Hillsborough ~ new inquests and new problems

11:01 0 Comments


In December 2012, the original inquest verdicts into the deaths at Hillsborough in April 1989 were quashed by the High Court and fresh inquests were ordered - Law and Lawyers 20th December 2012. and see - Her Majesty' Attorney-General v HM Coroner for South Yorkshire (West) and HM Coroner for West Yorkshire (West)  [2012] EWHC 3783 Admin  - Lord Judge LCJ, Burnett LJ and HHJ Peter Thornton QC (Chief Coroner).

In addition to fresh inquests, a new Police investigation was ordered under Durham Chief Constable Jon Stoddart.  This investigation is to work closely with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Following on from the quashing of the original verdicts, Lord Justice Goldring was appointed as Assistant Deputy Coroner to conduct the new inquests - Judiciary 13th February 2013.

A preliminary hearing
was held in London on Thursday 25th April.  It is reported that some Police Officers may refuse to answer questions at the inquests and have cited the privilege against self-incrimination - The Guardian 26th April.

At the preliminary hearing, it was argued for the Police that the inquests should be delayed until after the conclusion of the investigation and any ensuing criminal proceedings (including any appeals).  Clearly, that could take several years.  Goldring LJ - obviously mindful of the 24 years which have already elapsed - ruled against this and the new inquests will commence in 2014.

The venue for the new inquests is to be announced in the near future.  It was strongly argued for the families that a venue in the North West should be chosen.

The IPCC is publishing some material relating to the investigation.

Inquests:

An inquest is a fact-finding inquiry into a violent or unnatural death, a sudden death of unknown cause, or a death which has occurred in prison to establish who has died, and how, when and where the death occurred.  For further see Law and Lawyers 10th January 2013 - Hillsborough - Fresh Inquests - the question of Article 2 compliance

Self-incrimination?

The handling of the crowds at Hillsborough; the Police and Ambulance Service response to the tragedy and allegations of 'cover up' lie at the heart of establishing the facts - see the blogpost of 12th September 2012 on the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report.  It may seem strange that a witness is able to refuse to answer questions aimed at establishing the facts but this takes us into territory occupied by a privilege which is deep-rooted in English law: the privilege against self-incrimination.  It is based on traditional reluctance to compel anyone, on pain of punishment, to give incriminating evidence against himself.  The treatment of John Lilburne is an historical example of a man pleading that he should not be required to incriminate himself.  Wikipedia tells us the story:

Lilburne was arrested upon information by an informer acting for The Stationers' Company and brought before the Court of Star Chamber. Instead of being charged with an offence he was asked how he pleaded. In his examinations he refused to take the oath known as the 'ex-officio' oath (on the ground that he was not bound to incriminate himself), and thus called in question the court's usual procedure. As he persisted in his contumacy, he was sentenced (13 February 1638) to be fined £500, whipped, pilloried, and imprisoned till he obeyed.  It is this trial that has been cited by constitutional jurists and scholars in the United States of America as being one of the historical foundations of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is also cited within the 1966 majority opinion of Miranda v. Arizona by the U.S. Supreme Court.


However, as Adrian Keane (The Modern Law of Evidence) points out, the privilege is at a crossroads with both Parliament and the courts recognising the unsatisfactory results which can arise.

The classical description of the privilege is that by Goddard LJ in Blunt v Park Lane Hotel [1942]  2 KB 253:

' ... no one is bound to answer any question if the answer thereto would, in the opinion of the judge, have a tendency to expose [him] to any criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture which the judge regards as reasonably likely to be preferred or sued for.'

Lord Templeman in AT and T Istel v Tully [1992] 3 All EWR 523, viewed the privilege in civil proceedings as 'an archaic and unjustifiable survival from the past' but the fact remains that it is part of the law and has produced a mountain of case law.  Importantly, various Acts of Parliament have disapplied the privilege in some circumstances - e.g. the Theft Act 1968 section 31 or the Senior Courts Act 1981 section 72 - the subject of a Supreme Court decision in Phillips v Mulcaire 2012 - (see UK Supreme Court blog). 

Further discussion of the privilege see In House Lawyer 15th May 2012.

At an inquest, rule 22 of the Coroners Rules 1984 expressly permits refusal to answer questions on this basis.

(1) No witness at an inquest shall be obliged to answer any question tending to incriminate himself.
(2) Where it appears to the coroner that a witness has been asked such a question, the coroner shall inform the witness that he may refuse to answer.

----- OOOOO -----


Inferences from silence: a footnote .....

A matter closely related to self-incrimination is the right to silence in criminal proceedings.  Technically, the right to silence comprised two elements: freedom of an accused person not to have to incriminate himself and the right not to have inferences drawn from his silence.  The right not to have inferences drawn from silence suffered a hammer blow with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 sections 34 to 38.  'Proper' inferences may be drawn from the refusal of a defendant to answer questions.  The law in this area is complicated.  The 1994 Act applies only to criminal proceedings.

It should also be noted that, in appropriate circumstances, an adverse inference may be drawn from a suspect's refusal, without good cause, to consent to the taking of 'intimate samples' from his body - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.62.





0 comments:

Court of Protection ~ an overview

02:10 0 Comments


Update 4th May:  Committal for Contempt of Court - Practice Direction of 3rd May

The Court of Protection has been mentioned a few times on this blog - for example, here  and here.

The court is in the news again because it has come to light that Wanda Maddocks was committed to prison for contempt of the court - Daily Mail 25th April - where it is said that, when judgment against her was handed down, she was not present in court and not represented by a lawyer.  It is also said that sentencing was not made public for six months.

In this post, I do not intend to comment on the Mail's article.  I am grateful to the Small Places blog for bringing my attention to the judgment - actually published last autumn - Stoke City Council v Maddocks [2012] EWHC B31 (COP).  Let's look at a few facts about the court.

1.  Parliament established the court by enacting Part 2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  It came into existence from 1st October 2007 and replaced earlier arrangements often confusingly referred to as court of protection proceedings.



2.  The court is a superior court of record which, in practice, means that it has contempt of court powers which may be used to enforce its orders as well as to deal with any disorderly behaviour in the court.

