totallylegal

Explosive Demand for Paralegals

The number of paralegals has doubled in the last decade and is set to rise further, according to a report from government-sponsored think tank the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

The report, which explored the country’s present and future skills needs, disclosed that the number of paralegals in England has increased from 24,509 in 2001 to 51,250 today – a rise of 109%. The number of solicitors has increased by around 40% over the same period.

The report predicted that demand for paralegals will continue to grow, given the increasingly commoditised nature of much transactional work, and greater competition in the legal services market, following the introduction of alternative business structures.

Employment Law: April 2010 - This month in Legal News and Case Law

Legal News

As I am sure most of you are aware, the Equality Bill received Royal Assent on 8th April and has now become The Equality Act 2010. It is intended to come into effect on a phased basis between October 2010 and 2013. The purpose of this new legislation is to encompass thirty years’ worth of discrimination legislation and case law, and to explain the law on discrimination. The Act will clarify what is expected of employers and employees and will extend some forms of discrimination beyond the workplace. For more information on how this will affect businesses going forward, many firms are running training events.

How to negotiate a Hung Parliament

With just over one week to go until the general election, every opinion poll in play is predicting a hung parliament.
 
This could lead to the possibility we are heading towards some form of coalition government.

There is some useful analysis provided by Anthony Wells here.

"We are 9 days out from the election, people look at the opinion polls wanting to know who is going to win, who is going to form the next government. The simple answer is that at present they can’t tell us – we look set for a hung Parliament and who will form the government will depend to a certain extent upon negotiations between the parties, rather than the levels of support the parties receive."

Law Review: World IP Day – really?….. Heads on spikes on London Bridge

By charonqc



It is World Intellectual Property Day today – not that I am interested in it being so other than to ask who decides these things. Is it our friends from across the pond who can have a world series in sport with no other countries involved?




Politicians’ legal fight in private to avoid trial over expenses

Frances Gibb, legal editor of The Times, has picked up on the interesting issue of the politicians who are being hauled before the courts for ‘fiddling their expenses’. Gibb reports: “The hearing next month, in which the men will claim that they are protected by parliamentary privilege, will be covered by blanket reporting restrictions. “Essentially, you can’t report anything,” one lawyer said. “It is a pre-trial application and, like any other, subject to normal prohibitions on reporting. The two-day hearing is an attempt to block criminal proceedings, under which they could face hefty jail terms if found guilty. The four will invoke the protection for parliamentary proceedings enshrined in the Bill of Rights to argue that the House of Commons rule book on expenses is “privileged” because it is part of parliamentary proceedings, and so protected from scrutiny by the courts.”

Whatever the merits of their parliamentary privilege argument – and many politicians have come out against parliamentary privilege being used in this way (largely because they don’t want to be mocked and derided by potential voters and the press) – the whole business is shoddy. I can well understand that people who have been caught out on their specialist subject wishing to evade penalty – in this case, potentially, quite a long time in prison if found guilty – but Gibb reports that media organisations and the DPP may apply to have reporting restrictions lifted. The trial judge has a discretion to do so if it is in the public interest.

I’m not so sure I want reporting restrictions lifted – for the very simple reason that I want this trial to be ‘squeaky clean’ procedurally so that those charged cannot later claim their trial was not ‘within the rules’ and, of course, because I would like to see our rather battered Rule of Law returned to good health. All are entitled to that. Of course, it would help if politicians would actually understand and realise that you can’t have a Rule of Law of any real worth unless we have high quality lawyers to prosecute and defend and we resource process properly – but it would appear that the last crew of political pirates and quite possibly the next crew do not really know a lot about the law and none of the political parties, as far as I can see from their manifestos, have plans to ensure that the Rule of Law is maintained at an adequate standard. Political waffle about ‘British Justice being the best in the World’ just doesn’t cut it…
only a properly resourced justice system can do that. Our politicians seem to have lost sight of that. This is unfortunate and ironic. Enacting rafts of new laws is relatively easy – even a third world dictatorship can do that. Running a proper justice system takes a bit more effort and cash. Trial without a jury, anyone? Let’s go back to the Police bringing charges, anyone? Dispense with trials altogether, anyone? Fixed penalty tickets, anyone? Fast-track everything through Magistrates, anyone…? nice and cheap – and we’ll have more money to enable you to pass on all your property to your children when you die, when you’ll probably be as concerned about justice as you were when you were alive! Ah… sounds a bit like a Ministry of Truth & Justice proposal.

