|
Frances Gibb and Jonathan Ames bring this morning’s must-read of all things legal, including news, comment and gossip. Today - 'C-word' judge cleared of misconduct
- Home Office rebuked over asylum-seeker’s “bogus” conviction
- MPs propose statutory minimum of female candidates
- Ministers accused of dragging feet over new sex-text law
- Tussle over widening compulsory vehicle insurance
- Comment: Time to reduce female prisoner numbers
- The Churn: Baird leads legal profession honour roll call
- Blue Bag diary: Sniping over advocates’ fees
Tweet us @TimesLaw with your views.
|
|
| |
|
|
'C-word' judge cleared of misconduct
|
A crown court judge who responded in like language – including the “c-word” – when verbally abused by a defendant has been cleared of judicial misconduct. Sitting at Chelmsford crown court, Judge Patricia Lynch, QC, had informed John Hennigan, a repeat offender, that he would be sent to prison for breaching an Asbo. The defendant interrupted her, saying: “It’s obvious, isn’t it? Because you’re a c*** and I’m not.” The judge replied: “Well, you’re a bit of a c*** yourself. Being offensive to me doesn’t make things better at all.” When Judge Lynch confirmed the defendant’s sentence, Hennigan, 50, said: “Go f*** yourself.” Lynch retorted: “You too. Take him down.” After the hearing on August 11, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office received about ten complaints about the judge’s behaviour and her use of the word c***. Judge Lynch told the investigators that she deeply regretted the incident and that her remarks were a momentary lapse of judgment that should have never happened. She apologised “unreservedly” for her remarks, according to an official statement sent to one of the complainants. A report on the incident was referred to the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and to Liz Truss, the lord chancellor and justice secretary. The statement said that although the lord chancellor and the lord chief justice considered the judge’s remarks to be “inappropriate, they did not find that they amounted to misconduct or warranted any disciplinary sanction. [They] were of the view that the matter should be dealt with by informal advice.” Judge Lynch had now been advised to “ensure that she responded appropriately to parties in court at all times”.
|
| |
| |
|
|
•
Judge rebukes officials for asylum seeker’s 'bogus' conviction
A senior judge has rebuked Home Office officials for taking a “seriously flawed” decision by relying on a bogus conviction to reject an asylum seeker’s application. The wheelchair-bound Algerian – known only as G – won a 21-year legal battle last month to remain permanently in the UK, despite having past suspected links to Osama bin Laden. The High Court judge Mr Justice Collins ruled that the lengthy legal proceedings had had an adverse effect on G’s mental health and that the Home Office’s decision to refuse his application should be quashed. The judge pointed out that G had not been convicted of a terrorist offence. Mr Justice Collins also lambasted Home Office officials for relying in its decision to deport G on a supposed past conviction for criminal damage, which officials had maintained had resulted in a 12-month prison sentence. “Unfortunately,” Mr Justice Collins said in his ruling, the Home Office “had made a serious error.” The judge went on to clarify that G “had not been convicted of any offence in this country and so the assertion that he had was untrue”. Mr Justice Collins said that Home Office lawyers had offered no explanation for the false allegation that G had been convicted, saying “clearly this decision was seriously flawed”. The ruling pointed out that the Home Office only withdrew its contention that G’s application should fail after his solicitors drew their attention to the error. “Serious errors such as that are unforgivable,” Mr Justice Collins told the Home Office legal team, “and I can only hope that steps have been taken to ensure that extra care is taken to avoid them in the future.” A Home Office spokesman said that officials were considering the judgment.