3.  It has the same powers, rights, privileges and authority as the High Court.  A general description of the court's work is available via the Judiciary website.  It is a specialist court for all issues relating to people who lack capacity to make specific decisions. The Court makes decisions and appoints deputies to make decisions in the best interests of those who lack capacity to do so.

4.  Proceedings in the Court of Protection are normally in private but the court may order an open hearing.  Furthermore, reporting restrictions can be applied.  These matters were addressed by Baker J in W v M, S, an NHS Trust and Times Newspapers [2011] EWHC 1197 (COP).  Note what the learned judge said:

'The Court of Protection is concerned with the weak and the vulnerable, not the rich and the famous. Its jurisdiction arises out of the need to make decisions on behalf of those who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves. For understandable reasons, Parliament has therefore decided that hearings in the Court should usually be held in private.'

5.   There are Court of Protection Rules

6.  The Rules (Part 21) deal with applications to the court for a person to be held in contempt.   See also the Practice Direction on Enforcement.

7.  When a contempt application is made to the court, notice must be given to the person claimed to be in contempt though the court may dispense with notice.  Also, the person has a right to give oral evidence to the court - e.g. to show why he or she should not be committed.  The hearing should usually be in public and certain information must usually be published.  See Rules 185 to 194.

8.  Many judgments of the court are published with the parties anonymised - see Bailii Court of Protection.  The judgments amply illustrate the very difficult and sensitive issues handled by the judges and the meticulous attention to detail.

9.  See Court of Protection Deputies (i.e. someone appointed to make decisions for another who is unable to do so on their own) and Court of Protection Visitors.

Criticisms and Comments:

Calls for reform have been made - see the view of John Hemming MP in February 2011 and The Guardian November 2011 - Court of Protection: defender of the vulnerable or shadowy and unjust.

The Guardian Law pages offer several articles about the court and its operation.

There is an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and the Court of Protection.

Daily Mail 28th April 2013 - looks at the assets managed via the court

Addendum:

Please see The Small Places blog for a view on the Maddocks case.

0 comments:

Abu Qatada ~ New Treaty with Jordan ~ but will it result in his deportation?

09:57 0 Comments


Earlier this week, the Court of Appeal refused the government permission to appeal against a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in the Abu Qatada case - BBC News 23rd April.  The government will be asking the Supreme Court to grant permission to appeal.

Today, the Home Secretary - Theresa May - informed Parliament of a new treaty between the United Kingdom and Jordan which, she claims, will enable the deportation to Jordan of Abu Qatada - Parliament and  BBC 24th April

It will remain a matter for the courts to determine whether the treaty actually answers the objections to his deportation.

Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the UK and Jordan

The government will be hoping that Article 27.4 provides the solution:


"Where, before the date of signature of this Treaty, a Court in the sending State has found that there is
a real risk that a statement from a person has been obtained by torture or ill-treatment by the authorities of the receiving State, and might be used in a criminal trial in the receiving State referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, this statement shall not be submitted by the prosecution nor admitted by the Court in the receiving State, unless the prosecution in the receiving State proves beyond any doubt that the statement has been provided out of free-will and choice and was not obtained by torture or ill-treatment by the authorities of the receiving State, and the Court in the receiving State is so satisfied."

The treaty has to be laid before both Houses of Parliament for 21 sitting days prior to ratification.  Once the treaty is in force it will still take a considerable time for the legal processes in the courts.

Head of Legal blog - Theresa May's treaty with Jordan: this is the game changer she needs.

Addendum 25th April:

UK may withdraw from European Rights Convention over Abu Qatada - The Guardian 24th April - where it is reported that the government has considered withdrawing, possibly on a temporary basis, from the Convention.  The Daily Mail (24th April) reports that:

"David Cameron is warning Nick Clegg he will get the blame if he blocks a temporary withdrawal from the European Convention of Human Rights to enable the deportation of Abu Qatada.

Sources close to the Prime Minister made clear he would expect the Liberal Democrat leader – who has insisted he will not countenance any suspension of the ECHR – to explain to voters why the hate preacher remained in Britain in such circumstances."

Would a temporary withdrawal be possible - rather like an opt out to the Theft Act because you like your neighbour's car?  It has to be very doubtful that it is possible to withdraw from the convention in this way as a 2003 legal opinion from Lord Pannick QC showsLegal opinion apart, commonsense and reason dictate that the convention would be rendered ineffective if States could simply opt out of their obligations in that way.  

Withdrawal from (or denunciation of) the Convention is different concept to a Derogation.  A State which derogates - as permitted by Article 15 of the Convention - remains within the convention system.   Derogation is permitted in time of 'war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation' and, even then, derogation from some articles (e.g. Article 3 - Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ) is not permitted. 




0 comments:

The dismantling of legal aid

01:34 0 Comments


Please read the following and take some action to try to preserve the rights of those accused by the State:

Criminal Solicitor - The price of everything and the value of nothing

The [Justice Gap] - Appalling Vistas where Francis FitzGibbon QC looks at government policy on  legal aid

David Allen Green in The New Statesman - How the Ministry of Justice's proposal for the tendering of criminal legal aid is misconceived and illiberal.

I never thought that I would see the day when a democratically elected British government was seeking to do this.  Please do not think this will affect only others.  Anyone of us could, one day, require a good lawyer to represent us.

Please sign this petition and get on to your MP.

The consultation paper is at Gov.uk - Ministry of Justice

0 comments:

Legal Curiosities: Fact or Fable?

10:10 0 Comments


The Law Commission has published Legal Curiosities: Fact or Fable?

From time-to-time there are Statute Law (Repeals) Acts intended to tidy out dead wood from the massive so-called 'statute book.'  (See the 2013 Act).  A few candidates for the next such Act appear in the document. 

It is illegal to:

Enter Parliament wearing a suit of armour; to be drunk on licensed premises; to carry a plank along a pavement; to be drunk in charge of a horse and to fire a cannon within 300 yards of a dwelling house.   It is definitely illegal to kill a Scotsman in York whether within or outside the city walls and regardless of the day of the week !! 