For those keen to see MP heads on spikes on London Bridge…. this last from The Times may cool your enthusiasm. “Any ruling by the judge on parliamentary privilege and whether it extends to give the men protection in this case from the criminal courts will be appealed to the Court of Appeal and from there to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. A criminal trial is therefore unlikely to take place before the end of the year.”

Law Review: Supreme Court decision on sex offender register, CPS slows down recruitment of in-house advocates

By charonqc


The Sun reports, with remarkable restraint, unusually: A SUPREME Court ruling now allows convicted sex attackers to appeal to have their details removed from the register following complaints that it breached their human rights. Do you agree?

President of the Supreme Court Lord Phillips said the Sexual Offences Act, which set up the register, was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights because it did not allow for a review of individual cases.

BBC report

The decision of the Supreme Court may be read here

Lord Phillips:

"57. I have referred earlier to a number of situations in which the degree of risk of re-offending has to be assessed in relation to sexual offenders. I think that it is obvious that there must be some circumstances in which an appropriate tribunal could reliably conclude that the risk of an individual carrying out a further sexual offence can be discounted to the extent that continuance of notification requirements is unjustified. As the courts below have observed, it is open to the legislature to impose an appropriately high threshold for review. Registration systems for sexual offenders are not uncommon in other jurisdictions. Those acting for the first respondent have drawn attention to registration requirements for sexual offenders in France, Ireland, the seven Australian States, Canada, South Africa and the United States. Almost all of these have provisions for review. This does not suggest that the review exercise is not practicable.

58. For these reasons I have concluded that the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal were correct to find that the notification requirements constitute a disproportionate interference with article 8 rights because they make no provision for individual review of the requirements. I would dismiss this appeal and repeat the declaration of incompatibility made by the Divisional Court."

Scots Law Society boss rejects members’ decision over ‘Tesco law’

The Times reports: “Bitter divisions within the legal profession were laid bare last night when the President of the Law Society of Scotland (LSS) said he was “unable to accept” the emphatic vote of his members to oppose reforms of the legal system.”

The Law Society Gazette reports: CPS slows recruitment of in-house Crown advocates.

Figures obtained by the Gazette have revealed a steep decline in the Crown Prosecution Service’s recruitment of in-house Crown advocates as an alternative to self-employed barristers. CPS figures show that the number of Crown advocates in the CPS increased by only nine in 2009/10, to 1,086. Law Society Gazette

Interestingly, when I talked to Director of Public prosecutions Keir Starmer QC late last year in a podcast for my series with The College of Law Inside Track, Keir Starmer was bullish about his plans to recruit in-house expertise and be less reliant on the self employed Bar. The criminal bar is going through a period of great change, made more difficult by reductions in legal aid budgets, so this will be welcome news.  Serendipitously, I am due to record a podcast for the College of Law Inside Track with Nicholas Green QC, Chairman of The Bar.  I shall ask him if he welcomes this news. I rather suspect he will.

A legal minefield

The last decade has seen a number of high profile divorce settlements receiving the stamp of judicial imprimatur which, to the professional and layman alike, are very difficult to reconcile the one with the other. The most egregious of these spring readily to mind.

The Whites started the ball rolling in 2000, followed by the Parlours – he of footballing fame. Next came the McFarlanes and the Millers, then the McCartneys, and very recently the Vaughans. And finally, soon to be handed down will be the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radmacher and Granatino, that deals with prenuptial agreements.

And what are we professionals to make of these judgments? For my part, I fail to find a ‘golden thread’ of judicial interpretation that will enable me to give my clients sound legal advice once love, and reason, fly out the window.

Law Review: Transforming the Lords and the Banks – Goldman Sachs under the cosh?

By charonqc


Before I start on the law…..this video from Iain Dale and Total Politics is excellent. More please.

