Google+
Showing posts with label Ben Knight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ben Knight. Show all posts

Sunday, 5 October 2014

S14E03 - Rights and Wrong'uns

You can listen to this week's show right here.

This week's show is about the Tory plan to abolish the Human Rights Act and to put England and Wales (though not Scotland or NI, of course) outside of the direct constraints of International Human Rights law.

It's a good job that Ben is still barely croaking otherwise this would no doubt have been an angry rant full of vitriol about our Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor.  Surely Kirstin will be far more calm about it...

Of course, you might want to balance the Tory slandering of the Act and the ECHR against a few examples of what the law has meant for us.

For a great collection of what to read about this to know more on both sides of the argument, please see the excellent compendium put together by David Allen Green.

Not only that but it has been a little while since we heard what's going on in the world of immigration law.  There has been a report about the Home Office and its ability to do its job.  Spoilers, government subcontractors are not exactly thrilling us with their efficiency.  Jonathan Holt explains all.  Visit Bail For Immigration Detainees and read all about it.

Next week should be a little more chatty assuming none of contract any other horrible illnesses.  


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!

Friday, 9 May 2014

S12E06 - The Results Are In...


The cake and bourbon show is upon us again.  Our 72nd episode can be heard right here.

In this week's show, we take a look at Sir Bill Jeffrey's review of independent criminal advocacy in England and Wales.  It may be reopening an old front in the war between barristers and HCAs but the conclusions give considerable grounds for taking stock of the effects of all the reforms over the last 10 years.  They also present a potentially chilling view of the future for anyone who fears change.  Find the full report in the links below - along with the responses by the Bar Council and Law Society.

The Land Registry might be next in terms of selling the family silver - at the very least, there are problems with the reform plans for the Keepers of the Plans.

A pretty important costs case which confirms that the CPS and police cannot just blame each other to avoid costs orders and, more importantly, SNAFU is not a defence and neither is simple mistake.  You're going to want to bookmark this one.  The link is polite.

We also take a quick scoot the rest of this week's legal news and a couple of other cases.  Take a listen and find the links below.

PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we come to the end of 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.


LINKS:

The review of independent criminal advocacy in England and Wales by Sir Bill Jeffrey has been published.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/jeffrey-review/jeffrey-review-criminal-advocacy.pdf
Bar Council response: http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media-centre/news-and-press-releases/2014/may/bar-council-to-consider-jeffrey-report-into-criminal-advocacy
Law Society response: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/press-releases/law-society-responds-to-jeffrey-report-on-criminal-advocacy/

Land Registry
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/legal-action-threat-over-land-registry-plan/5041123.article

R (ex. p. Singh v Ealing Mags and CPS)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/1443.html

4 in 10 lawyers suggest you look elsewhere for a career… but who was asked?
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/dont-choose-law-as-career-say-4-in-10-lawyers/5041120.article 

Biometric data and crime report case:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/585.html

Prison Governors’ Association say it’s getting to “tipping point” as Grayling carries on regardless.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/05/07/prison-governors-grayling-s-regime-is-driving-us-to-tipping

Apple v Samsung - the results are in.  Kinda:
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2014/05/05/248430.htm
http://bgr.com/2014/04/23/2014-apple-vs-samsung-lawsuit-google/


Johnny Foreigner to be denied legal aid by Lord Chancellor - but is he relying on nonsense figures?  Never!  (But even the press can’t decide if it’s £3m or £10m):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10812723/No-more-legal-aid-for-foreigners-to-sue-MoD-says-Chris-Grayling.html
Or a more balanced piece from the Daily Mail (!?!?)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2621672/War-crimes-lawyers-specialise-suing-serving-soliders-received-10MILLION-legal-aid-three-years.html

AND FINALLY…
A bit of fun: Personal Injury and the ambulance-chasers of yesteryear.  Aviva’s archives of claims reveal that we were a compo-culture country long before the Yanks got involved!
http://injuryclaimsnationwide.co.uk/article/history-of-injury-claim?src=tab

That’s a wrap for series 12

Friday, 25 April 2014

S12E04 - All Change! No Change!

