Law in Practice

Seeing and Believing? Professor Penny Cooper on observing witness and defendant demeanour  

On September 16 2013 HHJ Peter Murphy gave a ruling in R v D (R)  in relation to the wearing of a niqaab by the defendant during proceedings in the Crown Court. This first instance decision was widely reported in the media and generated discussion about religious freedom (though the judge found that the wearing of the niqaab was not a religious requirement) and to a lesser extent discussion about observing witness and defendant demeanour. 

A Government consultation led to proposals to downgrade the status of Lewisham Hospital. The people of Lewisham took action and set up an Independent Panel of Inquiry. Michael Mansfield QC and Elizabeth Woodcraft explain the role that barristers played.  

In 1945 a remarkable vision was forged. People wanted a fresh start and a continued role in shaping their future. This deeply felt belief was in no way daunted by the paucity of resources nor the exhaustion of war. Intrinsic to this revitalised democracy was a foundation built on universal healthcare, education and access to legal welfare. 

Martin Canny explains recent case law on CPR 17.4(2) and the interaction with the Latent Damage Act 1986  

Building work on Mr Bala Perampalam Chandra’s ill-fated Manchester hotel development project commenced in October 2001, ran significantly over budget in 2002 and came to an abrupt halt in August 2003 when his company’s financiers called in their loans and appointed receivers. Thereafter, his situation worsened as he was fixed with a significant element of the cost overruns incurred after the original contractors were re-appointed to complete the project, in addition to the sums he had personally guaranteed. 

Ali Naseem Bajwa QC and Terry McGuinness examine port stops carried out under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000  

In June this year, journalist Glenn Greenwald published in The Guardian newspaper the first of a series of reports detailing US and British mass surveillance programmes, based on documents obtained by the National Security Agency whistleblower, Edward Snowden. On 18 August, Mr Greenwald’s partner and occasional assistant, David Miranda, flying via London from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro was stopped at Heathrow Airport under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Mr Miranda was detained for nine hours, questioned and had various items of electronic equipment seized from him. The link between Mr Greenwald’s publications and Mr Miranda’s detention is undisputed. 

Daniella Waddoup on reforming the criminal defences of insanity and automatism  

The relationship between crime and mental disorder is a complex and multi-faceted one, leaving criminal justice and mental health systems to grapple with a range of difficult questions. These include, but are not limited to, the following: does mental disorder cause crime? Are mentally disordered offenders less culpable by reason of their condition? Are they criminally responsible at all? What role does the severity of mental disorder play? 

Andrew Otchie reflects upon the Commercial Court’s approach to granting an anti-anti suit injunction  

The jurisdiction to grant a final injunction to prevent the breach of an arbitration clause is provided by s 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which confers upon the court a general power to grant injunctions “in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so”. 

Professor Dominic Regan outlines the implications of the newly introduced batch of civil litigation reforms.  

Jackson was just the beginning. The arrival of fixed litigation costs in fast-track injury work, from 31 July 2013, represented another enormous shift and there is plenty more in the pipeline. How does the future look for civil practitioners? It is a common myth that the focus is upon injury. Not so. 

John Wilson QC examines a ground-breaking Supreme Court ruling on the separate identity of a corporate entity . 

Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd & Others  [2013] UKSC 34; [2013] All ER (D) 90 (Jun), is a landmark case which is of considerable interest to corporate and insolvency lawyers, as well as family lawyers. It will cited for years to come although, in another way perhaps, it merely burnishes the pedestal of the ground-breaking case of Salomon v A. Salomon & Co Ltd  [1897] AC 22. Salomon  established the broad inviolability of the separate identity of a corporate entity. This is something we now take for granted, but it was then a far more radical concept. A. Salomon & Co Ltd was not Mr Salomon, even though he was the only shareholder in the company. They stood side by side as separate legal personalities. Mr Salomon did not stand behind A. Salomon & Co Ltd in the eyes of the law. 

David Wurtzel and Professor Penny Cooper examine how to ensure the effective participation of vulnerable defendants in a trial  

On 12 October 2010, Jordan Dixon, along with two co-defendants, was convicted of murder following a trial at the Old Bailey. A year before, on Halloween, Dixon and the two others came across a young man and his girlfriend in a town centre. One of the other defendants took part of the woman’s Halloween costume, stamped on it, and then spat. When her partner remonstrated, he was punched to the ground where he was kicked in the head. He died shortly afterward. All three defendants landed a blow; medical evidence could not establish who had been responsible for the fatal one. The most compelling evidence at trial came from the CCTV images which were played repeatedly. The jury found all three guilty on a joint enterprise basis. When the matter came before the Court of Appeal in March 2013, Dixon’s appeal against conviction was upheld (R v Dixon [2013] EWCA Crim 465). The real legal interest in the decision though concerns the question of the effective participation in his trial of a vulnerable defendant and of the value of a Ground Rules Hearing. The authors attended the appeal. 

The criminality underpinning the Telford and Oxford grooming trials has put child sexual exploitation in the news. Hugh Davies OBE QC and Madeleine Wolfe examine the United Kingdom’s record in protecting vulnerable children abroad from systematic sexual abuse  

No serious commentator doubts either (i) that the sexual abuse of children internationally is a substantial industry; or (ii) that the United Kingdom has positive human rights obligations to children to prevent harm from British nationals who represent a significant risk of such extra-territorial offending. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (“SOA”) presently legislates for three forms of civil prevention order: Sexual Offences Prevention Orders (“SOPOs”); Foreign Travel Orders (“FTOs”); and Risk of Sexual Harm Orders (“RoSHOs”). A recent multi-agency ACPO commissioned review, led by one of the authors of this article, concluded that this statutory regime is failing adequately to prevent sexual harm to children both abroad and within the UK. It proposes a new form of order, specifically relating to children, better to prevent such offending. 

International child exploitation
It is intrinsically difficult to quantify the nature and scale of the industry of international child sexual exploitation. On any view of the figures they are appalling. Children are rendered little more than tradable commodities in many countries. The United Nations estimates that as many as two million children are employed in the commercial industry of sexual abuse internationally, and (for example) that 35% of Cambodia’s 55,000 commercial sex workers are under 16 years’ old; the figure for Brazil, host country for the next World Cup and Olympics, is “as high as 500,000”; ECPAT (an international NGO campaigning against child sexual exploitation and trafficking) estimates the figure in Thailand alone at between 200-250,000, including children trafficked from Burma, Laos and China specifically for that purpose. There is equivalent data for many other countries, and hundreds of thousands are trafficked internally and internationally for exploitation annually.