Pages

Lawyers & Lawcourts Headline

Lawyers & Lawcourts

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.

 

Saturday, 9 April 2011

Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for a thorough investigation of alleged "criminal behaviour" at the News of the World.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for a thorough investigation of alleged "criminal behaviour" at the News of the World.

It comes after News International admitted there were at least eight victims of the phone-hacking scandal.

The company issued an apology and put aside £20m for compensation.

Lawyer Charlotte Harris, involved in several of the current cases, said there would now be a "massive flood of people contacting lawyers".

She told the BBC some of her clients - who include football agent Sky Andrew and actors Leslie Ash and Lee Chapman - had already been contacted by News International and were considering their options.

Wednesday, 30 March 2011

A lawyer at a leading civil liberties firm has expressed fears for the future of direct action protest

A lawyer at a leading civil liberties firm has expressed fears for the future of direct action protest after the mass arrest of UK Uncut activists during last Saturday's anti-cuts demonstrations in London.

Matt Foot, a criminal defence solicitor at Birnberg Pierce, said the detention of 145 activists during an occupation of luxury food store Fortnum and Mason in Piccadilly was "unprecedented". He has questioned the police's motivation.

After being arrested for aggravated trespass and criminal damage, scores of Uncut campaigners were dispersed to police stations around London as far apart as Harrow, Ilford and Romford and were held in police cells for up to 24 hours. The next day the accusation of criminal damage was dropped but 138 activists were bailed on the charge of aggravated trespass.

Foot, son of the campaigning journalist Paul Foot, said: "It is unprecedented to arrest so many people for simply protesting peacefully in a building. And then it is intimidating to keep peaceful protesters for so long at the police station and then charge them so quickly without reviewing the evidence first.

"To rush to treat people in this way and charge them on such a scale suggests the police want to make a statement. This is going to threaten the right to peacefully protest through direct action."

Commenting on video footage obtained by the Guardian in which a senior officer inside Fortnum's was captured telling Uncut campaigners they were "non-violent" and "sensible", Foot said: "It's fascinating that the police clearly took a view that these were peaceful protesters."

"Given the police's public comments about violence on the demonstration, it is extraordinary that the overwhelming numbers of arrests and charges have been for non-violent protesters. One has to question the motivation behind this."

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

Worker claims he was sacked for drinking the wrong tea

I’m flabbergasted. I have been a model employee. I have never been late or off sick in 11 years,’ said the 47-year-old, from Didsbury, Manchester. 'I can’t believe they can sack someone for something so trivial as using the wrong tea bags. I would have thought at the very worst this would deserve a warning – it’s a storm in a tea bag.'
He was told in a formal letter that his offence was 'misappropriation of company stock by taking items into the canteen without making prior payment'.
Prior to this Mr Alden had been disciplined for not keeping a note of the ages of people buying cigarettes and alcohol. Along with many other supermarkets, Co-op is part of a 'Challenge 25' initiative, where anyone who appears to be under that age is asked for ID. If they're definitely over 25 and haven't been challenged, staff still have to input their estimated age into the till.
A Co-op spokesman said Mr Alden was dismissed for breaching ‘a number of our business procedures’ but could appeal.

Lawyers for Sharon Shoesmith told the Court of Appeal that there had been ‘buck passing’ between Ofsted, former children’s secretary Ed Balls and Haringey council.

Lawyers for Sharon Shoesmith told the Court of Appeal that there had been ‘buck passing’ between Ofsted, former children’s secretary Ed Balls and Haringey council.
Ms Shoesmith was fired in 2008 from her £130,000 a-year job as head of children’s services at the council in London over failings exposed by the death of Peter Connelly.
She was at home ‘trapped by the media’ when she watched Mr Balls sack her on live TV, the court heard.
Ms Showemith's layer said Mr Balls had acted following an Ofsted report which showed 'damning findings' on Haringey children's services – a report that she had not seen, or been given a chance to respond to, before Mr Balls ordered her removal.
Peter died in August 2007, aged 17 months, at the hands of his mother Tracey Connelly, her lover Steven Barker and lodger Jason Owen.
He suffered 50 injuries despite a total of 60 visits to the home by social workers, doctors and police.
The hearing continues.

2,000 of the most experienced police officers will be made to retire by 2015

2,000 of the most experienced police officers will be made to retire by 2015 as forces across England and Wales try to find 20% budget cuts, a Labour survey has claimed.

