The mild January air at the start of the week has been swept aside by bitter arctic chill. The brief lull in Eurozone’s currency crisis over Christmas came to an abrupt end on Friday with the Standard and Poor's downgrading of credit ratings for 9 eurozone countries including France. The fate of the Euro remains uncertain and would certainly pose a problem for Scotland’s fiscal intentions should it manage to constitutionally untangle itself from the rest of UK. The legality of a Scottish independence referendum rages on and a date is yet to be set although the First Minister Alex Salmond has hinted at his party’s preference for an autumn 2014 poll. On Saturday evening here at the Sunday Law Review I wrapped myself in a lovely Scottish lambswool scarf and edged ever closer to the radiator, dragging the keyboard with me. Another eventful week in the fascinating world of law!
As I was ending my review of the first week in January news filtered through of HSBC opening a new front in the conveyancing war. The bank is launching a panel of just 43 firms to handle its mortgage work. HSBC customers are not obliged to use the services of these third party partner firms although, the cost implications would certainly make it cheaper had they chosen to do so. While most of the national media had focused on other legal stories, the Law Society Gazette’s reporting of this restricted size of the HSBC’s conveyancing panel had ensued a heated debate in the article's comments' section with over 23 comments and even a call to organise a demonstration by one ‘disgruntled lawyer’.
Legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill continues to be vociferously debated on all quarters. Opposition to government plans to significantly cut the legal aid budget had been bolstered by a financial analysis conducted by King’s College London. The report had been commissioned by the Law Society of England and Wales, and highlighted that savings made by reducing the availability of legal aid for civil cases would be significantly less than half of that predicted by the government. 'The government’s claim of savings of up to £450m a year by reducing the types of cases for which claimants are eligible for legal aid and through cuts in fee rates appears to be seriously flawed.' The legal aid budget runs at more than £2bn annually, of which £900m is spent on civil cases. The study's main focus is the three broad areas of family law, social welfare law and clinical negligence, which are due to be removed from the scope of legal aid with the aim of saving almost £240m a year. Peers have also attacked the government’s failure to produce evidence of the impact of its legal aid cuts in the latest debate at the House of Lords. Lord Bach, the former justice minister, has called for a ‘full impact assessment’, citing that 'the coalition government had failed to get to grips with the serious consequences of this proposed legislation'.
Two High Court judges have sided with the BBC in ruling that the broadcaster could air an interview with Babar Ahmad, the terror suspect who has been held for seven years without trial pending extradition to the US. The BBC had argued that it wanted to film an interview with Babar Ahmad in prison to cover public interest issues, including the psychological and physical impact of prolonged detention without trial. Ahmad, 38, has been detained in Britain since 2004 on a US warrant. He is accused of running websites used to procure money for terrorists. The lawyers acting on behalf of the Justice Secretary had argued that filming was not necessary to inform the public about Ahmad’s story and that granting the request would set a precedent for other interviews. It also risked causing distress and anger to victims of terrorism. However, the judges concluded that Ahmad’s case was exceptional and that the interview ban was a “disproportionate interference” with the right to freedom of expression.
The Law Society has urged the Prime Minister David Cameron to engage with lawyers specialising in the field of personal injury (PI). Last week in this very column I wrote about a call by David Cameron to tackle the compensation culture and cap the legal fees in low value cases. The Law Society has highlighted the case of several lawyers who had expressed a sense of being sidelined in this ‘waged war’. Members of Parliament have also demanded action on spiralling ‘whiplash claims’. Louise Ellman, chair of the Transport Committee, said: "Insurers, solicitors and claims management companies have themselves driven up the cost of motor premiums by encouraging people caught up in road accidents they did not cause to claim for personal injury, car hire, and other legal costs."
An inquiry into the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal was launched by David Cameron back in July last year. Lord Justice Leveson was appointed as Chairman of the Inquiry. Lord Leveson had been examining the relationship of the press with the public, police and politicians with a view to making recommendations on the future of press regulation, and governance consistent with maintaining freedom of the press and ensuring the highest ethical and professional standards. Richard Desmond, the owner of the Express newspapers appeared before Lord Leveson this week, however, the most interesting development came from the publisher of rival newspapers, The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The Mail and Metro publisher wants the high court to overturn a ruling by Lord Justice Leveson that journalists can submit anonymous evidence to his inquiry. Lord Leveson ruled in November that the anonymous submissions would not name any individual or any specific newspaper. About 20 journalists have submitted anonymous evidence to the inquiry, due to be heard by Lord Leveson from the week beginning Monday 25 January.
Faulty breast implants made by French firm Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) has continued to raise alarm this week. Politicians and lawyers acting for women fitted with the implants have claimed that the private health clinics had a statutory duty under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, to ensure the products they supplied were of satisfactory quality. Cosmetic surgery firms had suggested that the Government has a moral responsibility to pay for surgery to replace the French-made implants, because health regulators failed to identify the problem. I can see this issue raging on as individual cases come to light.
With several big headlines dominating the legal world over the process of this week, I took some interest in a development that would no doubt have a major effect in certain family law cases. The Family Justice Council (FJC) has published new guidelines on children giving live evidence in family proceedings. In March 2010, the Supreme Court removed the presumption that only in exceptional cases should a child be called to give live evidence in family proceedings. The new guidelines advise all legal representatives to act with a sense of responsibility when questioning a child witness.
Richard O'Dwyer’s extradition case had ended in defeat for the 23 year old Computer Science graduate from Sheffield Hallam university. US authorities claim that he hosted links to copyrighted material. District Judge Quentin Purdy rejected all three of the defence’s arguments against extradition, including the claim that O'Dwyer would not get a fair trial in the United States, and that if a crime had been committed he should be prosecuted in Britain.
Internationally, what constitutes a human right had been debated once again this week through a curious story about whether access to internet forms a basic human right. Back in June 2011, a UN report had cited blocking and filtering measures imposed by states that would deny users access to specific content on the Internet. The report had concluded that disconnecting people from the internet is a human rights violation and against international law. Last week, Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the Internet had argued in a New York Times artcle that internet access could not be a basic human right. However, this week there seemed to have been a spate of rebuttals, in particular within the technology related online media. I am yet to conclude on this issue myself.
The important human rights issues that I noted with interest were news of the 10th anniversary of the US military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba), the anti-Arab Citizenship Law in Israel, Chinese police raiding the home of human rights activist Hu Jia and the Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's aquital from sexual misconduct charges. In India the government sanction for prosecution of 21 international firms including the likes of Google and Facebook is an extremely interesting case. The firms are charged with accusation that material on social networking sites could instigate public enmity and even endanger India's unity. I followed with fascination a first amendment related case in the US supreme court where the Chief Justice had decided that although protecting employee rights against discrimination is important, the first amendment dictates that the right to exercise ones religion freely is more important.
Once again, I thank the legal representatives, journalists, web editors and publications I have cited, and linked, for allowing me to compose this week's Sunday Law Review. I welcome readers to highlight any critical omissions, offer factual corrections or discuss the issues raised in my review.
Since it is his birthday, I 'd like to end this review by wishing a very happy birthday to one of my TheLawMap associates, Dr Barber!
© TTR