You be the jury — join our bribery poll

Times: British companies are not doing enough to prepare for new laws that could lead to unlimited fines if their employees pay bribes, lawyers say.

Try the poll…!

Call to change law after burglar death case

Independent: “The law should be strengthened to protect homeowners who confront burglars, the mother of a trainee builder cleared of murdering a teenage intruder said today. Omari Roberts, 23, was told by the Crown Prosecution Service that no evidence would be offered against him, the day he was due to stand trial for the murder of 17-year-old Tyler Juett.”

The professionals all say the current law is more than adequate to protect people in their own homes – yet the politicians want to change it.  Hopefully, they will have more urgent matters to attend to after 6th May.

House of Lords transformation plans leaked

• Elections for the second chamber would take place at the same time as general elections;
• Number of Bishops sitting in the Lords would be halved from 24 to 12.

The Guardian reports: The House of Lords should become a second chamber where just two-thirds of members are elected until fresh primary legislation in 10 years’ time decides whether all peers should be elected, according to a document drawn up by the government.

Whether these plans will ever see the light of day remains to be seen – but it would seem to my eye that Bishops should not be involved simply by virtue of their office in legislation and opportunity should be taken to remove a tier of honours – peerages – from our political life.  The Supreme Court welcomed Sir John Dyson as the 12th Supreme Court Justice yesterday.  Pleasingly (although perhaps not for him? I would hope that serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice is honour enough.  I rather suspect it will be) Justice Dyson will not be getting the usual peerage which went with elevation to what was the House of Lords Judicial Committee.   I think this is a step in the right direction – separating the Supreme Court from Parliament and honours of a political nature.

The big story for lawyers today is reported fully in The Times.

Watchdog launches formal investigation into Goldman

"The Financial Services Authority has opened a formal investigation into Goldman Sachs in a move which could further escalate allegations of fraud against the US investment bank.

The UK financial watchdog said this morning that it has decided to start a “formal enforcement investigation” into Goldman Sachs International, its London-based business, after an initial review of the case.

The FSA’s probe comes after America’s Securities and Exchange Commission shocked the market last Friday by accusing Goldman and one of its vice presidents, Fabrice Tourre, 31, of fraudulently selling bad loans to investors in a deal which lost $1 billion (£650 million)."

The net is closing in globally on banking practices and it seems that the US is more than prepared to go for Wall Street.  Others in Europe and elsewhere will, surely, now follow? It can only work if there is global co-operation and the rule of law and regulation brings a degree of control.  Seaparting the retail banking side from the gambling side of banking might help as well?

BSB launches survey on the future of the profession

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) (16 April) launched a survey of the profession on opinions and expectations in relation to the new business structures permitted under the Legal Services Act 2007. The BSB has teamed up with leading market research group YouGov to create and administer the survey, which all barristers, clerks and practice managers will be invited to complete.

The survey follows the historic decision by the BSB last November to allow barristers to become managers of Legal Disciplinary Practices and in principle to form barrister only entities.

The BSB is now asking the profession to register interest in the full range of business structures that the Act will facilitate and to suggest what other elements of the current Code of Conduct should be relaxed to enhance the services that individual barristers can offer.

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner – James Bovard (1994)

By charonqc


Listening to the leadership debate and marvelling at the astonishing rise in the fortunes of the Lib-Dems following Clegg’s appearance with the two wolves -  I thought it might be useful to write something brief, but topical, on libertarian principle.

The quotation in the post header seemed to me a reasonable start and more important when coupled with this quotation:

“It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve.”

–Henry George

I may ‘outrage’ some who read what follows. So be it.

The government banned Meow Meow last Friday following outrage in The Sun and elsewhere. It will, of course, be a complete waste of time. The chemists will simply produce another ‘legal’ and, in any event, those who want drugs will always be able to get them.  We waste fantastic sums of money – deficit increasing, industrial, sums of money fighting a pointless drugs war.  Much crime is driven by drugs.  If you don’t believe me have a look at the murder rate in Colombia and Mexico, the burglary and street crime rate in this country and in mainland Europe.