On this week's show, which you can listen to by clicking these very words, Ben and Kirstin talk their way through the so-called "revolution" in the family courts.

It is something of an oddity that reforms that actually do very little in terms of changing the status quo and, instead, assume that lawyers have been doing it wrong for all of this time, should be heralded as a "revolution" by a political judge.  Check out the government hype in the links below.

Not content with having a pop at the President of the Family Division's self-congratulation, Ben finds the High Court utterly objectionable as it gives a litigant in person a raw deal and seems to object to justice being done.

Knife crime guidelines get the sharp tongue of Kirstin as we celebrate another Court of Appeal decision that is a little lacking in purpose.

In addition, we have a little look at the cost of getting judicial review wrong - or rather, not turning to the silver bullet that is ADR.

Yes, you may be able to tell that we are feeling more than a little snarky this week.  It might pass.  It might not.

Links:

Law students in divorce courts and putting the children first.
Sir James Munby’s Oscar Speech: http://flba.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014view11-2.doc.docx
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610014/Law-students-drafted-help-resolve-divorce-cases-shake-family-justice-system.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/23/law-studentstrusted-counselling-divorcing-couples_n_5197804.html
http://www.adjacentgovernment.co.uk/local-government-news/family-justice-reforms-put-childrens-need-first/
http://www.tayloremmet.co.uk/blogs/new-family-court/
THINK OF THE CHILDREN (or “How to use children to push a government austerity agenda" video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA99gui758I
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217343/family-justice-review-final-report.pdf

Knife crime guidance.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2014/747.html

The cost of getting it wrong: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/11l97.html

Medical excuses and litigants in person getting steamrollered.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/332.html

Friday, 18 April 2014

S12E03 - A Rare Thing Indeed!

On this week's show, which you can hear by clicking here, we are joined by lap-dancer-turned-law-student, Vanessa Knowles to talk about how a law student making good money from being very visible online might encounter problems in a future career.  It turns out things are not as bleak as you might think.

We talk about how not to deal with the Court of Appeal when it comes to having a pop at a client's previous lawyers and how the Court uses its rarely-wielded power to dismiss a case without a hearing of any sort.

We look at a rarely-used power to have a witness deposed - US-style!  Is it about to be used more often after being on the statute books for many years?

We also take a look at the Legal Aid position in relation to awkward forensic experts holding on to evidence until a fee is paid by defence lawyers.  No spoilers, but it turns out that things are not quite as they seem.

All of that and we have a quick glance at the sad plight of Nigel Evans MP, the PDS and Nick "Mr Loophole" Freeman.

Check out the links below for the sources used and for additional material we thought you might like to read.

Have a good Easter break.

The links:


No charge allowed for prosecution expert labs to show all to the defence - Keith Borer Consultants make a FOI request to the Forensic Regulator.



You have an appointment to be deposed!



£3,000 for a splinter in the bum.

Law student stripper
http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/as-many-as-a-third-of-women-strippers-are-students-trying-to-pay-for-their-education-9158808.html

and for lawyers already working at the CPS:
and those BPP boys are in demand (or they were before the agency went belly-up):
In case you’re wondering what that test is for solicitors, here it is: http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/suitabilitytest/content.page


Twitter coverage


The PDS


Nick Freeman and the ASA. 

Friday, 4 April 2014

S12E01 - Proposals


Listen Here

Welcome back.  It's the glorious Twelfth!

In week one, we talk to Family Barrister Joe Lynch about the proposed changes to the child cruelty laws to add in emotional abuse.  Should it be done?  Can it be done?  How's it done in the rest of the world?  The Action for Children report can be found here


We exclusively reveal how much the Lord Chancellor's car costs - STOP PRESS!!

And we confuse you completely with the proposed theft sentencing guidelines - don't forget to engage with the consultation to try at least to make it less complicated.  You can read about it, confuse yourself and contribute here.

Your extra reading material can be found here (POCA Case) and here (Solicitor)

Nice to have you back.

