The Defence Brief

It's been quite a while since I last got around to writing anything so I thought I best start off with something topical.  Then I thought sod that, I'll write about something relevant to me and everyone else can like it or lump it... or I suppose leave abusive comments, although you really shouldn't do that you naughty trolls. In the modern world a lot of solicitors like to be lawyers and do lawyery things like consider papers, draft documents and advise clients.  I also enjoy that, but I have also come to terms with my additional roles, which include such delights as courier, messenger boy and now long distance delivery driver. Anyway, the source of this rant comes from the fact that yesterday I ended my Christmas break early, left my girlfriend and our son at her parents to drive for three-hours to Leeds to collect papers for a client's appeal and then drive the three-hours back to my girlfriend's parents to drop the car back to her followed by another two-hou...

Good news, I have found our next Prime Minister! Don't worry though, we don't have to abandon elections just yet, because I have a list of three names for you to chose from all of whom are currently unemployed and thus can start tomorrow. First, is Giles Fraser.  He has been in the news recently as he resigned as Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral.  He is against violence and so when he become concerned that evicting the protesters from the church yard would end in violence he chose to have no part in it and resigned!  MPs in general take note, this is integrity. Second up is Fraser Dyer, a Chaplin at St Paul's who resigned because he felt "embarrassed by the position taken by the Dean and Chapter" of the cathedral.  In other words, his bosses made a decision that he could not support on principle so he refused to support it and resigned his post.  Nick Clegg, Vince Cable & other Liberal MPs take note this is called sticking to your principles a...

The BBC are on a mission this week to discuss criminal offences that are dealt with by being taking into consideration, there are articles on their website, it's being discussed on the Today programme and I will be discussing it on Radio 4's Law in Action at 4pm on the 1st and 3rd November 2011 - well I might be if I was interest enough during the interview.  Taking an offence into consideration is the process whereby a guilty defendant can admit to crimes for which they have not been charged on the understanding that they will not be prosecuted in future for that offence.  This helps the police as each offence TiC'd counts as a bona fide detection and thus boosts forces detection rates. It is not a well understood process, even by lawyers, and many make the mistake of thinking that once you TiC a crime you are safe from prosecution because you can rely on the special plea of autrefois convict - literally instead of pleading guilty or not guilty you enter a preemptive ple...

Sometimes you have to really think about a blog post, other times kind colleagues in other firms helpfully do it for you.  Today, I am shamelessly copying the words of Andrew Port who is a partner at Dexter & Port Solicitors in Reading.  The text below is from his letter to the Law Society Gazette that was published in the 27th October 2011 edition; both he and the Law Society have kindly given permission for me to reproduce the letter here. "Now that there is no payment under legal aid for magistrates' court work which is committed to the Crown Court, I find myself in a practical equivalent of the paradox described by Schrodinger and his dead or alive moggy. I have a representation order for a youth charged with two robberies.  The details of the allegation are such that representations have been made to the prosecution that alternatives of assault and handling would be more appropriate.  The court clerk has already made her view clear that, if the charge rema...

I have decided to write a note to my MP about the proposed cuts to civil legal aid.  I don't claim this to be a treatise on the finer points of the cuts, nor do I claim that this is in any way the definitive argument against the cuts, but I do think that it is worth making these points (and others) to MPs if you believe that poorer people should have the right to defend themselves and their rights against those who seek to abuse or those rights. Urgent Rt Hon Vincent Cable House of Commons London SW1A 0AA Date:                      26th October 2011 Our ref:                   nd/ Your ref: Dear Mr Cable, Re:         Proposed reforms to legal aid I write in regards to the forthcoming vote in the House of Commons on the latest round of legal aid cuts. I am wri...

I read in this morning's Times that Ken Clarke is to abolish imprisonment for the public protection (IPP sentences), which are indeterminate prison sentences - in other words they are a life sentence as an offender must prove that he is safe to be released before he gets out of goal, can pass go and collect £200. IPP sentences have done an awful lot to overwhelm the Prison Service and Parole Board, and I expect the Probation Service too.   They have, at least, created some much needed work for lawyers and for that I think we must all applaud them (IPPs not lawyers, although if you’re feeling generous…).   Despite the obvious advantages to me and my colleagues, many lawyers have this odd notion that locking people up and throwing away the key isn't the nicest way to treat people.   The people who receive IPP sentences are often not the most serious criminals... if they were then they would have been sentenced to a good old fashioned life sentence, which is a requirement...

Claims are flying about that undercover police officers were arrested, prosecuted and convicted while using their cover names in court. This is serious because if true then the police officer would have not only committed a criminal offence, in one case it is suggested he was convicted of assaulting another police officer, but more importantly if that undercover officer gave evidence he would have taken an oath to tell the truth.  The first question his advocate would have asked him would have been along the lines, "would you please give your full name to the court?"  If he answers with his false name then he is lying to a court and thus committing a further offence of perjury. I have seen reports that say senior officers authorised undercover officers to stand trial under false names.  If so then those officers are likely to be guilty of a conspiracy to commit perjury or pervert the course of justice. Some police officers have been known to charge suspects with att...