One Court for you. No Court for me.

Two things seem to be happening in our Justice system.

On the one hand it is becoming harder and harder for ordinary people to access it. This has happened in a few different ways. Over the last two years we have seen a series of court closures. So in Southport, a reasonably sized down of over 90,000 people there is no longer a County Court or a Magistrates Court. It is necessary to travel to Preston or Liverpool which involves a long journey especially on public transport.

That situation is even worse in rural areas including Wales and Cornwall.

On top of this there are proposals to severely restrict public access to court offices. Some will remain open for only a couple of hours a day.

Then there is the problem of cost. As we know Legal Aid is being removed from whole areas of law. This reduces the access to legal assistance and makes the whole system even more distant and alien.

Now we are, of course, in difficult times. But, as Heather Brooke pointed out in the Guardian this week, money is being found for development of the courts at the higher end.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/11/courts-justice-rich-taxpayers

So on the other hand, we have seen £300m spent on a new court complex for wealthy foreign businesses. 

Whilst there are advantages in encouraging rich companies to litigate in this country we do have to ask whether it is worth the cost.

Is it right that for most of the population there is an ever decreasing access to justice and the courts when at the same time millions are spent on a new court building  for the rich and powerful?

There was a time when justice was only available to the wealthy. There is a real risk of a perception that we are returning to those days.

We have a proud system of justice in this country. One which has been adopted across the world. But if ordinary people cannot see that this is available to them then it defeats the whole object.

We know that justice comes at a price. The question is what price? And who pays?

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

fighting for your rights

Bigamy 'Wives' Meet on Facebook

I have spoken before about the legal dangers of tweeting first and thinking later –

http://thestevecornforthblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/think-before-you-tweet.html

But we still need to get this important message. Whatever is posted on Facebook or Twitter or anywhere else for that matter is read in the real world, by real people and can have real legal consequences. It never ceases to amaze me when people engage in very public arguments of Facebook. It is as though they want to make a point to a particular person but forget that their entire friend list is also in the audience!

I imagine that was the case when a Plaid Cymru councillor libelled an opponent on twitter and had to shell out over £50k in damages and costs last year, or when the young student mentioned in my pervious blog tweeted offensive comments and ended up behind bars.

It is as if there is a belief that Social Networking happens in a virtual world where no one gets upset or there is no comeback.

One person who should have taken more care is Mr. Alan O’Neil. He is facing bigamy charges in the USA. He was found out when his two wives discovered each other via the "People You May Know" feature on Facebook!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/10/alan-oneill-facebook_n_1336676.html

Now that is a very extreme combination of criminal behaviour, stupidity and bad luck.

But the message is still clear. Be aware that what you post can have serious consequences.

Which begs the question – is it worth it? Well I can’t talk with the amount of tweeting that I do! Social Networking is with us to stay and has changed the way we communicate. The important thing is to remember to take as much care with what we publicly post as we would if we shouted it out in a crowded bar. Or maybe take a deep breath and ask - 'Do I really want to repeat this in a witness box?'.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Health and Safety - mything the point!

A few months ago the Prime Minister declared his intention - 'kill off the health and safety culture for good'. The argument was that it was too easy to pursue claims for injuries at work and that Health and Safety Laws were out of control.

For those dealing with cases for those who were injured in the workplace, this was a long way from the reality. In fact most places of work have been considerably safer over the last 30 years or so since the Health and Safety Executive was established in the 1970s. We have seen the introduction of many regulations that have saved lives and reduced injuries at work. These include regulations relating to Asbestos and other hazardous substances, Noise exposure, working at height, working with keyboards – the list goes on.

This is something for which we should all be grateful and certainly not something to be killed off.

These attacks on Health and Safety are often fed by press reports about the effect that they supposedly have on ordinary activities.

It is encouraging therefore that the HSE have now published a top 10 Health and Safety Myths. We are assured that none of the following are true -  

·  Children being banned from playing conkers unless they are wearing goggles

·  Office workers being banned from putting up Christmas decorations

·  Trapeze artists being ordered to wear hard hats

·  Pin the tail on the donkey games being deemed a health and safety risk

·  Candy floss on a stick being banned in case people trip and impale themselves

·  Hanging baskets being banned in case people bump their heads on them

·  Schoolchildren being ordered to wear clip on ties in case they are choked by traditional neckwear

·  Park benches must be replaced because they are three inches too low

·  Flip flops being banned from the workplace

·  Graduates ordered not to throw their mortar boards in the air

The full article can be found at

http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/top10myths.htm

We need to separate the reality from the myths which are spun by those who wish to de-regulate the workplace.

If employers disregard regulations enacted to protect workers then they and their insurers should pay the cost. We should celebrate the real Health and Safety culture which saves lives and not tolerate the use of cheap stories to undermine the grat changes that have happened over the last 30 years.

http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/accidents-at-work.aspx

Working with you

The Real Cost of Medical Negligence

We are being constantly reminded about a so called compensation culture in the country and the cost of having to deal with claims. This relentless criticism of victims can create the misunderstanding that it is their fault. This is particularly the case in Medical Negligence where victims who claim are made to feel responsible for draining the resources of the NHS.

At the same time the government is squeezing victims further by severely restricting access to legal aid.

In all of this the point is rarely made that the best way to avoid Medical Claims is to avoid the blunders in the first place. This is highlighted by the report in today’s Guardian  that the NHS estimates that it will have to pay out £235.4m to 60 babies who suffered brain damage after negligent failure to diagnose and treat hypoglycaemia – low blood sugar. This is a preventable complication which should be identified provided straightforward testing is carried out.

According to one midwife in the Guardian report –

"Hypoglycaemia is something that in the majority of cases we should be detecting and preventing."

The compensation figures mentioned seem high but these children, who lives are devastated, will require 24 hr care for life.

These cases emphasise again the need for families to have access to expert legal advice with legal aid. Just the cost of investigating the case can run into thousands. These are cases which cry out for justice at the public expense especially when a lack of investment in midwives could be the cause.

http://www.eadsolicitors.co.uk/medical-negligence-solicitors.aspx

Fighting for your rights

The mysterious case of the lost client

I once lost a client in court.

Now to lose a case is annoying and frustrating but an accepted professional hazard. To lose a client is a far more alarming thing.

Mrs. B had a rock solid case against the Local Council for housing disrepair. She had got to her later years without ever setting foot in a courtroom. So it was a new and unnerving experience. I duly met her at the door and escorted her to a conference room where she met her barrister who was wigged and robed and ready for action. He went over the fairly straightforward facts. He assured her that all would be well and excused himself to deal with another matter that was on ahead of us.

I went to make a phone call. When I returned she was gone. I waited long enough to explain a trip to the ladies but still no Mrs. B. I began to search with increasing anxiety, of the sort you feel when a child wanders off on a busy beach. But no sign. The case was called and delayed but she did not show. Thankfully, an understanding opponent agreed to an adjournment as something serious must have happened. This was before the days of mobile phones!

Later in the day I called round to her house and was met at the door by a very relaxed looking Mrs B. It turned out that she though that she had had her day in court. She thought that the nice man in the wig was the judge, that the conference room was the court and that it had all been over far more quickly than she had expected.

It is easy for lawyers to forget that we inhabit a world which is very alien to others. Why shouldn’t a man in a wig be a judge? We use language which might as well be from another planet. ‘We thank you for your letter of 7^th instant and will consider the same.’ Instant what? Same as what?? No wonder a solicitor was once told by his client that all lawyers were like bananas – ‘Yellow, bent and hang round in bunches….’

Can I say that if you ever hear me using strange words that you have permission to grab me by the throat and tell me to speak normally! Lawyers are mostly ordinary men and women doing the best for their clients. If you ever feel that we are drifting into another dimension – just tell us.

And lawyers – make sure you always tell your clients what is happening. Mrs. B is still a recurring nightmare after 20 years..

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

We’ll never lose you!!

Game of Risk anyone?

Now not many of us will have come across The Information Tribunal. What is it? Well it is exactly what the name suggests. It is the forum for dealing with disputes arising out of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). So if a public body refuses a request for information, or to disclose a document, the matter can be taken to the Tribunal.

Most of us have come across the controversial NHS Bill, the comprehensive overhaul of the National Health Service that seems to be universally opposed by the medical profession. As part of those plans, a risk register was drafted. This document set out the dangers of the reforms and, not surprisingly, opponents of the bill want to see it. An opposition MP requested disclosure under FOI. The government, which is clearly less than enthusiastic about disclosing the risks, refused on the ground that the register was part of ‘policy and development’ and therefore exempt. They argue that disclosure might cause civil servants to less frank about pointing out possible pitfalls.

As citizens shouldn’t such risks be just what we want to know?

In a judgment published last week the Tribunal ordered disclosure on the ground that there was a very high public interest in knowing what the risks are.

This decision seems to confirm the whole point of FOI. If we are to be a truly open democracy then we should be entitled to see key documents especially those which demonstrates the risks of what our elected representatives are doing in our name.

The Department of Health do have a right to appeal but it is to be hoped that any higher tribunal takes a similarly sensible view.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Fighting for you rights

Farewell beer tax!!

Something a bit lighter for the holiday.

Have you ever wondered what happens to old laws when they are not wanted any more? Are they buried miles below ground, are they sold off on eBay, are they displayed in museums?

In fact many just hang around on the statute book meaning that they remain law centuries later. Many of these are well reported such as it being illegal for anyone to die in the Houses of Parliament or for an MP to enter the House wearing a suit of armour.

It seems that is still technically against the law to eat a mince pie on Christmas Day or to fire a cannon near a dwelling house – does that mean it is legal somewhere else? Mind you we are not alone. The USA is a veritable treasure trove. In one town in Nevada it is illegal for a man with a moustache to kiss a woman and in another state is is illegal to pretend that your parents are rich!

Many of these old UK laws are finally to be laid to rest as over 800 are to be repealed including a beer tax! Apparently the oldest goes back to the 14^th Century..

A spokesman from the Law Commission said –

"It saves time and costs for lawyers and others who need to know what the law actually is, and makes it easier for citizens to access justice."

Well lawyers don’t know every single law in existence, but it helps if some of the old ones are laid to rest.

www.eadsolicitors.co.uk

Keeping up to date for you!!

Have a good holiday.