Terry's Trial, Rio's Tweet and other lessons

The papers are currently full of the John Terry racism trial as the Chelsea and former England Captain is accused of racially abusing QPR’s Anton Ferdinand during a match last season. 

It seems that whenever there is an event like, this involving a well known personality, that Twitter raises its head.

I have gone on before about the massive influence of social media platforms and twitter in particular.

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/tweet-too-far.html

And we have seen issues arising in this trial.

Rio Ferdinand, brother of Anton, posted a tweet on Monday about the trial. He has about 3m followers. According to the Guardian he was retweeted by 3287 of them. Each of them probably retweeted again. So that means Rio’s tweet would have been read, within minutes, by millions. This obviously raises serious questions about whether it could influence the outcome of a trial and render a fair trial impossible.

In fact that isn’t an issue in this case as the trial is before a magistrate and it is not felt that there is a "substantial risk of serious prejudice or serious impediment to active proceedings". That may just about be the case here –

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/09/john-terry-case-twitter

But it does raise a serious question about the power of twitter that will need to be addressed. If this had been a jury trial it could well have been a different matter. There could then be a risk that if a juror read a tweet from a high profile Premier League Footballer that the proceedings might have been placed at risk. We would then have been looking at serious contempt of court charges.

Once again this is a sobering reminder that you should think first and tweet later. It is so easy to bash out 140 syllables without considering the consequences. But what we say can quickly be read by thousands, at least, and there can be consequences – even for the most well known as could have happened here.

As social medial develops further I think it is inevitable that there will be calls for tighter regulation and we could then see even more twitter based prosecutions.

But the message should be clear enough. If you have something to say just stop, take a deep breath, think about the consequences and who is going to read it.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Victims footing the bill

There can be few things worse then being a victim of a crime of violence.

Not only do such attacks leave physical injuries they can also leave mental scars. 

Since the early 1960s the UK has had a system of Criminal Injuries Compensation which is highly regarded across the world. In a report in 1962, former Attorney General (and Liverpool Lawyer!) Lord Shawcross said –

‘No great philosophical revolution is therefore required for an acceptance of the simple principle, that the innocent victim of violent crime should be entitled to compensation from the State for his personal injuries.’

The system has never been perfect. There have been criticisms that the levels of payments were to low or that  certain victims are excluded from eligibility based on their lifestyle etc. But overall the system has provided some recompense for victims who are injured as a result of criminal behavior.

It is a shame therefore that the government has announced plans to exclude even more victims from payments on purely financial grounds. The planned cuts were announced by Minister of Justice Ken Clarke last week. You know that cuts for victims are on the horizon when ministers talk about focusing on ‘seriously injured victims of serious crime’. Under plans there is no award if an injury is worth less than £2.5k and payments up to £11k are to be reduced. These are not minor injuries.

This seems to create an arbitrary distinction between victims. If a person is mugged in the street they have had an extremely distressing experience through no fault of their own. If they suffer a significant injury but one which attracts less than £2.5k under the CICA tariff they get nothing. If a person’s injury is a bit more serious they get a payment. They have both been mugged. So they should both be compensated.

This seems to be another example of victims being deprived of justice to fund cuts elsewhere. We have seen story after story of bankers getting away with misconduct on an industrial scale. We also saw billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money go on bailing out the system.

When there is a hole in the state’s finances why should the victims of crime – who are often the most vulnerable, be the ones to pay.

At the moment these are just proposals as part of a consultation. Let’s hope that they do not go any further.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Presumption of Death - tipping the balance

Dealing with the loss of a loved one can be one of the worst things any of us have to face. The emotional trauma is often made worse by the legal complexities that you have to deal with.

All of this is aggravated when a person goes missing, particularly in England and Wales. Under the law as it stands a person’s family has to wait years before they can be presumed dead by the courts. 

This means that there cannot even begin to be closure until many years have passed. It also means that all sorts of other issues from finances to new relationships are effectively in no man's land. Mortgages linked to life policies cannot be paid off. 

 

Today’s Guardian highlights the case of Manic Street Preachers’ Richey Edwards who went missing in 1995 but was not declared dead by the court until 2008 – 

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/06/law-missing-people-simplified

His is a high profile case but many family members have to go through a similarly painful and drawn out process. 

This is a law that has been crying out for reform for decades. The proposals follow a report earlier this year from a parliamentary committee which said –

 "The evidence we have heard from families faced with the problems of resolving these affairs is overwhelming. The law needs to be changed.”

It is encouraging therefore that the government has announced plans to introduce legislation which will make things simpler. The plan is that it will be possible to obtain a Certificate of Presumption of Death far earlier. The announcement does not actually say how much earlier. In Scotland it is possible to obtain such a certificate after seven years. Even this seems to be too long and four years would probably suffice

This will not in any way ease the pain and uncertainty suffered by loved ones but it will at least ease the added burden of bureaucracy and uncertainty.

The fear is that matters will become complicated if a person re-appears. But there should be a balance here. In reality it is an extremely rare occurrence – in Scotland there has been one re-appearance in over 30 years. If this is balanced against the hardship suffered by families the case is really overwhelming. 

 http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/wills-and-probate.aspx

Idiot's Guide to Barclays Bad Boys

OK confession time. Hands up you if are really angry about the way that Barclays Bank has behaved. Hands up again if, like me, you know they have done something really bad but are not absolutely sure what it is.

This is something which affects all of us at some level so here is what I know.

It is all about LIBOR which stands for London Inter Banks Offered Rate. Now something many of us have learned since the banking crisis of 2008 is that banks lend to each other. There can be all sorts of reasons for this. At the end of a day’s trading a bank might be a bit short of cash – if it has paid out more than it has had in deposits. So they borrow the shortfall. On another day it might have a surplus. So it will lend money to a competitor with a shortfall.

LIBOR is the average rate they have to pay for this borrowing. It is calculated by the British Bankers Association based on information they receive from the leading banks about what they have to pay. It gives a broad picture of how strong the banks are generally. The lower the rate a bank has to pay the stronger it looks and this boosts its standing. This is where Barclays come into it. They were putting in false figures to make them look stronger than they were. During the worst of the crisis putting in low figures made them look stronger than the rest.

So what?

Well not only did this give a false impression of Barclays it also skewed the LIBOR rate which gave a false impression across the sector. This in turn has a knock on effect down the line which can ultimately affect the amount you and I are paying for our mortgages or any other loans for that matter.

It also adds to a general feeling of mistrust. This is the main concern. Most of us place all of our income and savings with one or more banks. If they are guilty of this level of misconduct – with our money – how can we trust them with anything?

There clearly needs to be a full investigation. Some commentators are saying that whilst the behaviour was wrong it was not illegal. This has to be looked at. A person can be prosecuted for working in order to supplement a meagre benefits income, or for understating their income on a tax return. So wealthy bankers must be no less accountable for their misdeeds.

http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/commercial-property-solicitor.aspx

TheValue of Justice (Continued)

Sunday’s blog about legal aid and clinical negligence prompted an interesting late night discussion on Twitter about whether it was in fact necessary in these cases. The point was made that it is perfectly possibly to pursue them on the basis of no win no fee agreements (CFAs) and the money would be better spent in other areas such as family law and crime.

To be honest they are fair points even though I disagree that CFAs are an ideal substitute for legal aid. Firstly it should be said that these agreements have opened the way to justice for many who were not financially eligible for legal aid. Despite the hostile rhetoric from the media and politicians they have provided many people with access to justice.

But there is still a need for legal aid in many cases. Firstly there are the cutting edge cases that I have talked about before –

 http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/blunting-cutting-edge.html

There have been many cases where our laws have developed by lawyers pushing the boundaries and legal aid played a big role in this. A compete reliance on CFAs does create a commercial pressure to only take on the safest cases.

I am certainly not against CFAs and have run many cases using them. To some extent the cost of losing a case on a CFA, and not being paid is met by what is known as a success fee. So if a case is won there is a percentage increase which can be claimed to cover the losses in the losing cases. This success fee is currently paid by the NHS Trust if a case against them succeeds. So that does allow for some cutting edge work. But that will all change next year. The success fee will no longer be payable by the losing party. It will have to be paid by the victim out of their damages for pain and suffering – up to a maximum of 25%.

All solicitors have a professional duty to advise clients about the available funding arrangements and to act in the in clients’ best interests. With legal aid a victim gets most and normally all of their compensation. Under a no win no fee agreement they could lose a huge chunk. Although many lawyers will not charge this fee it is bound to deter them from running all but the strongest claims.

But it is going to be more difficult all round, for victims to pursue their cases. The double effect of abolishing legal aid and making claimants pay the success fee will reduce the number of victims who are able to find justice. This is alongside the relentless rhetoric about a compensation culture that makes victims believe that they are ruining the country if the bring a case.

This is why the removal of legal aid – with its negligible savings for the treasury is such a serious blow for ordinary people. And it is why the politicians need to be regularly reminded of the injustice that will be caused.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Apprentice - your'e hired

One subject that should concern us all is the way young people get to become lawyers.

I have written before about the SRA’s plan to abolish the minimum salary for Trainee Solicitors and how this might deter all but the wealthy from pursuing a career in the law. Other concerns are the huge student debts that are accumulated and the general shortage of jobs in the profession –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/law-career-for-rich.html

This is a real worry. Society needs a legal profession that is representative of society as a whole. This is why I have opposed the SRA’s decision on the minimum salary as have the Junior Lawyers Division who represents trainees and newly qualified solicitors.

There is talk of a new initiative which might present a different route into legal work. This is the announcement that the government has made funding available to create legal apprenticeships which train non graduates in certain areas of legal work such as litigation or debt recovery. This will lead in turn to a wave of trained paralegals who will work in law firms but who do not wish to become qualified. In fact there is a route to qualification as paralegals can work to become Chartered Legal Executives and they in turn can become solicitors by a combination of practical experience and passing professional exams.

I have to say that I can see why this would become popular with school leavers who do not want to take a huge risk on student debt alongside the lottery of getting a job at the end.

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/in-brief-regulators-reassure-firms-over-rbs-breaches-1m-apprenticeships-boost-and-more

If this initiative leads to more young people finding jobs in the law then it is clearly a good thing. But I do not think it replaces the need for properly paid training contracts for graduates who have studied for years and have the right to expect a reasonably paid job at the end. If that option is removed then the most talented graduates will go into other careers.

So the reality is that the profession needs both. We should encourage students into law at every level. Society will benefit from an influx of apprentices who go on to become highly experienced paralegals. But we also need to encourage the best undergraduates to pursue careers in law as well.

So whilst this is a positive development, there is still the need to revisit prohibitive student debts and to maintain a fair salary.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

The Value of Justice?

Eva Hudson should have been able to feel she was in safe hands when she was taken to A/E at Bournemouth Hospital in December last year. She had been rushed to the hospital with all the signs of kidney failure. Tragically, an inexperienced doctor diagnosed a rare kind of infection and sent her home.

She died four days later.

At her inquest in Bournemouth last week the coroner found that neglect contributed to her death. This was a straightforward and treatable condition and her tragic death was caused by the doctors’ failure to recognise and treat the symptoms. The Hospital trust was also at fault for placing this doctor in a position where life and death decisions were being made without adequate supervision.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/28/woman-died-misdiagnosed-hookworm-infection

Her family should have a clear case against the trust for negligence. But they will face hurdles. I cannot comment on this particular case but it does bring a general injustice to mind.

Any claim against the NHS is effectively a claim against the government. This is now a difficult exercise because another department of the government has abolished Legal Aid for medical negligence cases in all but a tiny minority of cases. So if a person is not wealthy what do they do? They may find a solicitor who will pursue the case on a no win no fee basis – in the face of heavy medial and political hostility. And even then the lawyer will have to spend several thousand pounds to investigate the case. Or, as is most likely, the case will never see the light of day.

These cuts will come into effect in April next year. How many victims will be deprived of justice before this is changed?

We have seen hundreds of billions of pounds spent on bailing out a banking industry which shows no sign of changing its ways. The legal aid cuts amount to £350m. Interestingly the Foreign Office has recently tendered that amount for a new desk top overhaul!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2012/mar/09/fco-firecrest-desktop-erp-framework

The value of justice?

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk