Friday, July 31, 2015

Modern Slavery ~ a modern scourge

By Unknown | At 5:11 PM | Label : | 0 Comments
Exploitation of human beings is an age-old scourge and is certainly well and truly with us today as this short video illustrates all too well - Modern slavery is closer than you think.

"Modern slavery is a brutal form of organised crime in which people are treated as commodities and exploited for criminal gain. The true extent of modern slavery in the United Kingdom, and indeed globally, is unknown. Modern slavery, in particular human trafficking, is an international problem and victims may have entered the United Kingdom legally, on forged documentation or clandestinely, or they may be British citizens living in the United Kingdom. Modern slavery takes a number of forms, including sexual exploitation, forced labour and domestic servitude, and victims come from all walks of life. Victims are often unwilling to come forward to law enforcement or public protection agencies, not seeing themselves as victims, or fearing further reprisals from their abusers. In particular, there may be particular social and cultural barriers to men identifying themselves as victims. Victims may also not always be recognised as victims of modern slavery by those who come into contact with them" - (Extract from Explanatory Notes to the Modern Slavery Act 2015).

International concern about exploitation has resulted in a number of significant actions:  the UN Palermo Protocol 2000;  the Council of Europe Convention on Trafficking in Human Beings (Warsaw 2005) and the European Union's Directive 2011/36/EU.

In the UK, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (mostly) came into force on 31st July 2015 - Explanatory Notes and Commencement Order.  The following selection of articles make for interesting reading and they draw attention to some of the perceived deficiencies in the legislation.  Examination of the considerable amount of legal detail must await another occasion but the Act is to be welcomed as a major step in combating this serious problem. 



Articles etc:

a) Published before Royal Assent to the Bill:


Parliament - Joint Committee on the Modern Slavery Bill - Report dated 3rd April 2014

Oxford Human Rights Hub, Peter Carter QC 2nd December 2014 - Modern Slavery Bill - A Brief Review

Human Rights Watch 22nd February 2015 - Amend the Modern Slavery Bill - this called for removal of the "tied-visa" scheme.  The government has not done this despite the possibility that tied-visas are locking individuals to their employers.  The Joint Committee in Parliament also recommended reversal of changes made to the "Overseas Domestic Worker Visa" - see Conclusions and Recommendations para 51.  Reversal would "at the very least allow organisations and agencies to remove a worker from an abusive employment situation immediately. It would also enable the abuse to be reported to the police without fear that the victim would be deported as a result." 

b) Published after Royal Assent:

A short summary of the main provisions of the Act may be seen at Modern Slavery Act by Kevin Molloy.

UK government 26th March 2015 - Historic law to end modern slavery passed

E-International Relations 8th April 2015 - Britain's Modern Slavery Act: World-leading or a timid start?

LexisNexis - In House - 17th April 2015 - A Modern Slavery Act for the UK: the uncertainty for business continues

Halsbury's Law Exchange 1st May 2015 - Modern Slavery Act 2015: the first steps in the right direction


Guide to the Palermo Protocol 

Other links:

Crown Prosecution Service - Human trafficking, smuggling and slavery 

UK Government 31st July - Guidance on Orders under Part 2 of the Modern Slavery Act

Criminal Courts Charge

By Unknown | At 4:14 AM | Label : | 0 Comments


There are certain situations where the charge may NOT be imposed (see Regulation 2) such as where the court deals with an offence by way of an absolute discharge.  However, in most situations a charge must be imposed.  The Regulations do not provide for any discretion on the part of the judge or magistrates and there is no means test applicable to this charge.  Consequently, some defendants on minimal means will have the charge imposed.

A few examples will illustrate the charge that must be imposed in the Magistrates' Courts:


Albert pleads guilty to careless driving (a Summary Offence) - charge is £150

Barry pleads not guilty to careless driving but is convicted - charge is £520

Charles pleads guilty to theft (an either-way offence) - charge is £180

David pleads not guilty to theft - charge is £1000

These fees are on top of any other financial orders such as compensation, fines, surcharge (so-called "victim's surcharge"), costs.

