Monthly News Archives: May 2011
22 May 2011 by Adam Wagner
I asked in a recent post whether journalists need to attend court hearings to report accurately. The post arose from judgment in a family court case involving a mother’s abuse of her baby. The judge took the unusual step of criticising the Sunday Telegraph’s Christopher Booker’s reporting, which he called “unbalanced, inaccurate and just plain wrong“. That criticism was then supported by the most senior family judge in a different judgment.
Christopher Booker has now responded to my post, although somewhat obliquely. He writes:
I was again attacked last week by a prominent legal blogger, for reporting on cases where the system appears to be going tragically wrong, without having sat for days in court to hear “both sides of the story”.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
20 May 2011 by Adam Wagner
Lord Neuberger has published his long-awaited report on super-injunctions. His committee was set up in April 2010 in order to “examine the issues around the use of injunctions which bind the press and so-called ‘super-injunctions“.
In summary, the report emphasises the principles of open justice and the right to freedom of speech, and that courts should “ensure that any derogation from open justice is the minimum necessary to secure the proper administration of justice”. It recommends that Civil Procedure Rule 39.2 (concerning public hearings) should be amended to make reference to the strict necessity test.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
20 May 2011 by David Hart KC
If you don’t charge your client anything, how can you charge the other side? Answer: completely lawful, it’s all in the statute. Essentially, if you, a pro bono advocate, file a statement of the costs which you would have charged, had you been doing it for money. If you follow the right procedures, you may recover costs from the losing party. And it is as simple as that. If anyone is in any doubt, the Court of Appeal has just followed this rule in Grand v. Gill [2011] EWCA Civ 554, where it made an award of £2,500 to the successful tenant, who had increased her damages on appeal.
Though there was a certain amount of publicity when this provision came in, this case is a good reminder of this power. However, for those pro bono advocates who scent possible recompense for themselves, remember, you are not the beneficiary of the money when paid. It goes to “the prescribed charity,” namely the Access to Justice Foundation.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
19 May 2011 by Alasdair Henderson
W v. M, S, an NHS PCT and Times Newspapers Ltd. [2011] EQHC 1197 (COP) – read judgment. In the midst of all the fuss over the last two weeks about ‘superinjunctions’ and the law on privacy (see our coverage here, here, here and here) the Court of Protection (“CoP”) has just granted an injunction imposing extensive reporting restrictions on the media in a case involving potentially controversial end-of-life issues.
The press has picked up on the decision mainly because the injunction is the first in the UK courts (and perhaps anywhere in the world) to specifically prohibit publishing restricted information on any “social network or media including Twitter or Facebook“. This is noteworthy given the recent furore about an anonymous Twitter user ‘outing’ a number of UK celebrities who had obtained injunctions (although given that Twitter is a US-based website, it is difficult to see how the order will be enforced). But the decision by Baker J is far more interesting for the way he described how the media’s free speech rights should be balanced against the parties’ privacy rights in the kind of sensitive cases dealt with by the CoP, and how he expressly distinguished it from the approach taken in celebrity cases.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
18 May 2011 by Adam Wagner
This week the Sky News website began broadcasting UK Supreme Court hearings live. I have been talking up this idea for a while, and in my view the new service marks an important moment for access to justice.
In its first few days, Supreme Court Live has been showing an insurance case which has been, shall we say, a little difficult to follow (of course it would have been much more difficult to follow but for the excellent advocacy on display…) But the service works well and the footage is of high quality by current standards.
Whilst watching the case my mind wandered to the nuts and bolts of the arrangement between Sky and the court, and whether there are plans to expand the service in the future. I asked the Supreme Court, and this is what they said.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
18 May 2011 by David Hart KC
The decision of the CJEU (a.k.a ECJ) in Case C-115/09 Bund Für Umwelt on 12 May goes right to the heart of environmental challenges.
Friends of the Earth wanted to challenge the grant of planning permission for a whopping new coal-fired power station in Lünen, Germany, where these carnivallers are from. The power station is destined to produce up to 1,750 MW of heat and 750 MW of electricity (to give an idea of scale, one huge offshore wind turbine might deliver 5MW when the wind is really blowing).
The case was about the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out on the proposed plant, not least because there were 5 Special Areas of Conservation within 8km of the site. The local court was concerned that the domestic law (including the EIA rules in the Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfgesetz) stood in the way of FoE’s challenge, because it precluded challenges unless the impugned legislative provisions conferred “individual rights”.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
18 May 2011 by Rosalind English
R (on the application of GC) (FC) (Appellant) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis – read judgment
A declaration has been granted by a majority in the Supreme Court that police policy of DNA retention is unlawful because it is incompatible with article 8 of the ECHR.
Guidelines under the current legislation allow destruction of DNA evidence only under “exceptional circumstances”; however police can be said to be acting unlawfully in retaining the evidence because the relevant provision of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) should be ‘read down’ to accord with the right to privacy under the Convention.
The guidelines on DNA retention were introduced under Section 64(1A) of PACE, which provides that samples taken in connection with the investigation of an offence “may” be retained. The provision thus substituted a discretionary power for an earlier obligation in the statute to destroy data. The guidelines issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (“ACPO”) guidelines provided that data should be destroyed only in exceptional cases.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
18 May 2011 by Isabel McArdle
R (on the application of Evans) v The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 1146 (Admin) – Read judgment
The High Court has found that the Ministry of Justice, when making a decision to cease the state’s funding of judicial review challenges on purely public interest grounds (apart from one exception), took into account the fact that to do so would reduce the number of decisions being made which were not in the government’s interests. Unsurprisingly, the Court to concluded that the decision was unlawful and should be quashed.
