Thursday 9 December 2010

Commission refers the kidnapping and blackmail convictions of John and Gerard Lane to the Court of Appeal

Criminal Cases Review Commission, 9th December 2010

The Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the kidnapping and blackmail convictions of John and Gerard Lane to the Court of Appeal.

Brothers John and Gerard Lane were accused of kidnapping Mr Brett Hinsley from his home in Sutton Coldfield on 26th May 1997 and demanding money from him.

They pleaded not guilty but were convicted at Birmingham Crown Court on 28th September 1998 and each sentenced to a total of seven year’s imprisonment.

Messrs Lane and Lane appealed against the conviction but their appeal was dismissed in August 1999. They applied to the Commission for a review of their convictions in October 2007 and November 2007 respectively.

Following a detailed investigation of the case, the Commission has decided to refer the convictions to the Court of Appeal because it considers that material non-disclosure raises the real possibility that the Court would quash the convictions as unsafe.

Messrs Lane and Lane are represented by Mr Maslen Merchant, of Hadgkiss, Huges and Beale Solicitors.

UB40 back campaign to free Brummie punk rocker Gary Critchley

Sunday Mercury, 5th December 2010

UB40's Astro supports the Free Gary Critchley Campaign
BIRMINGHAM supergroup UB40 have given their backing to the Gary Critchley freedom campaign.

The Brummie punk rocker, 47, has spent the past 30 years behind bars for a murder he claims he did not commit.

UB40 founding member Brian Travers said: “You only have to study the case for five minutes to know that Gary’s conviction is wrong.

“We have no problem getting on board the campaign and would ask the authorities to just step back and look at the guy as a human being.

“His conviction is completely unsafe, they should do what is right and finally send him home. They can do the right thing by releasing him after all these years.”

Gary, from Northfield, was just 17 when he was jailed for a recommended nine years in 1981 for the killing of Edward McNeill in a London squat.

But despite the court sentencing tariff, he has gone on to spend almost 30 years behind bars.

Thursday 2 December 2010

The Criminal Cases Review Commission has failed

Guardian, Thursday 2 December 2010
Set up to investigate miscarriages of justice, the CCRC's poor track record in recent years shows it is little more than a fig leaf

When it was set up in 1997, the Criminal Cases Review Commission was an experiment. It was an idea unique in worldwide criminal justice: an extra-judicial body that could give another chance to cases that had reached the end of the legal road. The time has now come to acknowledge that it was an experiment that failed.


The CCRC began work on 1 April 1997. In gauging its overall success, we need first of all to look at its own statistics, according to which its work has led to the quashing of 304 convictions. Taken at face value, this is impressive; looked at more closely, the figure quickly crumbles.


Firstly, the CCRC refers some cases to the court of appeal on the basis of sentence alone. If the sentence is subsequently varied, then the CCRC triumphantly – but inaccurately – marks this down as a "quashed" case, and a success. It also counts as successes cases where alternative convictions are substituted – the most common example being manslaughter for murder. This may be little more than a technical adjustment to the conviction and may make no practical difference to the liberty of the prisoner.


Secondly, there is multiple counting. The CCRC rates its success not in terms of individual cases but numbers of convictions. Had the commission ever been tasked with analysing the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four cases, they would have examined two cases but chalked them off as 10 successes.


Thirdly, there is the case of Russell Causley, whose case was referred to appeal in 2001. His conviction was quashed at appeal, but the court ordered a retrial and Causley was reconvicted. So he will be sitting in his cell today, still convicted of the same crime that he once persuaded the CCRC to reopen, wondering just how the CCRC can count him as one of its "successes".


Fourthly, and crucially, any examination of the details of the CCRC "successes" reveals that, especially in recent years, the commission has been getting relatively lightweight convictions overturned: dishonestly obtaining a telecommunication service; allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place; failing to comply with an amended section 215 notice under the Town and Country Planning Act; cheating HM Revenue and Customs contrary to common law; and, that old chestnut, keeping a disorderly house.

Those wrongly convicted in these and other similar cases are doubtless eternally grateful to the CCRC for helping to restore their reputations. But no one should pretend that such low-level injustices precipitated the creation of the CCRC. It was set up because of wrongful convictions in major cases, especially murder cases, that were being rejected at the court of appeal.


