"WHAT SHALL WE DO TODAY?"...

06:17 0 Comments

There’s a lot of fun to be had in the West Country and we’ve done the research for you. All you have to do is gather family and friends together and leaf through our brochure to plan the holiday of your dreams.

What if ~ as seems likely ~ it is a hung Parliament ?

03:18 0 Comments

The General Election for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is rapidly approaching.  The latest opinion polls are analysed by UKPollingReport and they continue to suggest a "hung parliament" - that is, no party having an overall majority of seats.  

What is the legal position in the event of such a Parliament ?  Under our Parliamentary system, the test for whether a Prime Minister can govern or not is whether he (or she) commands a majority in the House of Commons.  The situation is expertly considered by Carl Gardner on his Head of Legal Blog - Ed can enter No. 10 without Nicola's keys - and I recommend reading of his post.

The fact
that the UK does not have a formally written constitution results in decisions as to the next government being decided - (a) by the electorate choosing their Members of Parliament and, then (b) by Her Majesty the Queen appointing as Prime Minister the individual who is best able to form a government and, in turn, that is the individual whose Party (or a combination of parties)  is best able to command the confidence of the House.  The Queen will act on the basis of advice given to her and such advice will be based on constitutional conventions and examples of past situations.

A further general election may only be held as specified by the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011.

For more about the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act see Head of Legal blog.

New brochure packed full of welcoming holiday cottages…

08:53 0 Comments

Helpful Holidays - Supplement 2, 2015

Our latest colour supplement, featuring 24 welcoming holiday cottages spread right across the region from the far west of Cornwall to Somerset, is now available. 

If you’re planning to escape for a break in the West Country over the coming months and would like a copy, call us on 01647 433593 or email us and we’ll pop a copy in the post.  Alternatively you can browse the supplement online on our brochure page. 

The new holiday homes, sleeping from two to 13 people, extend our portfolio to over 760 places for happy holidays.  

Buster Barn

Prices start from £269 for a low season week at Buster Barn, a detached barn for two in Sampford Spiney with long views over Dartmoor; and at the other end of the pricing scale, Bight Boathouse, a spacious holiday home for 11 set high above the riverbank in Dartmouth with stunning views along the river Dart and out to sea, is priced from £1,244 per week rising to £3,116 in the high season. Pets are welcome at most of the new cottages in the supplement.


 Other highlights include:

Who may stand for election to Parliament?

03:27 0 Comments

In a recent conversation, someone asked whether a member of the Scottish National Party (SNP) could stand for an ENGLISH seat in Parliament. As a matter of law, the answer is Yes.  This is because it is individuals who stand for Parliament and not political parties.  Of course, it is doubtful whether anyone standing for the SNP in an English constituency would ever be elected but that would be a matter for the electorate in that constituency.

For that reason, from time-to-time, there will be a Member of Parliament who is an Independent - that is, independent from any political party and in no way beholden to the Party Whip systems.  Independent MPs are quite rare these days but, in the 20th century, there were quite a few - see the lists in this Wikipedia entry and also see The Guardian - Other Famous Independent Parliamentary Candidates.  One notable recent independent MP was the broadcaster Martin Bell - elected as an Independent MP for Tatton (in Cheshire) from 1997 to 2001 having stood on an anti-corruption platform against the sitting Tory MP, Neil Hamilton.

Some categories of individual are disqualified under
the House of Commons (Disqualification) Act 1975 from becoming an MP.  These include certain holders of judicial offices such as Judges of the High Court.  A District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) is disqualified but Justices of the Peace may stand for Parliament though, in their case, guidance issued in March 2015 applies.  The guidance reminds those magistrates who are also prospective candidates that, during an election campaign, they may not sit as a magistrate in the same local justice area as the constituency concerned until the result of the election is known.  If actually elected, the magistrate must seek reassignment to a different local justice area or stand down from the active list.

The House of Lords Act 1999 reformed the ancient link between hereditary peers and the House of Lords.  Today, under a compromise arrangement, only 92 hereditary peers may sit in the Lords.  Any hereditary peer who is not one of the 92 is entitled to stand for election as a Member of the House of Commons.