The legislation contains a power for the magistrates to REMIT the charge (e.g. if the court is  satisfied that the person has taken all reasonable steps to pay it, having regard to the person's personal circumstances) BUT there may be no remission until a period of time has elapsed (2 years if the person liable has applied to the court to remit the charge and, in any other case, 12 months).

There is reason to believe that the courts charge is pressuring some defendants to plead guilty even in cases where they may be not guilty factually or may have a legal defence.  Furthermore, a number of Magistrates have recently resigned from the bench citing the lack of justice inherent in this charge as a reason - The Times 25th July 2015 (£)

The legislation contains provision for interest on the charge if or to the extent that it remains unpaid.

Ministry of Justice Fact sheet 

Law Society Gazette -  Society outrage at 'back door' criminal court fees - the Law Society President described the charges as ‘outrageous’ and a threat to fair trials.

Halsbury's Law Exchange

The Justice Gap

Link added 30th August:

Transform Justice 26th August - How did the criminal court charge get through Parliament?

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Solitary Confinement in Prisons + Legal aid for prisoners

By Unknown | At 5:30 PM | Label : | 0 Comments
The UK Supreme Court has handed down judgment in R (Bourgass and another) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] UKSC 54.

Two prisoners - Bourgass and Hussain - had been held in solitary confinement for lengthy periods well in excess of the 72 hours which a Prison Governor may order and well in excess of the 14 days maximum that the Secretary of State for Justice may authorise.

The Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lords Sumption, Reed and Hodge) held unanimously that the decisions to keep the men in solitary confinement ("segregation") for substantial periods were not taken lawfully.

The decision rests on essentially English common law principles. 
The relevant legislation included a requirement for the Secretary of State to authorise segregation in excess of 72 hours.  It was not lawful for the Prison Governor to take that decision either himself or on behalf of the Secretary of State.  Officials in the Ministry of Justice could issue the authorisation because, under the Carltona Principle, the decisions of departmental officials were to be regarded as the decisions of the Secretary of State.  The common law also required procedural fairness in that prisoners had to be given a reasonable opportunity to make representations before a decision to authorise continued segregation was taken.

The court held that Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights did not apply in this context.

The single judgment (delivered by Lord Reed) extends to 37 pages and will require more detailed consideration.  I will add at the end of this post any links to commentaries that may appear.

Prison Act 1952

Prison Rules 1999 Rule 45

Prison Service Orders with link to PSO 1700

Legal aid:

The question of legal aid for prisoners was not in issue in the Bourgass case.  The Court of Appeal has granted leave for judicial review to take place regarding legal aid for prisoners - see the decision at R (Howard League and Prisoners Advice Service) v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWCA Civ 819 and the article by Owen Bowcott in The Guardian 28th July 2015.   The permission stage for judicial review is, it seems, capable of producing considerable complexity in itself !

Additional Links on the Bourgass case:

Public Law for Everyone 29th July - Bourgass in the Supreme Court: Solitary confinement, the Carltona Doctrine and Procedural Fairness 

The Justice Gap - Frances Crook - Clear risks and inadequate safeguards: the reality of solitary confinement in prison

Cut off without a penny ... not necessarily !

By Unknown | At 4:22 PM | Label : | 0 Comments
May your will be "overturned" by the court?  The basic principle remains that an individual making a will is free to distribute his property and money in any way he or she desires.  It has been possible for certain categories of individuals to apply to the court for "reasonable financial provision" under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act1975.  The categories include a child of the deceased.

Melita Jackson chose, in her will, to give some £500,000 to various animal charities.  Her daughter (Heather Ilott) has succeeded in the Court of Appeal in obtaining reasonable provision - Telegraph 28th July - Could Your Will be overturned by a court?  

The court's judgment is Ilott v Mitson and others [2015] EWCA Civ 797 (Arden. Ryder LJJ and Sir Colin Rimer).  