Thursday, 30 January 2014

S11E04 - Of Interest to the Public

Ben and Jonathan get to grips with some matters of public importance this week's show


First up is a look at the guidance (in force from February 2014) on the publication of decisions of the family courts and the Court of Protection.  There are some interesting questions raised about how this is going to work and who is paying for it.  

Either way, you'll have to know about this if you work in either of these areas of law and the public may well find the reality of these cases far more challenging than the abstract way in which they are reported at present.

We move on to the case of the "Iceland Three".  This story was all over social media this week.  This was the case of three men who faced prosecution for taking food from a skip at a London branch of London.  There was outrage and a change in CPS approach but, once you factor-in other information that appeared in later reports, did the CPS make the right call or were they duped by the publicity?


Then onto our favourite [redacted for legal purposes], Theresa May.  She has been calling for some powers that, if they were to be used against convicted terrorists, you might think were pretty obvious, but that's not quite what she wants.  We look at the terrible misreporting of this case by almost all UK media.  There is some very scary devil in the detail and Ben issues a personal thanks to his MP, Hazel Blears, for being one of the 297 MPs who played politics with something the UN think is fundamental to a person's very being.


As always, there is stuff that we didn't get to this week.  Please see the show notes below for the links to those stories and for all of the articles for the above.


We'll be back next week when hopefully Kirstin will be back with us and Mr Kipling will have sent us some cake.  Or Iceland might have sent us a prawn ring.  Let's hope it's the former.

You can listen to show by clicking right here but, of course, we'd prefer that you subscribed on iTunes or via Google Play Store or via any good podcatcher app on your phone/tablet.  Ben from Northpod Law particularly recommends this one for Android and iOS.
You can also find us on Stitcher and soon on TuneIn.

Links:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17150054

- The public will get to peer at the decisions of the Family courts and the Court of Protection under the new transparency guidance.
- Skipping case - in the public interest until the public gets interested.
CPS decision (as reported in Indie) PLUS the shades of grey appear:
Iceland 2nd statement:
- Theresa May and the race to the bottom on Immigration toughness leads to 11th-hour amendment to bill to include right to strip naturalised Brits of their nationality.
What does ILPA say? They say not within scope.
Blog:
Not just “terrorism suspects” or “terrorists” at all.  Read the section (at page 1651):
Actual reasons for Home Sec simply to be satisfied of are:
Home Sec satisfied that it is conducive to the public good because that person has conducted himself in such a manner that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.  
AND if it’s a decision taken
then there will be no public information as to why the decision has been made and there will be no right of appeal.
Not just May, of course.  100 MPs support this, including Hazel Blears.
Further reading/”No time for” stories
- 17 y.o. death at YOI Wetherby
- Even those terps who scabbed and went to work for Capita are now calling for a boycott.  This is because Capita has finally scrapped Tier 2/3 terps and so the power is now in the hands of the Tier 1s.
Premier League IP case:
But, in Feb 2012

Friday, 24 January 2014

S11E03 - Dangerously Out Of Control

You can listen to show by clicking right here but, of course, we'd prefer that you subscribed on iTunes or via Google Play Store or via any good podcatcher app on your phone/tablet.  Ben from Northpod Law particularly recommends this one for Android and iOS.

The Court of Appeal recently took the opportunity to set straight a peculiarity in the law that has existed since 1991.  Most criminal lawyers will have dealt with the scenario with which the court was concerned and the Court of Appeal have used their powers of statutory interpretation to fix what most would see as a terribly unfair and poorly-drafted bit of legislation: the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

It had appeared, until recently, that s.3(1) of the 1991 Act had created an offence whereby you could go to prison for up to two years even if you did nothing wrong.  It is unlikely that this case will be overturned any time soon as it needed fixing but see what you think about it.

The case and some other reading material are below.

Then we move on to our second case of the week; in fact, it's one of Mr Knight's.

The appeal against sentence of Connor Martin was described as an exceptional case by the Court of Appeal because it dealt with the unusual scenario of a Crown Court Judge giving an express indication of what sentence would be imposed after a Newton hearing and then imposing a higher sentence.  The case was regarding legitimate expectation and gives the strongest indication that judges should never give such indications prior to the decision being taken to hold a Newton hearing.  

We do have a quick look at the QASA judicial review decision of the High Court but it contained few surprises.  We promised in the show that we would give you a link to a good set of reactions to the decision.  It is in the links below.



Links
A very important precedent has been set in Dangerous Dogs cases.  The strict liability offence of having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place has just had a much-needed caveat added to it by the Court of Appeal.



Friday, 10 January 2014

S11E01 - The Truth vs A Good Story


Welcome to Series 11 of Northpod Law.

You can listen to show by clicking right here but, of course, we'd prefer that you subscribed on iTunes or via Google Play Store or via any good podcatcher app on your phone/tablet.  Ben from Northpod Law particularly recommends this one for Android and iOS.

This week, we talk about the statistics on sentencing and how most of what you hear about them is nonsense.  We say "told ya so" about IPNAs after the House of Lords gives the Government a bloody nose.

We look at the actual findings of the Mark Duggan inquest jury (as opposed to the claptrap spouted by many a public figure this week).

We take a look through the hits and misses of the strike action (oops we used the S word) on 6th January and call out the scabs.  We can find many positives in this though.

Last but not least, Jonathan takes us on a tour of the recent decision on Gulshan in which the wheels get a bit wobbly when free-wheeling around article 8.

Links are below, folks.

Whilst we were off air:
- thanks to UKCLBP - and see their very good piece on the sentencing statistics that have been misreported everywhere.
http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/01/08/criminal-justice-statistics-and-politicians-talking-rubbish/ 

- IPNAs a no-no
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25648019

- Mark Duggan inquest - jury’s actual conclusions
http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf

- Vote of no confidence in Law Soc management - http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/stories/special-general-meeting-vote-results/

- 6th Jan 2014 - a partial success - sols hang heads in shame - says Bill Waddington (CLSA)
http://www.clsa.co.uk/index.php?q=And-so-the-bells-have-rung-the-old-year-out-and-the-New-Year-in.

Immigration case
Full Case: Gulshan (Article 8 – new Rules – correct approach) [2013] UKUT 640 (IAC)
 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2013/%5B2013%5D_UKUT_640_iac.html
Commentary: http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2014/01/08/gulshan-article-8-new-rules-correct-approach-2013-ukut-640-iac/#more-12059

Friday, 22 November 2013

S10E06 - Rallying The Troops

Listen to the show here.

This week we have ventured down South with the rest of the Bar to attend the Criminal Bar Association's conference to fight for the Criminal Justice System and for the very future of the Independent Criminal Bar.

We have plucked out some highlights of what was a lively event featuring some of the best advocates of the cause.  This episode is slightly longer than usual but we thought you might appreciate hearing what you missed if you were not able to be there.

You may have gathered that the resolutions proposed at this event were all passed unanimously which, given that there were delegates of 100% of the chambers undertaking criminal legal aid work is really saying something.

The speakers and resolutions of the day included Hannah Kinch of the Young Barristers' Association in support of the resolution that the conference resolves to support the young Bar.

The conference heard from (as will you) Jaime Hamilton and Peter Joyce in relation to the cuts in scope of legal aid and the speaking to the resolution that the conference deplores the contemptuous way in which the publically-funded Bar is treated.

Paul Harris, a solicitor representing the CLSA and LCLSA, demonstrated that the Law Society may be contemptuous of its own members' views on legal aid but the CLSA and LCLSA most definitely not.  He also talks of unity and the Criminal Lawyers United pledge which all chambers and firms should sign.

The conference heard from Michael Turner QC, Max Hill QC and Nigel Lithman QC on the politics of the battle to save legal aid and to maintain a justice system not just fit for purpose but fit for Britain.  Max Hill QC dealt with the misleading approach adopted by the Ministry of Justice over the figures and Nigel Lithman QC spoke to the resolution that VHCC work will not be accepted by the Bar or solicitors under the new proposed fee scheme.

Mark George QC (who received the only standing ovation of the day) and Russell Fraser dealt with calls for days of action when no criminal lawyers would undertake work in magistrates' courts or Crown courts.

The tanks are rolling, it seems.  Whilst we are off air, Des Hudson will find out if he will survive an historic vote of no confidence in him at the Law Society and no doubt there will be another salvo from Grayling and Co.

We will also see if the new fee scheme comes into effect on 2nd December and if anyone actually works under it.

Enjoy the next six weeks with our friends at UKCLB ad we'll be back in January.

Also, keep watching our Twitter feed for news of a possible live show in the not too distant future.

Thanks for listening!
Ben, Kirstin and Jonathan.

Friday, 15 November 2013

S10E05 - Getting Away With It


Have a listen here.

We've got everything from worship by cannabis to esoteric legal points here.

First - yes we're serious we have cannabis sacrifice -  a couple found not guilty on the basis that their cultivation crop was not for supply but for burning to honour Shiva.
2 takes on the same story:  Russian Times and Daily Mail

Then Ben explains for any Home Office flunkies listening, how the law works and relates to everybody, foreign or not.


Kirstin finds two cases for legal complexities junkies - read them yourselves they might be easier to follow!

An interesting defence that worked:
http://rt.com/news/cannabis-shiva-sacrifice-burn-540/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2499598/Cannabis-growers-cleared-dealing-saying-Hindu-god-Shiva.html

Foreign sex-offender gets damages for being held too long:
The story causing people to go nuts: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24917755
The actual decision of the court:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1378.html&query=saleh&method=boolean


The importance of time on “qualifying tag”:
Two things to remember:
1. The provisions under CJA 2003 in relation to time spent on remand are mandatory - even if you have a clever argument.
2.  Time spent on tag is not automatically taken into consideration and the timetable to sort it out will be adhered to from now on.  Counsel beware.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/1994.html

R v Stocker
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/1993.html


Report by NAO into MoJ reliance upon G4S and similar (or “Bears defecate in wooded areas”):
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/ministry-of-justice-relationship-with-outsourcers-under-scrutiny/5038715.article
Original report and executive summary here: http://www.nao.org.uk/report/memorandum-role-major-contractors-delivery-public-services/

So it begins. .. fraud vhcc likely to be derailed
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/nov/14/fraud-trial-threatened-barristers-reduced-rate 


The Judicial Office is seeking views on the following areas:
- How the CJC/FJC functions should be delivered  Civil justice council and family JC
- Whether the bodies should be abolished
- If the functions could be moved to the Ministry of Justice
- Whether they should be delivered by the voluntary or private sector or by a new executive agency
- Should they remain arm’s length bodies
The deadline for responses is 5pm on 25 November. The email addresses are: cjcreview@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk and: fjcreview@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk.

Grayling purposes an end to multiple cautions but the clue is in the word "simple" perhaps:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10447936/Ban-on-police-cautions-for-repeat-offenders.html

Thursday, 7 November 2013

S10E04 - Back-pats and Knock-backs



Listen to the show right here.

This week, we are taking a look at how the Probation Service are doing when it comes to looking after victims of crime when an offender is coming up for release. The MoJ thinks it's all pretty good but the report is not exactly a clean bill of health.

The High Court has to get stuck in to the issue of access to a solicitor when you are arrested in relation to terrorism.

Kirstin takes us through the objective and subjective elements of self-defence when the defendant believes that he was being threatened by evil spirits.

We take a whistlestop look at how finding money lying around might be a good thing but handing it in to police is unlikely to get you anywhere.

What happens when the prosecution appeals against a decision at Crown Court to kick a case out at half-time? Listen and learn.

All that in a jam-packed show this week.

We are very grateful to Ash Raveendran for her help on this week's show. She's out there looking for pupillage, you know...



Links

Probation Service is doing just fine with Victim Contact.


Terror law suspects must have access to solicitor at any time, High Court rules.

Defendant appealing against conviction – Whether insanely held delusion on part of defendant being attacked or threatened causing him to respond violently entitling him to acquittal on basis of reasonable self-defence.

No such thing as free money.

Successful pros appeal against finding of no case to answer.

Other stuff:

What lawyers are (not) doing in their bedrooms:

NAPO announcement of intention to work to rule:

 

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Contact our Support

Email us:

mail@northpod.co.uk