The Growing Prevalence of Prevalence - 25/05/16

It's a case law episode for this Bite, which you can listen to right here.

First, R v Bondzie.  Ever wondered why the Crown has taken to serving a statement that just tells you that drug dealing is bad?  Here's why they do it; what effect it could have on sentence; what they need to do to give it an effect and why their efforts to date have been generally pointless and probably damaging to their own aims.

Then two quickies: R v Bala, which upholds marriage in all its forms and R v Hussain, in which the Court of Appeal confirms that you can't second-guess a jury.

The Law Commission has reported on its sentencing code project.  If you want to read more you can do so here.

Let us know whether you prefer the show like this or if you'd prefer to go back to listening to us drinking wine and eating cake.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Sexual Communications - 17/05/16

Listen to this week's show right here.

This week, Kirstin examines the little heard of s.67 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which creates a new offence of sexual communication with a child.  

What is it?

What does it cover?

What does the Crown have to prove?

What's the maximum sentence?

And the perennial Northpod Law favourite, "Couldn't you just use the offences already on the statute books?"  

Actually, that last one might have a bit of a surprising answer - although no doubt Ben wouldn't agree.​

Let us know if you like the new "Bites" format (shorter and with less wine and cake) or if you are longing for a return to our longer format. If you are a law student, we'd be really grateful if you would spread the news of our show's return around your law school friends. Also, get in touch. We'd love to hear from you.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Defending Rob Titchner - 06/05/16

This week Kirstin's going through s.76 Serious Crime Act 2015.  It deals with coercive control - or domestic violence that's not that physical.  We use the scandalous plot of "The Archers" to briefly explain what can make up the background to these new cases.

Take a listen right here.

Then we go through the section to look at who can and can't be guilty of the offence and where the problems might lie in making it stick where there are no other offences.  Is this just a way of getting 5 years for common assault?

We go on to look at the practicalities involved for a trial - problems the prosecution will face and the holes that might be worth poking at if you're defending.


Let us know if you like the new "Bites" format (shorter and with less wine and cake) or if you are longing for a return to our longer format. If you are a law student, we'd be really grateful if you would spread the news of our show's return around your law school friends. Also, get in touch. We'd love to hear from you.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!