Interestingly, the SNP is urging that defeated or retired MPs are not retained in politics by their elevation to the House of Lords.  The Lords is already a large body with around 790 eligible to take part in the work of the House - see here.  In the early years of the 2010 to 15 Parliament, David Cameron created well over 100 new peers.  Attempts to reform the House of Lords have usually tended to fail though there will doubtless be further attempts depending on the make up of the next government.  Previous Post 20th May 2011 - Plantagenet Palliser - after 100 years, will Lords reform arrive? 

A brilliant new website - RIGHTS INFORMATION

01:56 0 Comments

At a time when "human rights" are under attack from certain politicians and elements in the popular media, a superb new website has arrived - Human Rights Information to Share (or Rights.info.org).  Many congratulations to barrister Adam Wagner and those behind this initiative.  The need to help people understand their rights and to value those hard-fought rights has never been greater and Rights Information goes a long way to help.

Here you can see Everything you need to know about rights, find out what human rights do for us, get information on 50 cases where human rights have improved the law, sign up for a daily newsletter and there is much more!

Please share the link to Rights Information with your friends and work colleagues.

Writing on his Head of Legal blog, Carl Gardner says of Rights Information
- "What’s immediately striking about the site, is its clean, contemporary look. When you combine that design and usability with content that’s authoritative and engaging, RightsInfo adds up to a really interesting web initiative in the public understanding of law.

You’ll certainly want to subscribe to RightsInfo if you’re interested in human rights. But more importantly, it’s going to be an excellent place to send anyone who’s sceptical about human rights but open to persuasion. RightsInfo is an impressive new tool – and I wish it well."

I also wish Rights Information all the luck in the world.

The DPP under the microscope over Janner

06:09 0 Comments

Criminal Law Blog 24th April - Lord Janner prosecution - comment

Law and Lawyers 18th April - Lord Greville Janner - the decision not to prosecute

The decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Alison Saunders) not to institute criminal proceedings against Lord Greville Janner (see previous post where the decision is explained) has resulted in outrage in certain quarters.

Questions have been raised about Janner's dementia despite the point that four medical practitioners (two from each "side") had advised that he was not fit to stand trial - see, for example, The Guardian 20th April - Further questions raised about whether or not Lord Janner is fit to stand trial.

A considerable number of politicians have lined up to criticise the decision.

A letter to The Times by various politicians urged reversal of the DPP's decision - see The Independent 22nd April. 

The DPP
attempted to address the criticism and has stood by her decision - The Independent  25th April  .  Saunders asserts that she is not afraid of having her decision tested either by the courts (judicial review) or by a victim initiating the Right to Review process.  If the latter, then the review would be undertaken by a lawyer from outside the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).  She also stated that it is not for her to act in a populist way.

The office of Director of Public Prosecutions can be traced back to 1879 and the office has been independent of government since 1908 - (for some of the history see this wikipedia entry). The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 created the Crown Prosecution Service and made the DPP its Head.

On many occasions, the independence of the CPS with regard to prosecutorial decisions has been asserted - for example, see the 1998 Glidewell Report and the House of Commons Justice Committee's 9th report (Session 2008-9).

The Glidewell report stated - "The CPS is now established as a national and independent organisation operating in accordance with a Code for Crown Prosecutors and contributing to the formulation of Government policy on criminal justice."

The Justice Committee report said - "The CPS needs to take a bold and robust approach as the independent prosecutor."  The Committee's report went further with regard to the relationship between the prosecutor and complainants (often now referred to as 'victims').  The report said - "Telling a victim that their views are central to the criminal justice system, or that the prosecutor is their champion, is a damaging misrepresentation of reality.  Expectations have been raised that will inevitably be disappointed. Furthermore, the criminal justice system is set up to represent the public rather than individuals, and there are good reasons for this. The CPS’s role as independent arbiter of decisions about prosecution is critical.  Explaining this role clearly to victims such that their expectations are managed realistically, rather than raised then disappointed, is vital."

