Law Weblog

National Minimum Wage; effective from 1 October 2008:

Wednesday 17 September 2008 at 7:23 pm | In News | Post Comment * The minimum wage rate for adults aged 22 years and over will rise to £5.73 per hour (from £5.52);
* The rate for 18 – 21 year olds will rise to £4.77 (from £4.60); and
* The rate for 17 – 18 year olds will rise to £3.53 (from £3.40).

Sion Jenkins seeks £500,000 compensation

Tuesday 26 August 2008 at 7:58 am | In News | 2 Comments

Former teacher Sion Jenkins, who spent six years in prison for the murder of his 13 year-old foster daughter Billie-Jo Jenkins before being cleared has launched a compensation claim for up to £500,000 for his time in jail.

Billie-Jo, 13, was found in a pool of blood with head injuries inflicted by a metal tent peg on the patio of the family’s large Victorian home in Lower Park Road, Hastings on February 15, 1997.

Jenkins was convicted at Lewes Crown Court of murdering her and jailed for life but was cleared at a retrial in 200t.

Jenkins is the second high profile claimant this month, following Colin Stagg who was awarded £706,000 after he was falsely accused of murdering Rachel Nickell.

Compensation is capped at £500,000 for less than ten years and £1 million for more than ten years.

News report here.

Rhys Jones murder trial ‘threatened by legal aid reforms’

Monday 18 August 2008 at 12:52 pm | In News | Post Comment

“The trial of a teenager accused of murdering 11 year old Rhys Jones in Liverpool might not go ahead because he cannot get legal aid.”
Full story
Daily Telegraph, 16th August 2008

Prison for killer drivers who are only careless

Monday 18 August 2008 at 8:58 am | In News | Post Comment

Motorists who kill whilst at the wheel face prison under careless driving laws, which come into force today.

T

he offences plug the gap in current legislation, which allowed drivers who had killed to walk away from court with just a fine.

The courts will look for “avoidable distractions” when sentencing motorists who have killed. Avoidable distractions include using a mobile phone, applying make-up, drinking and eating.

There are similar provisions for uninsured or unlicensed drivers who kill.

The new offences will carry custodial sentences of:
– up to five years for causing death by careless driving
– up to two years for causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured

Prior to the introduction of these new laws, the maximum sentence for those convicted of causing death by careless, uninsured or unlicensed driving was a maximum £5000 fine and penalty licence points.

Naughty judge

Wednesday 13 August 2008 at 9:38 pm | In News | Post Comment

A few months before being appointed a deputy district judge on the South Eastern circuit, Mr Muir-Little, a divorce solicitor, met one Mrs Hall on the internet and started an affair with her.

When Mrs Halla’s husband found out about his wife’s affair he killed their eldest daughter. He was found guilty of murder in 2006.

The Office for Judicial Complaints started disciplinary proceedings against Mr Muir-Little but he resigned on 13 August 2008, preempting any further action.

Government consult on reform of murder

Tuesday 29 July 2008 at 9:36 pm | In News | Post Comment

A government consultation paper, ‘Murder, manslaughter and infanticide: proposals for reform of the law’, launched today, proposes the abolition of the existing partial defence of provocation and its replacement with two new partial defences:

• killing in response to a fear of serious violence
• in exceptional circumstances only, killing in response to words and conduct which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged.

The centuries-old (made statutory in 1957) partial of provocation impacts differently on men and women and is too generous to those who kill out of anger and too hard on those who kill out of fear of serious violence. A manslaughter conviction should only be justified for killings carried out in anger in exceptional circumstances – and this would not include sexual infidelity on the part of the victim.

A ministry spokesperson said that changing the law will end the injustice of women being killed by their husband and then being blamed. It will end the injustice of the perpetrators making excuses saying it’s not my fault – it’s hers.

The new proposals are intended to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system and send a clear message that the law is on their side and takes account of the experiences of those who kill in genuine fear of serious violence, for example a woman who repeatedly suffers domestic violence and finally kills her partner when she can suffer no more.

The consultation paper also proposes:
• streamlining the law of complicity to homicide to make it easier for courts to determine liability in cases where more than one person is involved in a killing
• clarifying the law on diminished responsibility
• clarifying the law on the handful of infanticide cases that are tried each year.

