Hillsborough ~ new inquests and new problems

In December 2012, the original inquest verdicts into the deaths at Hillsborough in April 1989 were quashed by the High Court and fresh inquests were ordered - Law and Lawyers 20th December 2012. and see - Her Majesty' Attorney-General v HM Coroner for South Yorkshire (West) and HM Coroner for West Yorkshire (West)  [2012] EWHC 3783 Admin  - Lord Judge LCJ, Burnett LJ and HHJ Peter Thornton QC (Chief Coroner).

In addition to fresh inquests, a new Police investigation was ordered under Durham Chief Constable Jon Stoddart.  This investigation is to work closely with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

Following on from the quashing of the original verdicts, Lord Justice Goldring was appointed as Assistant Deputy Coroner to conduct the new inquests - Judiciary 13th February 2013.

A preliminary hearing

Court of Protection ~ an overview

Update 4th May:  Committal for Contempt of Court - Practice Direction of 3rd May

The Court of Protection has been mentioned a few times on this blog - for example, here  and here.

The court is in the news again because it has come to light that Wanda Maddocks was committed to prison for contempt of the court - Daily Mail 25th April - where it is said that, when judgment against her was handed down, she was not present in court and not represented by a lawyer.  It is also said that sentencing was not made public for six months.

In this post, I do not intend to comment on the Mail's article.  I am grateful to the Small Places blog for bringing my attention to the judgment - actually published last autumn - Stoke City Council v Maddocks [2012] EWHC B31 (COP).  Let's look at a few facts about the court.

1.  Parliament established the court by enacting Part 2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  It came into existence from 1st October 2007 and replaced earlier arrangements often confusingly referred to as court of protection proceedings.

Abu Qatada ~ New Treaty with Jordan ~ but will it result in his deportation?

Earlier this week, the Court of Appeal refused the government permission to appeal against a decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in the Abu Qatada case - BBC News 23rd April.  The government will be asking the Supreme Court to grant permission to appeal.

Today, the Home Secretary - Theresa May - informed Parliament of a new treaty between the United Kingdom and Jordan which, she claims, will enable the deportation to Jordan of Abu Qatada - Parliament and  BBC 24th April

It will remain a matter for the courts to determine whether the treaty actually answers the objections to his deportation.

Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the UK and Jordan

The government will be hoping that Article 27.4 provides the solution:

The dismantling of legal aid

Please read the following and take some action to try to preserve the rights of those accused by the State:

Criminal Solicitor - The price of everything and the value of nothing

The [Justice Gap] - Appalling Vistas where Francis FitzGibbon QC looks at government policy on  legal aid

David Allen Green in The New Statesman - How the Ministry of Justice's proposal for the tendering of criminal legal aid is misconceived and illiberal.

I never thought that I would see the day when a democratically elected British government was seeking to do this.  Please do not think this will affect only others.  Anyone of us could, one day, require a good lawyer to represent us.

Please sign this petition and get on to your MP.

The consultation paper is at Gov.uk - Ministry of Justice

Legal Curiosities: Fact or Fable?

The Law Commission has published Legal Curiosities: Fact or Fable?

From time-to-time there are Statute Law (Repeals) Acts intended to tidy out dead wood from the massive so-called 'statute book.'  (See the 2013 Act).  A few candidates for the next such Act appear in the document. 

It is illegal to:

Enter Parliament wearing a suit of armour; to be drunk on licensed premises; to carry a plank along a pavement; to be drunk in charge of a horse and to fire a cannon within 300 yards of a dwelling house.   It is definitely illegal to kill a Scotsman in York whether within or outside the city walls and regardless of the day of the week !! 

It is legal to:

Die in Parliament (and some have); eat mince pies on Christmas Day; put a stamp upside down on a letter. 

A fascinating insight into some of the things which have been considered unlawful during our lengthy legal history and to some of the myths which are mentioned occasionally !

In English Law, once a statute is enacted it will always remain in force until repealed and this is so irrespective of whether the statute is actually enforced.  There is no rule of desuetude.  

There are still Dragons to fight ~ St. George's Day roundup.

Here is a roundup of some of the many legal matters both in the press and on the blogs at the moment:

1. Jon Robins, writing for Legal Voice, offers a report on the day of action by barristers practising on the Northern Circuit.  "An all-day protest by close to 400 barristers in the North West over what was called ‘a wholesale restructuring of the criminal courts’ caused disruption yesterday. It was reported that of the 241 cases originally listed, 15 trials and 42 other matters were adjourned."  A report on the Northern Circuit meeting is at Crime and Justice 22nd April.

2. Cuts to legal aid will be hugely damaging to access to justice and the ability of non-wealthy individuals to enforce their rights.   Barrister Russell Fraser, writing in the New Statesman, argues that one consequence of government policy could be that our Police, lawyers and jails will be run by G4S.  Naturally, that begs the question - "Who runs G4S" - because, if Russell Fraser is proved right, they will be very powerful and yet rather unknown individuals.

3. If you read nothing else on legal aid, read The [Justice Gap] - Appalling Vistas where Francis FitzGibbon QC looks at government policy on  legal aid David Allen Green in The New Statesman - How the Ministry of Justice's proposal for the tendering of criminal legal aid is misconceived and illiberal.

When contact in sport becomes criminal

This morning, the major talking point in the Barclay's Premier League is the incident between Luis Suárez and Branislav Ivanovic at the Liverpool v Chelsea match at Anfield on 21st April - Telegraph 22nd April - where it is reported that Luis Suárez held an opponent and then bit him.  Suarez tweeted an apology for what he described as “inexcusable behaviour”.

Clearly, Liverpool Football Club will be entitled to discipline Suarez and so will the Football Association and here is a player with a problematic disciplinary record.  Leaving such action aside, what does the criminal law say about what might appear to be an assault by one player on another?  The principal modern case is R v Barnes [2004] EWCA Crim 3246 - Lord Woolf CJ, Cresswell and Simon JJ.

The prosecution of Mr Barnes was