The Independent has chosen to tell us how the DPP should have handled the Janner case - The Independent 25th April.  They comment that - "... it is not enough for Britain’s top prosecutor to be a good lawyer. She must also possess sound political judgement, which means understanding the impact of her decisions in wider society. She should not be so independent that she is completely detached from the court of public opinion.it is not enough for Britain’s top prosecutor to be a good lawyer. She must also possess sound political judgement, which means understanding the impact of her decisions in wider society. She should not be so independent that she is completely detached from the court of public opinion."

The same article also asserts - "Saunders’ lack of political nous means she has done little to cultivate friends in the media or Parliament, while her handling of the fallout of the prosecutions of journalists for payments to officials has antagonised Fleet Street."

I doubt that I am alone in feeling some concern at this.  The DPP made a decision having taken advice from a number of lawyers but the decision was hers and hers alone. The DPP has to act on the basis of the law and the Code for Prosecutors and she should not have to worry about any political repercussions.  It is not for her to "cultivate friends" in either the media or Parliament.  Decisions to prosecute must not become based on political considerations and a prosecutor must never abandon legal principle and, like Pontius Pilate*, wash her hands of the accused.

In this matter, the DPP seems to have acted properly - (see the view of Lord Pannick QC published in The Times) - and has acted with considerable moral courage.  For that we should at least be grateful.  

The CPS Victims Right to Review scheme is described on the CPS website.  It may be that such as review will be triggered and, if so, the DPP has indicated that the review would be handled by a lawyer external to the CPS.

* Pilate is said to have washed his hands to show that he was not responsible for the execution of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death.

Addendum - 29th April:

It is reported that some of the complainants are seeking a review of the DPP's decision - The Guardian 28th  April

The Conservative Party manifesto and human rights

04:52 0 Comments

The Conservative Party manifesto states that the terms of British EU membership will be renegotiated and an in/out referendum held.  The Human Rights Act will be "scrapped" and replaced by a British Bill of Rights.  As for legal aid, the document merely informs us that they would continue to review our legal aid systems, so they can continue to promote access to justice in an efficient way.

The statement about legal aid continuing to promote access to justice is questionable since legal aid has been removed from many areas of civil law, considerably curtailed in Magistrates' Courts and means tested in the Crown Court so that many will end up paying a contribution to their legal fees.  Just what the manifesto means by review is debatable but it seems unlikely that they would be proposing any reinstatement of legal aid into areas where it was withdrawn under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

Human Rights - a few thoughts:


The United Kingdom - as a nation - is a member of the Council of Europe and it is under that body that the European Convention on Human Rights operates.  For purely political reasons, I cannot see the UK withdrawing from the Council and the manifesto makes no such suggestion.  Thus, the UK would - as a nation - continue to be bound in international law by its obligations under the Convention.

Nevertheless, the Human Rights Act 1998 would be "scrapped" and replaced by a British Bill of Rights.  The British Bill would remain faithful to the basic principles of human rights, which we signed up to in the original European Convention on Human Rights.  What they see as "mission creep" would be removed.  In other words, they seek to stop 'human rights law being used for more and more purposes, and often with little regard for the rights of wider society.'  Here is an attack on the so-called "living instrument" doctrine developed by the European Court of Human Rights and which sees the convention as capable of adaptation to the needs of contemporary democratic societies as opposed to the needs and attitudes of the 1950s.  The living instrument approach has enabled the law to be carefully developed in sensible ways - e.g. the concept of "family".

The contents of a British Bill of Rights are not set out though perhaps some indication may still be found in the report of the Bill of Rights Commission.  However, the extent to which they would adopt the Commission report and recommendations is far from clear.  Whilst accepting that a manifesto is a blueprint for government, tt would be helpful to the voter to know rather more about just what is proposed and a draft Bill of Rights promised for the autumn of 2014 did not appear.

The word "original" is also interesting.  They cannot truly mean a return to the convention as it was in the 1950s and ignore the various subsequent protocols.  Again, the document lacks precision.

One point is made a little clearer in that the manifesto indicates that the repeal of the Human Rights Act and the British Bill of Rights will "break the link between British Courts and the European Court of Human Rights" and "make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK."

The link referred to is presumably the point that the Human Rights Act requires our domestic courts to "take into account" decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.  That is quite a step away from actually telling courts that they MUST follow Strasbourg decisions though, essentially as a matter of common sense, the judges tend to do so unless there is some good reason not to do so.

