Law Weblog

Corporate manslaughter will become law, very soon …

Friday 20 July 2007 at 1:21 pm | In News | Post Comment

A five year wait for the passage of the Corporate Manslaughter Bill is finally over. The Lords have had their way, the government was defeated over the effect on police and prisons.
Full story in The Times, here.

High Court Judge referred to the Office for Judicial Complaints

Wednesday 18 July 2007 at 6:22 am | In News | Post Comment

For the first time the Lord Chief Justice has taken steps to initiate disciplinary action against a High Court judge by referring the judge to the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC), which was set up last year under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

It is a first step towards possible disciplinary proceedings against the judge. It could lead to a reprimand or even to a recommendation to ask Parliament to remove him. A High Court Judge can only be removed from office by parliament.

Mr Justice Peter Smith (the judge who presided over the “Da Vinci Code” case) was slammed by the Court of Appeal for marring his judgment with his personal feelings.

[In the “Da Vinci Code” case the judge wrote a coded message, thought to have been unprecedented in court judgments].

The case that has provoked the referral to the OJC came after Peter Smith J had been in negotiations to join a law firm called Addleshaws. The negotiations broke down.

Smith said that he had been angered by his treatment which had wasted his time. The Court of Appeal found that Smith had “animosity” towards the firm.

Then a case was due to be heard before Peter Smith J involving a party who was head of a department at Addleshaws. An application to the judge for him to stand down (be recused) was denied by him.

The Court of Appeal ruled that instead of testing the evidence of the witness the judge cross examined him in a way that a “defence advocate” would.

The Court of Appeal ruled that Peter Smith J’s actions were “wholly inappropriate” especially in relation to the cross-examination and that the court was “quite satisfied that the judge should have recused himself”.

The court also held that Smith’s attitude towards Addleshaws, about which the firm was complaining, “rose directly from the judge’s private affairs”.

The conduct of the hearing, it ruled, underlined the fact that he had been “personally involved”.

“Prison works…”

Tuesday 17 July 2007 at 9:20 am | In News | Post Comment Criminals released early from prison because of an overcrowding crisis committed eight more offences within days of being freed, the Ministry of Justice said. One of the principles of sentencing is ‘incapacitation’ this is achieved by imprisonment.

Full story in The Independent, here.

Wigs and bands (collars) will not be worn in civil courts from 2008

Thursday 12 July 2007 at 9:24 am | In News | 1 Comment

The Lord Chief Justice announced this morning that wigs and bands will no longer be worn in civil cases. This will take effect on 1st January 2008. Barristers and solicitor advocates will continue to wear gowns.

In criminal cases court dress will stay the same. Also, solicitor advocates (and others) will wear wigs.

(Information from Daniel Barnet)

Michigan Woman’s Claim: Starburst Are Dangerously Chewy

Tuesday 10 July 2007 at 3:50 pm | In News | Post Comment

Starburst Fruit Chews are exactly as their name would indicate: chewy.

A Michigan woman says the sweets are so chewy, they should come with a warning label.

Picture left of claimant Victoria McArthur.

Read the full report, here.

Starburst website here.

Judicial appointments 2007 report

Friday 6 July 2007 at 6:49 am | In News | Post Comment In 2006, 21 names were forwarded to the Lord Chancellor for future vacancies in the High Court. 144 lawyers applied for 25 posts vacancies.
21 names were sent to the Lord Chancellor.

• None of the 21 was from an ethnic minority.
• None was a former solicitor.
• None was disabled.
• Three were women.

Judicial Appointments Commission Annual Report, here

Juries and the jury system in England and Wales are fair, unbiased and balanced

Wednesday 13 June 2007 at 7:56 pm | In News | Post Comment

Research shows in particular that the jury system does not discriminate against people from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds.

A four-year research study, published in June 2007 by the Ministry of Justice, shows clearly:

1. No differences between white and black and minority ethnic people in responding positively to being summoned for jury service
2. Black and minority ethnic groups are not significantly under-represented among those summoned for jury service or among those serving as jurors
3. Racially-mixed juries’ verdicts do not discriminate against defendants based on their ethnicity

This unprecedented study is highly encouraging. It strongly suggests that juries and the jury system are working, and working well.

The study, Diversity and Fairness in the Jury System, carried out for the Ministry of Justice by the University of Birmingham, uses case simulation with real jurors, as well as examining the verdicts of actual juries, to try to understand jury decision-making.

The research was commissioned in June 2002 in response to the Macpherson Report published in 1999, which followed an inquiry into the Metropolitan police’s investigation of the murder of a black teenager, Stephen Lawrence.

Report here

First conviction for Familial Homicide upheld on appeal

Tuesday 5 June 2007 at 10:21 pm | In News | Post Comment

R v JS and SM [2007] CA  This is the first prosecution under section 5 Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (Familial Homicide) which came into force in 2005.  The offence was created to deal with situations where two or more persons could have caused the death of a child and each blames the other.  This is not part of the A level syllabus but the case is very interesting as an example of effective reform of the law of homicide.

£9.5m, compensation paid – a record pay-out

Monday 4 June 2007 at 3:22 pm | In News | Post Comment

Waseem Sarwar a 17-year-old A-level student was a back seat passenger involved in a car accident.

His skull and spine injuries have left him severely disabled. He will need 24-hour care for the rest of his life at a cost of almost £180,000 a year.

He was not wearing a seat belt and the driver was not insured. The Motor Insurers Bureau, the industry body that compensates victims of uninsured drivers, will pay the compensation.

Mr Justice Lloyd Jones assessed Waseem’s damages at £9,544,628 the biggest ever award made by a UK court in a personal injury case.

The award will be reduced by 25%, to £7,158,471,because not wearing a seat-belt is contributory negligence. Nevertheless, it remains among the highest payouts ever made.

The money will be paid in the form of a lump sum of more than £2.8 million. Periodical payments will cover his care costs.

An offence of trespass…

Monday 28 May 2007 at 7:29 am | In News | Post Comment An offence of criminal trespass begins on 1st June 2007. It was found to be necessary when no action could be taken against Aaron Barschak who jumped on stage dressed as Osama bin Laden at Prince William’s 21st birthday at Windsor Castle on 21st June 2003 when. He was found to be a simple trespasser against whom no criminal sanction could be used. In the same year a reporter started work as a footman at Buckingham Palace and the paper published photographs of the inside of the palace including the Queen’s breakfast table.
The offence is viewed as being necessary both to create a deterrent to intrusions at high profile secure sites where no other apparent existing offence had been committed. Not only are Royal residences covered but some government buildings too, including 10 Downing Street. There are initially 16 locations but it is inevitable that the number will increase.