Will we ever win the drugs war?  I doubt it? Should we try?  I’m not so sure. Listen to my podcast with US federal Judge John Cane
and consider the question after listening to it.  This experienced American judge has many years of judicial experience.  He is worth listening to.

I digress, but with reason.  I have one simple question:

"What business is it of ‘Mythical Anecdotal Man’, cited by leading politicians to justify their governance over us, what I ingest, inhale, smoke, drink, eat  or do with my life so long as it does not do harm to others."

Maybe it is time for a smaller government, a government which does not respond to the dictat of tabloids, of banks, of corporate vested interests and which trusts people more to make their own decisions.  In the case of drugs, would it be such a terrible idea to address the drugs war by legalising drugs?  They may just reduce crime, reduce over regulation of people, raise additional revenue,  cut prison costs, allow police to be used to deal with the remaining crimes which worry people (much burglary and street crime may well be reduced as a result)  and trust people to make their own decisions.

Will any mainstream political party have the courage to trust people more and regulate less – and return to libertarian principles – by no means a monopoly of the Libertarians?  That is the thing about libertarians – they tend  to be tolerant of political views other than their own in so far as necessary government is concerned.

Jeremy Bentham had a theory of libertarianism… he called it a felicific calculus. It is worth looking at.

Rive Gauche: Spin and rioting Archbishops….

By charonqc



While not riveting, nor particularly sophisticated in terms of deep content, I enjoyed watching the Leader debate last night – and watching the spinners proclaiming on Twitter every few minutes that ‘their man’ had won. The spinning  started but two minutes in and continued relentlessly until the end when the face of Police, Camera, Action (who nearly appeared on his own show for drink driving some years back), Alistair Stewart, proclaimed how disappointed we all were that it had come to an end.  Clegg was the first big surprise.  He came over rather well.  I had to telephone NHS Direct several times to check that I did not have the symptoms of Lib-Demitis.  I was reassured that I was in no danger of developing the full blown ‘condition’. Brown, of course, was expected to perform badly in front of an audience of humans – however regulated, so no big disappointment then.  He did have a couple of moments of involuntary YouTube rictus.

I did think that the ITV coverage was poor. PC Stewart, who promised to be a policeman if the leaders lied, barked at the leaders off camera and did little else… perhaps it was in the rules that he wasn’t allowed to? On to the next two debates…. Will Gordon and Dave be up to the mark next time?



Lawyers reject calls for Christian-sensitive judges

• Critics say hand-picked panel would set dangerous precedent
• Ex-archbishop wades into row over rights of Christians at work

The Guardian reports: “Attempts to have religious rights cases heard by hand-picked judges would set a dangerous precedent, lawyers said, amid mounting unrest about legal clashes between religious representatives and equality rights campaigners. Calls for a dedicated panel of judges with a “proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues” today gained momentum, after a former archbishop of Canterbury gave his support to a case on discrimination in the workplace.Lord Carey of Clifton made the comments in a witness statement in an appeal brought today by Gary McFarlane, a relationship counsellor from Bristol.”

I did read a report in the press yesterday that Lord Carey, the former Archbishop, was calling for ‘civil unrest’…. an idea so preposterous that it conjured up surreal images in my Rioja filled mind last night of the faithful chucking fish and bread loaves at the Downing Street gates and then morphed into images of Archbishops rioting in Trafalgar Square.  I really must have a word with my Rioja dealer.



Back later with something more sensible… perhaps. Enjoy Ash from Iceland Friday.

Noli me tangere: why you can’t arrest the Pope

Discussed this for a podcast with Carl Gardner the other day… his EXCELLENT article on this subject is well worth reading.

Brave new world

Public Access to the Bar, by which members of the public can instruct barristers direct for legal advice and representation, has just received a significant shot in the arm. The Legal Services Commission has now agreed to remove the last of the unhelpful and unworkable restrictions on what a barrister may or may not do. With a few minor exceptions, barristers can now enjoy a level playing field when competing with solicitors.

