The Salford Centre - Will it work?

The Salford Centre has been set up to facilitate County Court Money claims from March 19th of this year. Solicitors and others from the legal proffession have been sceptical about the new set up and claim that the SBA have lost letters of complaints and claims forms. These are important documents and highly likely to cause fear amongst the proffesion.

Its wrong to send people to prison for council tax defaults!...so why there a stautute that permits it?

I was born in the nineties so i grew up around alot of denim, the spice girls, those gooey alien toys and stories about how bad Thatcher was by introducing poll tax. Statistics show that in 1993, 1361 people were imprisoned due to a poll tax payment defaults. However, that was almost nine years ago, so i would not blame if you get a sense of shock at the read of my next sentence. In R (on application of Amamnda Aldous v Magistrates Court 2011, a women was sent to prison for not paying £7000 in council tax.
But were the magistrates being to harsh? £7000 is a alot of money and if the law is not completely strict enough then people will feel that they do not have to pay their taxes at all.

What has Legal Aid Ever Done To U Lord Jackson?

By now it is clear what the government intend to do with the cuts to legal aid. Does the sum 350 million ring a bell? Yes, the government aim to cut legal aid by 350 million pounds every year. This is due to our very own Lord Justice Jackson's idea to reform the area of access to justice.
As a consequence of his reforms successful claimants will have to pay solictors out of their winnings. This is ridiculous!!!! This will hardly leave them with any money anyway which will mean people will only go to court if they know they will win rather than simply because they want justice and this is unfair. Numerous important landmark cases were seen due to the fact that they were to provide justice for others not just for monetary reasons. These cuts are going to change the law as we know as they only intend to increase claims in employer liabilty ans personal injury because there is money involved.
Additionally, it will also result in lawyers losing money as their fees will be capped by 25% in P.I cases. They also intend to make mediation settlements enforceable by courts. However, surely, does this not eradicate the whole point of mediation? The whole of mediation is so the parties can settle outside of court, so why would it be enfoceable by them?
The reforms have lead to many MPs calling for their peers to rethink the legal aid cuts with the assumption that there must be other ways to make the deficit back. Suggestions include that the government should look into whether pension and workers should be subject to "poluter pays" for the poor decision making which leads to winning appeals.
Another proposal was that family law should be looked into more closely. The fact that there will be funding for domestic violence cases could lead to an increase of domestic violence cases and false accusations. The Law Gazette also stated that the domestic violence should be edited to include "non physical violence" as well.
So will the cuts end free legal as we know it? The House of Commons Justice Committee do not think it will be, instead they believe it will lead to a "significant under supply" of legal aid providers.
Acceptable?...Why should we pay taxes that the govenrnment increase whenever they feel like whilst still being subjected to pay for a legal voice to defend ourselves anyway? Come October, this will be cry of many citizens in the country but by that time it will too late. It's a shame people are not focusing on this issue now rather than the cuts to jobs. I understand that jobs are important, but cuts to legal aid could lead to an advice drought which will leave only the wealthy to be able to defend themselves and get away with committing injustices to people. I don't know about anyone else but this is not a world I am prepared for.

The Solicitor Corner! - Legal aid cuts affect firms too

Cuts in any department is not a good thing. Cuts in legal aid can have dire consequences especially for the public as an estimated 500,000 people will be unable to gain access to free legal aid. Debt advice, housing, divorce, benefits and employment are some areas that will no longer be free legal aid. This could lead to MP's having to take on a greater workload and employ more people to deal with issues such as immigration cases which would normally be dealt with by a law centre. Additonally, law firms could be highly affected as they would have to reduce their rates in order to help the less wealthy deal with issues that would have normally been free.

I cannot see the positve outcome in the cuts to the legal sector. Again, it will only make the gap between rich and poor more prominnent and lead to injustice as the less affluent will have great difficulty trying to defend themselves in legal cases.

Criminal Law - Changing the PACE

March sees more changes happening to criminal law specifically the police powers outlined under ss44-47 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

In the Strasbourg court, the case of Gillan and Quintin v UK has established that the stop and search powers of the Terrorism Act under ss44-47 contradict Convention law. Therefore, there have been slight changes to code A, B and D in PACE.

Additionally, it will be at the discretion of the police and local communities as whether stop and search records shall be continued to be used in certain areas. I am weary of the discretion as if stop and search is recorded, this could lead to the ultra vires of the police and there will be no evidence or proof of any injustice.

The Solicitor Corner!..Law Firms May Be A Dying Breed!

The introduction of the Alternative Business Structure may be very daunting for someone studying law. Introduced by the Legal Services Act, it's purpose is to allow other business or companies to create their own legal sectors for example "Tesco Law". This is because 80% of the work carried out in law firms no longer require authority to do so and therefore falls outside the six catergories of reserved legal work.


I can see the reasons as to why this is a good thing. It is good for the public as they will have more access to legal aid and help, however, it can be restrictive on many law firms as the law does not allow law firms to expand into having their own business sectors or stores etc. How is this a level playing field?

Kerry Underwood stated that ABS is about "the wholesale abolition of the legal proffession". This is because ABS companies will have to deliver reserved activities just like law firms. However, what will become of reserved and unreserved legal activties in the future i think will definately affect how law firms will be affected by ABS

My apologies for my absence

Sorry my fellow Lawholics for my temporary absence from blogging. It seems second year is alot demanding than i expected but fear i have become reaquainted with my legal journals and news and shall not stop blogging for a long time. :-) (crowd cheers)

Property Law - Estate agents need further governing?

The Solicitors Journal february 1 vol 155 no 4

The Bizness World - The RBS Report - Is there any point?

RBS! I actually had work experience for RBS in Liverpool Street when I was 15 yrs old which is fantastic (in a sarcastic tone)seen as now everyone blames them for the recession that has lead to higher prices and less jobs.

Therefore, it is with great consternation that I can say that The Financial Services Authority have planned to release the RBS report this month. The report exposes the investigation into the bank that took place in May 2009, almost two years ago. The reason for the delay of publication was due to the fact that the FSA were bound by confidentialiy under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. However, this argument could be easily countered by the fact that the public should be entitled to know what part the senior executives of the bank had to play in the current economic breakdown. Additionally, this is also supported by the fact that there have been intense and detailed reports about banks that are not state owned for example Northern Rock and The Lehman Brothers "Valukas" report which was massive 40 million pages long. With this in mind and the fact that RBS is 83% government owned, a report exposing the downfalls in the governance of RBS should not be something that should have taken two years to deliberate on.

William Davies in The Business Law Journal [January 2011] volume 32 states that the report would provide "significant benefits". He says that the investigation into whether there were any fudiciary breaches made by the directors would pave the way to judicial reconstruction of the litigation surrounding the governance of banks. By exposing how powerless the laws relating to banks are, could encourage policy makers to make sufficient changes to prevent any future replications of failures in the banking systems.
Additionally, Davies goes on to say that the report will also restore hope in the public that the banks are not uncontrollable and do have strict regimes to follow. The public will gain more faith in the government.
I agree with Davies on the points that it may change the law to be a positive thing. Clearly, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 act is too strong a safeguard for the banks and is a law that works against the law itself as it prevents the legal bodies of anaylsis from investigating breach because they could be in breach themselves. This does not make sense.
Moreover, cases such as R v Rollins [2010] establish that the powers of the FSA are growing and are not just limited to offences underlined in ss 402 and 403 of the Finacial Services and Marketing Act 2000 and can now prosecute on money laundering contrary to The Crime Act 2002 ss 327 and 328. These changes highlight that policy makers are not afraid to contradict laws in other areas so why should they be fearful in the banking sector?
However, where I somewhat disagree is that the report will provide a new public confidence. This is because the public are not going to sit and analyse a report that is a million pages long, they will only listen to news summaries and still may not fully believe the investigation.

In conclusion, the reports shall be out very shortly so i guess we will just have to see how detailed the FSA have been allowed to go due to the confidentiality laws protecting the RBS. I do not think that the reports will tell us anything new other than what we have already assumed and may still be limited in comparison to the US "Valukas" Report but should still be published due to principle.

Personal Injury - The limitations of s33

Keith Patten in The New Law Journal

Personal Injury: Lord Young Says Clamp down "No Win no fee" adverts.

Did you have an accident at work that was not your fault?

These are words the "lay" are so familar with seeing on our everyday television adverts that reassure us that if we have had an accident at work or in a public place, we are entitled to compensation. However, to anyone with legal knowledge, this is not the case as a claim is always balance out with the question of whether the claimant took reasonable steps to prevent the accident.
Finally in his latest report Lord Young addresses the misleading associacted with health and saftey law and both insurers and claimant personal injury lawyers have showed support for "stricter controls on the volume and content of adverts".

In the report in the news journal, Nick Starling, Director of General Insurance and Health for ABI stated "

We are very pleased that the report reccomends a crackdown on irresponsible claims management firms. Not only do they help fuel public belief that behind every accident is a claim, but they add costs to the legal system, that ultimately are bourne by all insurance customers".

Law of Evidence is Tha S***

I rushed to my law lecture today nervous and intrigued as to why it started at 6pm. Part of me fort my teacher put it on my timetable because he wanted a passionate late session with me where he would look passionately into my eyes whilst talking about the injustices of the law surrounding evidence. But then i thought realistically and assumed that i had just been rejected from the main class because there just wasnt enough room. What i found out was i actually attend a part time course which is positive because i don't have to wake up early in the morning half awake litening to the spiralling arguments entrapping this section of law.

But anyway, what i learnt today was simply amazing.

The Law of evidence is the "body of law and discretion regulating the means by which facts may be proved in both courts of law, tribunals and arbitration". The centering principle surrounding the law is that "all evidence is admissable, subject to the exceptions".

Onufrejczyk (1955)

Circumstantial evidence can prove any element in a criminal case. The D was convictied of murdering his partner on the basis of circumstantial evidence as there was no body found. The evidence included letters which implied that the D knew his partner would not return and blood on his clothing. a disagreement between the two arose as S wanted to sell the farm they both owened but D did not have enough money to buy out his partner. S then wanted to put it up for auction but D objected.

Rex v Horry, is an earlier case in which a man was found guilty of killing his wife despite the absence of her body. Due to general simliarity, it would seem the judge in Onufrejczyk sought the headnote of Horry overlooking a distinction because in the RvH, the D had written letters stating clearly that they believed the victim to be dead.

O appealed on the 3 grounds:

1. the judge failed to inform the jury that no-one in the history of law had been convicted of murder without body. Purely circumstantial.

2. Judge folloed headnote in Rex v Horry but failed to make distinction between the fact that in Horry, the d confirmed victim dead via letters.

3. Evidence was not suffiecient - no proof of death.

The prosecution Elwyn Jones Q.C argued the evidence was circumstantial and "pure conjecture"

Sir Matthew Hale in Pleas of the Crown, vol. 2 [289], said: "In some cases presumptive evidences go far to prove a person guilty, though there be no express proof of the fact to be committed by him, but then it must be very warily pressed, for it is better five guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should die"; and (ibid. [290]):

The negatives of the case are the fact that there is no proof of the body, Sykut is alive, then the court is convicted a man of the murder of someone who is alive. This does not sound like justice.

"In all the cases there has always been some direct evidence of the killing or there has been a body. This is the first case in which there is evidence of neither."

Also in terms of Lord Hale statement, it no longer seems completely relevant as its from a different time. This period there was no police force, and things such as quicker flights. Being able to leave the country whenever possible was alot easier.