Justice Matters

Does the statutory regime governing the disclosure of convictions, cautions and warnings to prospective employers breach an offender’s right to privacy? Shereener Browne reports  

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 saw an important principle enshrined in statute: that people who have committed certain offences some time ago should, generally speaking be allowed to keep those misdemeanours in their past. At the heart of this legislation was the recognition that an individual’s future should not be blighted by what may often have been an impulsive act made in the blush of youth. 

Penny Cooper reports on plans to revise the Victims’ Code and enhance entitlements for the vulnerable.   

In February 2013, Frances Andrade committed suicide a few days after giving evidence in the Crown Court. Within days of the verdict, Helen Grant MP, the Minister for Victims and the Courts, held a roundtable meeting at the House of Lords. Those present included representatives of the CPS, the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS as well as the Chairman of the Bar and the author representing the Advocacy Training Council’s Vulnerable Witness Committee. Discussions focused on support for complainants in sexual abuse cases and improvements to the Victims’ Code. The coalition had previously made a commitment to reviewing the code and work was already under way. The revised Victims’ Code (“the 2013 draft”) became available on 29 March (https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/code-victims-crime) with consultation running until 10 May. 

Gay refugees seeking asylum in the UK are having to resort to drastic measures to “prove” their sexual identity, as S. Chelvan reports  

There are 78 countries in the world which criminalise any form of same-sex conduct in private by consensual adults (2012 ILGA state sponsored homophobia report). Of  these countries, 42 specifically single out lesbians; five (Mauritania, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran) provide the death penalty. The Islamic states of Nigeria and parts of Somalia also enforce the death penalty. In Uganda, the Anti-Homosexuality Bill renders criminal prosecution of even straight landlords for not reporting the fact that they have a gay tenant. It is not a safe world to be gay. 

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. 

The difficulties of identification evidence are well known. Nöel Sweeney examines how these difficulties increase when animals are involved, and asks ... did the lady bite the right dog?  

Identification evidence is the weakest form of evidence that exists. As a result of R. v. Turnbull  [1977] QB 224 a judge has a duty to warn a jury of the dangers of relying on identification. The dangers apply equally to civil and criminal cases. However it is neither fair nor just to limit the protection of the law to a human. 

Demonstrating the nature of his practice and what drives him forward professionally, LALY Legal Aid Barrister of the year, Leslie Thomas, recounts the case of Sean Rigg  

Over the last 23 years I have represented many bereaved families in inquests following the death of a loved member of their family. This is a particular niche given the fact that my practice tends to be death in custody cases, as opposed to more general inquests. The work is fantastic, challenging and always interesting. But it is undoubtedly also very taxing, emotionally draining and energy sapping at times. It is not an area chosen for financial rewards, but the other rewards in terms of career satisfaction are great. 

Following  R v Riat & Others and  R v Ibrahim, Oliver Weetch, who appeared in  Riat for the appellant (Wilson) whose conviction was quashed, considers the law relating to hearsay evidence  

With its recent twin judgements of R v Riat & Others  [2012] EWCA Crim 1509 and R v Ibrahim  [2012] EWCA Crim 837, the Court of Appeal have finally dealt with the fallout from the long running spat over the correct approach to hearsay evidence which had been taking place between the British and European courts. 

David Hislop QC on the consequences of legislation drafted in haste  

On the 18th September 2012 the European Court of Human Rights gave judgment in the case of James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom (Applications nos. 25119, 57715/09 and 57877/09) . 

This case is an important reminder for those responsible for the continued detention of long term prisoners that a failure to afford rehabilitation schemes and an effective system of review may lead to findings that the continued detention is unlawful and that compensation is due.