Source: http://obiterj.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2017-02-23 20:55:10
Document Index: 594483123

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'arts 1', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'UKHL ', 'EWCA ', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'UKSC ', 'UKSC ']

Law and Lawyers: June 2011
Updated 30th June, 1st July, 2nd, 4th and 5th July: 4th July 2011: A Police Detention and Bail Bill is to be rushed through the House of Commons this coming Thursday and the House of Lords early next week. It will give the Police what they want. An interesting question is whether it will give them even more power? Rushed legislation is invariably ill-considered and usually leads to further problems.
5th July: The Supreme Court refused to "stay" the High Court's judgment in the Hookway case. See the Supreme Court's brief statement. ----
The law is in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 sections 41 to 45. The time for which a suspect (S) can be held commences from the "relevant time." What the relevant time is will depend on section 41 but, in many cases, it is the time at which S is checked in at the Police Station following his arrest. The basic rule is that he may be held for a maximum of 24 hours from the relevant time (RT+24). Under section 42, a Police officer of Superintendent rank or above may, provided certain conditions are met, authorise detention up to relevant time + 36 hours (RT+36). If the Police need still more time, they must apply to the Magistrates' Court which, under section 43, may issue a Warrant of Further Detention. This must state the time of issue and will authorise the detention of S for the period stated in it. The maximum time the Magistrates may grant is 36 hours thereby taking the detention toward relevant time + 72. (The precise time will depend on the time of issue of the warrant and how much time the court gives). A final possibility
Jurors and contempt; the limits of cross-examination; government seeks appeal in Shoesmith case
More on the juror's duty and contempt of court: The judgment in the juror contempt of court case is available - see Attorney-General v Fraill and Sewart [2011] EWCA Crim 1570 and [2011] EWCH 1629 (Admin). It explains how the court arrived at a sentence of 8 months imprisonment for juror Fraill but a sentence of 2 months suspended for 2 years for non-juror and acquitted defendant Sewart. The case is also interesting in that the judges sat first as a Divisional Court of the Queens Bench Division to deal with the contempt matter and then became a Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to consider and, in the event, dismiss the appeal by Gary Knox. His appeal was considered to be "misconceived" - see paragraphs 27-51 of the judgment.
The Lord Chief Justice, who had previously made a speech about jurors researching cases on the internet, was clearly determined to send out a strong message that such conduct would not be tolerated. His Lordship emphasized that the obligation of jury secrecy does not cease once the trial is over (see para 61). It is an indefinite obligation. A final point was that judges should not tell jurors that they are not to discuss the case until they retire to consider their verdict. The correct approach is for the judge to direct the jury never to discuss the case unless they are all together, and in private, and further to direct them that whatever their discussion at any stage of the case, they will obviously keep open minds and not jump to conclusions until the evidence is completed and the summing up has been given.
See Crown Prosecution Service - Contempt of Court. Except for certain urgent cases, prosecutions for contempt are brought in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. Here is the law standing on its dignity and seeking to uphold the authority of the courts and the judges. This was said to be the correct procedure in Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] QB 73 - where the defendant had referred to the judge as a "humourless automaton" - the defendant no doubt discovered that he was right ! For other examples of contempts see "Contempt of Court: Greatest Hits."
Cross-examination in the Levi Bellfield trial : Levi Bellfield
The trial of Levi Bellfield for the murder of Read more »
The "Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill" - A Quick Glance - a lot to look at and much unhappiness
Introduction: On 21st June, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Kenneth Clarke QC MP) introduced into Parliament his Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Along with the Bill, explanatory notes are also available. The Bill has 119 clauses and 16 Schedules.
Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill deal, respectively, with Legal Aid and Litigation Funding and Costs. Part 3 - which divides into 7 Chapters - deals with Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders. Part 4 includes some "Final Provisions." There are then 16 schedules.
The 7 Chapters in Part 3 are entitled: (1) Sentencing; (2) Bail; (3) remands of children otherwise than on bail; (4) Release on Licence; (5) Prisoners etc; (6) out of Court Disposals; (7) Knives and Offensive Weapons. Prior consultations: At this stage, it should be noted that the Bill builds on three consultations: Proposals for the reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales - November 2010
Proposals for the reform of civil litigation funding and costs in England and Wales - November 2010 - (based on Lord Justice Jackson's Report)
A quick glance at some of the clauses: Some of the instantly striking features of the Bill are:
The Bill will enact an entirely new scheme for legal aid. Present arrangements under the Access to Justice Act 1999 will be replaced. The Legal Services Commission will be abolished and administration of legal aid transferred to an executive agency within the Ministry of Justice. There is to be an official known as the Director of Legal Aid Casework who will be responsible for the decision-making about legal aid in individual cases. This will raise concerns about the executive agency's actual degree of independence from government.
Ideas - which were not implemented - in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will be repealed. These include "Custody Plus", "Intermittent Custody" (only briefly trialled) and the increase in Magistrates' Courts sentencing powers. Part 3 Chapter 6 contains amendments to the legislation under which police constables may issue a penalty notice for disorder and authorised persons may give conditional cautions. This includes the introduction of a penalty notice with an education option and provision for conditional cautions to be given without the need to refer the case to the relevant prosecutor. The amendments also allow new types of conditions to be attached to a conditional caution given to a foreign national offender without leave to enter or stay in the United Kingdom. The Chapter creates a new kind of youth caution. It also makes amendments to youth conditional cautions by making them more flexible.
Part 3 Chapter 7 creates new offences relating to threatening with weapons in public and threatening with a blade or point of offensive weapon. There will be a minimum sentence of 6 months imprisonment for persons over 18 found guilty of these new offences (unless this would be unjust in all the circumstances).
It will become possible for Penalty Notices for Disorder to have an "education condition" attached requiring the person to attend a
Explaining our Law and Legal System ... No.5 ... Magistrates
No.4 - Juries The background: In the region of 30,000 people hold the office of "Justice of the Peace" (JP) and deliver summary justice in the Magistrates' Courts of England and Wales. In this task they are advised on the law and procedure by legally-qualified "legal advisers." JPs, along with jurors, exemplify the extensive involvement of "non-lawyers" (or "lay" persons) in our legal system - (perhaps a long-established example of the "Big Society"). Their work is done voluntarily, for no reward and with little recognition. The Magistrates Association supports and represents them though membership of the association is voluntary.
The origins of the office of JP extend back to medieval times when the Monarch had need of trusty people capable of dealing with offenders. At that time, such persons were naturally those with wealth (i.e. usually large landowners) and local power. It is the Justices of the Peace Act 1361 from which the present day powers of the JP can be traced. Over the centuries, the JP has been a very useful resource when Parliament has required some task or other to be performed. For instance, the administration of the licensing laws was a major function of the justices for centuries until the Licensing Act 2003 transferred it to local authorities though a right of appeal to the Magistrates' Court remains. The magistracy has proved to be extremely adaptable and the composition of a modern bench is a far cry from what it was even some 30-40 years ago. Today it will be made up of people from many backgrounds, walks of life and income levels.
In the late 1940s a Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace - (under the Chairmanship of Lord Du Parcq) - sat and recommended the continuation of the system of lay justices. A minority of Commission members - (notably Lord Merthyr) - dissented and considered that there should be a gradual replacement of lay justices by "stipendiary magistrates" who were legally-qualified (i.e. at the time barristers or solicitors of at least 7 years standing). The report of the Royal Commission was considered in a Modern Law Review article by James Whiteside and it makes interesting reading. The Lord Chancellor of the time - (Lord Jowitt of Stevenage) - stated that he would need 500 Stipendiary Magistrates if the JPs were to be replaced and he would be unable to find them. In any event, he was of the view that it was "an excellent thing that justice should be administered by the ordinary lay people ..." James Whiteside wrote:
" In a masterpiece of concise statement the Report commends the present system ‘because, like that of trial by jury, it gives the citizen a part to play in the administration of the law. It emphasises the fact that the principles of the common law, and even the language of statutes, ought to be (as in the case of the common law at least, they certainly are) comprehensible by any intelligent person without specialised training. Its continuance prevents the growth of a suspicion in the ordinary man’s mind that the law is a mystery which must be left to a professional caste and has little in common with justice as the layman understands it."
The long and interesting history of the Magistracy was masterfully recorded by Sir Thomas Skyrme in his three volume "History of the Justices of the Peace" (1990).
See also Law and Lawyers - "A Jewel Beyond Price ... the Magistracy of England and Wales" (December 2010) and also March 2011.
Other parts of the United Kingdom: The system of "Lay Magistrates" in Northern Ireland is described by the Law Centre (Northern Ireland) in "An overview of the Lay Magistracy in Northern Ireland." The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 made significant changes and introduced, from 1st April 2005, the new office of "Lay Magistrate." Some of the background to this is considered in "The history of lay involvement in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland" and the article refers to the immense courage shown by JPs in recent years and to the murder in 1977 of Mr Robert Mitchell JP.
In Scotland, there has been a system of JPs since 1609 and a system of "Justice of the Peace Courts" has been recently set up under the Criminal Proceedings etc (Reform)(Scotland) Act 2007. This development came about in an interesting way. The Scottish Ministers commissioned a "Summary Justice Review" and a majority of the review team recommended abolition of the office of JP. However, there was a "Note of Dissent" by Sheriff Brian Lockhart and Mrs Helen G Murray JP. The Scottish Parliament was persuaded by the dissenters and not only legislated to retain "lay justice" in Scotland but also created the Justice of the Peace Courts. The former District Courts.were abolished. It is worth noting here that the Note of Dissent remarked (at para 7) - "Lay justice is a powerful expression of community participation in the regulation of society."
The modern magistracy of England and Wales:
Appointments: JPs are appointed by the Lord Chancellor "on behalf of and in the name of Her Majesty" (Courts Act 2003 s10). The Lord Chancellor is "advised" in this matter by "Advisory Committees" which are responsible for recruitment and selection. In 2010, the Ministry of Justice issued a consultation relating to these committees. The government's response (August 2010) has been published. The committees seek people who have "six key qualities": Good character, Understanding and Communication, Social Awareness, Maturity and Sound Temperament, Sound judgment, Commitment and Reliability.
Jurors and the internet: a prosecution for contempt of court
It has been reported that Joanne Fraill, who was a juror in a high profile drugs case, will stand before the Lord Chief Justice in the High Court in proceedings brought by the Attorney-General (Dominic Grieve QC) for contempt of court. The drugs trial, at which she was a juror, was abandoned at a reported cost in the region of £6m - see Telegraph 14th June. It is alleged that she used Facebook to contact one of the defendants in the trial. She is also accused of researching the case on the internet. The relevant law is the Contempt of Court Act 1981 s.8. This section was considered by the House of Lords in Attorney-General v Scotcher [2005] UKHL 36.
Concerns have been building for some time that some jurors appear to be either unable or unwilling to resist the temptation to research via
Explaining our Law and Legal System ... No.3 ... The Judges
The Supreme Court Justices 2009
"Let the judges also remember, that Solomon's throne was supported by lions on both sides: let them be lions, but yet lions under the throne; ..." (Francis Bacon' - 1561-1626 - Of Judicature ).
This post considers the Judges. A further post will look at Justices of the Peace who are properly regarded as part of the overall judiciary but they are not part of the professional - legally-qualified - judiciary.
Overview of the judiciary - At the pinnacle of the legal world are the twelve Justices of the Supreme Court. This court came into being on 1st October 2009 and is a creation of Parliament which enacted the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. One of the justices is appointed as President of the Supreme Court - currently Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and there is also a Deputy President - currently Lord Hope of Craighead. The biographies of the present Justices are available on the Court's website.
Until 1st October 2009, the House of Lords had an Appellate Committee manned by the Lord Chancellor of the day and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary - (often referred to as the "Law Lords"). The Supreme Court replaced this arrangement as part of a scheme to fully separate the judiciary from Parliament. This was considered to be necessary to secure the separation of the judicial power from the legislative and executive powers. In fact, no Lord Chancellor since Lord Irvine of Lairg exercised the historic right to sit and, since the creation of the Supreme Court, the Lord Chancellor is not entitled to do so. The Lord Chancellor is now a government Minister with
Burglary causes considerable fear especially where the home is occupied. Suppose that a burglar is confronted by the house owner. Unknown to the burglar, the owner (an elderly lady) has a medical condition involving weakened blood vessels which could rupture under stress. Some hours later, the owner collapses, is taken to hospital and dies. Could the burglar be liable for manslaughter? Those are the outline facts of a recent case in which a manslaughter charge was dismissed by the trial judge on the basis that the judge considered that the death could not be linked to the burglary. The Guardian 8th June and Telegraph 26th May. The 18 year old burglar received a sentence of 27 months for burglary. He had boasted on Facebook that he would only receive a 6 month sentence. Clearly he had not read the Lord Chief Justice's words in R v Saw and others [2009] EWCA Crim 1. It appears that there was some medical opinion to the effect that the victim's stroke was brought on by the experience of the burglary. It was a bold move by the Crown Prosecution Service to bring a charge of manslaughter since such cases raise some legal difficulties.
Manslaughter - this is a common law offence which
Explaining our Law and Legal System ... No.2 ... Courts of Law and Tribunals
TV Series - SILK
The recent six episode TV series "SILK" (starring Maxine Peake as barrister Martha Costello) was packed with courtroom drama. Courts and tribunals are the places where the legal system decides the outcome of disputes and the range of possible disputes is enormous. Examples include courts with international authority (or jurisdiction) ruling on questions of law with international impact to national courts determining disputes between either government (whether central or local) and "persons" or simply disputes between "persons." Then there are criminal courts before which "persons" are prosecuted for alleged breaches of the criminal law. In all of these situations, the court administers justice "according to law." The use of the word "persons" may seem odd to the reader but, in law, it includes not just individuals but also certain types of organisation which have been given "legal personality" by the law. A simple example of this is the Limited Company - e.g. Fred Jones Ltd. "Fred Jones Ltd" may be a party to a case in its own right.
Civil and Criminal Cases - Cases before the courts are often classed as either Civil cases or as Criminal Cases. A typical civil case is where person A alleges that B has breached a contract - (that is a legally enforceable agreement) - and that A has suffered loss as a result. Another example is where C claims that D has done some work negligently and this has caused him damage such as personal injury. The person bringing the claim in a civil case is known as "the claimant" and the other party is the "defendant." Criminal cases are normally "prosecuted" by the State and the person on trial for the alleged breach of the criminal law is "the defendant."
International Courts - It is worth mentioning certain courts with international authority. The United Nations Charter created the "International Court of Justice" which sits at The Hague. Basically, this deals with disputes between States. The European Court of Human Rights is frequently in the news and is the final judicial authority on the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. This important court sits at Strasbourg and operates under the Council of Europe. The Convention basically requires governments to protect certain crucial rights such as the right to life, the right to a fair trial etc. There is a great deal of confusion between the Council of Europe and the European Union. They are distinct international organisations. The Council of Europe has 47 members whereas the European Union has 27 members. The Court of Justice of the European Union sits at Luxembourg and is the final judicial authority on the law of the European Union. The rights of this court are based on the various Treaties (i.e. agreements between States) which set up the European Union.
Courts in England and Wales - Interestingly, the nation's highest "court" is Parliament of the UK. It is the High Court of Parliament (here) and is the ultimate law-making body for the United Kingdom. Until October 2009 the House of Lords was the final appeal court for all legal matters in the U.K. with the exception of Scottish criminal cases. In October 2009, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was created and took over the work previously done by the House of Lords. This court Read more »
Parliament has been in recess and resumes business on 6th June. The Supreme Court and the Senior Courts of England and Wales will commence the Trinity Law Term on 7th June - (for an interesting explanation of Law Terms see the Calculator). The week has therefore been a little quieter than is often the case. In each week, there are notable events and stories which catch our eye. Here is my choice for this past week.
A good website - I have no hesitation in linking the reader to "Discover Human Rights." Here is a website which is a must for anyone who wishes to know more about human rights. The site is based in the USA but contains resources of immense value to every interested person and excellent resources for those in education. Please take a look and browse around.
The indictment of Ratko Mladic - my companion blog "Watching the Law" tells more of the events at Srebrenica in 1995. It is a harrowing story of genocide. The appearance of Ratko Mladic before the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was a long-awaited event. It is interesting that Serbia itself was cleared of genocide by the International Court of Justice but found to be in breach of its obligation to prevent genocide - (see ICJ - Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro). It is not merely States that may be found liable for crimes such as genocide. There is individual responsibility which was argued at the Nuremberg Trials to be "necessary as well as logical .. if international law is to render real help to the maintenance of peace " - (Opening Statement of Prosecutor Robert Jackson). I was particularly struck by the immense courtesy of the Judge (Alphons Orie) before whom Mladic first appeared at The Hague. This again reminded me of Robert Jackson's comment at Nuremberg about
Immigration A "you can stay" solution has been adopted so that thousands of "asylum seekers" have been granted a permanent stay in the U.K. This situation, described by The Times 2nd June as a debacle, is revealed in a report by the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee - see "UK Border Agency failing to control immigration, says MPs" and see Home Affairs Select Committee 9th Report - "Work of the UK Border Agency - November 2010 to March 2011." The Immigration Minister (Mr Damian Green MP) denied that the agency had operated an amnesty, adding that asylum seekers who had been in the country for a long time had to be given the right to stay." Even the Select Committee report acknowledges that the longer a case is left uncompleted, the more likely it is that the applicant will have married or had children born in the UK, leading to a greater probability that settlement will be allowed for family reasons" - (see the Committee Report section on Legacy Cases - as they are called ). The UK Human Rights blog also looked at this report - "Effective "amnesty" in UK asylum system, says report."
An urgent review is to be conducted into the "inhumane" abuse of people with "learning difficulties" at a residential hospital and why it was not picked up by the Care Quality Commission. This arises from a Panorama investigation showing staff punching and taunting vulnerable adults at Winterbourne View, Bristol (owned by Castlebeck). Four members of staff were arrested and, it is understood, are now on bail. A statement from the Care Quality Commission is available. Stephen Dorrell MP, chairman of the Commons Health Committee, said that a scheduled hearing with the CQC will now focus on the organisation's failings in this case. Lord Brian Rix writing in The Times (2nd June) said - "As a civilised country, we pride ourselves on the care and support we offer to vulnerable members of our society. That abuse of this kind still exists is a damning indictment of how some people with a learning difficulty are treated, even where they should be afforded the most protection." Lord Rix is President of Mencap.
There are considerable legal difficulties in relation to the whole area of "care homes" for the elderly and the vulnerable. The UK Human Rights Blog has an excellent article looking at some of these difficulties - "Panorama at Winterbourne Park ..."
The powers of the Commission stem from the Health and Social Care Act 2008 The Commission enjoys considerable powers relating to registration of service providers and to inspection and enforcement.
It seems that many courts are now standing idle leading to longer pre-trial delays. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) is, on the orders of government, implementing Read more »
In December 2010, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee issued a report - here. The Inquests into the deaths returned verdicts of unlawful killing and the Coroner made 3 recommendations. There are also two reports by Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting of the Dorset Police - Part 1 and Part 2. Whiting did not make any specific recommendations for
Scottish Ministers resentful of the Supreme Court's "interference" in their legal system
"Devolution of legislative power" to Scotland came with the Scotland Act 1998 which created the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Law Officers - the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland - are members of the Scottish Executive (s.44).
Schedule 6 of the Scotland Act 1998 deals with "devolution issues." This Schedule defines the term "devolution issue" which includes questions as to whether a "purported or proposed exercise of a function by a member of the Scottish Executive is, or would be, incompatible with any of the" rights under the European Convention on Human Rights or with Community Law. The Schedule creates special procedures applying if a devolution issue arises in legal proceedings.
The High Court of Justiciary is the usual final appeal in Scottish criminal cases and, normally, such cases cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (a fact which appears to make the term Supreme Court something of a misnomer). However, under the devolution issue provisions, a criminal case can reach the Supreme Court. This has arisen on two occasions since the Supreme Court came into being in October 2009.
Cadder v Her Majesty's Advocate [2010] UKSC 43
Fraser v Her Majesty's Advocate [2011] UKSC 24
Flush with his recent