The case has raised a considerable amount of comment in the media. 
One example is this Max Hastings article in the Daily Mail 29th July - Who are Judges to tell us who we can leave our money to in or wills?  Mr Hastings either does not notice that the judges are applying legislation enacted by our own Parliament or, if he notices, chooses to ignore the fact and lead on to have a crack at "human rights" laws instead.  Human Rights are not even mentioned in the court's judgment.


Where an individual dies intestate (that is, without a will) it is still possible for applications to be made under the Act since the law relating to intestacy may not give reasonable financial provision for the applicant.

It is always advisable for those with any significant assets to make a will.  Anyone seeking reasonable financial provision against a deceased person's estate is well advised to consult with solicitors who specialise in such claims.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Expulsion or suspension of members of the House of Lords

By Unknown | At 6:47 PM | Label : | 0 Comments
Update:  Lord Sewel resigned from Parliament - BBC News 28th July.

The short House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 came into force in June 2015.

This Act begins - section 1(1) - "Standing Orders of the House of Lords may make provision under which the House of Lords may by resolution - (a) expel a member of the House of Lords, or (b) suspend a member of the House of Lords for the period specified in the resolution."

A person expelled as a result of such a resolution ceases to be a member.  Those suspended are not entitled to receive writs of summons to attend the House and are disqualified from sitting or voting in the Lords - see section 1(2) and 1(3).  

Any resolution
has to state that, in the opinion of the House of Lords, the conduct giving rise to the resolution - (a) occurred after the coming into force of this Act, or (b) occurred before the coming into force of this Act and was not public knowledge before that time - see section 1(4).

Key to this legislation is the existence of Standing Orders of the House.  The House of Lords Committee for Privilege and Conduct issued a report containing draft amendments to Standing Orders (Second report Session 2015-16).  The amendments are concerned with the process to be adopted before the House gets to the stage of considering a resolution.  The matter would be heard by the Committee for Privilege and Conduct and a recommendation would be put to the House.  Expulsion or suspension would only be for breaches of the Code of Conduct.   The amendments to Standing Orders have been agreed - Motion to agree 16th July moved by Lord Sewel

One aspect of the Code is that Members must always act according to their "personal honour."   This term is not defined but the Code states that it is a matter for individual members, subject to the sense and culture of the House as a whole.

Allegations have appeared in the media against Lord Sewel (Baron Sewel of Gilcomstoun) - The Independent 27th July.  On 28th July, Lord Sewel's resignation from Parliament was announced.  A test of the new Act and Standing Orders will therefore have to await another occasion.

The Sewel Convention is named after Lord Sewel - Telegraph Lord Sewel and the Sewel Motion.  The Sewel Convention ensures that Westminster will normally legislate on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament only with the express agreement of that Parliament, after proper consideration and scrutiny of the proposal in question.

House of Lords - Standards and Interests

House of Lords Commissioner for Standards

Apart from an Act of Parliament (or, possibly, conviction for treason) there seems to no way that a peerage may be removed.  The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 was enacted to enable the removal of titles held by the enemy during World Ward 1.  Knighthoods and other honours may be removed (e.g. Fred Goodwin) as may membership of the Privy Council though it appears to have been more usual for individuals to request their own removal from the Privy Council as did Chris Huhne in 2013 following his conviction for perverting the course of justice.    

Friday, July 24, 2015

All rather confusing ...!

By Unknown | At 3:21 PM | Label : | 0 Comments
Addenda - Sunday 26th July 2015 and Tuesday 28th July

On Thursday 23rd July, representatives of the solicitor side of the legal profession met with the Lord Chancellor (Michael Gove) over their concerns about fee reductions for criminal legal aid work and government plans to introduce "dual contracts" - (see previous post of 12th July).

The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) had balloted its members and obtained a vote in favour of supporting the solicitors - (Law Society Gazette - Criminal bar announces date for legal aid action ).   CBA had instituted a "no returns" policy to be effective from 27th July.

