Features

Stephen Sedley considers attempts to settle the competing claims of European and national courts  

The states composing the Council of Europe, now 47 of them, have their own supreme court, the European Court of Human Rights, which – not unlike its US counterpart – has come under increasing fire for interfering unduly in member states’ affairs and trying to make one size of human rights compliance fit all. At a theoretical level there seems something wrong with this critique: one size should fit all, for the meaning and effect of fundamental rights cannot logically vary from one country to another. But at a practical level it addresses a real problem: decisions about legal processes framed at a level of generality large enough to embrace all member states may well be unworkable in some of them. 

The Bar Human Rights Committee has launched a report into the removal of the Sri Lankan chief justice, as Theodora A. Christou and Gráinne Mellon explain.  

The chief justice of Sri Lanka, Dr Shirani Bandaranayke, was impeached by the Sri Lankan Parliament on 10 January 2013 after a report from a parliamentary select committee of seven government ministers declared her guilty of misconduct. The removal came shortly after the chief justice twice ruled against the government on the constitutionality of a controversial piece of legislation, the Divineguma Bill. The removal also occurred despite a ruling by the Supreme Court that the impeachment breached the constitution and international criticism that the impeachment violated principles of international law concerning the independence of judiciary. 

Toby Craig reflects on Lady Thatcher’s passing, cuts, cuts and more cuts and the challenges facing the criminal Bar  

For whom the bell tolls...
A busy month in Westminster included the budget, the dreaded implementation of LASPO, the long-awaited consultation on criminal legal aid and an LSB grilling before the Justice Select Committee. We will get to all of those, but this month’s WW could only properly start in one place. 

A change in trial judge and an uncomfortable truth 

March 7, 2013: “To be happy, we must not be too concerned with others.” - Albert Camus  

This last month may have had its meteorological ups and downs, but I have a scent of Spring. This may have had something to do with recent events in the trial of Jason Grimble and Moses Lane, who are alleged to have murdered Claude Allerick, formerly one of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges and sometime member of Gutteridge Chambers. 

Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC, the Chairman of the Training for the Bar Committee, expresses his enthusiasm for the new pupillage application system.  

I am long enough in the tooth to remember PACH (the Pupillage Application Clearing House), its eventual online successor OLPAS, and its spawn the Pupillage Portal. I also remember vividly the dissatisfaction in my Chambers with each: the un-user-friendly application forms; the lack of any ability to tailor the forms to suit each Chambers’ speciality; the draconian deadlines; the torrent of paper that should not have, but did, accompany the online systems. The goodwill that the Bar should have, and did, feel for its own system gradually evaporated. In 1997, 243 sets of Chambers used the system; by last year, that had reduced to 100. 

How can the British Spanish Law Association help your international practice? Sarah Lucy Cooper explains.  

The British Spanish Law Association (BSLA) was founded in 2001 by a group of British and Spanish lawyers including myself. It is one of a number of bilateral lawyers’ associations set up to enable networking across jurisdictions, something which with the benefit of Direct Access is becoming an increasingly important part of all of our practice. We were set up with the support both of the Bar Council and the Law Society and are one of a number of bilateral lawyers’ organisations. In 2001, despite apparently one million British people owning property in Spain, with the obvious cross border issues that arise as result, there was in fact no organisation set up for British and Spanish lawyers to come together. 

Sports Law  (Second Edition)
by Michael Beloff, Tim Kerr, Marie Demetriou and Rupert Beloff
Published by Hart Publishing, October 2012
ISBN 1841133671
£95 

Any lawyer interested in the field of sports law should have the Second Edition of “Sports Law ” to hand; its lucid, comprehensive yet concise exposition of the relevant jurisprudence is as invigorating as a cold blast of fresh air in a sweaty workout. It reads like a good opinion, in which the author has mastered his subject and speaks authoritatively, with the answer and reasoning set out clearly and succinctly. 

The study is coherent: first, the pre-competition stage; second, the competition itself; third, the aftermath of disputes and disciplinary measures. 

The pre-competition stage focuses on the institutions that govern sport, their relations with each other and those taking part, and how the rules that control participation are established. The international and European aspects of sports law are particularly expertly covered: players’ rights and transfers as well as the commercial exploitation of sport where Articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU are to the fore. A section is devoted to the protection of children in sport. 

Specialist Mercantile Judge, HHJ Waksman QC, explains how hot-tubbing, by saving time and narrowing differences, has a role in reducing costs under the new regime   

What is hot-tubbing?
Hot-tubbing is the colloquial name given to the process of taking expert evidence concurrently at trial. So instead of the expert evidence being taken sequentially, the experts go into the witness box together. This allows the judge and/or the advocates to question them on a specific point at the same time – and usually the response from one will be followed immediately with a response from the other. Sometimes they will make follow-up comments or even question each other but all under the direction of the judge. The actual procedure to be adopted in any given case may vary and is a matter for the judge’s discretion. The process has been likened to a structured dialogue facilitated by the judge. 

The Jackson reforms will bring about radical changes in civil justice. In the first of three features, Stuart Sime examines the balancing of costs and justice and explains the new rules  

1 April 2013 is the implementation date for a range of reforms implementing the key recommendations made by Sir Rupert Jackson in his Review of Civil Litigation Costs  (Final Report, Ministry of Justice 2009). These are the most significant changes in civil justice since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999. 

Neil Smith, Janna Purdie and Virginia Jones summarise the Jackson reforms and set out the key changes for practitioners  

On 1 April, Lord Justice Jackson’s costs reforms are due to be implemented and the effects will be keenly felt by all in the legal market.