|
•
MPs propose statutory minimum of female candidates
A group of MPs has called on the government to legislate to ensure that at least 45 per cent of parliamentary candidates fielded by political parties are women. The women and equalities committee in the House of Commons said that the lack of female MPs relative to the numbers of men represented a “serious democratic deficit”. It called on ministers to set the target for representatives in parliament and in local government by 2030. The committee said that the legislation should include fines or other sanctions for parties that failed to comply. “While the goal is equality,” the committee report said, “we recognise the difficulty inherent in setting this statutory minimum at 50 per cent; such a precise target would be difficult to meet while also ensuring that men did not become under-represented. A minimum of 45% would therefore be acceptable.” The committee urged ministers to legislate during the present parliament so that the requirements could be brought into force if the proportion of female MPs did not increase significantly at the next general election in 2020. At present 30 per cent of MPs are women with the UK ranking 48th globally for female representation in the lower or single legislative chamber, having fallen back from 25th place in 1999.
|
•
Ministers accused of dragging feet over new sex-text law
Ministers are dragging their feet over a law that would help police tackle paedophiles, child protection campaigners claimed today. A new offence would make it illegal for adults to send a sexual communication to someone under 16 years of age, under legislation that was enacted in England and Wales in 2015. But the NSPCC, the charity that campaigns against cruelty to children, has called the government to task for not implementing the relevant section of the Serious Crime Act 2015, despite claims that a similar law has been successfully used to catch abusers in Scotland. According to campaigners, in the past six years the Scottish authorities have recorded 1,537 offences under similar legislation. And since February last year legislation has also been in place in Northern Ireland. The charity said that more than 50,000 people had joined its campaign calling on ministers to implement the legislation in England and Wales. It said that figures from the organisation Childline showed that the number of counselling sessions for children worried about online sexual abuse rose last year by 24 per cent to 3,716. Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, has written to the justice secretary, Liz Truss, asking for clarification of the government’s intentions regarding the law. “In too many cases the police have been left powerless to take action to protect children who are increasingly being targeted by abusers online,” Wanless said. “We cannot understand why the government is dragging its feet. It is an unacceptable and baffling delay in equipping police in England and Wales in the battle against criminals who are intent on targeting children.”
|
•
Tussle over widening compulsory vehicle insurance
Compulsory insurance should be extended to a category of vehicles beyond simply cars and lorries, insurance company lawyers argue after a European court ruling. Agricultural equipment such as tractors specifically should be brought within the regime, the Forum of Insurance Lawyers has told the government, which is consulting on proposed amendments to the EU’s motor directive. The lawyers warn that an amendment is necessary in the light of the Court of Justice’s recent ruling in the Slovenian case of Damijan Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav. In that action, the court ruled that a tractor involved in an accident should have been insured, even though the vehicle was being used on private land and only for agricultural purposes. That judgment has triggered concern that a range of other vehicles could fall within Europe’s compulsory insurance rules, including golf buggies, quad bikes, bumper cars and motorised ridden toys. “It is clear that allowing EU law to follow the Vnuk judgment would have a very significant impact on motor insurance across Europe,” said Peter Allchorne, head of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers’ motor team and a partner at the law firm DAC Beachcroft. The Department for Transport is considering an amendment to the EU directive that would bring more categories of vehicle within the compulsory insurance regime but with insurance cover only being required where the vehicle is being used in traffic. Allchorne warned that the amendment was “not a panacea for the issues raised by Vnuk, which would still require some difficult issues to be addressed”.
|
•
In Brief
Freshfields offers voluntary redundancy to 180 London secretaries – Legal Week Departures continue from tight-lipped KWM – Law Gazette Chambers boost pay as pupillage applications open – Legal Cheek
|
| |
| |
|
Sniping over advocates’ fees
|
There was a distinct lack of seasonal goodwill among barristers and solicitors as even a government decision that could potentially be classified as “good news” for lawyers still manages to divide the profession. Barristers for the most part welcomed the Ministry of Justice’s recent announcement of reform to the advocates’ graduated fee scheme. Ditching the old system of assessing legal aid rates by effectively weighing files in favour of accessing complexity seems to have struck a chord. Nonetheless, the Law Society, which represents solicitor-advocates, hinted that the reformed system was another example of ministerial favouritism for the senior Bar as it was convinced that QCs would get a bigger slice of the new pie. The society’s president said this was “bad news” not only for solicitor-advocates but also for struggling young barristers. All a bit rich, was the response yesterday from the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association. In his weekly email message to the faithful, Francis FitzGibbon, QC, prefaced his comments with the phrase “without wishing to be rude to our solicitor colleagues”, which sure as horsehair is horsehair, flagged his intention to be just that. “There is no doubt that the greatest threat to younger barristers’ livelihoods and futures has come from solicitor-advocates who have taken an increasing share of what used to be the Bar's work,” FitzGibbon said in an argument that had all the hallmarks of a protectionist past. “Another misconception,” pointed out the barrister, is “that this is a barrister’s scheme. It’s not. It’s a scheme for all advocates and does not differentiate between solicitors and barristers. The solicitors’ representative bodies were fully engaged until December when the Law Society chose to walk away from the discussions.”
|
Put that gavel down, young man
|
Chambers politics, bonkers clients, even more bonkers and whimsical solicitors, and finally irritatingly eccentric judges – it sounds like the ingredients for a frolicking novel that takes a sideways, behind-the-scenes peek at the English Bar. And blow us down, that’s exactly what David Osborne, a public access barrister of more than 40 years’ call, has produced with the second instalment of his Toby Potts novels, which was published last week. Toby Potts is described as fresh from Bar school and dutifully “full of hopes and dreams and intent on becoming the leading criminal advocate of his time”. No points for realising that disillusionment waits round the corner in the Inns of Court. Osborne, who must be one of the few lawyers in the country that advertises an expertise in the Mobile Homes Act 1983, is a keen scribbler, having previously knocked out No Holds Barred: An Idiot’s Guide to the Art of Advocacy, under the nom de plume of Ivor Bigg-Wigg, QC, and The Art of Public Speaking under his own name. He has also adapted to the digital age making frequent contributions in cyberspace on his The Barrister Bard blog. Unfortunately, Osborne has slipped up with the graphics, illustrating the blog with a gavel. It’s the sort of mistake one might expect of young Toby, but not long-in-the-tooth David.
|
| |
| |
|
A run down of the big partner and team moves this week
|
•
Baird leads legal profession honour roll call
Vera Baird, the former Labour solicitor-general and present police and crime commissioner in Northumbria led the clutch of lawyers and others in the legal profession picking up new year honours. Baird was made a dame in recognition of her work around reforming the law on domestic homicide and for campaigning for victims’ rights. A couple of City of London lawyers also found gongs in their belated Christmas stockings. Joanne Wheeler was appointed MBE for services to the “space sector”. Wheeler worked at the European Space Agency for several years and is now a partner at the law firm Bird & Bird. Her colleague, Georgie Twigg, a trainee at the firm, got the MBE – for services to hockey. Twigg was a member of Britain’s gold medal-winning team at last year’s Olympics. The leading international law firm Holman Fenwick Willan (HFW) is delighted to announce that James Gosling, a partner-turned-consultant, was awarded the OBE for “pioneering the global shipping industry's response to maritime piracy in Somalia”. Elsewhere in the Square Mile, Bob Gilbert, the former deputy senior partner of Wragge & Co – the firm that has since become Gowling WLG – was appointed CBE for services to the legal profession and the economy. He is the steering board chairman of the Intellectual Property Office. Janet Cooper, former head of “global incentives” at Linklaters, the magic circle law firm, was appointed OBE for services to equality and employee share ownership. She is the co-founder of Tapestry global compliance, which specialises in employee incentives. Outside the City, Christopher Nott, senior partner at the Cardiff law firm Capital Law, was handed the OBE for services to economic development in Wales. Jennifer Fowler, the senior advisory lawyer for the upper tribunal (administrative appeals chamber) was also appointed OBE for services to the administration of justice. In Whitehall, Caroline Ross, a lawyer at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, received the OBE for her work on international negotiations in that field. And in legal academia, Nicola Lacey, a professor at the London School of Economics, and John Spencer, QC, of Cambridge University, picked up CBEs.
|
| |
|
|