The CBA was not present at the meeting with the Lord Chancellor.  On Tuesday 21st July, the solicitor organisations updated the CBA as to a change of direction in the action being taken by solicitors - Statement - and here are the details of the revised tactics. The new tactics focus the protest of solicitors on Crown Court work.

A statement by the Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association was issued on the morning of  24th July.  The CBA Executive Committee is to convene for an emergency meeting on Monday 27th July to consider the effect of the situation created by the new tactics of the solicitors.

Addendum 26th July 2015:




Here are some viewpoints as to what should happen at, and after, the Executive Coimmittee meeting.

Standing Firm and Holding the Line - Mark George QC - 25th July

The Survey, the Ballot and The Misunderstanding - John Cooper QC - 25th July 2015

The absence of the Criminal Bar Association from the meeting with the Secretary of State requires a full explanation. Even more importantly, the CBA Executive must decide on a clear course of action.  The ballot of their members was to support the action of solicitors and such support was to commence on Monday 27th July.

.... and, on Friday 24th July, Jack of Kent blog looked at why there was an empty chair at the Gove meeting and said - " ... it appears that the CBA leadership saw the new protocol as their opportunity to get rid of the no returns police, and they seized it ...." - read The Empty Chair

Time will tell whether that viewpoint was right.

Addendum 28th July 2015:

Brief Statement of 27th July by Criminal Bar Association stating they are continuing to support the action by solicitors

An Extremism Bill this autumn and a Counter-Extremism Strategy

By Unknown | At 1:26 AM | Label : | 0 Comments
In a speech delivered on 20th July, the Prime Minister outlined his views, concerns and plans relating to "Extremism" - Speech at Ninestyles School, Birmingham on 20th July 2015.  An Extremism Bill is promised in the autumn along with announcement of the government's Counter - Extremism Strategy.  This is a subject with massive political ramifications.  This post looks briefly at some of the possible legal aspects of the strategy as outlined in the PM's speech.  Any new "Extremism Act" will add to the already considerable volume of counter terrorism legislation on the statute book and demands for new or extended powers seem to come almost daily.

The Prime Minister's speech was focused on "tackling Islamist extremism – not Islam the religion" and he praised the contributions of many British Muslims to British society.  The PM described "British Values" by saying:




"We are all British. We respect democracy and the rule of law. We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, equal rights regardless of race, sex, sexuality or faith.
We believe in respecting different faiths but also expecting those faiths to support the British way of life. These are British values. And are underpinned by distinct British institutions. Our freedom comes from our Parliamentary democracy. The rule of law exists because of our independent judiciary. This is the home that we are building together."

A Counter-terrorism strategy:

The speech indicated four aspects of the counter-extremism strategy.  (1) Counter the extreme ideology underpinning extremism.  In this area Cameron said that our strongest weapon is our liberal values.  (If so, then we must not relinquish those values).  (2) Tackle both parts of the extremism creed - the violent and the non-violent.  The latter includes those groups and organisations that may not be advocates of violence but which promote other parts of the extremist narrative.  (3) Embolden different voices in the Muslim Community - more moderate and reforming voices.  (4) Build a more cohesive society.

Were there any specific clues as to what might be in the Extremism Bill?  Cameron said:

" ... as part of our Extremism Bill, we are going to introduce new narrowly targeted powers to enable us to deal with these facilitators and cult leaders, and stop them peddling their hatred. And we will also work to strengthen Ofcom’s role to enable us to take action against foreign channels that broadcast hate preachers and extremist content."

We also know from the speech that the Home Secretary (Theresa May) has put in place a review of Sharia Courts.  (I have not been able to find details of this review but see National Secular Society 23rd March).

Regulations will be "toughened" so schools have to report children who go missing from school rolls mid-year – some of whom, we fear, may be being forced into marriage.  There will be a consultation on legislating for lifetime anonymity for victims of forced marriage.

