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.