Friday, 30 August 2013

S09E06 - Forced Marriages

A cake and bourbon show with no cake.  Or bourbon.  Or Ben.  Or Jonathan.

What we do have though is an in depth look at the work of the family courts of England and Wales with a particular focus on the increasingly common issue of forced marriages.

Have a listen right here.

Joining Kirstin this week (actually in Podcast Towers for a change!) is Joseph Lynch.  He is a family law specialist whose work mainly involves public law cases - where a local authority is seeking to remove the child from the custody of the parents.

Joe can be contacted via his chambers, Central Chambers.

We will be back in <cough> six weeks with a new series.  Series 10 is quite likely to end with a party.  What do you say?  Fancy joining us for a few sneaky drinks at a live show?  Let us know on the Twitter, Google+, email or on 0161 408 5037

Some other stories for which we did not have time this week:

Grayling turns on yet another “valued partner”. Serco this time.

...but refuses to back down on Legal Aid destruction.

Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Orders or Suspected sex offender restraining orders
Jonathan Rayner, writing in the Law Society Gazette, quotes Law Society criminal law committee chair Richard Atkinson told me: ‘It is a dangerous move to take away the requirement for a conviction to make a restrictive order, not least because the order will be interpreted as proof that you committed the offence and that you are indeed a paedophile.
‘Also, if you resort to litigation to resist the restrictions, you are effectively telling the prosecution in advance how you intend to conduct your defence – giving the prosecution two bites of the cherry.’

Also, keep a lookout for a new law-based podcast, coming soon on the Northpod network of podcasts.  Don't worry as we will add the new show to your podcast feed automatically when it's available so you don't miss out.

Friday, 23 August 2013

S09E05 - A Conventional Episode

Two conventions this week - the Hague and the Refugee.  You can listen here.

Jonathan Holt and Dan Bunting discuss s.31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which gives special criminal defences to asylum seekers.

You can follow Dan and his musings at Dan Bunting a life in the bus lane.  uk criminal law blog and of course, on the Twitter @danbunting.

The case that sparked the discussion is here

Then we go on to discuss In the Matter of an application by Her Majesty's Solicitor General for the committal to prison of Jennifer Marie Jones for alleged contempt of court.  A case which highlights the need for precision when drafting an order with a penal notice. 

It considers whether you commit a breach if you fail to do something after the time you ought to have done it, why you need to tell someone to do something by four days after you want it doing and revisits who can bring contempt proceedings.  It's a very good place to start if you ever need to research contempt!

Cake and Bourbon Show next week - don't miss it!

Friday, 16 August 2013

S09E04 - Sticky Fingers

Listen here!

This week Ben,Kirstin and Jonathan are joined by the lovely Lyndon Harris, barrister, blogger and Banks on Sentencing editor.

Our discussion is all about imaginative approaches to theft offences.  First we look at Professor Andrew Ashworth's Howard League paper which suggests that Theft should not incur a prison sentence, then Lyndon gives broad support to the idea of giving shop-lifters food vouchers.  Jonathan Holt considers proposals for making Magistrates impose more custodial sentences and worries about the demise of more and more
Magistrates' courts in which to issue those sentences.

Finally we turn away from Criminal Law and look at two Immigration Law cases implimenting the ruling in Zambrano.

Update on the so-called “sexual predator” case

No Prison for Pilferers

Stoke reward shoplifters with food vouchers

Magistrates to get a power-up - but where will they use it?

MA and SM (Zambrano: EU children outside EU) Iran [2013] UKUT 00380 (IAC)

Friday, 9 August 2013

S09E03 - Mind Your Language?

This week's show (listen here) is brought to you courtesy of predatory comments made at Snaresbrook Crown Court and via Blackstones Criminal Law July Updater.

Ben talks to Kate Hammond, former CPS Crown Advocate and to Keith Jones, both Barristers in Private Practice at Central Chambers in Manchester. They discuss the recent and much publicised use of the term "sexual predator" by Prosecuting Counsel, in relation to a 13-year-old victim.

Kirstin joins Ben then to go through some interesting cases with differing bizarreness rating.  We answer the questions:
1. Whether it matters if you thought you were indulging in sex with a girl or a boy- R v McNally
2. Whether you can do an act which intimidates without intimidating - R v ZN
3. What is the exact time the Defence are aware of a witness for the purpose of witness notification?
                                                                                                                            - Re Joseph Hill and Co
4. Whether the Jury need to know for what a SOPO was imposed. - Sheikh [2013] EWCA Crim 907
5. When is the prosecution allowed to rely on their witness being a good egg? - R v Lodge

If you'd like to view the vulnerable witness handling video please click here.

And if you're following the 13-year-old case controversy and have run out of reading matter you might find some new stuff in this lot:

News articles:

CPS guidance:

Pressure Group against “ostensible consent” as a concept:

Friday, 2 August 2013

S09E02 Causation, Contempt, Confiscation

You can listen to the episode here.  Note there is some swearing in this episode.
This week we let Jonathan Holt out of the dungeon and we discuss a host of case law.

First up is the current news favourite AG v Davey and AG v Beard 2 jurors found guilty of contempt of court via Facebook and internet research.

Then we look at who can and cannot bring committal proceedings against those in breach of Forced Marriage Prevention Orders with a recent High Court Case.

Ben runs us through some confiscation cases R v Sale and R v Morgan at whirlwind speed.

And finally Kirstin tells us about the recent Supreme Court Case R v Hughes.

If you want to look at the new practice guidence in regard to in private committals for contempt of court you can find them here and the supplement here.


Subscribe to our Newsletter

Contact our Support

Email us: