S14E04 - Running Late, Sounding Adequate

The episode that might never have happened is finally here.  You can listen right here.

What with Ben being incapacitated, Kirstin being snowed-under and Jonathan having been abducted by aliens (some of this may not be true), a big dent has been made on our otherwise reliable schedule.  We apologise unreservedly.

In this week's show, we have a look at R v Creathorne - an interesting case in which the question of how much credit ought to be given for a plea of guilty where the CPS hasn't handed-over the evidence at the time of the first hearing in the Crown Court.  This is crucial listening for lawyers and, just as much, for judges.

Whilst bemoaning the CPS's failures in the service of papers, we congratulate them on a bit of sensible legal commentary on the subject of the need for new laws.

Also, we look at judicial diversity and Kirstin takes a sideways look at a rather peculiar case from US Supreme Court about beards.

Please enjoy and we hope normal service will be resumed this week.

Links:
https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2014/2014ewcacrim500.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/07/supreme-court-religion-prisoner-beard/16856023/

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/oct/07/supreme-court-beard-hearing-justice-jokes-religious-rights

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11143699/Revenge-pornography-can-and-will-be-prosecuted-vow-CPS-lawyers.html


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!

S14E02 - Corruption

With Ben still suffering from the Dreaded Lurgy and Jonathan being AWOL, Kirstin is left to man the battlements of Northpod Towers this week.  Have a listen right here.

With all that is going in at the MoJ (for whom it has not been a good week!), we couldn't let that go by without a mention.

But before we get to that, the rather interesting case of Serious Fraud Office v Miltiades Papachristos and Dennis Kerrison.  This case concerns a legal question about amending indictments and contains some rather odd twists and turns.

All being well, we might even have a full team next week and we hope you'll join us then.

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!

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

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

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.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Guidance/transparency-in-the-family-courts-jan2014.pdf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2540976/At-victory-secrecy-courts.html

- Skipping case - in the public interest until the public gets interested.

First story: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/three-charged-vagrancy-act-food-skip-iceland

Iceland 1st response: http://about.iceland.co.uk/_assets/files/Prosecution-for-waste-food-theft-29-1-14.pdf

CPS decision (as reported in Indie) PLUS the shades of grey appear:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/iceland-food-bin-theft-case-dropped-by-cps-9094415.html

Iceland 2nd statement:

http://about.iceland.co.uk/_assets/files/Update-on-Kentish-Town-waste-food-theft-29-1-14.pdf

- 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.

http://www.ilpa.org.uk/data/resources/25742/14-01-29-Deprivation-ILPA-briefing.pdf

Blog:

http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2014/01/30/amendment-to-immigration-bill-allows-home-secretary-to-make-people-stateless/#more-12265

Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/29/theresa-may-terror-suspects-citizenship-clegg-approval

Not just “terrorism suspects” or “terrorists” at all.  Read the section (at page 1651):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0128/amend/pbc1283001m.1649-1655.html

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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/40A

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

http://www.inquest.org.uk/media/pr/serious-failures-identified-by-jury-inquest-17-year-old-ryan-clark-wetherby

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/failings-wetherby-prison-blamed-17-year-old-ryan-clarks-death-1434271

- 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.

http://www.linguistlounge.org/all-articles/analysis-and-comment/999-time-to-take-action-boycott#comments

Premier League IP case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-25968200

But, in Feb 2012

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.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/2396.html

(http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/case-reports/animals-regina-v-robinson-pierre)

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264113/Symieon-Robinson-Pierre-Dog-owner-sentenced-22-months-failing-stop-dog-mauling-police-officers.html)

R v Martin [2013] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/2565.html

Reactions to QASA: http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/qasa-criminal-barristers-react-to-rejected-challenge/