The PM also noted that there is legislation for authorities to seize the passports of people they suspect are planning on taking girls abroad for FGM.  New protection orders came into force last Friday and were used immediately by Bedfordshire police to prevent two girls being taken to Africa.
( See World Health Organisation - FGM for detail on this serious matter).

Louise Casey is being commissioned to undertake a review of how to boost opportunity and integration and bring Britain together as one nation.   This review will lead to a new "Cohesive Communities Programme" to be announced in 2016.

Yet another aspect of the speech was his view that "the government needs to start asking searching questions about social housing, to promote integration, to avoid segregated social housing estates where people living there are from the same single minority ethnic background."

The PM continued ...

"Similarly in education, while overall segregation in schooling is declining, in our most divided communities, the education that our young people receive is actually even more segregated than the neighbourhoods they live in" .... "it is right to look again more broadly at how we can move away from segregated schooling in our most divided communities. We have already said that all new faith academies and free schools must allocate half their places without reference to faith.  But now we’ll go further to incentivise schools in our most divided areas to provide a shared future for our children, whether by sharing the same site and facilities; by more integrated teaching across sites; or by supporting the creation of new integrated free schools in the most segregated areas."

Discussion / Comment:

There is clearly much of potential legal interest in this speech and the Extremism Bill looks like it will be a lengthy document with considerable extensions of State power which will inevitably appear to be necessary to underpin the Counter- Extremism Strategy.  The more powers in the hands of the State, the greater the potential for intrusion into the life and liberty of the citizen.

It is worth remembering that freedom under a fair and reasonable rule of law is also a "British value" and great care will be needed to achieve a balance between maintaining freedoms and addressing the serious problem of extremism.  Some concerns have already been expressed - for example, Politics.co.uk 20th July 2015.

The human rights framework in the UK helps to achieve such a balance and yet this framework is under challenge from the government.  Their detailed proposals on human rights are expected in the autumn.  A vast amount of electronic "ink" has been expended in discussion of this issue - (for example, see post of 15th May and the links therein).

 "Access to the courts" (a fair and impartial tribunal) has also been a traditional "British value" and assists in the peaceful settlement of disputes.  In practice, this is being undermined by the erection of barriers to justice such as reductions in legal aid and the introduction of court fees which are likely to be increased in certain areas (see the latest consultation).  "Judicial Review" - an important, if expensive and cumbersome means by which the rule of law is applied to government itself  - is also becoming subject to further restrictions (see the latest consultation).

Specific targets:

One aspect of the speech was very specific in its target.  The Prime Minister said:

"I want to say something to the National Union of Students. When you choose to ally yourselves with an organisation like CAGE, which called Jihadi John a “beautiful young man” and told people to “support the jihad” in Iraq and Afghanistan, it really does, in my opinion, shame your organisation and your noble history of campaigning for justice."

The activities of the advocacy organisation CAGE were the subject of a blogpost on 2nd March 2015 (A multi-angled story)  and it is interesting to note that the High Court is to hear an application for judicial review of decisions relating to action by the Charity Commission to pressure charities not to fund CAGE - The Guardian 23rd July.   The Guardian has also reported that CAGE is seeking legal advice as to whether the Prime Minister's speech was defamatory.


Sunday, July 19, 2015

Mr Gove, "Will policy come to match the rhetoric?"

By Unknown | At 5:11 PM | Label : | 0 Comments
The Secretary of State for Justice / Lord Chancellor (Michael Gove) has spoken about prisons and reform - The Treasure in the Heart of Man - Making prisons work.  All that remains, in this difficult financial climate, is to match the splendid rhetoric with suitably effective action.  At least, it seems that Mr Gove has read and noted the contents of the highly depressing Annual Report from HM Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales.  This report ought to stand as a shameful indictment of government policy over recent years.

In many areas of prison law, legal aid for prisoners was removed by the coalition government.  In March 2014, the High Court refused to allow a challenge to this policy.  On 7th July, the Howard League for Penal Reform went to the Court of Appeal to try to overturn the High Court decision -  Howard League - Legal Aid for prisoners


See the High Court  "decision - (see the judgment) - where Cranston J (delivering the judgment of the High Court) said:

"We can well understand the concerns ventilated through these claims. A range of impressive commentators have argued that the changes to criminal legal aid for prison law in the Criminal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, SI 2013, No 2790 will have serious adverse effects for  prisoners. But we simply cannot see, at least at this point in time, how these concerns can arguably constitute unlawful action by the Lord Chancellor. For the time being the forum for advancing these concerns remains the political."  (Link to the regulations inserted).

Another point made in the High Court judgment related to the Lord Chancellor's duty under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to uphold the rule of law.  Were the 2013 Regulations ultra vires (i.e. beyond powers) the statutory and constitutional role of the Lord Chancellor to uphold the rule of law.  Cranston J said - "As a legal submission this goes nowhere."

The precise nature of that "duty" remains rather enigmatic and one wonders whether, apart from perhaps politically, it has any real bite.


Mr Gove also appeared this week before the Justice Committee - view the session at Parliament.TV

The fight for criminal legal aid to be adequately maintained continues.  Following the Criminal Bar Association's ballot in favour of action to support solicitors (see previous post), the CBA has issued a "No returns" protocol.

The Guardian 15th July - Barristers vote to join solicitors in legal aid protest

Law Society Gazette - Criminal bar announces date for legal aid action 


Friday, July 17, 2015

Many stories ... here are some ...

By Unknown | At 1:01 AM | Label : | 0 Comments
There is a lot happening - here is some of it ...

The tragic "assisted dying" cases of Nicklinson and Lamb v United Kingdom have been ruled inadmissible by the European Court of Human Rights.  The court's reasons are summarised here and here is the decision of the Fourth Section of the Court.  Law and Lawyers post of 25th June 2014.


In the autumn, the Ministry of Justice will publish proposals for a British Bill of Rights.  Standpoint has published an example of what a British Bill of Rights could look like - Standpoint - A British Bill of Rights - Geoffrey Robertson   It is most unlikely that the government's proposals will be as extensive as this.

There is some kind of rose coloured spectacles nonsense
developing that somehow the common law is as capable of protecting human rights as the present Convention system combined with the UK's Human Rights Act 1998.  Anyone needing an antidote to this must read Mark Elliott's article - Michael Gove, the Justice Committee and the Human Rights Act.   Now I am far from saying that common law offers nothing but, at least traditionally, it came nowhere near the present system of protection though it was possible to identify within it some of the ideas that informed those who drafted the European Convention on Human Rights.  Perhaps THE most fundamental rule of the common law was its total obeisance to the legislative supremacy of Parliament.  In modern times, the executive largely controls the Parliamentary timetable.  Who then holds the reins of supremacy?

The Law Commission is consulting about protective care for people unable to consent to treatment - Providing protective care to people unable to consent to treatment.  See the consultation document - open until 2nd November 2015.  This opens up the whole topic of Deprivation of Liberty Standards as discussed on this Youtube video.  


Open Society has issued an alternative report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child -  UK implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Later this year, joint enterprise liability in criminal law will be subjected to the UK Supreme Court in the case of R v Jogee.  See the Court of Appeal judgment.  The Crown Prosecution Service has a useful document summarising this doctrine.

Legal Futures points out to Mr Gove that Solicitors are also lawyers.

The Justice Gap comments - If you can't find an appeal lawyer, blame the Ministry of Justice



Suesspiciousminds looks at IS v Director of Legal Services 2015 - the judgment is here

The New Statesman considers how Legal Aid Cuts have scuppered physical or mental abuse case in the Family Court   The author is Lucy Reed,  a family law barrister who blogs at pinktape.co.uk and tweets as @familoo.







◄ Posting Baru
 

Copyright © 2012. Attorney Corner - All Rights Reserved B-Seo Versi 5 by Blog Bamz