Criminal

The UK has implemented the 2005 Framework Decision on mutual recognition of (court-ordered) financial penalties no longer subject to appeal. The implementing measures were included in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. 

http://www.sparksproject.org/Userfiles/File%5CBriefing%20for%20MoJ%20Press%20Office%20MRFP%2025%20Sept09%20(2).pdf 

The Ministry of Justice has published the report of Victim’s Champion Sara Payne into criminal justice. The recommendations include
calls for judges to explain the exact period a convicted offender is likely to spend in custody. A spokesperson for the judiciary said: “The judiciary is very sensitive to the needs of victims, but always in the context of ensuring the essential components of a fair trial.” 

As of 1 January 2010, barristers will be committing a criminal offence if they carry out reserved legal activities without a practising certificate. The Bar Council is therefore reminding its members to apply in good time. Also from this date, barristers without practising certificates will be prohibited from administering oaths. Until then, barristers do not need a practising certificate or rights of audience to administer oaths. These changes are brought in by the Legal Services Act 2007 (see also Bar News p iii). 

SECURITY incidents at court do happen and can be a source of great concern to counsel. In recent months, the issue of court security has been brought to the attention of the Legal Services Committee and it has been seeking to establish the extent of the problem. To this end we have asked barristers to let us have details of any violent incidents at court, including incidents of verbal abuse. 

We have also been in contact with the central team dealing with security policy and guidance at HMCS. HMCS has in place systems to monitor security incidents at court and they are urging stakeholders to report all incidents, no matter how minor. This will ensure that they can establish a comprehensive picture of the level of conflict and potential violence and this will enable them to review what provisions can be put in place to mitigate or eliminate this actual or potential threat to court users. 

THE new Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA), Paul Mendelle QC, has called for the Government to re-think its approach towards the publicly-funded Bar. He is taking over as Chairman of the CBA, which represents over 3,600 criminal barristers and is the largest specialist bar association in England and Wales. Commenting on the year ahead, Mr Mendelle said: 

“I am acutely aware of the challenges which face the Criminal Bar. Self-employed, publicly-funded barristers work incredibly hard and their very long hours of work outside the court sitting day are rarely seen or appreciated by critics. They provide highly-skilled, cost-effective advocacy to the public and that we possess a criminal justice system of such fairness is in large part due to the excellence of the representation available equally to both prosecution and defence. 

The government has “gone back on its word and resumed its attack on the criminal Bar” the new Criminal Bar Association (“CBA”) Chairman Paul Mendelle QC has warned. 

In a letter to The Times , Mendelle, of 25 Bedford Row, accused the government of “spinning the facts” in its proposals to reduce fees for criminal defence work. The proposals were presented “as correcting an anomaly in order to bring defence fees into line with prosecution fees. They are nothing of the sort and the spin disguises a naked attempt by the government to go back on its word. 

The publicly funded Bar is facing an “annus horribilis”, with yet more proposed cuts – this time to criminal defence fees, writes Desmond Browne QC 

How has the advocacy strategy deployed by the CPS been working in practice in the Crown Court? David Wurtzel investigates.  

In 2004 the new Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken MacDonald, launched an advocacy strategy vision in which the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) was to become “an organisation that routinely conducts its own high quality advocacy in all courts, efficiently and eff ectively”. In that first year, Crown advocates conducted 7,433 sessions; in 2008−09 it was 56,519 sessions including 8,401 trials. The aim was to achieve 25 per cent of the cost of advocacy-in-house by 2011; it is now 21.3 per cent. 

The 2009 proposal for a Framework Decision (Procedure reference 2009 0802/CNS) to resolve jurisdictional conflicts in criminal cases, limited in scope to situations where the same person(s) are subject to parallel proceedings in different Member States in respect of the same facts (which might infringe the ne bus in idem principle), looks set to be agreed upon by the EP and the Council in time to allow it to be adopted at the JHA Council meeting on 23 October 2009. 

In the wake of the recent Court of Appeal interlocutory judgment giving the green light for the first trial on indictment by a judge alone, David Wolchover and Anthony Heaton-Armstrong propose some convenient and inexpensive jury tampering countermeasures