It is legal to:

Die in Parliament (and some have); eat mince pies on Christmas Day; put a stamp upside down on a letter. 

A fascinating insight into some of the things which have been considered unlawful during our lengthy legal history and to some of the myths which are mentioned occasionally !

In English Law, once a statute is enacted it will always remain in force until repealed and this is so irrespective of whether the statute is actually enforced.  There is no rule of desuetude.  

0 comments:

There are still Dragons to fight ~ St. George's Day roundup.

01:22 0 Comments


Here is a roundup of some of the many legal matters both in the press and on the blogs at the moment:

1. Jon Robins, writing for Legal Voice, offers a report on the day of action by barristers practising on the Northern Circuit.  "An all-day protest by close to 400 barristers in the North West over what was called ‘a wholesale restructuring of the criminal courts’ caused disruption yesterday. It was reported that of the 241 cases originally listed, 15 trials and 42 other matters were adjourned."  A report on the Northern Circuit meeting is at Crime and Justice 22nd April.

2. Cuts to legal aid will be hugely damaging to access to justice and the ability of non-wealthy individuals to enforce their rights.   Barrister Russell Fraser, writing in the New Statesman, argues that one consequence of government policy could be that our Police, lawyers and jails will be run by G4S.  Naturally, that begs the question - "Who runs G4S" - because, if Russell Fraser is proved right, they will be very powerful and yet rather unknown individuals.

3. If you read nothing else on legal aid, read The [Justice Gap] - Appalling Vistas where Francis FitzGibbon QC looks at government policy on  legal aid David Allen Green in The New Statesman - How the Ministry of Justice's proposal for the tendering of criminal legal aid is misconceived and illiberal.



4. Following on from a consultation about Judicial Review, the government is unveiling changes to make it harder for people to challenge the legality of official decision-making in this way - BBC 23rd April.   

5. For the more historically minded - Betrayal of the Rule of Law in Nazi Germany.  Film (1 hour) produced in 2006.  Are there any parallels today?  Well, I only asked! 

6. The government has failed to justify EU opt-outs according to the House of Lords.  See Law Society Gazette 23rd April  and 'opt-outs' could damage the UK's ability to fight crime. - BBC 23rd April.

7. The Supreme Court blog takes a look at the Crime and Courts Bill which is just finishing its progress through Parliament.

8. The Howard League for Penal Reform has looked at sentencing in Magistrates' Courts - Magistrates' Court Sentencing - Press Release

'People who have been convicted of a crime in England and Wales face a postcode lottery when they are sentenced, with some magistrates’ courts four times more likely than others to send them to prison. New research by the Howard League for Penal Reform shows that a growing number of magistrates’ benches are making good use of community sentences which reduce crime and help people to turn their lives around. However, some benches are still imposing prison sentences in cases where they are unnecessary.'

10. The Sun argues that, since the Leveson Report, the Police have become a law unto themselves.  The Daily Mail also published a piece in similar vein. 

There are also media reports of an alleged 'affair' between counsel when involved in the Leveson Inquiry - Daily Mail 21st April - The Leveson lovers and a compromised Inquiry that's begun a chilling assault on free speech   Further report in The Guardian .  The Times reports that Lord Justice Leveson is considering the matter and that it may be referred to the Bar Council.

11. The Cabinet Office has published  Join the good law conversation  - and see Law Society Gazette. "The government would like the user to experience good law: law that is necessary, clear, coherent, effective and accessible."  This will not be easy given (a) the style of English legislation - Acts with numerous Parts; Sections; Subsections; Schedules + secondary legislation in spades; (b) the 'cut and paste' method of amendment; (c) the massive micro-detail inserted into the law; (d) the inability of government to get a PUBLIC legislation database which is absolutely bang up to date.  The cynical could be forgiven for thinking that this is a 'sound good' initiative which will come to little.

12. In the Blogs

Family Lore blog - Roundup of family law news

UK Human Rights blog - weekly roundup

Dan Bunting blog - A system, Broken.  This post is well worth reading.  It looks at the 'warned list' system in the Crown Court; the problems involved in getting the Crown Prosecution Service to comply with legal disclosure obligations and the delays and inconvenience to witnesses.

0 comments:

When contact in sport becomes criminal

03:51 0 Comments


This morning, the major talking point in the Barclay's Premier League is the incident between Luis Suárez and Branislav Ivanovic at the Liverpool v Chelsea match at Anfield on 21st April - Telegraph 22nd April - where it is reported that Luis Suárez held an opponent and then bit him.  Suarez tweeted an apology for what he described as “inexcusable behaviour”.

Clearly, Liverpool Football Club will be entitled to discipline Suarez and so will the Football Association and here is a player with a problematic disciplinary record.  Leaving such action aside, what does the criminal law say about what might appear to be an assault by one player on another?  The principal modern case is R v Barnes [2004] EWCA Crim 3246 - Lord Woolf CJ, Cresswell and Simon JJ.

The prosecution of Mr Barnes was
under under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.  It arose out of a serious leg injury sustained by the victim during the course of an amateur football match in December 2002. The prosecution contended that it was the result of a "crushing tackle, which was late, unnecessary, reckless and high up the legs". The appellant admitted the tackle but claimed that it was a fair, if hard, challenge, in the form of a sliding tackle in the course of play, and that any injury caused was accidental. It was not disputed that the victim's injury was the result of the tackle and that the injury to his right leg amounted to grievous bodily harm.

Obviously, in contact sports there is risk of injury.  Participants are said to impliedly consent to that contact inherent in the usual course of a game but the question arises as to when form of contact is such that the intervention of the criminal law is appropriate.  Lord Woolf set out the position at paras. 4 to 16 of the judgment.  The following is a summary only:

1. The existence of disciplinary procedures has the effect that, in the majority of situations, there is no need for criminal proceedings and such proceedings are undesirable.   A criminal prosecution should be reserved for those situations where the conduct is sufficiently grave to be properly categorised as criminal.

