Law Weblog

R v Goodyear [2005] CA

[Sentencing – indication on sentence following guilty plea]
D pleaded guilty to an offence of corruption and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, despite the judge saying to his barrister at a meeting in his chambers before the trial began that he took the view that “this is not a custody case”.

Held: (by a five judge court) The judge should have followed the indication he gave. Crown courts (not magistrates’ courts) need no longer follow the rule in R v Turner (that a judge should not indicate the sentence that he might impose if D pleaded guilty). But, the indication must be sought by the defendant (7 day’s notice in writing) and then it would not amount to “improper pressure on him”. 

Whole case here
Comment: This could mean that there will be an increase in the number of guilty pleas and effectively means that defendants will now see this as an opportunity to “plea-bargain”

JD v East Berkshire NHS Trust [2005] HL

[Tort – duty of care – fair, just and reasonable]
D were health care professionals who misdiagnosed child abuse cases. CCC were three parents who temporarily lost custody of their children, resulting in psychiatric damage and financial loss.

Held: The healthcare trusts did not owe a duty of care.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead: “The doctor is charged with the protection of the child, not with the protection of the parent.
Lord Bingham dissented.

C lost
Whole case here

Periodical payments of damages for future loss and care costs in respect of personal injury

On 1 April 2005 The Damages (Variation of Periodical Payments) Order 2005 came into force it allows for variations of payments if a claimant’s condition deteriorates or improves. Although similar arrangements existed before only a claimant could apply, now a defendant can also apply. Also, the new arrangements allow for a periodic payment even if the parties do not agree.

Full text here

Brooks v Chief of the Police for the Metropolis [2005] HL

[Tort – duty of care – police – fair just and reasonable]
D the police who it was alleged failed to treat C properly as a victim of crime. As a result, he suffered a very severe post-traumatic stress disorder. C (Duwayne Brooks) was present when his friend Stephen Lawrence was abused and murdered in the most notorious racist killing which our country has ever known.

Held: The police should not have imposed on them a duty of care to since to do so would cut across the freedom of action they ought to have when investigating serious crime.

C lost.
Whole judgment here

Trust A v V (2005) FD

[Withdrawal of medical treatment]
M, aged 25 was in a permanent vegetative state for six years. The NHS trust applied for authorisation to withdraw hydration and nutrition.

Held: Application allowed; it was in M’s best interests to accede to the application. This was not euthanasia it was allowing natural consequences to take their course. There was no reason why the accepted principle that thou shalt not kill, but need not strive to keep a person alive, should not be a sound guide. The only test to be applied was that of the individual patient’s best interests which were determined on three bases:
(i) the medical evidence and advice as to whether or not a patient was in a permanent vegetative state, and whether or not continuing treatment was or was not in that patient’s best interests;
(ii) the family’s views, as they might be in the best position to convey what the patient’s view might have been;
(iii) the court’s duty in relation to public policy to scrutinise any course resulting in the death of a person for whom it was responsible by reason of their incapacity.
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1994] and NHS Trust A v M [2001] considered.

How much do barristers earn?

Criminal Defence Service 
Abbas Lakha Q.C. £800,000 John C Rees Q.C. £664,000 Malcolm Swift Q.C. £637,000 James Stuman Q.C. £626,000 Christopher Sallon Q.C. £603,000 Howard Godfrey Q.C. £596,000 Jonathan Hall Q.C. £563,000 Robin Grey Q.C. £558,000 Michel Massih Q.C. £551,000 Richard Marks Q.C. £544,000

Community Legal Service 
Lord Brennan Q.C. £606,000 Elizabeth Gumbel Q.C. £470,000 Paul Storey Q.C. £449,000 John Rowley £329,000 Sally Bradley Q.C. £328,000 Stephen Irwin Q.C. £314,000 Joanna Dodson Q.C. £284,000 Alison Ball Q.C. £279,000 Robin Oppenheim £277,000 Eleanor Hamilton Q.C. £277,000 Simeon Maskrey Q.C. £269,000 Jeremy Rosenblatt £249,000. Andrew Moran Q.C. £249,000 Ernest Ryder Q.C. £247,000 Manjit Singh Gill Q.C. £245,000 Pamela Scriven Q.C. £244,000 Stephen Knafler £237,000 William Braithwaite Q.C. £229,000 Janet Mitchell £228,000 Margret de Haas Q.C. £228,000
Figures revealed under the Freedom of Information Act by the DCA, here

Role of Privy Council continues to be reduced

Trinidad and Tobago (the twin-island republic) has seen the launch of the Caribbean Court of Justice which will replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which has been the court of last resort for most of the English-speaking Caribbean for 172 years.
In the past five years, the Privy Council has considered only 210 new appeals from the region.
The court will serve the Caribbean. Eleven countries have already agreed to use the court to settle trade disputes, and two of them – Guyana and Barbados – have also agreed to have the CCJ hear civil and criminal appeals. There are just three independent countries in addition to the Caribbean that retain the Privy Council as their court of last resort: the Associated States of New Tuvalu and Kiribati in the South Pacific, and Mauritius.

Role of Privy Council.

Last week the Privy Council heard the appeal by Bruce Howse’s against his conviction for murdering his two stepdaughters. What makes this interesting is that it is one of only six appeals ever heard by the Privy Council from New Zealand, and is almost certain to be the last.

Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) starts moving

Sir Nigel Wicks has been appointed as the first chairman of Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) which will replace the Department for Constitutional Affairs’ role in judicial appointments .

Wicks, the Lord Chief Justice, and another person, whom Wicks will appoint will select the 15 members of the JAC, who will, from next year, choose judges. The 15 will comprise six lay members a barrister, a solicitor, a district judge, a circuit judge, a Lord Justice of Appeal and one lay magistrate.

None of this will happen until April 2006.

Civil partnerships

The Civil Partnership Act 2004, comes into force on 5 December 2005.  It will give same-sex couples many of the rights and benefits opposite-sex couples have already. Lesbian and gay couples who register as civil partners will have formal legal recognition of their relationships, and will have rights and duties to each other and to third parties and the state.
Civil partners must be:
Of the same sex,
Not in an existing civil partnership or marriage,
Old enough to marry (i.e. 18 without permission, 16 with permission),
Not ‘within the prohibited degrees of relationship’, as with marriage.

Civil partnerships will be introduced throughout the UK, and there will be a registration process, like civil marriage, and a dissolution process, similar to divorce. Civil partners will be treated like married partners for the purposes of tax, nationality and immigration, inheritance, liability for maintenance and child support, tenancies, employment and pension benefits and protection from domestic violence.

There are benefit implications, Tax credit implications, living together and benefit implications many of which have yet to be worked out.