S14E01 - Power to the Victim

You can listen here!

This week we scrabble around in the mud to bring you a frankly minimal offering of law.  It may have been the silly season but the law has (at least in this country) remained aloof and above such matters.

Sadly this show was recorded before the Lord Chancellor was defeated in the High Court by criminal solicitors using judicial review - a system Grayling would like to seee abolished - and now we can see why.  He acted illegally.  That didn't stop his press office tweeting (like a petulant child) that it wasn't a complete victory for them but they did get to keep the 8.75% cut.  Not that that was the point of this particular action.  He's like this government's Comical Ali.

Nevertheless, the bulk of this week's show does deal with another announcement by Chris Grayling.  He has been electioneering announcing what he's doing for complainants victims.  

So what's new?  In our usual vein, this week Ben brings us a thoughtful report on the MoJ's recent publication.  Regular listeners may think they know where this is going...

If you would like to read the two papers, then they are below.
The 2013 Code of Practice
The 2014 pamphlet


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

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/

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.

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.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/joint-thematic/victim-contact-report.pdf

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

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/terror-suspects-entitled-to-solicitor/5038611.article

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.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/law-reports/criminal-law/5038442.article

No such thing as free money.

Steven Fletcher -and- CC of Leicestershire Constabulary [2013] EWHC 3357 (Admin)

Successful pros appeal against finding of no case to answer.

R v Bor [2013] EWCA Crim 1916

Other stuff:

What lawyers are (not) doing in their bedrooms:

http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/london-lawyers-are-spicing-up-their-love-lives-and-george-clooney-is-following-suit-8926112.html

NAPO announcement of intention to work to rule:

http://www.napo.org.uk/about/news/news.cfm/newsid/318

S10E03 - All Trick, No Treat

No Kirstin this week as she is being bombarded by trick or treaters but Ben’s back and Jonathan is here as always.

Have a listen to this week’s show for a pretty comprehensive round-up of the big stories that have been in the legal news this week.

Whether it’s TV cameras in the Court of Appeal, the Home Office on the fiddle (allegedly!), another bloody-nose for Failing Grayling or the Government getting a ticking-off for spending your money on pointless legal challenges, it’s all here.

In addition, we have a bit of an update on where “joint enterprise” and victim impact statements are up to.

Television Cameras now in Court of Appeal, welcomed by Judges

Home Office Fixing of Asylum Figures

Grayling on the ropes - his offer to VHCC counsel and the flat rejection of it by the CBA and the Fraud Solicitors group.

Supreme Court Rejects Gov Appeal with Strong Criticism

Interesting cases round-up in crime

Bristow [2013] EWCA Crim 1540 - Joint enterprise - Manslaughter

Harrod [2013] EWCA Crim 1750  - drugs - supply - death - views of victims NOT decisive.

BUT victim focus might shift after 29th October’s Victims Code  - in force from December 2013

Report from unannounced visit to Yarl’s Wood IRC - to be published soon.

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.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/moj-calls-in-police-over-serco-fraud-claims/5037199.article

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

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/areas-of-law/legal-aid-and-access-to-justice/grayling-refuses-to-delay-legal-aid-cuts/5037170.article

Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Orders or Suspected sex offender restraining orders

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23844385

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.