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/

S11E02 - Filth, Filthy Behaviour and Filthy Lucre

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.

On this week's show, we take you through the details of the Sexual Offences Guidelines on sentencing.  We consider not only the mechanics of the guidelines for rape and assault by penetration but also the reasoning behind some of the changes.  The link to the guidelines is below.

Jonathan takes a look at the case that made the CPS cringe this week.  Did cost considerations really lead to the CPS binning at trial?  The full text is below.

The CBA meet with Grayling and it does not look good.

Andrew Neil meets with Grayling and makes him look a fool.  Turns out ministerial responsibility is a principle no longer appreciated by the Lord Chancellor.  Thanks to the BBC for the clip.

And a whole pile of other news stories that caught our eye but for which we had no time left.  Lots to get through in the links below.

Links

Sexual Offences Guidelines: http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_SexualOffencesAct_2003.pdf

CPS bin a trial when things get costly: http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-renate-andrews-and-others  and http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/14/cps-criticised-for-wilful-calculated-and-prolonged-disobedience-in-trial/

In it to win it (and we are) says Nigel Lithman QC: http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9e935b7a6c6c561621aaf46ab&id=a4a2f8c45e&e=cded007a3d

AND STOP PRESS: 16th January at 1730 hours: http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9e935b7a6c6c561621aaf46ab&id=f3ecdaebd2&e=366745fc1e

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics:

1. Grayling admits that the barristers’ earnings figures published out of nowhere last week were not an accurate reflection of the actual earnings but says that, even though his department published the stats, he could not be responsible for it.  This was during interview on Sunday Politics with Andrew Neil.

2. Law Society says that the drop in crime, year on year, will save £80m in legal aid by 2019 so no cuts are needed.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jan/13/declining-crime-save-80m-a-year-in-legal-aid

But it’s a bit undermined by its own preamble: Top of page 6

'The MoJ and LAA have been extremely helpful in supporting this work. However the LAA’s forecasting model draws on a number of datasets and assumptions that are not publically available. Without first-hand access to the LAA model or the confidential datasets, it has not been possible fully to recreate the LAA’s forecast for future years. The criminal Legal Aid expenditure forecast generated  by our model cannot therefore be directly compared to the LAA’s figures in any given year.'

and the MoJ told the Gazette:

‘This forecast is far less accurate than our own. Last year our forecast was correct to within 1%, whereas if we had used Oxford Economics analysis, we would have repeatedly overspent our legal aid litigation budget in the past few years.’ - interesting based upon Grayling’s view of the Ministry’s ability with figures...

3. A few days later, tory-rag the Daily Mail trumpets that that MoJ’s crime figures are wrong and that crime is not falling at all - therefore the Law Society’s argument must be wrong too.  Will May and the police get thrown on to the sacrificial bonfire by Grayling to continue his hate campaign against legal aid lawyers?  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540003/Its-official-Crime-numbers-NOT-trusted-statistics-watchdog-strips-police-data-seal-approval.html

4. 140 fewer courts but still the same costs for security?  Law Soc Gaz gets all FOI on the MoJ and reveals some odd answers:

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/security-spending-unchanged-as-courts-close/5039347.article

5. What cost injustice?  This is devastating to the CPS.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wasted_costs_orders?unfold=1#incoming-470067

JD: A summary of the highly pertinent info (yes, that’s 1.2 million):

Crown Prosecution Service
Mar03	418,961
Mar04	160,606
Mar05	146,998
Mar06	153,878
Mar07	403,358
Mar08	751,538
Mar09	652,766
Mar10	907,061
Mar11	1,547,874
Mar12	384,682
Mar13	1,202,515

Some interesting stats on interpreters at court.  

https://www.facebook.com/download/435950943174804/Ineffective%20trials%20statistics%20INTERPRETERS.pdf

vs.

http://www.crimeline.info/uploads/docs/capita2014.pdf

In response to our request for comment from Geoffrey Buckingham

Chairman, APCI, he said “you may like to see the APCI FB page (link below) which has a comment;

"MoJ COURT INTERPRETING STATISTICS

The MoJ has published statistics for the performance of the Framework Agreement. They have done their best to dress it up, but you know that old saying about lipstick and bulldogs? Well they've gone a step further and put a dress and hat on it."

There is rather more considered comment and analysis to come on their website: http://www.apciinterpreters.org.uk/

Family courts clogged

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/courts-becoming-clogged-as-legal-aid-cuts-affect-separating-couples-seeking-mediation-9057133.html

But Law Society thinks that it has spotted a problem.  Fee-charging McKenzie friends trying to make money by plugging the gap left by legal aid cuts (especially in family law): http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/stories/case-studies-on-fee-charging-mckenzie-friends/

Cops want to stop locking kids up in Greater Manchester

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/13/detention-children-overnight-police-cells-breach-law

On the subject of locking up kids, this is often the subject of coroners’ Prevention of Future Deaths reports (or “Rule 43 reports” as they used to be known).  These have just started to be made available online.  Good news for transparency and for research.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/office-chief-coroner/pfd-reports/index

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

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.