S11E06 - Between The Rock and a Hard Place

Listen to this week's show here.

On this week's show, John Cooper QC joins our roving reporter, Keith Jones in Gibraltar to talk about the law and the Bar in one of Britain's far-flung outposts.

A little closer to home, we look at what happens when you cough to something whilst in custody and when that sort of confession will not be allowed in to evidence.

We take a glance over fracking near Northpod Towers and celebs on trial near our local cobbles.

Also, a look at sentencing for assisting a suicide by buying the petrol used.  The rather grim case of R v Howe [2014] gets a once-over.

The links are below.  Enjoy UKCLB Podcast for the next six weeks and we'll see you on the other side of that.

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.


Beeres v CPS West Midlands [2014] EWHC 283 Admin
R v Howe [2014] EWCA Crim 114
R (Purdy) v DPP [2010] 1 Cr App R 1

S11E05 - Words, Words, Words

This week we carry on the tradition of the series in that we're a member of the usual team short. It's Ben on this occasion. He'll be back next week, I'm sure.  Listen Here  

Matters under consideration are – what knowingly means when it comes to the environment; when a crime under the Dangerous Dogs Act is not a crime at all (and it's not the same as the last one); when parking is not parking and when a solicitor can hang on to papers and when he has to pass them on. 

It's all very cutting edge as Jonathan gets excited about...

Walker and son v Environment Agency [2014] EWCA Crim 100

Criminal Injuries not a crime of violence

Parking v Ancillary Parking [2014] EWHC 211 (Admin)

Liens and solicitors - see paragraph 42 - 50

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/