Of course, the Supreme Court of the UK - mighty as it is - cannot be the "ultimate arbiter" of human rights in the UK - (see Making the Supreme Court Supreme).  That role would have to remain with Parliament and the UK would, as already stated, continue to be bound in international law by those decisions of the European Court of Human Rights to which the UK was a party.

Whether the British Bill of Rights proposal would appeal to those in parts of the UK with devolved government (e.g. Scotland, Northern Ireland) is a further debatable point.  It would be ludicrous to end up with markedly different systems of rights protection depending where you were in the UK.

Much food for thought here .... especially for the thinking voter !!  I remain seriously sceptical about their proposals because I see this as part of an agenda to limit rights and access to justice.

Please also see Public Law for Everyone - Human Rights in the Conservative's manifesto - Four comments

Human Rights -a look at the Conservative Party proposals - (i.e. as they appeared in October 2014)

Lord Greville Janner ~ the decision not to prosecute

05:32 0 Comments

Lord Janner of Braunstone (aged 86) who suffers from dementia is not to be prosecuted for 22 alleged serious sexual offences.  The reasons for this decision are set out in a statement issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions.  Please read the statement in full.

The two-stage test:

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) applies a well-known two-stage test in deciding whether to prosecute: (1) the evidential test and (2) the public interest test.  The CPS considered the evidential test to be met in relation to all the allegations.  However, the CPS decided that the public interest test was not met.
The statement notes:

'At the outset, it is emphasised that but for medical considerations, it would undoubtedly have been in the public interest to prosecute. Public interest factors in favour of a prosecution include that the allegations are of very serious offending; the complainants were young, vulnerable children and the allegations involve the alleged abuse of power and position.  The CPS equally has no doubt that, if the correct decisions had been taken about the evidential test in relation to the previous investigations, the public interest test would have been passed and prosecution should have followed.'


It then continues:


'Four medical experts, all experienced and highly qualified, have examined Lord Janner - two instructed by his own legal team, two by the police and prosecutors. The most recent medical report is dated 31 March 2015. The key findings are as follows:

•     Lord Janner is suffering from a degenerative dementia which is rapidly becoming more severe. He requires continuous care both day and night.

•     His evidence could not be relied upon in court and he could not have any meaningful engagement with the court process, and the court would find it impossible to proceed.

•     On the Mini Mental State examination all four doctors were in general agreement as to the level of cognitive ability.

•     The condition will only deteriorate, there is no prospect of recovery.

•     Manipulation (“putting it on”) is “out of the question”.

•     There is no risk of future offending.

... and so, the CPS concluded that ...

'... Lord Janner would inevitably be found not fit to plead, not fit to instruct his legal team and not fit to challenge or give evidence in a trial.  That means that a criminal trial, to determine whether or not he was guilty of any offence, could not now properly take place.'


Fitness to plead:

The question of what is usually referred to as "fitness to plead" therefore had to be considered.  This is a far from simple area of the criminal law and this blog took a brief look at the subject in October 2010 - Fitness to Plead.    See also the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Wells, Masud, Hone and Kail [2015] EWCA Crim 2 where Sir Brian Leveson P stated:

'The mechanism for deciding how then to deal with the consequences of [a finding of unfit to plead] ... is set out in the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 as substituted by the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 and amended by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 ...'

Under this legislation, there can be a hearing to determine whether the accused "did the act or made the omission" of the offence.  Such a hearing is referred to as a section 4A hearing.  As the Wells case shows, this can raise some difficult problems.  Paragraphs 3 to 5 of Sir Brian Leveson's judgment in Wells are worth noting here - [my emphasis added]:

3.  In the event that a defendant is found to have done the act or made the omission, there is no determination of a criminal charge and no question of conviction or punishment: see the analysis in R v M [2002] 1 WLR 824. Only the act or omission has been proved and there has been no investigation or attempt (even less, a successful attempt) to prove all the constituent ingredients of the offence charged. The powers of the court are therefore not those which follow a conviction but are restricted to measures designed to treat, rehabilitate and support while, in the most serious cases, providing protection for the public. 