In its early years, the CCRC was valuable and productive: the hiatus while it was being established meant there was a build-up of compelling cases, some of which had been part-worked on at the Home Office; and the CCRC began with an altruistic impulse and some highly motivated commissioners, such as the late Dr James MacKeith, the forensic psychiatrist, and the commercial lawyer Laurie Elks.


However, if we look at the CCRC's performance in major cases in England and Wales since the start of 2005, we get a very different statistic. In that period, the CCRC has successfully referred seven major cases to appeal. That's all. Seven.


In fact, even this meagre tally overstates the CCRC's performance level. One of these cases was that of Sean Hodgson, whose legal team had the brilliant idea of bypassing the CCRC altogether. They took it straight to the police and prosecution, who discovered that the DNA on the victim's body was not Hodgson's and said the appeal would not be contested.


So the CCRC was presented with a fait accompli – which did not, of course, prevent it from listing the case as one of its "successes". Yet had the lawyers simply submitted the case to the CCRC, Hodgson would still be in prison. Then there was the case of Barry George (wrongly convicted of murdering the television presenter Jill Dando), which half the country recognised as a miscarriage of justice.


Another was that of Patrick Nolan. This was a confession-made-under-duress case, of the kind that the appeal court had been quashing convictions in for at least 10 years. Any competent body could probably have dealt with it in a couple of months, rather than the more than five years it took the CCRC.


One case I can't tell you about, because the legal process is ongoing. The three remaining cases are those of Andrew Adams, which took the CCRC seven years to refer; the Victor Boreham and Michael and Malcolm Byrne case; and the Ian Lawless case, all of which were piloted to appeal by first-class lawyers (respectively, Ben Rose, Maslen Merchant and Mark Newby).


By my reckoning, six cases are yet to be heard, including the Simon Hall case, which goes to appeal in a couple of weeks. During this time, there have been referrals of 10 other cases that have failed at appeal. They include the cases of Michael Attwooll and John Roden; Robert Kennedy; and David Shale. These are all meritorious cases and so the injustice remains unaddressed.


Although we have no idea of the true number of miscarriages of justice that should be being rectified, I can put it in perspective by pointing out that there are at least 100 contentious murder convictions being analysed by justice groups throughout the country. A host of cases – the convictions of Jeremy Bamber (originally flagged as a miscarriage of justice by the Guardian in November 1993), Susan May, Mark Stonerseed, Warren Slaney, Karl Watson and Eddie Gilfoyle et al – predate the CCRC and, all these years later, are still awaiting resolution.


The complaints are that the CCRC has become characterised by pusillanimity and procrastination. It is taking far too long to evaluate cases; it is not referring the cases it should; and even where it does refer convictions, its poor case analysis leads to poor appeals.


The government did look at the CCRC in the comprehensive spending review, but it survived. After all, it has become a highly expedient mechanism. It allows ministers to deflect all questions about, and accordingly blame for, miscarriages of justice and the malfunctioning of the judicial system. Probably that's its main residual function: as a fig leaf.

Monday 29 November 2010

One law for the rich, no longer any law for the poor

Monday 29th November 2010, Miscarriages of JusticeUK
Legal aid is the Citizen's insurance policy in that laws that affect them are put into effect in the way intended. 

National/Local Government, Prison Service, Corporations are all powerful, those who are affected by their decisions are not. 

Legal aid is an essential safeguard against this inequality of arms and also serves to maintain scrutiny of  National/Local Government department decisions, serves to bring Corporations to account for wrong doing against employees, to bring both Government/Corporation to account for public malfeasance, criminal negligence.

If the cuts go through and it is up to you to stop them.

You will not be able to obtain legal aid for 'False imprisonment', 'Malicious prosecution', 'Negligence', failures to carry out duties or to fulfill obligations imposed by legislation and a whole raft of other torts.

Long term prisoners will suffer the worst, the problems they have on release, obtaining, housing, benefits, work, will no longer be covered by legal aid.

Proposed legal aid cuts for England & Wales:

- This bulletin provides information about proposed cuts to legal aid and what you can do to oppose them (see here). Please distribute this bulletin to your faith groups/trade unions/community action groups, most importantly, make your own views known.

Government Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales

Tort and other general claims
This includes:  assault;  negligence;  nuisance;  breach of a statutory duty;  false imprisonment; and  malicious prosecution.
Government proposes to remove all Legal Help and Representation for tort and other general claims. 

Welfare benefits
Government proposes to remove all Legal Help and Representation for welfare benefits matters.

Clinical negligence
Government proposes to remove all Legal Help and Representation in this category.

Legal Help for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
Government proposes to remove this Legal Help from scope.

Immigration
Government proposes to remove all Legal Help and Controlled Legal Representation for immigration matters, other than for persons seeking release from detention or proceedings before the SIAC. These include but are not limited to: Grant/variation of leave to remain; Entry clearance applications; European applications; Citizenship and travel documents; and Applications under concessions or policy outside of the Immigration Rules (HC395).

Asylum support cases
Government proposes to remove advice and representation for applications for asylum support.

Employment
Government proposes to remove all Legal Help and Representation on employment matters.

Education
Government proposes to remove all Legal Help and Representation on education matters.

Housing
Government proposes to remove all advice and representation in this category other than for homelessness and housing disrepair (non-damages) cases.

Debt
Government proposes to remove all Legal Help and Representation in relation to debts such as council tax, utilities, credit card debts, fines, unsecured personal loans, overdrafts and hire purchase debts. proceedings concerning the making, discharge or annulment of a bankruptcy order; and matters concerning an Individual Voluntary Arrangement.

Claims against public authorities
Government proposes to exclude cases which do not fall into one of the three categories proposed for inclusion (abuse of position of power; significant breach of human rights; or negligent acts or omissions falling very far below the required standard of care). We do not propose to retain the existing rule that brings back into scope of civil legal aid any matter for which it is argued that Significant Wider Public Interest applies.

Consumer and general contract
Government proposes to remove all Legal Help and Representation in this category. relating to: breach of contract; professional negligence (other than medical negligence); recovery of property; fraud; consumer credit issues; personal data issues.

Family law (private): (a) ancillary relief
Government proposes to remove all advice and representation for ancillary relief cases where domestic violence is not present.

Higher courts: The Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and European Court of Justice
Government proposes to remove legal aid for onward appeals to these courts where the category of law would no longer be in scope.

Higher courts: Upper Tribunal appeals
Government proposes to remove all Legal Help and Representation currently within scope in this category.

Cash forfeiture proceedings
Government proposes to remove all Legal Help and Representation for cash forfeiture matters.

Hadgkiss Hughes & Beale are franchised by the Legal Services Commission to provide Legal Aid funded advice for Family and Criminal work.

Tuesday 16 November 2010

Legal Aid Cuts Would Remove Free Advice for Thousands of People

The Guardian 15th November 2010
Hundreds of thousands of people with family and housing law problems will no longer have access to free legal advice under government proposals announced today.

Measures proposing the most drastic cuts to legal aid in its 60-year history would seek to reduce the number of civil law cases by 547,000 a year in what ministers describe as an attempt to save money and "discourage a culture of litigation".

"At more than £2bn per year, we currently have one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world," said the justice minister, Jonathan Djanogly.

"In civil legal aid and private family law people are too often willing to hand over their personal problems to the state … there is a lack of appreciation of the implications of going to court. The need to make savings provides us with the impetus and urgency for change."

The proposals, published in a consultation paper today, suggest the removal of whole areas of law from the scope of public funding. Divorcing couples will no longer be able to receive free legal representation for court cases, other than in cases where there is domestic violence or forced marriage, in a change ministers say should encourage mediation.

Government figures estimate the move will reduce the number of cases by 265,000 per year. People facing homelessness, housing disrepair and antisocial behaviour will still be able to gain free legal advice.

But people with other housing problems will no longer get state help, despite a government statement acknowledging that these people are "more likely to be ill or disabled". This move means some 38,000 people per year will no longer able to access free legal help.

The legal profession was gearing up to respond to the proposals today. Many of those who deliver legal aid services would lose their jobs as law centres and firms offering free advice would face closure under the measures.

In addition, all fees for legal aid lawyers would be cut by 10%. "The starting point is not what lawyers earn or how many lawyers there will be," said Djanogly. "The starting point is how much support the taxpayer should give for legal aid."

Monday 15 November 2010

Rural Poperty Prices Double

Rural property prices double

The price of property in rural areas has risen 96pc in the last decade.

Devon countryside
Photo: RICHARD AUSTIN
House prices in the countryside have doubled in the past 10 years 
Houses in rural areas of the UK have increased in price by an average of £200 a week over the past 10 years. Houses in rural areas have climbed higher in price than their urban counterparts according to research conducted by Halifax.
Homes in towns and cities have increased by 91pc over the same period.
Buyers looking at purchasing a property in the countryside can expect to pay a 20pc premium, compared to one bought in an urban area. This difference has increased over the past decade; ten years ago, buyers in the countryside paid a 17pc premium.

Monday 18 October 2010

Legal aid: No access. No justice


Having claimed liberty as its animating principle, the government must now bear witness to what type of liberty it means.
To throw Trident, teachers or transport to the fiscal wolves takes political guts, but legal aid is a safer sacrificial victim. This least glamorous part of the welfare state long since lost its fat but, reckoning that nobody likes a lawyer, the Ministry of Justice has now settled with the Treasury on penurious terms that could starve the system entirely. True, the public bill for criminal defence is hard to contain, but one reason for this is that parliament has functioned as a criminal law factory. Legal aid funding for employment and personal injury claims evaporated long ago, and the residual support – available to deal with fundamental threats such as the loss of a home, or a child's custody – is rigorously means-tested. Further cuts will finally shred the safety net.

The best publicly funded lawyers often work as hard as their corporate cousins, but for social-worker salaries. They have had a miserable decade and are set for another. Small solicitors' firms, which provide one of the few secure minority ethnic footholds in the professions, are going to the wall. Ministers may shrug off such complaints as yet another case of "producers" whingeing about the cuts. What they cannot be shrug off, however, is the principle of access to justice. Having claimed liberty as its animating principle, the government must now bear witness to what type of liberty it means. Real freedom requires not just notional rights, but the means to enforce them. Only the desiccated libertarianism that damns every government function except those which preserve the property of the rich would deny this. But it hardly fits with the coalition's emphasis on social mobility, and many within it understand that access to justice matters.

The challenge is to translate good instincts into good policy for cash-strapped times. That requires rethinking how the law operates. If there is no money for justice, then justice must be made cheaper to provide. Reports on streamlining statutes – like the Law Commission's work on housing – must no longer gather dust for lack of parliamentary time. The potential role for judges in containing costs, which the Jackson report recommended, must be actualised. Every possible saving on crime must be seized, including using penalty notices to keep more cases out of court. And if a proper defence is unaffordable under the adversarial system then it is time to ask whether an alternative is required for certain categories of crime.

The government seems less inclined to ask such questions than to pinch pennies from the public side of the scales of justice. Should it unbalance them, the coalition between liberal Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will hardly deserve to be called liberal at all.

Hadgkiss Hughes & Beale provide Legal Aid funded advice for Family and Criminal work.

House prices face a 'double dip with no recovery for five years' as banks turn away first-time buyers


The housing market is heading for a double dip and will take five years to recover, a leading economist has claimed.

Peter Spencer, chief economic adviser with leading financial forecasters Ernst & Young Item Club, said property values would fall by 5 per cent over the next 12 months.
The predictions are based on the Treasury’s own forecasting models a
nd Mr Spencer claims the housing market will remain depressed for years to come because banks are refusing to offer affordable loans to first-time buyers.

Double dip: The housing market will remain depressed for years to come, warns economist Peter Spencer

Double dip: The housing market will remain depressed for years to come, warns economist Peter Spencer.
He said: ‘We have been very bearish on the housing market for some time. Demand from first time buyers is drying up because there are only so many that can call on “the bank of mum and dad” for a large deposit.
‘What really matters for the housing market is the number of people who can get a decent 80 per cent or 90 per cent mortgage.’
Mr Spencer added that young people were opting not to even try to step onto the property ladder because of the high costs involved.
‘My generation has been planning to sell our houses at over-inflated prices to our children – but many of them are not interested. The game has changed.

To find out how Hadgkiss Hughes & Beale can help you with your residential conveyancing please visit our website: http://www.hhb-law.co.uk/

Tuesday 14 September 2010

New plans to test would-be lawyers

The Law Society is investigating a legal aptitude test to stem the tide of solicitors entering the profession.


Should wannabe solicitors have to take a test before being allowed to start their vocational training? That is the question the Law Society is now investigating in an effort to stem the tide of students flooding into the field only to find once they have finished the legal practice course (LPC) that there are simply no jobs.
I wrote in July about the growing scandal of too many students and not enough training contracts, and it emerged last week that the Law Society has appointed a consultant to look at whether it should follow the Bar Standards Board by introducing an aptitude test.
Such a test would stop students from incurring large expense (the LPC can cost up to £12,500, the bar professional training course even more) in return for little reward, and help law firms maximise the value of the time invested in training.