The Applicant applied for judicial review of a decision by the Respondent to amend the Legal Services Commission (LSC) Funding Code, which funds litigation for those who meet certain criteria. The effect of the amendments, which were introduced in April 2010, was to prevent public funding by the LSC for judicial review proceedings (challenging decisions of public bodies) which were pure public interest challenges. That is, where the Applicant stood to gain nothing from the litigation and was bringing it solely to promote a particular public interest. The one exception was in environmental cases.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
17 May 2011 by Adam Wagner
Good enough for Dickens
I posted last week on a judgment given by His Honour Judge Bellamy in a family court case involving a mother’s abuse of her baby The judge took the unusual step of criticising media reporting of the case. He said the Telepraph’s Christopher Booker’s reporting was “unbalanced, inaccurate and just plain wrong“.
There have been some developments since last week which raise interesting questions about the duty of journalists to report cases accurately. First, Sir Nicholas Wall, head of the family division, used his judgment in a different case to support HHJ Bellamy’s criticism. He said:
although I disagree with Judge Bellamy’s decision… I agree entirely with paragraphs 185 to 193 of his judgment in Re L under the heading “Transparency” and in which the judge deals with the tendentious and inaccurate reporting of the case.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 May 2011 by Adam Wagner
That was quick! The Supreme Court appear to have responded to the request I made on Thursday that hearings be broadcast live on the internet. From today, Sky News will be broadcasting all hearings live via this website.
All hearings at the court are filmed, but until now only broadcasters had been able to use footage. I first argued in October that this was a waste and the hearings should be live screened. I don’t actually believe that my posts had anything to do with this minor technological miracle, but I have tried it out and it works. This is very exciting. For the first time the general public, lawyers and law students can see the advocacy in the UK’s highest court of appeal live and unedited.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 May 2011 by Melina Padron
Last week’s human rights news received an enormous amount of coverage, which means that we were unable to fit all of them within this humble post. However, we do recommend that you click here to access the full list of some of our favourite articles pertaining to last week’s hotly debated topics.
by Melinda Padron
The week started off with a Twitter account supposedly “outing” a number of individuals who had taken injunctions with anonymity clauses or “superinjunctions”. As we all know, this topic has been the subject of attacks by the press and politicians over the past few weeks. Judith Townend wrote an insightful post on the incident for the Inforrm’s Blog, which contained opinions from media lawyers and experts, and also links to many of the articles featured in newspapers and law blogs alike.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 May 2011 by Rosalind English
When does being not guilty make you innocent? This question arose coincidentally in two rulings, just over a month of each other, from the highest courts of the UK and South Africa respectively.
The Citizen and others v McBride concerned libel proceedings which had been brought against a former member of the armed wing of the ANC. McBride had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1986 after killing three women in a bomb attack. Nine years later he was granted an amnesty by the SA Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The question before the Constitutional Court was whether a person convicted of murder, but granted amnesty under the Reconciliation Act, can later be called a “criminal” and a “murderer” in comment opposing his appointment to a public position.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
13 May 2011 by Guest Contributor
Birmingham City Council v Barker (Equal Pay Act : Other establishments) (Rev 1) [2010] UKEAT 0056_10_0905 (9 May 2011) – Read jugment
One of the allegations made about contingency fees is that they encourage lawyers to cut corners because they are not paid by the hour. It is an allegation which has been specifically made to me in the context of equal pay claims. So I was interested to see this latest Employment Appeal Tribunal decision which deals with a number of mistakes made during high volume equal pay cases.
The first point that is worth making is that it is a reminder of how hard fought these equal pay cases are. A concern about bringing cases under a contingency fee is that opponents can string cases out, or take highly adversarial approaches, to ensure that these cases cost the contingency fee lawyers lots of their time. The longer they take, the harder it is for contingency fee lawyers to make a profit, and the less likely it is to arise in these cases.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
12 May 2011 by Adam Wagner
The Director of Public Prosecutions has told the Society of Editors that more court hearings should be televised. The Ministry of Justice have responded by saying that they are considering changes but would want to consult the senior judiciary before making any “firm proposals”.
Starmer is right to say that “shining a light on the workings of the court room can only serve to boost its efficiency and effectiveness”. But before spending time and money opening up more courts to cameras, footage from the supreme court, which is already filmed at great expense, should be made more widely available.
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
11 May 2011 by Rosalind English
I promised an analysis piece in my post on the Mosley judgment but there has been such an outpouring of comment and opinion on the case that a more useful exercise is to provide some sort of guide through the maze of material already out there.
This rather toothless ruling has, needless to say, received enthusiastic acclaim by the mainstream media, smarting with indignation over Twitter’s coup de théâtre re superinjunctions. See the Guardian coverage and the Express’s aptly named article Max Mosley Loses Privacy Case Amid Super-injunction Chaos. The Daily Mail of course goes straight to the Naughty Step with its triumphalist and inaccurate headline Victory for freedom of speech: European court rejects Mosley’s bid to impose new constraints on Press. First, it wasn’t the European Court (more commonly known as the ECJ). It was the European Court of Human Rights. Second, the rather mealy-mouthed judgment is hardly a ringing endorsement for freedom of speech; as Hugh Tomlinson points out, the press won the battle but the judgment confirms that it has lost the “privacy war”:
The Court makes its disapproval of the conduct of the News of the World crystal clear and emphasises the need for a “narrow interpretation” of freedom of expression where sensational and titillating press reports are involved [114].
Continue reading →
Like this:
Like Loading...
This blog is run by
Recent comments