4.  Thus, the court is confined to ordering an absolute discharge, a supervision order or, if appropriately certified by medical practitioners, making a hospital order (with or without a restriction order): see s 5(2) of the Act.....

5.  The balance which the legislation seeks to strike, therefore, is to protect the rights and interests of those accused of crime to ensure that their liberty is not adversely affected without the appropriate safeguards of a court having established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did the act or made the omission charged. On the other hand, the public interest is also protected from those who are proved to have committed the most serious acts but who cannot be tried on the grounds that they are unfit to take part in a trial of the allegations made against them.

Why decide against applying the procedure to Lord Janner?


So, the Janner case raised the further issue of why not use this mechanism to have him declared (by the judge)unfit to plead and go down the road of a jury then making a determination under section 4A.  The CPS statement comments - 'The CPS has considered with particular care whether it would nevertheless be appropriate to launch a fitness to plead process' and then goes on to state:

'There are .... some cases in which such a process may be appropriate in order for example to protect the public either by a hospital order or by a supervision order.  However, in this case, the CPS judges that the outcome of such proceedings would not only be without conviction, but would also result in an absolute discharge.   The medical evidence establishes both that there is no current risk of re-offending identified and that there is no likelihood of the defendant recovering from his medical condition (and thus that there is no future risk of reoffending either). Balancing these factors with those in favour of prosecution, the balance is that there is not a public interest in commencing criminal proceedings in this case.'

Comment:

Each year, the statutory process (section 4A)  is followed in a reasonably high number of cases.  In the event that the jury finds that the accused did the required act then the court can, at least, impose an absolute discharge.  This may offer victims some redress.  In the event that the jury finds that the accused did not do the required act then the accused has the benefit of that finding.  Thus, the balance in the legislation (referred to by Sir Brian Leveson) is met.

I have therefore wondered whether it was entirely right for the DPP to have used the "public interest test" as a reason to pre-empt the statutory process which could follow a finding of unfitness to plead.  It appears that Eleanor Laws QC advised the CPS that a prosecution ought to go ahead - The Needle Blog 18th April.  The case of Michael Collingwood (Exeter Crown Court in 2010) is referred to in that blogpost.  It was a case where a section 4A hearing was held even though Collingwood had severe dementia.  Regrettably, detailed facts of his case are not readily available but would, presumably, have been available to the DPP.

However, overall, I respectfully think the DPP's decision was correct mainly because the process under section 4A is appropriate to those cases where there is (or may be) a need for public protection and such protection would be achieved by, for example, a supervision or hospital order.  In Janner's case, there is clearly no such risk.  In such circumstances, it would be a bizarre process to put a man in court who is - on the evidence of 4 medical practitioners (two from each side) - unable to participate properly in the process.

The alleged victims:

Justice for the alleged victims in this case may be impossible to achieve.  However, some possibilities (and I would not place them higher) are discussed on the Barrister Blog - Lord Janner: Was the DPP right?  What can the complainants do next?

In addition to the options discussed by Barrister Blog there is the further likelihood that the case will be considered by the Child Abuse Inquiry under the chairmanship of New Zealand judge, The Honourable Justice Goddard.

Finally, even if belatedly, there is admission in the CPS statement that matters have been badly handled in the past and the statement indicates that:

'In order to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and to seek to learn appropriate lessons, the CPS has asked retired High Court Judge, Sir Richard Henriques, to conduct a thorough and independent review into the CPS decision making and handling of all past matters relating to this case; and to make whatever recommendations he considers appropriate.  He has agreed to undertake this task.'

I hope that the findings and recommendations are made public.

It also appears that civil action against Lord Janner is being considered by some alleged victims - Mirror 18th April

Unhappiness:

Inevitably, there are those who are unhappy at the DPP's decision - see Mail Online - Lord Janner child abuse scandal: Now Theresa May turns heat on DPP over botched case

Whilst we all know that the general election campaign is underway, it may be noted that Theresa May has something of a track record for publicly criticising the decisions of others including even the Supreme Court of the UK.  The DPP is an independent office holder and must act in accordance with the law and proper legal practice.  The popularity of a decision must not be a consideration.