2. When criminal proceedings are justified, possible charges are: assault; assault occasioning actual bodily harm - section 47 of the 1861 Act; unlawfully wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm - section 20 of the 1861 Act; or wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent - section 18 of the 1861 Act.   If, unfortunately, death results from the assault, the charge could be one of manslaughter or even murder depending upon the defendant's intent.

3. When no bodily harm is caused, the consent of the victim to what happened is always a defence to a charge. Where at least bodily harm is caused, consent is generally irrelevant because it has been long established in law that, exceptional situations apart, a person cannot consent to having bodily harm inflicted upon him.

4. To this general rule, there are obvious exceptions such as patients consenting to surgery.  Another exception is physical injury in the course of contact sports such as football or boxing.

5. The House of Lords considered the law in R v Brown [1994] 1 A.C. 212.   Brown dealt with a very different factual context, namely sado-masochistic activities between consenting adults.  However, their Lordships made it clear that the rule and the exceptions to the rule that a person cannot consent to his being caused actual harm, are based on public policy.

6. Another interesting case illustrating this public policy approach was  R v Dica [2004] Q.B. 1257 - consent to sexual intercourse with HIV positive man when woman knew of his condition - there would be a defence to a charge under section 20.

7. So far as contact sports are concerned, the recognition that public policy is the foundation of the defence should not detract from the value of recognising that public policy limits the defence to situations where there has been implicit consent to what occurred.

8. The fact that the participants in, for example, a football match, implicitly consent to take part in a game, assists in identifying the limits of the defence.  If what occurs goes beyond what a player can reasonably be regarded as having accepted by taking part in the sport, this indicates that the conduct will not be covered by the defence.   What is implicitly accepted in one sport will not necessarily be covered by the defence in another sport.

9. The court looked at Canadian authority - R v Cey (1989) 48 C.C.C. (3d) 480 - Saskatchewan Court of Appeal- and also considered the views of the Law Commission - "Consent and offences against the person: Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 134."

The court approved an approach adopted by the then Criminal Injuries Compensation Board - "in a sport in which bodily contact is a commonplace part of the game, the players consent to such contact even if, through unfortunate accident, injury, perhaps of a serious nature, may result. However, such players do not consent to being deliberately punched or kicked and such actions constitute an assault for which the Board would award compensation."

In general, the court accepted the Law Commission's view that:
    "the present broad rules for sports and games appear to be :
    (i) the intentional infliction of injury enjoys no immunity;
    (ii) a decision as to whether the reckless infliction of injury is criminal is likely to be strongly influenced by whether the injury occurred during actual play, or in a moment of temper or over-excitement when play has ceased, or "off the ball";
    (iii) although there is little authority on the point, principle demands that even during play injury that results from risk-taking by a player that is unreasonable, in the light of the conduct necessary to play the game properly, should also be criminal."
10. The fact that the play is within the rules and practice of the game and does not go beyond it, will be a firm indication that what has happened is not criminal. In making a judgment as to whether conduct is criminal or not, it has to be borne in mind that, in highly competitive sports, conduct outside the rules can be expected to occur in the heat of the moment, and even if the conduct justifies not only being penalised but also a warning or even a sending off, it still may not reach the threshold level required for it to be criminal. That level is an objective one and does not depend upon the views of individual players. The type of the sport, the level at which it is played, the nature of the act, the degree of force used, the extent of the risk of injury, the state of mind of the defendant are all likely to be relevant in determining whether the defendant's actions go beyond the threshold.

11. Whether conduct reaches the required threshold to be criminal will therefore depend on all the circumstances. However, there will be cases that fall within a "grey area," and then the tribunal of fact will have to make its own determination as to which side of the line the case falls. The jury (or magistrates) would have to consider (among other questions) whether the contact was so obviously late and/or violent that it could not be regarded as an instinctive reaction, error or misjudgement in the heat of the game.

12. In the case of offences against the person contrary to Sections 18 and 20 of the 1861 Act, it is a requirement of the offence that the conduct itself should be unlawful.

To return to Luis Suarez.  Biting is not part and parcel of playing football and is a deliberate act.  Intentional infliction of injury enjoys no immunity.  The biting might amount to common assault or, if there is injury (however slight), to an offence under section 47 of the 1861 Act.  It is unlikely in this instance to amount to an offence under section 20 or 18 - (Grievous = really serious - bodily harm).

R v Barnes was a case involving a tackle (part and parcel of the game - an attempt to win the ball) and it was a game at an amateur level where standards of play might be expected to be less than in a top-level premiership game involving professional players.

It is reported that Ivanovic accepted an apology.  The matter will probably be left to whatever action is taken by Liverpool FC and / or the FA.   For a further view see Gibbs Barrister - Suarez biting the hand that feeds him.


0 comments:

Outspoken jurors ~ A most unhappy Bar as government presses changes

02:48 0 Comments


*** Update 1: Manchester's court system faces disruption - Manchester Evening News 22nd April

*** Update 2: Criminal legal aid cuts prompt protest by northern lawyers - The Guardian 22nd April

*** Update 3: Letter from Neil Hawes QC to Sir Alan Beith (Chair of the Justice Committee) in response to government consultation paper CP14/2013 Transforming legal aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system.

Another juror is in trouble for commenting on FACEBOOK.  As the excellent  David Banks Media Law blog  puts it:  He may be regretting being quite so frank in allegedly saying he “wanted to fuck up a paedophile.”  Another juror was discharged after stating that he felt incapable of trying a man fairly because the man supported an opposing football team.  As David Banks points out: ".... there is an ugly side to people’s nature and .... now they are committing it to the Internet.  And is this what we want? I think yes, I would rather know what a juror thought about me, so he could be discharged, than him keep it a secret and find me guilty."

A few weeks ago, this blog argued that there is a serious question of whether the independent criminal bar will survive a
series of government initiatives which may be summed up in the equation  QASA+(OCOF x BVT) = BOGOF where QASA = Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates; OCOF = One case, one fee and BVT = Best Value Tendering.   The government is, of course, intent on pressing these initiatives to the full.   With regard to QASA in particular, the Bar claims that the scheme put forward is unnecessary since 'quality' is maintained through the already highly competitive nature of practice at the independent bar.  Meetings of the various Bar 'circuits' have been held and the vast majority of barristers appear to be opposing QASA.

