, not in any single one of them, of the court challenging the sovereignty of parliament.
"That's not the issue.
"We are following the law, as best we understand it, at the level of the judiciary where the issues have been canvassed.
"Our constitutional arrangement have been based for centuries on mutual respect."
He added that senior judges would be holding talks with the speakers of the Commons and the Lords over the issue.
Lord Judge went on: "No-one, and in particular no judge, doubts that the open administrations of justice is a long-standing, treasured principle of our legal system".
While no right to privacy existed before 2000, the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights "was indeed clearly explained to Parliament before the Human Rights Act was enacted", he said.
"Contrary to some commentary, unelected judges in this country did not create privacy rights.
"They were created by Parliament.
"Now that they have been created, judges in this country cannot ignore or dispense with them: they must apply the law relating to privacy matters as created by Parliament."
Parliament has said while court cases should not be prejudiced by discussions in parliament it has a "constitutional right to discuss any matter it pleases", Lord Judge said.
"With respect, I entirely agree with it."
But he said he would never say that "Parliament needs to get a grip on this".
"It will take quite an effort for Parliament to get a grip on this," he said.

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

NEW STATS