Criminal

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. 

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. 

Max Hardy reports on the UK’s participation in the 2009 International Moot Court.  

It sometimes seems that what lawyers contribute to the proper functioning of society is either overlooked or treated with an erosive level of cynicism. It was therefore hugely refreshing to go to The Hague where there is  a very different attitude. The city can lay claim to being the capital of international jurisprudence, being the seat of the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It was therefore a very appropriate place to take part, on 20–21 November 2009, in the International Moot Court (“IMC”). The IMC was founded 12 years ago to coincide with the 750th anniversary of the foundation of The Hague. 

The Bar Standards Board, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and ILEX have published a joint consultation on quality standards for criminal advocates. The deadline for responses is  22 March. 

Dr Steve Connor, the Chief Executive of the National Centre for Domestic Violence, explains why he set up the charity. His work as a McKenzie friend has fired his interest in a career at the Bar 

By the time I begin what I hope will be a practice at the Bar, I will have completed nearly seven years as an advocate. It began in 2002, when I became aware that thousands of people who leave abusive relationships find the door to legal protection closed. I witnessed this first-hand when a friend failed to secure legal assistance for obtaining a civil injunction. This led me to found what is now the National Centre for Domestic Violence (“NCDV”), a specialist charity offering a free emergency injunction service. 

The LSC has published two documents relating to criminal Crown Court defence work—Pages of Prosecution Evidence Guidance and an Information Pack on the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme. The documents are both available on the LSC website. 

The Legal Services Commission (“LSC”) has come under fire over its criminal legal aid reforms in a devastating National Audit Office (“NAO”) report. 

The report, into the procurement of criminal legal aid, warns that reforms to criminal legal aid threaten value for money and the provision of an essential public service. It criticises the LSC for relying on “inaccurate and incomplete” data. 

A deal to ensure proper funding for representation in the most complex criminal trials has today been threatened by a last-minute change of heart by the Government, the Bar said. The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have reacted angrily to a new Legal Services Commission consultation paper on pay for so-called Very High Cost Cases – VHCCs – which include some of the most sensitive terror and murder trials before the courts. 

Bar representatives have been working with MoJ officials for nearly two years on a flexible pay scheme for senior advocates that would match the pay in each case to its particular circumstances. However, it emerged late in talks last month that the Government wanted to introduce a new, costcutting option for pay in these cases, involving an extension of the existing, fixed-fee scheme for shorter cases to include much longer cases lasting up to 60 days. The consultation paper of 2 December 2009 confirmed the eleventh-hour change. 

A Bar Council group of experts in commercial and criminal law visited China for a mission to further the longstanding cooperation between the legal professions of the two countries and raise awareness of the Bar of England and Wales and the international work of barristers amongst Chinese law firms and businesses who engage in international commerce. 

The Bar Council delegation visited Shanghai, Hangzhou, Guangzhou and Shenzhen between 2nd and 10th November. Seminars were held in each city to showcase the Bar’s expertise in the areas of international arbitration, international investment law and white collar crime and to hear from Chinese lawyers about the latest developments in these areas in China. The full press release is available on the Bar Council website (www.barcouncil.org.uk) 

The BBC drama Criminal Justice 2 raised important social issues, believes James Woolf  

Last year I reviewed Criminal Justice for this magazine (see (2008) Counsel September, p 38). Its screening led to a public row between the Bar, and Peter Moffat, former barrister and writer of the series. Tim Dutton QC, last year’s Bar Chairman, accused the BBC of a woefully inaccurate depiction of the Bar, in particular because of the huge chasm between the on-screen barristers’ ethical practices and the actual Code of Conduct. Moffat’s response was to say that this was an overreaction, adding “[Timothy Dutton QC] wants to see things in black and white. At the Bar, just as in life, standards are all too often a different colour – grey.” My own view was that the series closely missed out on being brilliant because of these moments of implausibility. To cut a long story short, Moffat won a Bafta, the Bar forgot all about it and time marched on.