The opposition may be about to develop into action.  It is reported that lawyers will miss court in opposition to QASA - The Guardian 19th April.  The Judiciary has issued a Judicial Statement - Northern Circuit :

"We have been made aware that members of the Bar and solicitors have said that they may not attend court on Monday.  We understand that the position of the CPS is that the CPS does not consent to any advocate instructed making any application to adjourn, or being absent from a listed case on Monday. The position of the judiciary is straightforward. It is constitutionally independent. It will hear any applications to adjourn, taking into account the interests of both parties and the administration of justice, but will only remove a case from the list if an application is made on properly arguable grounds. If no application is made or if it is refused, the court hearing will proceed on Monday as listed. In recognition of the uncertainty, the court will take steps to minimise any adverse impact on witnesses who have already been warned to attend on Monday."

The precise action being taken with regard to the last sentence (witnesses) is unclear.  An argument that a lawyer is not attending court because he is 'protesting' is unlikely in itself to justify the grant of an adjournment.  However, to force cases to proceed could be very damaging to individuals if they are unable to adequately question witnesses or put forward their defence.  If hearings are cancelled, there is the possibility that judges may either make wasted costs orders against counsel - (though a process has to be gone through to achieve that) - or, alternatively, judges may choose to put in a formal professional conduct complaint about the barristers in question.  Whether particular judges opt to pursue such lines may depend on whether the judge is or is not privately sympathetic to the 'cause.'

Not all voices are quite as strident. Nigel Pascoe QC (Leader of the Western Circuit) has blogged about the The right way to fight.  Pascoe begins:

"I want to bring together a raft of ideas to fight our fight within the law and avoid the twin perils of mass suspension (No to QASA) and wasted costs orders. Hopefully also Sun headlines on the lines of

RAPE VICTIM ABANDONED BY STRIKING BARRISTER

Oh yes they would!"

Pascoe goes on to set out several very valid suggestions as to what the Bar might do to oppose QASA and BVT.  His arguments merit considerable attention.

The is going to be a difficult time for the Bar.  During these days of austerity, public sympathy is likely to be rather thin on the ground and the threat to the administration of justice is not properly explained to the public.  Remember how Kenneth Clarke QC / Jonathan Djanogly published the list of 'fat cats' who were earning huge sums on legal aid.  The reality is very different for the vast majority of barristers who have chosen to practice in criminal law.  Their remuneration can be exceptionally low.  Pay for a day's work can be well below the fee required to call out a plumber or electrician let alone the fees charged for non-NHS dental work; veterinary medicine; accountancy etc.

At the very heart of all of this is a central question of vital public importance:  Just what is the future of freedom under the law to be like?   Without good lawyers able to represent those individuals facing the massive power of the State, freedom under the law will die.

Are we all doomed as Private Frazer - (played by John Laurie) - claimed in Dad's Army?  Not if good sense on all sides prevails.

As ever, comments are welcome particularly from any practitioners who wish to offer their views.

Other links:

Express 21st April - More than 1500 High Street solicitors will be forced to close branches 'within a year' if the Government's controversial legal aid reform plans succeed 

Bar Standards Board - QASA - FAQs

CharonQC - Sunday 21st April - The finest justice system in the world: Not if ...

Barrister999 - Legal Aid - some thoughts

Days of austerity in which the rich are exceptionally rich



0 comments:

A glance at an interesting day in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

01:46 0 Comments


On 16th April, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) handed down judgment in:

Morris v R [2013] EWCA Crim 436 (16 April 2013) - Leveson LJ, Mitting and Males JJ - an appeal against conviction for dangerous driving was quashed for error of law in the judge's direction to the jury.  The case is particularly interesting because of the defence put forward - use of reasonable force in the lawful arrest of offenders - Criminal Law Act 1967 s.3(1); Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s24A and Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s.76.   The case illustrates all too well the difficulies in the law relating to arrest by citizens of others.  It is worth noting here the considerable lengths which the trial judge went to when directing the jury on the law which is, regrettably, far from straightforward.



Foran v R [2013] EWCA Crim 437 (16 April 2013)  - Leveson LJ, Mitting and Males JJ - a reference from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) - convictions for robbery and conspiracy to rob were quashed.  Interestingly, the court had dismissed two previous appeals by this appellant.  On this occasion it was the CCRC which referred the case because the Commission concluded that there was a real possibility that the convictions would not be upheld in the light of information not previously considered regarding the credibility of the principal police witness, Detective Inspector Paul Matthews, a member of the now notorious West Midlands Police Serious Crime Squad who interviewed the appellant, together with developments in case law since the earlier appeals concerning the position when the evidence of a tainted officer is supported by other police evidence by officers to whom no criticism is attached.

 Cosford and others v R [2013] EWCA Crim 466 (16 April 2013)  - Leveson LJ, Mitting and Males JJ - Misconduct in Public Office -the court gave its reasons for dismissing appeals against conviction.  Cosford was a nurse employed at Wakefield Prison.  She had a sexual relationship with a prisoner.   Falloon was a prison/hospital officer who failed to report Cosford.    Flynn was a registered general nurse who also failed to report the sexual relationship.  The primary defence of each of the appellants was that they did not hold a public office.  This was rejected.  Leveson LJ concluded the judgment by noting:

'As to the future, however, we recognise that it is unsatisfactory that each of the recent decisions in this area has required the court to trawl through the authorities to try to discern a thread which accurately represents the true position and can be translated into modern employment conditions. In this regard, it is entirely laudable that the Law Commission intends to revisit the ambit of the offence of misconduct in public office, commencing work in early 2014 with a consultation in the following year.'

Cairns v R [2013] EWCA Crim 467 (16 April 2013) - Leveson LJ, Mitting and Males JJ - dealt with sentencing where there is a guilty plea but where the plea is entered on the basis of a certain version of the facts.  Leveson LJ said: 'Far too many appeals against sentence are mounted on the basis that the Judge has failed to have any, or sufficient, regard to the basis on which a plea of guilty has been entered. Although it has not been submitted that the principles are in doubt, these cases (each of which is said to raise some aspect of the problem) have been collected together in order to re-state the approach to be adopted.'

