Law in Practice

Siobhan Grey discusses the Gray’s Inn Seminar on press freedom and the Select Committee Report “Press Standards, Privacy and Libel” 

The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into English domestic law has had a dramatic effect on the perpetual conflict between media freedom and media intrusion into private life; a conflict which is unremitting and which sometimes seems irreconcilable. The rights enshrined in art 8 (respect for private life, including reputation) and art 10 (freedom of expression, including press freedom) are of equal value, but how can a judge strike a fair balance between them? This dilemma has been given greater urgency by the technological developments that are changing the face of the media. An injunction obtained in one national court in one jurisdiction can quickly be rendered ineffective by the new virtual, stateless and unregulated chaos of information exchange, as the Twitter campaign in the recent Transfigura case revealed. 

Dedicated drug courts are being established to combat drug abuse.  Elizabeth Forrester reflects on how the Drug Court in Jamaica and the Family Drug and Alcohol Court in London are tackling this worldwide issue 

The worldwide disease that is drug abuse has traditionally been attacked from two sides: the Ministry of Defence, customs, the police and the criminal justice system are used to strike at the supply of drugs; and the Ministry of Health, State welfare, charities, NGOs and social workers tackle the demand for them. When drug addicts commit crimes, they are punished accordingly; when drug addicts cannot care for their children, the State removes them. Still, despite all the sentencing guidelines and educational efforts, it is painfully clear that these measures do not stop this disease from progressing. Addicts sent to prison, or even given unpaid work requirements, fuel their habits more easily than before, and are just as likely to reoffend upon release. Desperate, addicted mothers who have children removed into the care system become more desperate—they often have more babies with withdrawal symptoms which are removed from them again. 

Paul Mendelle QC and Ali Naseem Bajwa argue that safety interviews should only be conducted when it is absolutely necessary to do so 

There is a growing trend in terrorism investigations to conduct one or more interviews with a suspect in circumstances where he does not enjoy his usual minimum statutory rights. These interviews have no formal title and the term “safety interview” does not appear in any Code of Practice. They would be more accurately described as “urgent interviews” but investigators and courts usually refer to interviews conducted in these circumstances as “safety interviews”; accordingly, for the sake of consistency, we too shall use that term. 

The practice of conducting safety interviews is controversial and open to abuse. Moreover, there is a degree of uncertainty amongst lawyers, the public and even investigators as to what a safety interview is, what rules govern its conduct and admissibility and the value of such an interview. Each of these issues will be addressed in this article. 

With the general election looming, Richard Gordon QC argues that the price of restored trust in democracy may be a codified constitution 

Is it time for the UK to have a written constitution? In suggesting that we had no constitution, the 19th Century French political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville was wrong. Britain does have a constitution but it is old-fashioned, top-down and—as far as the rest of the free, democratic world is concerned—of a fast-disappearing kind. 

What causes confusion is that, unlike us, nearly all democratic States have a written (in the sense of codified) constitution. Only Israel and New Zealand join us in relying on a nebulous body of rules, some contained in Acts of Parliament, some in constitutional conventions, some scattered around in the most diverse sources. The expenses scandal and the ensuing loss of trust in politics led many (myself included) to think we needed fundamental change. 

Three years on from the Corston Report, Kim Hollis QC, who has recently visited Styal Prison, outlines the implications of sending women, many of whom have children, to prison 

In 2007 the Corston Report: a review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system (“the Corston Report”), commissioned by the Home Secretary following the deaths of six women at Styal Prison in Cheshire, took a hard look at whether and for how long women needed to be sent to prison. Baroness Corston recommended the immediate establishment of an Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group for women who offend to govern a new Commission and to drive forward an agenda properly to address specific issues relating to women’s criminality, and with a visible direction in respect of women in custody. She further crucially recommended that custodial sentences/remands into custody for women must be reserved only for serious and violent offenders who pose a “threat to the public”. 

The decision in R v Barker on child witness evidence in criminal cases establishes that the competency test is the same for children and adults, write Professor Penny Cooper and David Wurtzel.  

With the decision in R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4 the matter of children giving evidence in criminal trials has, so to speak, come of age. On 1 May 2009 at The Old Bailey, Baby Peter’s step-father, Stephen Barker, was convicted of the anal rape of a girl, “X”, who was less than three years’ old at the time of the offence. She was four and a half years’ old when she gave evidence. X had been living with her mother Tracey Connelly, Stephen Barker and his brother. At the age of two years and ten months X was taken into care following the unnatural death of Baby Peter. X made disclosures to her foster carer of sexual abuse by Barker and subsequently to a child psychologist who was seeing her for the purposes of care proceedings. Six months after the first allegation she was interviewed on video under “Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceeding” (“the ABE interview”). The trial for anal rape of a child under 13 was postponed until after the murder trial in the Baby Peter case. X watched her ABE interview a few days before the trial; it stood as her evidence-in-chief. She was cross-examined by leading counsel for her mother and for Barker. 

Adrian Hughes QC and Steven Thompson discuss the Bar Council’s engagement with China’s rapidly developing legal market.  

Change in China has been rapid and extraordinary since the first visit of a Bar Council delegation 20 years ago. At that time, the Pu Dong commercial area of Shanghai was still marshland and the emerging Chinese legal profession entering only its second decade. Now, as the main image of Pu Dong’s financial district shows (see below), the landscape is completely different. 

Employment vetting law has been rewritten, warns Timothy Pitt-Payne 

In 2004, a woman (“L”) was employed by an employment agency that provided staff for schools. She worked as a playground assistant, supervising children during their lunchtime break. The agency applied for an enhanced criminal record certificate (“ECRC”) from the Criminal Records Bureau (“CRB”). The ECRC did not show any criminal convictions; but it disclosed that L’s son had previously been placed on the child protection register on grounds of neglect, and that he had been removed from the register after being convicted of robbery and given a custodial sentence. Soon afterwards she was told by the agency that it no longer required her services. 

In April 2009 four regional Administrative Court Centres were opened. David Gardner explains why this was necessary 

The Administrative Court (part of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court) hears all applications for judicial review and also some statutory appeals and applications (including applications for habeas corpus and extradition appeals). It is by way of the judicial review procedure that a person may challenge the act or omission of a public body. There are few better illustrations of the accountability of the State than the existence of the judicial review process. 

Desmond Browne QC argues that the law of privacy should provide equal protection to both private citizens and celebrities 

In recent months there has been much debate whether we have gone too far in protecting rights under art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950  and along the way sacrificed too much of our freedom of expression under art 10. But whilst our new domestic law of privacy protects (perhaps even excessively) celebrities against the media, it is paradoxical that there remain concerns about the adequacy of the citizen’s protection against the State. Should not the same Convention right be protecting both?