The BBC have been showing an excellent documentary entitled ‘Conviction: Murder at the Station‘.
The two-part documentary involves a team of legal experts examining the police evidence against convicted murderer Roger Kearney. The documentary looks at the criminal appeal process and considers a variety of issues, such as blood spatter, missing forensic evidence, CCTV coverage etc. Well worth a BBC iPlayer viewing.
The Metropolitan Police Force have been considering establishing a trial of the use of Spit Hoods. The reason given is that some people who are being arrested spit or bite police officers and placing a Spit Hood would help prevent such action.
Logically, very few people would invite the imposition of a Spit Hood by the police. It follows, therefore, that considerable force would need to be used by the police to get a person they are arresting to wear the hood. Obviously, this raises human rights concerns
Martha Spurrier, Director of Liberty, has described: “A spit hood is a primitive, cruel and degrading tool that inspires fear and anguish,”
According to a newspaper press report, solicitors acting for Keith Vaz MP have written to Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen accusing him of “maliciously spreading false and highly defamatory scuttlebutt” about Mr Vaz.
Many of us will be confused about the word “scuttlebutt” and wonder what on earth that word means. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary a simple definition of “scuttlebutt” means: “talk or stories about someone that may not be true”.
See also Keith Vaz quits as Home Affairs Committee Chairman.
‘Sexting has become “normal” but can leave youngsters vulnerable to exploitation or blackmail.’ See Sky News report.
Advice: “It is crucial that posters understand that every internet site and social networking site is monitored by an administrator.” They, in turn, can be expected to pass information onto the police.
A leading children’s charity says police figures show under-18s are being criminalised for sharing nude photographs of themselves. Across all age groups, the number of such offences has more than doubled in two years – soaring from 4,530 in 2013 to 10,818 in 2015.
The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, s.33 makes disclosure of private sexual photographs or films without consent a criminal offence. The maximum penalty on conviction is 2 years imprisonment in the Crown Court and 6 months imprisonment in the Magistrates Court. See previous postings on sexting.
If you fancy a career in the police, it is wise to avoid having a tattoo. Even females who have a small discreet heart tattoo behind the ear could fall foul of police appearance policy, and be excluded from a police career.
The Home Office say that candidates with a tattoo may be eligible for appointment, but each case should be considered on its merits. The Metropolitan Police, since 2012, have directly banned officers from having tattoos visible on their hands or face. They will only accept tattoos that are covered and hidden from vision.
My own view on wearing a tattoo is that it is like buying an item of clothing that you intend to wear 24 hours a day for the rest of your life. In no time, that item will become yesterdays fashion statement. It will also fade in colour and quality as you age.
A Judge who reflected the words back at a man convicted of racism, after he swore at her while being sentenced, is facing complaints and an investigation by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO).
In Chelmsford Crown Court a 50-year-old defendant, who had been convicted of making insulting and racist slurs towards a black Caribbean woman, made matters worse by swearing at the Judge.
The defendant was in the dock when he told Judge Lynch she was a “bit of a c***”, to which she responded: “You are a bit of a c*** yourself. Being offensive to me does not help.” Read More
It is reported that three Universities have set their 2017 tuition fees at £9,250. They have made this announcement even before Parliament have debating plans which would pave the way to raise fees.
The three Universities concerned are Royal Holloway, Durham, and Kent. The Liberal Democrat education spokesperson, John Pugh, described the premature announcement as “disgraceful arrogance from some Universities”.
Update: See Tuition Fees rise.
There is some concern that the government may be seeking to leave the EU using Royal Prerogative and without passing an Act of Parliament to trigger Article 50 of The Treaty of the European Union. Indeed, lawyers at Mishcon de Reya claim the Government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament. There has been conjecture that the Prime Minister, Theresa May, could seek to use Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50. See also the view of former Attorney General Dominic Grieve.
Such an argument – required an Act of Parliament – must surely be constitutionally correct. My own view is that the voting public in the 2016 EU referendum knew what they were voting against – but nobody knows what they have voted for. Indeed, when you listen to the Brexit campaigners they all seem to have a very different view of what post Brexit could look like (will we be in or out of the Common/Single Market is just one example). Logically, therefore, the government should negotiate (over the next two years) a Brexit deal and then hold a referendum so that the electorate can confirm their support for a post Brexit United Kingdom.
There has been a great deal of press coverage about a female receptionist being sent home from work because she was not wearing high heels. Indeed, according to BBC News reports, the complainant has started a petition calling for the law to be changed so that such demands would be unlawful.
It seems to me that a requirement for women to wear high heels at work could amount to sex discrimination under existing provisions via the Equality Act 2010. If, for example, an employment tribunal were to conclude that only women in the employment were required to wear high heels (and men were not) – then that could amount to direct discrimination. If so, then the employer could have no ‘justifiable’ defence – essentially because you cannot justify direct discrimination.
A requirement for female staff to wear high heels must at the very least establish an argument of indirect discrimination (in that the requirement impacts upon women more than men). In such circumstances, the employer would then need to show that the dress code requirement to wear high heels can be objectively justified as appropriate and necessary. In my view, an employer would find such a defence as being difficult to succeed with. Though, of course, the actual facts (and the employees and employers response to the situation) in any case can be vitally important.
Tips left by customers should go to workers in full – and not their employers, the Government has said in a report.
Restaurants and bars could also be stopped from adding service charges to bills to remind customers they do not have to tip if they don’t want to.
The eight-month review of tipping practices follows claims that some “well-known” chains were counting tips as part of a worker’s pay and were withholding some or all of the money.
The big question now is what are the government going to do about this problem? A voluntary code of conduct for employers may not be strong enough. Some form of statutory legislation, that makes it unlawful/illegal to retain tips intended for staff, could be the approach that is needed.
Children as young as 11, and teenagers of the age of 19, are amongst 1160 victims of revenge porn on the internet between April 2015 and December 2015. The average age of a revenge porn victim is 25.
Revenge porn refers to the act of a partner or ex-partner purposefully distributing images or videos of a sexual nature without the other person’s consent.
Facebook was used by perpetrators in 68% of cases where social media was mentioned in reports. Then came Instagram (12%) followed by Snapchat (5%).
Being a victim was a “hugely distressing, damaging and violating experience”. See BBC News report. See also Ministry of Justice Publication.
I was interviewed on the radio earlier today and asked about the discretion of a Judge in lifting a curfew to allow somebody to attend Glastonbury Festival. I commented: “Law is generally not black or white – it is often more like 50 shades of grey.”
UPDATE: The Appeal Court have quashed the Ched Evans conviction for rape on the basis of new evidence being provided. The Appeal Court have indicated that a re-trial should take place.
Ched Evans, the former Manchester City and Sheffield United forward, was found guilty of raping a 19-year-old girl in a hotel room and the Judge at the trial gave a five year prison sentence. In accord with normal procedure, Evans has been released from prison after serving two and a half years of his sentence. Despite such, via his website he maintains his innocence and the Criminal Cases Review Commission is to examine his case. See a summary 0f the legal issues. (at 4th January 2015)
One of the main aims of sentencing is rehabilitation. This means that it is hoped that the convicted criminal will serve their time, reflect upon his/her unacceptable behaviour, and helped to be restored back into society a better person. As Gordon Taylor, of the Professional Footballers Association remarks: “It is a fundamental part of the justice system in this country and society in general that a person serves the punishment which the court determines is appropriate and, providing that has been done, an individual is entitled to be released to continue with his or her life.”
Ched Evans has served the punishment given by the Courts. Should he now, like some other footballers with a criminal record, be free to work and participate in society? Or, should society carry on punishing him?
On the face of it, news that we may be able to watch Murder Trials on TV sounds exciting. However, when we examine the details we can see that its value is greatly limited. Currently, TV companies can film (and sometimes do) the proceedings of the UK Supreme Court and the Appeal Court. The problem of such filming is that arguments over points of law may interest lawyers and law students, but it is dry and does not interest many members of the public. So, it is rarely filmed.
Under new proposals from the Ministry of Justice, it will become possible to watch parts of murder trials from criminal Crown Courts like the Old Bailey. Though, this latest experiment in filming doesn’t mean we’ll get to see entire criminal trials like those of OJ Simpson and Oscar Pistorius. Indeed, in Crown Court trials the issues of fact are determined by the jury. However, the cameras will not show the jury, or any witnesses, so issues of fact will not be examined on TV.
What TV viewers could get to see and hear is that of judges sentencing murderers, and others, at the conclusion of gripping and notorious cases. In effect, what this means is that we will see a brief clip of a Judge from within the Court at end of the proceeedings. That’s clearly not going to do a great deal of informing law students about the legal processes within Courts. It will be far better to visit the Courts for the day and observe at first hand what happens.
Exam Boards have warned students about the dangers of “Cheating Watches”. These watches can be bought online and they are designed to enable a student to produce notes on a watch that can be read in exams. Should an invigilator walk nearby, the student can simply press a button on the watch and it then turns into a normal digital watch display.
These “Cheating Watches”, sold for around £44, may tempt students into cheating. However, exam boards have warned examination officers/invigilators to look out for such watches before exams start. Some Schools/Colleges are even banning students from taking watches into exam rooms. They also warn that any student found cheating could face exclusion from all of the examinations they are taking (e.g. all of their A-Levels).
The tort case of Mohamud v Morrisons involved an employee physically attacking a customer of Morrisons at a petrol station. Previous to this case, it was generally accepted that Morrisons would not be liable in tort law for the criminal actions of a working member of their staff. Though, liability could apply where a bouncer caused injuries to a customer at a night club – since the very nature of that job involved physical interaction between the bouncer and the customer.
However, the UK Supreme Court have now opened the door to companies being much more generally liable for the actions of their staff. The Supreme Court determined that a court must ask what function or field of activities has been entrusted by the employer to the employee (i.e. what was the nature of his job). This is to be viewed broadly. Second, the court must decide whether there was a sufficient connection between the position in which he was employed and his wrongful conduct to make it right for the employer to be held liable.
Given that the employee was employed at the petrol station to interact with Morrisons customers, the Court determined that the employer was liable for the actions of a member of their staff when he assaulted a customer.
According to a study, the number of teenage girls – aged 13 to 19 – going to A&E with suspected alcohol poisoning is one and half times the rate of their male counterparts. See also government advice.
What is alarming about the data is that it also masks the reality that alcohol often leads to fights and violence. For example, a 16 year old girl slashed across the face with a razor blade may not be classed as a alcohol related incident – i.e. despite the fact that the person who conducted the attack was influenced by alcohol. Indeed, many medics feel that 75% of attendances to A&E between midnight and 2am are drink related.
Obviously, a social life is important. If you don’t party as a teenager – when will you party? That being said, it is important to stay in control to avoid danger. T0 assist, there is a DrinkAware App that you can download that will help you stay in control. Personally, I find abstention from alcohol can also be fun. It’s great being sober and seeing all your friends make fools of themselves.
American First Lady Michelle Obama has contributed to the rap video aimed at encouraging young people to ‘Go to College’.
More than 90,000 GCSE and A-level results were changed after challenges to grades awarded last summer – the highest on record and an increase of 17% compared with last year.
Exam regulator Ofqual says there were more than 572,000 queries over grades – an increase of 27%.
The number of grades changed after re-marking has almost doubled in three years. In 99% of cases, it was an upwards change.
‘Out of school education settings: call for evidence.’ My submission to the consultation sent to the Department of Education …
Worrying times are before us. In future years we will look back at this era in the history of the UK as being equivalent to the McCarthy era of the US.
Not long ago in our Schools/Colleges it was unacceptable to ”promote” homosexuality. At that time, I felt it strange that I could discuss the legality of murder (while delivering A-Level Law) – but I did not have the same freedom to discuss the legality of homosexuality. Now, just a decade or so later, there is a requirement that homosexuality should be delivered in our schools/colleges as part of the new trend of ”British values”.
Likewise, a decade ago, Citizenship was considered to be a very important subject to be delivered and now many Colleges have abandoned the subject.
What concerns me is that the curriculum is being censored/politicised. Teachers are being restricted in their academic freedom to deliver values that they believe in. It seems that (to quote the Christian Institute) Ofsted are to become the state regulator of religion. This is to apply not just in our schools, but also in youth work and in our Churches.