This case illustrates an important function of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) which is to set down principles to be applied by trial judges when sentencing offenders.

Khan and others v R [2013] EWCA Crim 468 (16 April 2013) - Leveson LJ, Mitting and Sweeney JJ -  an appeal against sentence for offences under the Terrorism Act 2006  In the particular cases, indeterminate sentences were not appropriate. It was important to reflect properly whether the plans went merely beyond ‘talk’ in order to assess risk to the public.

Since completing his Inquiry, Lord Justice Leveson has clearly been busy.  The next Lord Chief Justice?  I do not know but he may well be in the running !



0 comments:

Human rights - a short update

02:21 0 Comments


Council of Europe Report:

The 6th Annual Report of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers has been published.  It deals with Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. 

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report:

The FCO has published the 2012 Human Rights and Democracy report.   This is a wide-ranging report looking at human rights issues around the world.

For an update on allegations that the UK was complicit in torture see Watching the Law

European Court of Human Rights:

The 4th Section of the court has given judgment in Aswat v United Kingdom.  



Previous posts touching on Haroon Aswat's case are - Law and Lawyers 25th September 2012 and 14th April 2012 Reflections on Babar Ahmed and others v UK.

In Aswat, the court has held that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention - (Prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) - in the event of the applicant’s extradition to the USA solely on account of the current severity of his mental condition. 

At para. 57 of the judgment, the court concluded:

While the Court in Babar Ahmad did not accept that the conditions in ADX Florence would reach the Article 3 threshold for persons in good health or with less serious mental health problems, the applicant’s case can be distinguished on account of the severity of his mental condition. The applicant’s case can also be distinguished from that of Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, (ECHR 2001I) as he is facing not expulsion but extradition to a country where he has no ties, where he will be detained and where he will not have the support of family and friends. Therefore, in light of the current medical evidence, the Court finds that there is a real risk that the applicant’s extradition to a different country and to a different, and potentially more hostile, prison environment would result in a significant deterioration in his mental and physical health and that such a deterioration would be capable of reaching the Article 3 threshold  

The Aswat decision is not yet final and it remains to be seen whether the British government will request a reference to the Grand Chamber.

Guantanamo Bay - Hunger Strike:

Please see Watching the Law

0 comments:

Ceremonial Funerals ~ Public Order

03:59 0 Comments


The ceremonial funeral of Baroness Thatcher is to take place in London on Wednesday 17th April - see No. 10 Downing Street.  The armed forces have held a rehearsal and Police activity is being managed - Metropolitan Police statement  and  Operation True Blue.

Plans for ceremonial funerals are certainly not made on the spur of the moment.  The idea of a ceremonial funeral for Lady Thatcher originated from Prime Minister Gordon Brown and arguments against holding such an event were put forward - for example, by Peter Oborne writing in  The Telegraph December 2011.   It did not need any great foresight to see that this funeral would be highly controversial and that public order problems were likely.

This funeral will have been meticulously planned (with the Police involved in the planning).  However, what does public order law say about processions?



In most instances, the Public Order Act 1986 s.11 (POA86) requires advance notice to be given to the Police for processions.  There are some exceptions such as processions commonly or customarily held in the police area (or areas) in which it is proposed to be held or funeral processions organised by a funeral director acting in the normal course of his business.  Basically, 6 days notice must be given to the Police of plans to hold a procession and the Police are entitled to impose conditions - see POA 86 s.12.    (See also section 13 for circumstances in which the Police may ask a local authority to prohibit processions).  These are considerable powers.

In relation to Public Assemblies - section POA86 s.14 applies - enabling the Police to impose conditions.  A public assembly requires 20 or more persons - section 16.

It is reported that some people watching the funeral, will turn their backs on the cortege and that the Police have given 'go ahead' for this - The Guardian 14th April.   The Police are reported to have warned about the possible use of  Public  Order Act 1986 s.5.  An article in The Independent 15th April suggests that Police may actually take a tougher line and use section 5 extensively.

Of course, 'facing away' can be a powerfully symbolic way of expressing disapproval.  To my mind, it should not be done on this occasion.  Whatever one's political views, Lady Thatcher exemplified a remarkable thing about our system in that a person with the right ability, whatever their origins, can rise to high office.  I hope that this will always be possible. 

There is an irony that the Public Order Act 1986 was enacted in the wake of the Miner's Strike though the Act was a reform of public order law which the Law Commission put forward in connection with their plans to codify the criminal law.  Section 5 has, at times, proved to be problematic:

A person is guilty of an offence if he - (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Would 'facing away' be a possible offence under section 5?  To so conclude, it would be necessary to interpret the conduct as, at least, 'insulting' in the context of this funeral.  Also, the conduct has to be in the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.  I suppose that it is possible (just about) for some Magistrates' Court to hold that 'facing away' would result in an offence under section 5 and, it should be noted, that it is NOT a requirement of the Act that the conduct in question leads to any violence.  However, I would argue that such an interpretation would be utterly inconsistent with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - Freedom of Expression.

In January, the government indicated that they would not oppose a Lords amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill which will remove the word insulting from section 5.  (See Clause 38 of the Crime and Courts Bill as it was when it came to the House of Commons).  Of course, for the time being, the word insulting remains in the POA86.  A useful document discussing section 5 may be read via Parliament - Briefing Papers - Public Order Offences

The eyes of much of the free world and perhaps beyond will be on London this Wednesday and it is to be hoped that the event passes with dignity.

State and Ceremonial Funerals:

HM King George VI - 1952

Winston Churchill - 1965

Admiral of the Fleet The Earl Mountbatten of Burma - 1979

HRH Diana, Princess of Wales - 1997

HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother - 2002


Addendum 18th April:

The funeral took place in London on 17th April with only minimal protest and, such protest as took place, was non-violent.  Many people watched the cortege on its way from Parliament to St. Clement Dane and then to St. Paul's Cathedral.

Bishop of London's address

Lying here, she is one of us, subject to the common destiny of all human beings.

There is an important place for debating policies and legacy; for assessing the impact of political decisions on the everyday lives of individuals and communities. Parliament held a frank debate last week – but here and today is neither the time nor the place. This, at Lady Thatcher's personal request, is a funeral service, not a memorial service with the customary eulogies.

And at such a time, the parson should not aspire to the judgments which are proper to the politician; instead, this is a place for ordinary human compassion of the kind that is reconciling. It is also the place for the simple truths which transcend political debate. And above all it is the place for hope.














0 comments:

Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven

10:22 0 Comments


Although law and politics have an overlap, the main aim of this blog is to look at the law as either enacted through Parliament or expounded by the judges through their judgments in decided cases.  Occasionally, it seems appropriate to depart to some extent from that norm.  The death of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher seems to me to be such a time.  I did not admire every policy adopted by the 'Iron Lady' and her government's implementation of policy could be uncaring and even brutal.  Nevertheless, I had admiration for her conviction and courage.  In this post my aim is merely to touch upon a few of the issues which arose in her time in office and which had long-lasting influence on the law.

Thatcher became Prime Minister in May 1979 and served until November 1990.  She was preceded by James Callaghan (Labour) who, on 28th March 1979, lost a vote of confidence in the House of Commons - (see Wikipedia - Callaghan Vote).  A general election was called and was won by the Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher.  Interestingly, Callaghan lost the vote of confidence by just one vote which, at the time, I thought surprising given the Winter of Discontent 1978-79.

Winter 1978-79

The Thatcher years were noted for terrorism - often, in connection with Northern Ireland: e.g. the murder of Lord Mountbatten of Burma (August 1979); bombs in Hyde Park, London (July 1982); the Brighton Hotel bomb (October 1984).  Throughout those years, the Prevention of Terrorism Acts - (first enacted in 1974 after bombings in Birmingham) - were continued in force by annual renewal in Parliament.  These were the precursors to permanent terrorism legislation from 2000 onwards - (see article by Kathryn Fisher).  The UK now has a complex web of anti-terrorism law - Terrorism Law resource.  In Northern Ireland, non-jury trials for certain 'scheduled offences' were introduced in the early 1970s and they continued in force through the Thatcher years and beyond - see Diplock courts and Law and Lawyers 14th October 2010.  A lingering legacy of the Diplock Courts is that non-jury trial for certain offences continues to remain possible in Northern Ireland - see Rights Watch UK - March 2013.

The 1970s was a decade marked by considerable industrial unrest particularly in large manufacturing industries.  Government and the law had proved to be ineffective in dealing with this.   The Industrial Relations Act 1971 which established the National Industrial Relations Court was a bête noire of the Trades Union movement.  The incoming Labour government in 1974 wasted little time before introducing a Bill to repeal the 1971 Act even though some innovations made by the 1971 Act were retained such as  'unfair dismissal.'  The new legislation became the Trades Union and Labour Relations Act 1974.  During Thatcher's first term in office, further reforms to Trades Union law were made by the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982.

Goose Green ~ Falklands
1982 was the year of the Falklands campaign.   The invasion of the islands by Argentina may be seen as a failure of British foreign policy and Lord Carrington took responsibility for this and resigned.  The people of the Falkland Islands recently voted in a referendum to remain a British Overseas Territory.  However, given the resurgence of Argentinian interest in the islands, this is unlikely to be the end of the dispute.  The successful recovery of the islands by the armed forces gave Thatcher a major boost in  opinion polls and undoubtedly encouraged her to go to the country in 1983 - (General election 1983). 

The Miner's Strike of 1984-85 was marked by extensive violence and confrontation between the Police and miners.  It ended with the demise of most of the coal mining industry but with, at the time, very few employment opportunities for former miners.  The resulting devastation of whole communities dependent on the one industry was tragic and there is lasting bitterness to this day though the power of central government was asserted.

A further assertion of governmental power in relation to the Trades Unions was the Council of Civil Service Unions case which arose from a decision not to permit Trades Union activity at GCHQ.  Prior to this case, there was a view that Royal Prerogative powers were not subject to judicial review.  However, the House of Lords held that exercises of the Royal Prerogative were generally subject to judicial review, with certain exceptions such as matters of national security. This case established that the application of judicial review would be dependent on the nature of the government's powers, not their source.  The government won the case on the trump card of national security and trades unions were excluded from GCHQ.

Did the actions of Thatcher lead to the breaking of Trade Union power?  To an extent, the answer must be Yes.  However, for an interesting view see Did Thatcher break the trade Unions?   It may be that Union influence and power was eventually bound to decline due to what would now be known as 'globalisation.'  Some Unions - despite doing excellent work for their members in many areas - had behaved like dinosaurs in their failure to adapt to the changing world.  Maybe all the Thatcher government did was give them a shove in the direction they were already going.

In their book Freedom under Thatcher, Keith Ewing and Conor Gearty traced changes in the law relating to civil liberty which occurred in the 1980s.  These include the rewriting of much of public order law by the Public Order Act 1986.  The book also addresses the form of centralised control of the Police which was introduced to deal with picketing.  The relationship between the individual and the State altered as a result of this and subsequent legislation (e.g. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 etc) and there is no doubt that the State has gained in its powers to control protest.

It was in 1988 that the Merchant Shipping Act was passed and this led to the incredibly lengthy and costly Factortame litigation.   At the heart of the issue was the supremacy of Parliament v the supremacy of European Community law.  As far as the courts in the UK were concerned, the will of Parliament had to be obeyed.  As far as the European Court of  Justice was concerned, national legislation could not override community law.  Interestingly, the supremacy of community law was well established before the entry of the UK to the communities - Costa v. ENEL (1964), where the ECJ stated, "...the Members States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields"and Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963) - "...the Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights."  There is a good discussion of the Factortame litigation at Thomas Cooper.

Bruges Speech 1988
Thatcher's attitude to 'Europe' was complex - Thatcher and her tussles with Europe.   Nevertheless, she entered into the so-called Single European Act of 1986.  The Single European Act (SEA) revised the Treaties of Rome in order to add new momentum to European integration and to complete the internal market. It amended the rules governing the operation of the European institutions and expanded Community powers, notably in the field of research and development, the environment and common foreign policy.

