House of Lords Reform Act 2014

Legislative activity continues apace with 24 "Public General" Acts so far this year and some 1340 Statutory Instruments.  There are numerous bills before Parliament, some of which will eventually emerge as law.

One new Act, of which little seems to have been said, is the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.  It is a short Act of a mere 7 sections and NO schedules.  Introduced into Parliament by Mr Dan Byles MP, It is an example of a private member's bill becoming law.  In the Lords, the Bill was sponsored by Lord Steel of Aikwood.  The Bill received both government and opposition support.

Section 1 - Resignation  - provides that

European Court of Human Rights - two decisions of interest

                               : Whole Lifers :

A recent decision of the Second section of the European Court of Human Rights has re-iterated the court's jurisprudence with regard to "whole life" tariffs - Mr László Magyar v Hungary .  The relevant principles to be applied were set out by the Grand Chamber in Vinter and others v United Kingdom 2013 - discussed on this blog 9th July 2013.

To date, the British government does not appear to have taken any action as a result of the Vinter case.  The most logical and, I submit proper, response would been to have put in place an independent mechanism for review of the need for on-going detention on penological grounds of those prisoners ordered to serve 'whole life' terms.  The matter has been

Justice Armageddon ~ the dire state of access to justice after 4 years of the coalition government

In recent weeks a considerable number of blogs have expressed huge concern at the damage being done to access to justice by the various "justice" policies of the coalition government.  Whilst it is hardly surprising that the government has sought ways to reduce expenditure, the cuts to legal aid have been brutal with whole areas of law removed entirely from the scope of legal aid.  This gives rise to the serious thought that the cuts are based on a deliberate ideology to remove or limit access to justice for the general population and to bring about restrictions to the availability of judicial review which is one of the key ways to test the legality of decision-making by those with executive power such as Ministers. 

Recently, this blog looked at the impasse

A short news roundup

Richard III - The final resting place for the mortal remains of King Richard III may now be settled as a result of a decision by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court - R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 1662.   Previous posts on this are at Richard III and The Burial of King Richard III.  It is worth noting that he was the last of the Plantagenet line which ran some 331 years from 1154 (Henry II) to 1485 (death of Richard III at Bosworth Field).  This was a remarkable period in the early development of English law and its courts.

For a detailed and interesting post by David Hart QC, see UK Human Rights Blog - Richard III: Fairness and Public Interest Litigation

New Sentencing Guidelines - The Sentencing Council has issued new sentencing guidelines for fraud, bribery and money laundering.  The guideline is issued in accordance with section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and applies to all offenders aged 18 and older and to organisations who are sentenced on or after 1 October 2014.

• Definitive Guideline: Fraud, bribery and money laundering offences - Crown Court
• Update 12 – Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Guidelines

Some reflections on the Op Cotton appeal

A shot across the bows?

'It has now become about the desire for control and the flailing avoidance of political embarrassment by any and all means necessary' - Jenny McCartney, The Telegraph 21st May.

Nigel Lithman QC (Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association - CBA) has given a response to the ruling of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in the Operation Cotton appeal - (see previous post).   

Whilst members of the independent criminal bar are free to accept briefs for Very High Cost Cases (VHCC), they have chosen not to do so due to the 30% cut in fees imposed by the Ministry of Justice.  (Actually down by around 44% since 2007).  Mr Lithman makes it clear that the CBA has not sought to dissuade barristers from accepting VHCC briefs should they choose to do so.

In his statement, Mr Lithman refers to the agreement of late March 2014 which I have set out below.   The agreement was accepted

The Operation Cotton appeal ~ R v Crawley

Updated with Judgment:

On Wedensday 21st May, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) will hand down judgment in R v Crawley and others.  The appeal concerns a "terminating ruling" issued by His Honour Judge Leonard QC.  The learned judge ruled that this serious fraud trial should be "stayed" because it had not been possible to obtain suitable legal representation for the defendants and also that no such representation was likely in a reasonable timescale.  The background to the matter is, of course, the imposition by the Ministry of Justice of a 30% reduction in the fees payable to counsel in Very High Cost Cases (VHCC).

On 13th May, the Court of Appeal decided to reserve its judgment.  The appeal is by the Financial Conduct Authority against Judge Leonard's ruling.  The defendants are the respondents in the appeal.  The Ministry of Justice / Lord Chancellor was permitted to intervene in the case. 

The ruling of the judge is available via the Judiciary website - HERE.  Readers may find the skeleton arguments in the appeal of interest: the Financial Conduct Authority; the Defendants; and the Ministry of Justice

An appeal against a terminating ruling is possible under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 58 .  The Court of Appeal may confirm, reverse or vary any ruling - section 61.  The Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 67 provides that the Court of Appeal may not reverse a ruling unless it is satisfied that either (a) the learned judge was wrong in law or (b) that the judge's ruling involved an error of law or principle or (c) that his ruling was unreasonable (i.e. a ruling no reasonable judge could have reached on the material before him). 


The decision:

The Court of Appeal held that the stay was to be overturned and that the trial process should therefore continue.  The court's judgment (HERE) was made available on the internet very soon after its delivery in court.  Sir Brain Leveson may be seen delivering the judgment HERE.  The following are the concluding paragraphs:

2011 Disorder ~ payment for damage

Back in 2011, this blog covered the extensive disorder that took place in several cities in England.  One of the posts at the time was concerned with the question of payment for losses incurred by, for example, damage to or destruction of property - see Who will pay? We all will ! The Riot (Damages) Act 1886.

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Lord Dyson MR, Moore-Bick and Lewison LJJ has now handed down judgment in Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd v Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime [2014] EWCA Civ 682.  The outcome of this appeal is that the Mayor of London's Office is liable to pay those compensation claims made under the 1886 Act in relation to Sony's warehouse.  As a matter of interpretation of the 1886 Act, the Court of Appeal has also held that the Mayor's Office is liable for consequential losses such as loss of profit and loss of rent.  The decision of the Court of Appeal is covered by The Guardian 20th May 2014 

Following the disorder,