A series of Freedom of Information Act requests by the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has disclosed that over the next four years 13 of the 43 forces intend to use an obscure regulation to compulsorily retire 1,138 officers who have more than 30 years of service.

Labour estimates that a further 986 officers could be affected if some of the remaining 30 forces also decide to use the same regulation to find budget savings.

Cooper said that it was "deeply worrying" that 13 forces had already decided to use the A19 regulation to compulsorily retire some of the most experienced officers in the force.

"Some of these officers are experts in their fields and internationally respected for what they do in the fight against crime," she said.

"The home secretary must realise that you cannot make 20% front-loaded cuts to the police without losing the very crime fighters we need. The home secretary is taking unacceptable risks with public safety and the continued fight against crime."

As fully sworn officers of the crown rather than employees, policemen and women cannot be made redundant under existing rules. However, the A19 regulation can forcibly retire officers with more than 30 years' service on not less than two-thirds pension on the grounds of the efficiency of the force.

The experienced officers who have already left or are leaving the police this week include:

• An inspector with 33 years' service who is the longest serving specialist in crime reduction and crime prevention in England and Wales. He advises architects and builders on "designing out" crime in new buildings, especially on council estates.

• A neighbourhood sergeant who, at 48, is one of the youngest to be forcibly retired. He manages a team of officers and liaises with the local community on anti-social behaviour.

• A 55-year-old frontline roads policing officer who has spent the last 20 years responding to motorway incidents.

The latest Labour survey of police authority current plans shows that the jobs of 12,500 officers are to be lost over the next four years in addition to a further 15,000 police staff jobs, confirming the estimate of 28,000 jobs made by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

The Home Office estimated in November that 3,200 officers in England and Wales could be affected if all the 43 forces decided to enforce the compulsorily retirement rule.

The Labour survey suggests that a total of 2,200 are likely to be forced out through this route by 2015, indicating that deeper cuts in police staff numbers or other measures may be required.

Police forces froze their recruitment last year, which saw 2,500 jobs go through natural wastage.

Home Office minsters say that forces should be able to identify sufficient savings to ensure that the budget cuts have no effect on the level of service the public receive.

The police minister, Nick Herbert, said there were currently "immense opportunities" to make savings without hitting the frontline.

music website that illegally streamed and sold music by the Beatles has been forced to pay record labels almost $1m [£625,000].

music website that illegally streamed and sold music by the Beatles has been forced to pay record labels almost $1m [£625,000]. Other artists whose copyright had been violated included Coldplay and Radiohead.

US-based Bluebeat.com denied doing anything wrong on the basis that the tracks has been distributed using owner Hank Risan's "psycho-acoustic simulation" -- a technique based on using tracks that he'd purchased on CD. In other words, he was ripping the songs from a CD or LP and then selling them for just 25 cents [15p] a pop.

The BBC reports that Bluebeat's defence failed to impress district court judge Josephine Staton Tucker who described Risan's methodology as "obscure and undefined pseudo-scientific language that appears to be a long-winded way of describing sampling."

Archie Robinson, the company's attorney, implied that as the settlement was a fraction what EMI Group plc, Capitol Records and Virgin Records America had been trying for, the labels were tacitly agreeing that Bluebeat was in the right.

"I felt that was sort of an acknowledgement on their part that they don't have the damages they claimed," he said. "So long as we pay royalties, we can stream their music all day and all night without a problem."

It’s a lot more difficult for police to search your car than it used to be

It’s a lot more difficult for police to search your car than it used to be. Action News is following up on the change requiring police to get a search warrant to see what's in your glove compartment or under your seats. We learned this new criteria has meant a lot fewer people are being busted for drug violations.

From coke to weed, State Police see it all on Washington highways.
But, troopers now need much more than their senses to make an arrest. They’re required to get a search warrant, or your consent, to look in a suspicious vehicle.
"We don't necessarily stumble across things like we used to,” said Trooper Paul Woodside. “Now, we have to put more effort into it."
And that additional effort of getting a warrant can take anywhere from ten minutes to well over an hour. That’s time that can keep a trooper off the road even longer while making a stop.
KIMA/KEPR learned the changes have severely impacted arrests in Yakima County and the Tri Cities.
As for the Yakima, back in 2009 when warrants weren't required, nearly 88 people were thrown in jail on felony drug charges. The following year, that number dropped a third to 60 arrests. And for just January and February of 2011, there have been only three.
We found a similar trend in the Tri-Cities. In 2009, WSP made nearly 60 felony drug arrests. By 2010, that number was down roughly 80% just 13. As for January and February of 2011, there have only been two.
Still, WSP told Action News the public doesn’t need to worry.
"I don't think there are more drugs on the streets necessarily,” said Woodside. “I think the same people are using drugs out there. I don't think the number has increased. It's just tougher to find it."
Tougher, but definitely still possible. State police rely heavily on drug dogs. They also undergo additional training to help detect suspicious behaviors. They’re committed to doing whatever they can to catching the bad guys.
"We aren't giving up. We're still doing out doing our jobs."
That job will just take a little longer.
State police must also suspend a search if they come across any illegal item not specified in the warrant. They have to call back a judge and get a new one. An entire case can get thrown out if the warrant is not executed correctly.

Changes to "no win, no fee" arrangements will be at the heart of a shake-up of civil justice in England and Wales

Changes to "no win, no fee" arrangements will be at the heart of a shake-up of civil justice in England and Wales being announced later.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke told the BBC he favoured a system where lawyers received a share of the damages, rather than an additional "success fee".

In 2008-9 the NHS paid out £312m in damages but £456m in legal costs, he pointed out.

The change follows a review carried out by Lord Justice Jackson in 2010.

Lord Justice Jackson's review of the system said lawyers in "no-win, no-fee" civil cases should no longer have a "success fee" which has to be paid by the defendants, but should get a share of damages.

The judge found huge rises in civil litigation costs in England and Wales in recent years and said reforms could save people millions.

According to the BBC's legal correspondent, Clive Coleman, critics say the scheme can encourage unscrupulous lawyers to take frivolous accusations to court.

He said the plan was to increase the amount of damages across the board by 10% to offset the loss of the "success fee".


Mr Clarke told the Today programme Lord Justice Jackson's report was "on his desk" when he took over from Jack Straw after the election last year.

He said: "If you say to someone 'you should go to a lawyer' they tend to go pale, not because they fear lawyers, but because they know there are a great deal of costs involved and they are daunted by our legal system."

Mr Clarke said legal costs should be "reasonable" but they should also be high enough that people treat going to court as a "last resort".

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

Troubled security firm Reliance has lost its £2million a month contract to escort prisoners between custody and court appearances.

Troubled security firm Reliance has lost its £2million a month contract to escort prisoners between custody and court appearances.

Around 700 jobs are affected by the Scottish Prison Service’s decision to ask rivals G4S Care and Justice Services to transfer around 180,000 inmates a year.

The move follows blunders by Reliance in its handling of prisoners during its seven-year contract, which is due to end in January.

They include an inmate escaping from a prison van in Edinburgh last year and three years ago a pregnant prisoner being chained to an officer for three days as she was treated in hospital.

The company has defended its record and declined to comment on the decision.

G4S manages the immigration detention centre at Dungavel in South Lanarkshire and large private prisons south of the Border.

Its managing director Russell Hobbs said: “G4S has unrivalled expertise in the care and transport of prisoners.

“We are delighted to be providing court services for Scotland.”

It is understood the 700 staff employed by Reliance to handle its prisoner escort service will be covered by Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) laws to protect workers when a contract or business changes hands.

In 2008, Reliance apologised to pregnant Donna McLeish, an inmate at Cornton Vale women’s prison in Stirling, who was chained to a security officer 24-hours a day while being treated at Stirling Royal Infirmary.

Changes were later made to the way pregnant prisoners are handled.

In April 2009, 28-year-old Brian Lamb vaulted out of the dock after hearing he was to be jailed and in April last year, a prisoner broke free from a prison van stopped at traffic lights in West Lothian.

Labour’s justice spokesman Richard Baker MSP said the award of the major long-term contract should not have been approved by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill so close to May’s Scottish Parliament elections.

He said. “This is a decision that should have been taken by an incoming administration.”

Gay couples on the Isle of Man will get the right to a civil partnership after a new law

Gay couples on the Isle of Man will get the right to a civil partnership after a new law was signed in Tynwald, the island's parliament.

It gives them the same rights as married couples regarding inheritance, pensions and tax allowances.

The law comes into effect on 6 April. Civil partnerships gained legal recognition in the UK in 2006.

Allan Bell, MHK, Minister for Economic Development, who tabled the bill says gay rights have been brought in line with the UK after a 20-year battle.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

NEW STATS