During the 1980s, a number of important human rights cases reached the European Court of Human Rights.  Despite this, we did not hear from the Thatcher government any extensive anti-Convention rhetoric and the right of individual petition was not questioned - (today, it is embedded into the convention itself).  Furthermore, although the idea of a British Bill of Rights was mentioned in the Conservative Party's 1979 election manifesto, it did not proceed.  In an interesting post on Euro Rights blog - Margaret Thatcher and the Constitution - Richard Edwards notes:   

' ... in the absence of any domestic forum in which to bring human rights claims litigants went to Strasbourg for justice. The UK soon had the worst record of any Contracting State, often for rather mundane cases. Thus Conservative plans to restore corporal punishment in schools were soon abandoned as a consequence of Strasbourg (Campbell and Cosans v UK [1982] 7511/76). Repeated British refusals to regulate telephone tapping ended with the adverse judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Malone v UK [1984] ECHR 8691/79. The Interception of Communications Act 1985 followed. Similarly, a young German fugitive by the name of Jens Soering tried to prevent his extradition to the USA on capital charges initially before the English courts and when this was unsuccessful before the European Commission and Court. The rest, as they say, is history.'

A further case against the UK was McCann and others v UK (1995) 21 EHRR 97.  Intelligence suggested a team of known Provisional IRA members (McCann, Savage, Farrell) were planning a bombing in Gibraltar.   One of the team was a known explosives expert while the others had been linked as well as convicted for various explosive and terrorist related activities.  During surveillance, the team crossed the border from Spain with no resistance from the authorities and subsequently parked a car in a crowded place. In previous times, the IRA had employed remote control detonators and intelligence suggested the car was rigged with explosives with the suspects holding the remote detonator.  A team of SAS soldiers was sent to intercept and arrest them on conspiracy charges, in an operation code-named Operation Flavius.  The team, in accordance with their training, shot and killed the suspects which at the time was justified by the teams to be in response to the suspects reaching for what they believed were the detonators. The inquest into the shootings found no breach of Article 2 of the Gibraltar constitution. At the time of the shootings the suspects had neither a detonator nor any explosives. A car was however found registered under one of the suspects names which had been laced with explosive devices of 'ticking time bomb' type and not remote detonators. It appeared that the suspects were on a reconnaissance-mission and had parked their car to save a space for the actual car containing the explosives.  When the case eventually reached the Strasbourg Grand Chamber, the court (by a 10 to 9 majority) found the UK in breach of Article 2 (Right to Life) of the convention.

It is from cases such as McCann that States have come under an obligation to hold Article 2 compliant inquests when State authorities are implicated in a death - (see Article by Jeremy Hyam -  Where inquests raise a question of human rights).

Reference has already been made to Northern Ireland in the context of terrorism and the Diplock Courts.  The relationship of all Westminster governments to Northern Ireland has been exceptionally complex and the BBC is undoubtedly right in saying that her legacy - (and one could add the legacies of others) - is not likely to be resolved any time soon. - BBC 9th April Margaret Thatcher: Heated debate over Northern Ireland legacy.   Thatcher took a tough stance regarding hunger strikes in Northern Ireland's prisons in 1981.  She entered into an Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985 which gave the Irish government an advisory role in Northern Ireland's government while confirming that there would be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland unless a majority of its people agreed to join the Republic. It also set out conditions for the establishment of a devolved consensus government in the region.   The 1989 murder of Northern Irish solicitor Pat Finucane raised troubling questions about collusion between the Police and certain paramilitary groups - see post on Sir Desmond de Silva QC's Independent Review 12th December 2012.

Northern Ireland Assembly
It was not until after the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 that devolved government was properly re-established at Belfast.  The agreement was a remarkable event and owed much to the redoubtable Mo Mowlam MP.   The Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 provided for an Assembly for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provided for legislative powers, appointment of Ministers etc.  After sitting briefly, the Assembly was again suspended in October 2002.  That suspended assembly was dissolved in January 2007 and elections held in March 2007.  The Northern Ireland Assembly was restored on 8th May 2007.


Before concluding this post, I choose to mention two Acts of Parliament from her time in office which have been, in my opinion, particularly beneficial:  the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Children Act 1989.  The 1984 Act was a major restructuring of Police powers and practice and added important safeguards for suspects.  The 1989 Act established a comprehensive framework for handling those desperately difficult cases where children are suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm. 

Poll Tax Riots took place in 1990
After 12 years in power, Thatcher was ousted by her own Party - 'left to the mercy of her friends' as Lord Tebbitt put it - (House of Lords 10th April).  The Conservative government had become very unpopular as a result of the 'Community Charge' (or 'Poll Tax') introduced in Scotland in 1989 and in England and Wales in 1990.   John Major emerged as Party Leader and won the general election of  April 1992 though he had a considerably smaller majority in Parliament.   Community Charge was replaced by Council Tax in 1993.     

Baroness Thatcher died on 8th April 2013.  She was replete with national honours including being a Lady of the Garter.  Parliament was recalled on 10th April and a ceremonial funeral is to be held on 17th April.  For some, the recall and the funeral are steps too far and, for others, they are seen as due recognition of her remarkable career.  She was controversial in office and her passing rekindled the controversies - (e.g. Independent 12th April).  It will be many years before a truly calm and objective assessment of her remarkable and often turbulent years in office can be made and this post is certainly no attempt to do that.  I have sought to look at, albeit briefly, aspects of her policies which influenced the law and which continue to influence our lives today.

Lincoln's Inn where Margaret Thatcher was called to be Bar in 1953

Euro Rights Blog - Margaret Thatcher and the Constitution - Richard Edwards

Margaret Thatcher Foundation

Wikipedia Biography

A further biography with sound track

The funeral:

Bishop of London's address at Margaret Thatcher's funeral

In pictures - Baroness Thatcher's funeral - BBC 17th April

The Telegraph - Margaret Thatcher's funeral

The Independent - Margaret Thatcher's funeral


To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.
 


0 comments: