|
Frances Gibb and Jonathan Ames bring this morning’s must-read of all things legal, including news, comment and gossip. Today - UK is jailing too many, warns lord chief
- Forty new judges ‘needed to fill High Court manpower gap’
- Millions of parents favour specific children in wills
- Lord Carlile leads review into bishop child abuse claims
- Barristers surveyed over enhanced parental leave rights
- Comment: Keep the amateurs out of litigation funding
- In the House: Danger to London’s legal capital of Europe status
- Blue Bag diary: Justice committee a cosy club
Plus the new Brief Premium … - Ministers must act on gender pay gap reporting, says Cherie Blair, QC
- Finance focus: Banking on change – Trump rips up reforms; UK in-house lawyers braced for regulation
Tweet us @TimesLaw with your views.
|
|
| |
|
|
UK is jailing too many, warns lord chief
|
One of the country’s most senior judges has called for fewer offenders to be jailed. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the lord chief justice, warned that the prison population, which is now more than 85,000 in England and Wales, was “very, very high”. And he told MPs that there were concerns that it could rise further still. Thomas, the top judge in England and Wales, said that much more could be done to explore non-custodial sentences for some offenders, including “very tough” non-custodial penalties. He told the House of Commons justice committee yesterday: “The prison population is very, very high at the moment. Whether it will continue to rise is always difficult to tell but there are worries that it will. “I’m not sure that at the end of the day we can’t dispose of more by really tough, and I do mean tough, community penalties.” His comments come as prisons face unprecedented overcrowding and violence. Last week Michael Gove, the former lord chancellor and justice secretary, said that his successor, Liz Truss, should use her powers to release 500 prisoners serving sentences for public protection who have outstayed their minimum jail terms. Thomas also gave backing to greater use of problem-solving courts, which involve sending offenders for treatment. They are thought to have Truss’s backing, but are understood not to be an immediate priority. Thomas also called for an experiment in the doubling of magistrates’ sentencing powers from the present six months to 12. Magistrates and crown courts needed to be better integrated, with better dialogue between them, he said. That could be the way to ensure that the right sentences were imposed and to avoid any “bulge” in prison numbers that it was feared would result from higher sentencing powers. |
| |
| |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
•
40 new judges ‘needed to fill manpower gap’ on High Court bench
Dozens of extra High Court judges need to be recruited to meet demand over the next few years, the lord chief justice said yesterday. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the most senior judge in England and Wales, outlined the extent of the recruitment crisis, which has been exacerbated by huge cuts in judges’ pensions and pay. He said that “quite a big recruitment exercise” would have to be undertaken with 30 to 40 new judges joining the High Court bench. Thomas added that there were concerns that similar problems were hitting the circuit bench, which is composed of crown court judges, and research was now being done for the Senior Salaries Review Body to assess how serious a shortfall exists. Appearing before the House of Commons justice committee, Lord Thomas said that the changes to the pension regime had been key to the disincentives putting people off from applying for the High Court bench. Lawyers took a “huge salary cut if they are really good” when they came to the High Court, he said. They had to think about such expenses as children’s university fees and then the cost of living into a longer old age. Such needs had to be safeguarded. “I know that their [judge’s] pay is a great deal of money for ordinary people...I am under no illusions about that,” he told MPs. However, he said, judges should be paid at a level “at least at which they feel valued” and commensurate with their expertise, recognising “the enormous salary cut” they have suffered.
|
•
Millions of parents favour specific children in wills
Millions of British parents favour one child over others in their wills, with 40 per cent leaving their children to find out which inherited more until after the parent has died. Some 10 per cent of parents gave a greater share of their estate to an individual child over their siblings, and 5 per cent went so far as to cut out children completely from any inheritance – doing so without any prior warning and instead leaving their entire estates to partners or spouses. Researchers found that the most common reason parents divided their estates unequally was that they had a closer bond with a particular child. Many also feared that a sibling would be irresponsible with the inheritance. The survey of 2,000 people conducted by the national law firm Slater & Gordon also found that parents often took the view that one of their offspring needed greater financial help, but there were also indications that bitter family feuds coloured parental decisions. Some 40 per cent of parents said that they had not discussed their inheritance decisions with their offspring. A fifth of respondents said that they were reluctant to have that discussion because they feared that doing so would create arguments or resentment among their children. “For many people writing a will is both a private matter and a morbid topic – not something that parents want to discuss with their adult children,” James Beresford, head of wills at Slater & Gordon, said. “While having such conversations can take courage, families that speak freely about these delicate issues can avoid problems and surprises down the line, particularly if assets are not being split equally between children.” |
•
Lord Carlile, QC, to lead review into bishop child abuse claims
The government’s former independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws is to lead an investigation into the events that led to the Church of England settling a civil action over allegations that one of its most revered bishops had abused children. Lord Carlile of Berriew, QC, has been named as the independent reviewer of the processes used in the George Bell case, it was announced yesterday.
The review – commissioned by Lambeth Palace’s national safeguarding team and overseen by the House of Bishops – is expected to be completed by the end of the summer. The Liberal Democrat peer and former head of chambers at 9-12 Bell Yard in London was the government’s reviewer of terrorism legislation from 2001 to 2011. Last year the Bishop of Chichester issued a formal apology after the settlement of a legal civil claim regarding allegations of sexual abuse by Bell, who was Bishop of Chichester from 1929 until shortly before his death in 1958. According to a statement, the review will look at the processes surrounding the allegations, which were first brought in 1995 to the diocese of Chichester. The same allegations were brought to Lambeth Palace in 2013. The review will also consider the processes, including the commissioning of independent expert reports and archival and other investigations, which were used to inform the decision to settle the case. The church’s statement said that it aimed “to learn lessons which can be applied to the handling of similar safeguarding cases in future”.
|
•
Barristers surveyed over enhanced parental leave rights
Private practice barristers are being asked whether they should have the same right to shared parental leave as their counterparts working at in-house legal departments. The profession’s regulator launched a consultation yesterday to assess whether lawyers at the independent Bar had an appetite for reform. Since April last year lawyers employed by corporations and local or national government have been able to share parental leave between both parents in the first year of a child’s life or within one year of their adoption. But because barristers at the independent Bar are technically self-employed, there is no requirement for chambers to make shared parental leave arrangements. The Bar Standards Board is now asking barristers whether that position should be reformed. According to the board, “shared parental leave could enable the self-employed Bar to retain female barristers and improve diversity within the profession”. In a statement with the consultation, the regulator said that “there would be value in making the parental leave rules more flexible. There is expected to be a significant appetite within the profession for a rule change of this nature.” Anupama Thompson, a board member, said that sharing parental leave between parents could “improve the working culture of the Bar and promote greater equality between the genders in career progression. We want to foster a culture of retaining women at the Bar, and a change to the rules on shared parental leave could help.”
|
•
In Brief
Fury as Trump reveals he will not prosecute Clinton – The Times King & Wood Mallesons' European arm considers merger options as recapitalisation plan fails – Legal Week ‘It’s terminal.’ Partners despondent as KWM mulls future – The Lawyer Litigant in person’s ‘misconceived’ applications an abuse of process – Solicitors Journal
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
Justice committee in danger of becoming a cosy club
|
As Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the lord chief justice, settled into his chair yesterday morning to appear before MPs on the justice committee, his mind must have been racing with anticipation as he prepared to face some sticky questions. He would not be able to deal directly with the High Court ruling on Brexit and Article 50 of several weeks ago because he was one of the three judges who ruled on the controversial application. But as the most senior judge in England and Wales, surely he would be asked for his thoughts on the ensuing vitriolic comments in some sections of the press and the lord chancellor’s role in speaking up to defend the judges. What about judicial morale as a result of the brouhaha – and their own court challenge over changes to judicial pensions? Not a bit of it. In the end, a sedate and dull appearance passed without any of those pressing issues being addressed. Apparently, “it was agreed on both sides” that questions would not be asked on those difficult topics. But even if Thomas declined to answer, surely, the press corps lamented, the questions should be put so that there was an on-the-record reaction. No wonder critics say the committees are too often like cosy clubs.
|
Lunchbox judge on the aphrodisiac of power
|
This is a bit rich for a former judge who is most famous with the public for asking “What is Linford’s lunchbox?” during a 1998 libel trial, but Sir Oliver Popplewell is about to release a book entitled The Aphrodisiac of Power. The book is billed as highlighting “how powerful people exercise that power”, and focuses on characters including David Lloyd George, William Gladstone, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Benito Mussolini and Fidel Castro. The former High Court judge, 89, also analyses Edward VII and Edward VIII to demonstrate his thesis that some men have used power “to attract women like moths to a flame”. For the record, Popplewell always maintained that his renowned “lunchbox” comment was not made out of naivety but fully in the knowledge of what it meant and from a desire that the jury should, too, be left in no doubt. Popplewell is nothing if not entertaining and controversial. He outraged relatives of Hillsborough victims when, in 2011, he called on them to drop their calls for a further inquiry and to behave with the “quiet dignity” of the families of the Bradford City stadium fire. The judge had chaired the 1985 inquiry into the Bradford disaster. “For the predator, power is indeed the ultimate aphrodisiac,” Popplewell says in advance of publication.
|
Londoner scoops Asian lawyer gong
|
Jaswinder Kalsi, a childcare law specialist, has been given a lifetime achievement award by the Society of Asian Lawyers. The lawyer – who joined Duncan Lewis, a national law firm, four years ago, and has been practising for 20 years – is the founder of the Association of Asian Women’s Lawyers. The society said that her family law team based at the firm’s Harrow office in northwest London advises an Asian women’s refuge, the Watford Women’s Centre and the SSAFA, a charity that provides lifelong support for the armed forces and their families. Kalsi recently assisted with the launch of a group in Southall called Voice of Women and she advises Jeena International, which is based in Slough and helps homeless women and victims of so-called honour abuse.
|
| |
| |
|
London’s status as legal capital of Europe ‘in danger’
|
Another city could rival London as the legal capital of Europe after the UK’s departure from the EU, more than 60 per cent of in-house lawyers fear, research released yesterday reveals. Hamburg was the leading alternative, according to a third of senior lawyers at corporate legal departments. The vast majority of in-house lawyers expressed continuing concern about potential negative impacts of Brexit on their wider businesses. Some 86 per cent said that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU would cause their UK operations to shed staff. According to the survey for MLex, a consultancy, a fifth of in-house lawyers said that they were not confident that their companies would be able to trade successfully with other EU countries while the terms of Brexit were being hammered out. The survey also found that lawyers generally fear that Brexit could undermine the UK’s status as having the legal system of choice for dispute resolution. Nearly 60 per cent of law firms said that they already had plans to move elements of their operations to a jurisdiction within the EU after Britain formally leaves the bloc. More than 40 per cent of businesses said that they would definitely relocate in-house legal staff after formal departure. “It is clear that law firms and corporate legal departments are making contingency plans that pre-empt international trade restrictions,” Robert McLeod, MLex’s chief executive, said. “Post-Brexit, lawyers could potentially lose their rights to EU professional legal privileges,” McLeod said. “In an attempt to protect these rights, several major law firms have already pre-emptively registered their lawyers in other jurisdictions. Our results highlight that many others may now follow suit, whether new agreements are negotiated before Britain formally leaves the EU or not.”
|
| |
|
|