In truth, solicitors have only themselves to blame for the popularity of public access work. Some years ago, they broke the monopoly of the Bar over exclusive rights of audience in the higher courts, claiming that this monopoly discriminated against them and obliged their clients to pay twice where Counsel had to be instructed. Far better, they argued implausibly, if solicitors could offer a ‘cradle to grave’ service, and in no time at all, they were popping up all over the place, grappling with the complexities of evidence and procedure and stretching the patience of the judiciary to breaking point.

Law Review: Arrest the Pope?, Gold diggers, and Baroness Scotland vindicated

By charonqc

The news at the weekend that British national atheist Professor Richard Dawkin is planning to arrest the Pope caught my attention. I commented on this in my weekly ‘Postcard’ yesterday.

What bloggers need to know about defamation

A useful article: “This is a guest post by barrister James Tumbridge (pic right) following a report by Iain Dale highlighting the difficulties which Labour blogger Alex Hilton (pic left) faces. It is a cautionary tale for us all…..”

The election campaign is under way and is settling in to be unpleasant and dirty. Pundit and commentator  Mark Pack had this wonderful extract from the Labour Manifesto from 2005.  It needs no further comment.


Plan to end ‘gold digger’ divorces

The Times reports: “ONE of Britain’s leading family lawyers, Baroness Deech, says that assets built up before a marriage should be excluded from divorce settlements. Deech, the chairwoman of the Bar Standards Board, said the country should adopt European-style divorce laws to bring an end to bitter and expensive legal battles and to deter “gold diggers” from marrying for money. Under the proposed overhaul, only assets — including cash and property —acquired during the marriage would be subject to the divorce settlement. Individually owned or inherited assets would be protected.”

While David Cameron is proposing to strengthen the family with a £150 tax bonus and they say that Labour makes it more profitable to get divorced, Family lawyers will, possibly, be perturbed by Baroness Deech’s latest cunning plan. I remain of the view, from a secularist stance, that the State shouldn’t be involved in marital arrangements between consenting adults and certainly we should not have to have judges being involved in dissolving such relationships. I can see absolutely no sensible reason why two adults cannot make whatever arrangements appeal to them without interference. If they have children, it is not unreasonable that the judiciary should ensure that the interests of the children are protected.  But…there we are…as I have said on many occasions, I am not a family lawyer.  I specialise in Contract and Contract law is more than capable of addressing disputes between individuals at to what they have agreed.  It matters not what I think … the State will go on interfering for the forseeable future.

Illegal migrant found guilty of conning law chief Baroness Scotland over job

Baroness Scotland, the attorney-general, has been vindicated by a jury who convicted her cleaner last week of fraud.  I am not sure if we have the answer yet to the perfectly reasonable question put by commenters if Baroness Scotland paid Tax and NI on her cleaner’s wages. This is a matter between her and HM Revenue & Customs and they, no doubt, are on top of the matter. The Times has the story.

Some people are never satisfied.  The jury has found the cleaner guilty. The ravening horde on The Times Comments section are, however, not satisfied.

A selection of negative comments for your delectation and delight…

john papi wrote:
Thank you Moya Ashfield. They should hang the jury!!
S de Wolfe wrote:
‘Baroness Scotland of Asthal’….!!! sorry, but that’s too ridiculous. The rest is irrelevant.

I suspect that S de Wolfe won’t be giving up the day job to become a stand up comedian.
Richard Prior wrote:
One person’s word against another. Is this justice. Socialist justice maybe.
And finally… a bit of that very quiet, but determined, Tory… Iain Duncan Smith…who should never be underestimated.

Why BA and Unite want the strike to continue

It’s April, and the BA cabin crew dispute continues.

Beyond what the parties are saying about how they REALLY want to settle the dispute, there are some clear factors that are keeping them in conflict mode.

It is evident that both BA and Unite are not really motivated in trying to settle the dispute.

How can I be certain of this?

The first glaring reason for this is the forum for trying to settle. The actual parties seem to be in permanent but broken negotiation. When the parties do negotiate, they are both engaged in leaking to the press – revealing their game plans. This is hardly supportive to achieving settlement.

Law Review: Superinjunctions, libel, discrimination and the digital economy bill

By charonqc

Superinjunctions inquiry to start work next month

Guardian: Committee to mount unprecedented investigation into controversial superinjunctions which restrict press freedom

“Superinjunctions are to be examined by a powerful committee of judges and lawyers, it was announced today, after months of speculation about the impact of the legal restrictions on press freedom.

The committee, which begins meeting next month, represents an unprecedented investigation of the controversial measures, which force journalists to keep both information and the existence of an injunction secret.

Superinjunctions have been blamed for silencing the press partly because of the cost of attempting to have them overturned. There is currently no information about the extent to which they have been used against the media, although a series of high-profile cases, including the Guardian’s attempt to report about the dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast involving the oil trading company Trafigura, led to concern about their use.”

Amusingly, there appears to be widespread ignorance of superinjunctions and their use.  Even Mr Justice Eady, leading libel judge, recently overturned by the Court of Appeal in BCA v Dr Singh,  said he was unaware of them but did admit to issuing them… possibly. How could one not know if one has issued a super injunction? Bizarre… see below. I am very happy to be advised by practitioners who have experience of applying for superinjunctions on this narrow point.

The Guardian reports: “I had never heard the term 'super injunction’ until it was mentioned in parliament,” Eady said, speaking at City University. “I was not conscious I had ever granted one, but I might have.”

Without wishing to appear too simple minded – there is probably a very good reason superinjunctions are not well known – that is the purpose of a superinjunction, so that no-one knows that an injunction has even been granted.  Record are not, apparently, kept. There is an element of a Mad Hatter’s Tea Party about all this and it is definitely time to get deep analysis and discussion into the reform process.

Thankfully, while Tom Watson blocks libel reform on the grounds that Parliament needs more time (Infra), the Court of Appeal has stepped in to bring a degree of sanity into libel proceedings in BCA v Dr Singh. Having the use of super injunctions examined by people who actually know what they are talking about – even better, with no vested interest in them – can only be a good thing.

Jack of Kent, the well known law blogger, has a good post on libel reform and why Tom Watson is wrong. I don’t actually think that Tom Watson was wrong to as for more time.  It is important to get legislation right – but reform must come, and I think it is on the way.  Freedom of a responsible press is absolutely vital for democracy and objective and reasoned criticism of corporate and other public activity is absolutely vital to the health of our intellectual capital.

Crucifix ban nurse Shirley Chaplin loses NHS discrimination case

The Times reports: “A Christian nurse who refused to remove a crucifix at work has lost her claim for discrimination after an employment tribunal panel ruled that she should have reached a compromise with her hospital employers. Shirley Chaplin, 54, suggested that her
religious beliefs would be “violated” if she took off the necklace because she felt that she was being asked to hide her faith. She had the support of a number of bishops who claim that Christians are being persecuted in an increasingly secular society. The Archbishop of Canterbury has also criticised a “wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness” that prevents people from wearing religious symbols at work. John Hollow, the tribunal chairman, ruled that the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital had acted reasonably in trying to reach a compromise. It had argued that the objection to the crucifix, which Mrs Chaplin, from Kenn, near Exeter, had worn for 30 years, was based on health and safety concerns about patients grabbing the necklace, not religion.”

For my part, this ruling is a step forward in common sense and good application of law. Where a religious symbol or form of dress  interferes with the ability of the wearer to do a job safely or goes counter to the reasonable and lawful contractual requirements of an employer, is it so unreasonable to ban the use of such symbols? I can’t, personally, see much harm in  a person being permitted to broadcast their faith in situations where safety is not compromised – or at work, generally, but that is a matter, in a work situation, between employer and employee contractually. We saw recently how a pharmacist was able  to plead that fulfilling prescriptions for contraception offended religious beliefs. Such action impacts on the public who are entitled to be provided with prescriptions and it should not be for an individual, no matter what their beliefs, to deny such right. These individuals should seek other employment where their religious beliefs do not impact on the public.   If an employer has a ‘uniform code’, is it so unreasonable to require compliance with that code to ensure corporate branding consistency?  Employees are not, after all, compelled to work for a particular employer. On the other side of the coin, I agree fully with those who found Chris Grayling’s remarks that B&B owners should be able to refuse entry to gays offensive.  If a B&B owner opens his or her house to the public – they must comply with the law and not discriminate on ground of sexual orientation.