In a statement, Leicestershire Police have expressed "disappointment" at the DPP's decision and state that they are considering a judicial review of that decision - read the statement here.  The Leicestershire Police have also published a statement by an alleged victim.  The publication is at the request of that individual.  The statement comments - "This animal is still being protected because [of his status] and isn't able to stand trial ..."  The publication by a Police Force of a statement containing such derogatory language about the suspect is a worrying development.

Other material:

Criminal Law Blog - Fitness to Plead

Law Commission Consultation 197 - Unfitness to plead and their analysis of the responses to the consultation

CPS website - Mentally disordered offenders

Mental Health Law Online - Unfitness and Insanity cases 

Mental Health Law Online - The legislation

The fight for access to Justice

03:20 0 Comments

A poll conducted for the Criminal Law Solicitor's Association has concluded that the British public believes that legal aid should be a right and not a benefit see Solicitors Journal. The CLSA plans to hold a rally in Westminster on 23rd April to seek to make the governmental attack on legal aid more of an election issue.

A Guardian animation - Superheroes battling for legal aid - also highlights the parlous state of legal aid provision following the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 ( LASPO). 

Cuts to legal aid have been implemented under the mantra of the need to save money in times of austerity. Whilst access to justice - at reasonable cost - ought to be a fundamental democratic right, it is a great sadness that there seems to be no Party with a chance of being in government that is willing to return to anything like the pre-LASPO arrangements.

The lack of legal aid is compounded by the recent imposition of considerable court fees - see Court fee increases approved (6th March) and Criminal Court Charges (4th April).

"EUROPE" is one of the election issues and, in the area of criminal law, there are many "Euro-myths".  In a video, Professor John R Spencer of Cambridge University tackles some of the myths - Is EU criminal law a threat to British justice?

1,000,000 exceeded

13:54 0 Comments

I am absolutely delighted that this blog has today exceeded 1,000,000 page views.  So many thanks to all of you who take the trouble to follow my occasional ramblings about the law in England and Wales.  You may be assured that - God Willing - I will continue for some time to come.

The blog started on 14th January 2010 - a winter's night when I felt rather bored and thought why not write about the second love of my life - English law.  I was impressed by the doyen of bloggers - CharonQC and also by Adam Wagner's efforts with UK Human Rights Blog and Carl Gardner's Head of Legal blog.  Thankfully - they all continue to provide excellent and inspirational material.  This blog had 500,000 hits by 25th July 2013 and will hopefully plod on to offer further observations which never seek to persuade or dictate but merely to try to inform.   

Criminal Court Charges - again !

02:21 0 Comments

The following tweet requires little by way of explanation. The relevant legislation may be seen via my earlier blogpost - Criminal Court Charges.  The impact of this on the rate of guilty-pleas remains to be seen but it seems likely that some will opt to plead guilty rather than face this particular charge.  Of course, if they do that,  they will then often find themselves hit by a fine, costs and so-called "victim" surcharge.  All of this is ample illustration of the parlous state of justice in this country today.  The fact that the court has to impose the charge irrespective of means is disgraceful.

A glance at the Labour Party Manifesto

08:46 0 Comments

Here are some of the "justice highlights" in the Labour Party Manifesto for the 2015 General Election.  The full manifesto is here and is summarised at Election 2015: Labour Manifesto at-a-glance

The EU and Human Rights:

Labour would work to reform the European Union, and would retain our membership of it.  The Human Rights Act 1998 would be protected and the European Court of Human Rights would be reformed rather than the UK walking away from it.  The precise "reforms" that would be sought are not mentioned.   Also, reform of the European Convention system is not a matter within the gift of the British government alone and the Council of Europe would have to be persuaded to introduce reforms.


Access to justice:

Labour would make sure that access to legal representation is not determined by personal wealth but remains available to those that need it.  Again, the manifesto is short on detail but there is a promise that access to Legal aid for victims of domestic violence will be widened.  On the basis of this manifesto, there is little to bring joy to those who would wish to see a return to much more comprehensive legal aid provision.  On this, please see the Steve Cornforth blog - What are the parties saying about Access to Justice?