The consultation paper draws on recommendations made by the Law Commission, following their 2006 review of homicide law. There are no proposals to introduce American style grades of murder, such as first and second degree murder.
In comes…

• killing in response to a fear of serious violence
• killing in response to words and conduct which caused the defendant to have a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged
• “words and conduct” incited by the defendant not an excuse
• defences apply if a person of the defendant’s sex and age etc might have reacted in the same or in a similar way
• new partial defence of diminished responsibility – a “recognised medical condition”

Out goes ….

• Provocation
• US Style categories
• Crime of passion (if it ever existed)
• Manslaughter for nagging spouse
• sexual infidelity not grounds for reducing murder to manslaughter
• loss of self-control in these circumstances to be “sudden”

Rapid law making – recent example

Monday 21 July 2008 at 9:26 am | In News | 1 Comment

A recent example of Parliament’s ability to pass law quickly occurred today by the passing of the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008.  The Act passed all parliamentary stages and was ready for Royal Assent in 4 weeks.

The new law was needed because the House of Lords had ruled that in some circumstances courts could not allow witnesses to give evidence anonymously, R v Davis [2008] HL.  A £6m trial at the Old Bailey was halted, and if the law had not been clarified hundreds of other very serious crimes would not be tried because the identity of witnesses would have to be revealed to the defence.

A tea cake is a biscuit (April) now Pringles are not crisps

Sunday 6 July 2008 at 10:11 pm | In News | Post Comment

Procter & Gamble v HMRC [2008] ChD
[Statutory Interpretation – literal meaning – reasonable man in the street approach]
D, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMCR) imposed VAT on “Pringles” made by C. HMCR put Pringles in the category of “potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch” as contained in the VAT Act 1994. As a result, C was liable to pay 17.5% VAT.

Held: Mr Justice Warren:
Pringles are not potato crisps because they are not made wholly or exclusively from potato, the potato content is less than 50%, they are also made from dough. Also distinguishing them from crisps is their packaging, and “unnatural shape”. What Pringles are ‘made from’ was a question of law; which is found by combining two issues of fact; were they made of mostly of potato, in a way other crisps are made.
Regular Pringles are not potato crisps applying these tests.

Following the judgment, Pringles, in all flavours are free from Value Added Tax (VAT).
Because they are manufactured from dough, “Pringles” are more like a cake or a biscuit.
Warren J did not confine his interpretation of the statute to single test – for example the literal rule – but also applied EC policy. In addition, he went on to say,

“… the reasonable man in the street is not to be removed from the scene by some judicially imposed detention-without-charge. Once he has understood the context in which he is to form a view, the question of similarity is for him.”

C won

When rape is an offence of strict liability

Sunday 22 June 2008 at 8:27 am | In News | Post Comment

R v G [2008] HL
It is a strict liability offence for a boy to have intercourse with a girl under 13. Parliament has said (Sexual Offences Act 2003) that if the girl is under 13 it is rape. It is rape because being under 13 she cannot in law consent to sexual activity; sex with someone who does not consent is rape.

Therefore, when a 15-year-old boy had sex with a 12-year-old girl who told him she was 15, it mattered not that he thought she was over 13; the offence was one of strict liability. His appeal was that strict liability in such circumstances was contrary to the right to a fair trial (Article 6) failed in the House of Lords this week.

The House of Lords ruled by 3:2 that the case had nothing to do with human rights.

Giving the lead speech Lord Hoffmann said that the fairness of national provisions was not a matter for Article 6 and that the case was “another example of the regrettable tendency to try to convert the whole system of justice into questions of human rights”.

Lord Hope and Lord Carswell spoke of balancing the rights of those concerned: the protection of children against sexual assault, and taking account of circumstances where young offenders are prosecuted. The sentence in this case possibly reflects this underlying concern; the judge gave the boy a 12-month conditional discharge, not the life imprisonment that was available.

The view that a defining quality of strict liability offences is that they are often quasi-offences, linked to modest penalties, may need to be qualified.

200 years of Law Reports are now available online with the launch of The Times Archive

Thursday 19 June 2008 at 9:32 pm | In News | Post Comment

The cases that changed Britain: 1785-1869

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4159137.ece