Law Weblog

Sorry, more about the barrister on jury service; we can’t resist it.

We did warn you that the stories about “lawyers on jury service” had a long way to run.
Today, in the magazine “The Lawyer”, it is reported that the QC who was discharged from jury service at the Old Bailey has in fact been discharged three times in the last eight days because he keeps bumping into colleagues.

The QC was summoned to do jury service on 6 April the day after new legislation came into force.

The reasons: “…he practised there {the south Eastern Circuit] on a regular basis…” “he knew too much about the system”. “…he knew the judge.”.    Of course the anonymous juror (all jurors are entitled to anonymity) did not discharge himself, the judges did that.

It appears that the QC was feeling a bit miffed and applied to the Old Bailey’s most senior judge, the Recorder of London Michael Hyam to discharge him from jury service. Judge Hyam refused his application.

Juries: selection – the Will of Parliament

15th June:
It has been widely reported in the press that a barrister who is Queen’s Counsel was discharged from jury service in a murder trial at the Old Bailey last week.

Judge George Bathurst-Norman is reported to have ruled that the presence of the “silk” might be prejudicial to the defendant. It was also reported that that the QC told staff that he recognised prosecuting counsel after being sworn in.

The facts are not fully reported, and so much is speculation. We did report on 3rd June that this topic will give us something to talk about during the long holiday.

On the one hand it is clear is that a judge has to ensure a fair trial, on the other hand it seems to us that judges are able to undermine the will of Parliament (Criminal Justice Act 2003). This case may signal the way barristers and judges will wheedle their way our of jury service “I recognise my learned friend for the prosecution”. Barristers are all deemed to know each other and by convention don’t shake hands with each other, so it is almost certain to be true.
In our office, we are taking bets on the certainty that Lord Justice Dyson’s presence in the jury box lasts no more than a few minutes, or even seconds.

Direct access to barristers from next month

Barristers are to be allowed to offer their services directly to the public without the need to go through a solicitor. The reform comes into force next month, having been approved by David Lammy, a minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The exact arrangements have not yet been announced, but it is expected that most barristers will still require their clients to be referred by a solicitor.

Driving ban for any offence

Any offence committed after 1997 can result in a driving ban for as long as a court thinks fit. The Home Office Circular bringing the power into force at the beginning of this year gives no indication about how long a disqualification should last, or when it should be used. The Magistrates’ Association and the Justices’ Clerks’ Society have therefore issued their own guidance on how magistrates should use this sentencing power, which basically advises them to use it for vehicle-related crime. This may at first seem good sense, but we think it destroys the purpose of the disqualification; young offenders value the freedom their licence to drive gives them, and it was this point that was thought important by the government.

New name for Court Service

The Court Service and independent magistrates courts are to merge into a single executive agency called ‘Her Majesty’s Courts Service’ (HMCS).
HMCS will come into effect from April 2005.
In his Review of the Criminal Justice System in 2001, Sir Robin Auld recommended a “single and nationally funded administrative structure, but one providing significant local autonomy and accountability.”
The Courts Act 2003 makes the necessary statutory changes to allow the creation of HMCS as a new executive agency.

Court of Appeal judge summoned for jury service

3 June 2004: The Telegraph reports that a “leading member of the Court of Appeal” has been summoned for jury service. As members of the House of Lords are not allowed to vote, they do not appear on the electoral roll; as they are not on the roll, they can’t be selected for jury service. So, if this report is true the new system for selecting jurors has gone right to the top of the pile. What will happen? The mind boggles, does the judge have to address the jury as “My Lord (or My Lady) and members of the jury”? Will the defence watch the eyes of the judge to see if he looks at His Lordship more than he looks at other members of the jury? Will the judge be influenced by the expression on His Lordships face? And, what will happen when the judge gets to the bit when he says, “[…] I must now give you directions as to the law which applies in this case. When I do so, you must accept those directions and follow them.” As for what goes on in the jury room, we will never know. I do hope this report is true, the law seldom gives us an opportunity like this to be really silly and to be guaranteed endless jokes and cartoons …. we can’t wait.
News item here

“No win no fee” arrangements

From 1st June 2004, in Road Traffic Accident cases, a new scheme, brought into effect by rules of court, will fix the success fee paid by a defendant’s insurer to the claimant’s solicitor or barrister where they are funded by a conditional fee agreement. For example, insurers will pay solicitors a 12.5 per cent success fee on top of their costs if they win cases that settle out of court, and a 100 per cent success fee for the riskier cases that go to trial. In employers’ liability accident cases, a similar scheme applies, but the rates can be higher.
DCA website here.

UK claims culture is myth

It is a commonly held perception that the United Kingdom is in the grip of “compensation culture”. Media reports and claims management companies encourage people to make claims by creating a perception, quite inaccurately, that large sums of money are easily accessible. The compensation culture is a myth; but the cost of this belief is very real. Local authorities and councils are spending a staggering amount of money each year dealing with compensation claims. Many claims are spurious. Organisations cancel events and innovation is stifled for fear of litigation. In fact, the number of claims is going down.

Task force report, here

Queen’s Council system to stay

The Lord Chancellor has announced that the QC system will remain, at least for the time being.
As Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, he feels he should no longer play a part in assessing and selecting candidates to be appointed as QCs.
The professions (solicitors and barristers) will be responsible for selection and will send a list of suitable candidates to the DCA. The Lord Chancellor will retain responsibility for recommending as a minister to Her Majesty that she appoint those on the list to the rank of Queen’s Counsel.

In a nutshell, no major change to the system, what a surprise.
DCA details here

Page v Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust [2004] QBD

[Tort – damages and compensation – investment costs are not a separate head of damages]
C suffered from cerebral palsy as a result of the negligence of the defendant health authority. Damages were in excess of £2 million. C argued that because the Lord Chancellor has fixed the rate of 2.5% as the return to be expected from the investment of an award of damages for future losses, he would incur investment costs.

Held: C could not recover the costs of investment advice and fund management charges. Investment costs were an annual cost to be regarded as part of the multiplicand.

D won