The coalition government introduced fees of up to £1200 for employment tribunal claimants.  Labour sees this as a significant barrier to workplace justice and they would abolish the employment tribunal fee system as part of wider reforms to make sure that affordability is not a barrier to workers having proper access to justice, that employers get a quicker resolution and that costs to the tax payer do not rise.   The manifesto contains a commitment to repair the damage done by the coalition government to judicial review.  

The Constitution:

A whole section of the manifesto is concerned with how Britain is to be governed and so, constitutional reform, seems likely to be stepped up should Labour be in a position to form the next government.  Notable proposals here include votes for 16 and 17 year olds by 2016; more devolution of power to English cities and counties; a "people-led" constitutional convention to determine the future of the UK's governance and replacement of the House of Lords with an elected Senate of the Nation and regions.

Further proposals:

Further proposals include abolition of Police and Crime Commissioners and a strengthening of "neighbourhood policing".  Police Officers would become "chartered" and hold a registration from the College of Policing.  A new Police Standards Authority would replace the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

"Payback Orders" would be introduced to replace "low-level cautions."  

Tougher penalties to protect public sector workers from assault

Identification of 18-20 year olds thought likely to drift into criminal activitiy.

Police power to prevent an adult contacting or communicating with a child if there is evidence of abuse.

Strengthening the vetting and barring scheme.

A Women and Girls Bill with a Commissioner to set minimum standards in tackling domestic and sexual violence.  Amendment of the law so that rape suspects have their DNA recorded and stored.

 Victims of Crime would gain rights under a Bill to be introduced but, yet again, detail is lacking.  

There is a section on tackling extremism.  Proposals here include the possibility of "control orders" returning in some form.  There will be a mandatory deradicalisation programme for any individuals returning from "the Syrian conflict."  Investigative laws will be updated to keep abreast of new technology.  Also, the law on "disability, homophobic and transphobic hate crime" would be strengthened.   

Lifelong memories from Farms for City Children

07:02 0 Comments

Readers of this blog will know that Farms for City Children is our charity for 2015. The charity, founded by children’s author Michael Morpurgo and his wife Clare at Nethercott Farm in Devon in 1976, gives children from urban areas the chance to spend a week living and working on a real farm in the heart of the countryside.

The charity has many fans - namely the thousands (70,000 to be exact!) of children who have benefited from this fantastic experience over the years. Of course the vast majority are now adults, but the memories remain crystal clear, as this testimonial from 40 year old David, from Omaha, NE. USA shows:

Men are not eligible to apply ....

04:00 0 Comments

The Judiciary has announced a new initiative aimed at improving diversity in the role of Deputy High Court Judge. This new route to the High Court is explained by Lady Justice Hallett in this video.  Places on the programme are limited to women, BAME candidates and those from a less advantaged background, because these are the areas where the judiciary is said to be significantly less representative of society.  Taking part in the programme will not guarantee appointment by the Judicial Appointments Commission as a Deputy High Court judge or success in a subsequent High Court exercise.

See also Legal Business 8th April 2015.

Coroners

03:41 0 Comments

Coroners perform an important and very long-established role.  In recent times there have been a number of important reforms brought about by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.  His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC has recently been re-appointed as Chief Coroner of England and Wales - (an office specifically created by the 2009 Act).  His new appointment is until 1st October 2016.

The Judiciary website has published a considerable amount of guidance relating to Coroners.

A Lamp For Each Room In Your Home

08:05 Home Decorating , Lamp 0 Comments

Benefits And Safeguards Provided By The Structured Settlement Protection Act

08:04 Structured Settlement Protection Act 0 Comments

Planning a Surprise Romantic Trip

08:02 Romantic Trip 0 Comments

The Best of British Cottages with the BBC series "Poldark" Part Two

06:51 0 Comments

The Brass Bolt Shop

Trecam

The Queach

Week Farm

Criminal Court Charges

01:47 0 Comments

On 13th April, the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015 enter into force.

They are well explained in this article in the Law Society Gazette 27th March.  Suspects pleading not guilty in the Crown court will risk paying a court fee of £1,200 if convicted under guidelines slipped into legislation without debate in the final days of the last parliament.  Law Society president Andrew Caplen described the new charges as ‘outrageous’ and a threat to fair trials.

The Magistrates' Blog describes the fees as "Callous and Destructive."