Controversial elements of the Digital Economy Bill will face further scrutiny even if the bill is passed later, Commons Leader Harriet Harman has said.

BBC: Part of the bill, which refers to how copyright holders can block access to websites hosting pirated content, will be subject to further consultation. Several MPs called for the whole bill to be delayed until after the election.

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Services Commission have today outlined new steps that aim to rebalance the legal aid budget, reduce costs and increase value for money for legal aid.

The reforms are outlined within the government’s response to the consultations on the advocates graduated fees scheme and very high cost cases (VHCCs) and are designed to
sustain the legal aid budget, ensure that we focus criminal legal aid spending effectively and support other measures introduced to address wider issues on controlling public finances. The reforms are intended to make better use of the criminal legal aid budget and include changes that rationalise payment structures. The government has decided not to take the option of a one-off cut of 17.9% to advocates graduated fees. Instead the reforms include the alternative option consulted on, of a staged reduction over three years of 4.5% each year (a total reduction of 13.5%) in advocates graduated fees, coupled with extending AGFS to cases due to last up to 60 days. The funding order to make these changes is being laid before Parliament today. The first of the staged reductions will come into effect on 27 April 2010, and the extension to 60-day cases on 14 July 2010.

Ministry of Justice

Scramble to save Bills at end of parliament.

The Independent: Moves to stage a referendum on scrapping the first-past-the-post electoral system have been abandoned as the parties wrangle over legislation to be rushed into law ahead of the general election. The Government has also dropped proposals to phase out the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. With Parliament due to be dissolved next Monday, the plans fell victim to the squeeze on Commons time.

It did not take long….

By charonqc

Predictably, it did not take long before a copper (or in this case an ex-copper who quit or had to quit?), popped up to tell us all that it is time to have Judge only trials. No doubt, those who wish to be Home Secretary or Secretary of State for Justice / Lord Chancellor on May 7th will be salivating at the prospect… CUT (costs) and BURN (Villains).

Andy Hayman was Assistant Commissioner for Special Operations at the Metropolitan Police. He has managed to persuade The Times to give him some air time – perhaps it was a quiet news day? – to tell us….

Twelve good men no longer guarantee truth

As crime gets more sophisticated, sometimes the jury system will not be able to cope.

Hayman makes some ‘apparently’ perfectly reasonable – if rather well known points… about the length and complexity of cases citing a rather bizarre illustration…

"In one case, an expert investigator told me that if they had printed off the relevant data from the confiscated hard drives you could have physically filled the 13 floors of New Scotland Yard."

So? Some cases may well be complex – is that a reason to chop the jury? He also tells us that unless we have served on a jury  we cannot possibly know how difficult it is and that he has spoken to a lot of jurors..."most describe mixed feelings when the summoning letter arrives in the post. They feel proud to have a chance to fulfil their public duty but also dread being selected for a case that may mean a year swallowed up, poring over complex, and in some cases, distressing evidence.”

I can only assume that Mr Hayman has served on a jury in such a complex trial and he appears to be unaware of the rule that Jurors are not supposed to discuss what happens in the jury room with anyone… or has that gone by the board since those dark distant days when Professor Smith and Professor Griew wrote about Criminal Law in their respective textbooks? I cannot imagine that he was talking to jurors before the trial… well… perhaps such is imaginable but, one assumes, did not happen.

I repeat … I am not a criminal lawyer – but the fair number of criminal lawyers I have spoken to are very much in favour of the jury.  Certainly, there is the well known aphorism that if you are innocent go for trial by judge alone and if guilty…try your luck in front of the jury.. but that is an aphorism and not a factual observation of scientific study supported by clear evidence.

I’m with the criminal law experts on this.  We have to retain trial by jury, we have to watch mission creep and we certainly do not need to hear from policemen who should have no part in the criminal justice system following investigation and arrest.

We are not a Stasi East German style state yet…despite the best endeavours, it would seem, of some on both the left and right…. and we certainly do not want to become one.