Features

There are lessons for the Bar in this musical, believes David Wurtzel. 

Legally Blonde (Savoy Theatre) proves that good new musicals can still be written. They can also be performed by your favourite television stars who are indeed able to sing, dance and do dialogue (with occasional breathlessness) on stage. The combination is perfect: the women steal the show, the men provide the eye candy and the audience, who greet it with remarkable knowingness, gives it a standing ovation. You do not have to have seen the movie and I suspect that I am glad that I didn’t. It is easier to suspend disbelief in a theatre than in the cinema. Legally Blonde belongs in a theatre. Luckily, the entire cast led by Sheridan Smith with wonderful star quality and timing, plays it straight, though with gays, a lesbian and sexual harassment, straight may not be quite the word. 

Is it possible to challenge extradition requests based on the right to family life following Norris, asks Abigail Bright 

Nobody has yet successfully challenged an extradition request made under a bilateral extradition treaty on the grounds that the extradition would breach the person’s right to respect for private and family life, as guaranteed by art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within the territory of the respondent state. In Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 the Supreme Court – unanimously – rejected Ian Norris’ argument that extradition to the USA would be incompatible with his right to a private and family life in the UK. Nevertheless, Norris provides overdue guidance on when such a challenge may succeed.  

Name: Andrew Argyle
Position: CEO
Chambers:  Zenith Chambers 

Later this year anyone who is arrested in Europe will be able to find out about their legal rights – in their own language – online. Amanda Pinto QC discusses what the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe project involves 

The European Commission has decided to provide a pan-European project enabling those who come into contact with the criminal justice system in another member state to find out about their rights in their own language. 

Edited by Chris Miele
Merrell Publishers; Hardback (April 2010); £35
ISBN: 1858945070 

This book is one of the best things to come out of the transformation of the Middlesex Guildhall from a Crown Court into the Supreme Court. Lavishly illustrated with superb photographs, plans and drawings, it is also a wonderful read. There are eight essays from, amongst others, Lady Hale, Lord Bingham, and top notch art and architectural historians. Together they explain the judicial functions of the House of Lords leading to the creation of the Supreme Court, the history of the building and its predecessors on this site, the architecture of the present Guildhall together with its glorious decorative arts and sculpture inside and out, and the iconography of supreme courts in the common law world which over the decades has moved from imperial grandeur to glass box transparency. 

David Wurtzel finds that the records kept in the Bar Council library contain a real treasure trove of the Bar Council’s history.  

Although the law is based on precedent, the least well known part of the Bar Council premises is its library, situated in the basement and presided over since 1994 by the librarian, the splendid Rosa Munoz. “I call myself the keeper of the memory of the Bar Council. The Bar Council is a series of committees where decisions are made,” she said before I began my trawl through some of the treasures which she has preserved, conserved and kept safe for the future—Bar Council minutes, committee papers, news, notices, Bar News, Counsel magazine, historic agreements, Royal Commission reports—in fact the whole written “memory” since the original “Bar Committee” was formed in 1883. From time to time I paused to continue my discussions with Rosa about the Spanish Civil War. Rosa was born in Spain during the Franco era (“our 40 years of shame”) and grew up in an atmosphere where history books were censored, families still stood divided, and opponents of the regime were hidden for decades in order to avoid arrest. She has lived in England since the 1960s, arguably more appreciative than the barristers she came to serve of what the rule of law really means. 

Charlotte Woodhead examines the provisions of the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 

In 12 November 2009 the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”) received Royal Assent and it entered into force on 13 January 2010. This widely welcomed legislation permits the governing bodies of some of the major museums in England and Scotland to return cultural objects to their pre-war owners or their heirs. It therefore provides a means by which to redress the imbalance between claimants seeking return of looted cultural objects from national museums and non-national museums who are not prevented from returning such objects. Whilst the 2009 Act does extend to Wales, no Welsh institutions are listed in the Act. 

There’s more to life than Jazz?  

Charles Hale and Toby Craig consider the impression the new Lord Chancellor is making. 

Major David Hammond and Paul Hoddinott explain the Bar Council’s involvement in ILAC.  

The Bar Council is one of the 44 member organisations that contributes to the running of the International Legal Assistance Consortium (“ILAC”) based in Stockholm, Sweden. Charged with supervising this affiliation, the International Committee recently reviewed the Bar Council’s exposure to and interaction with ILAC. This was to ensure that our relationship remains mutually beneficial and provides key opportunities for interested, qualified and currently available barristers capable of providing pertinent legal assistance to the international community whilst often operating within demanding and unique environments around the globe. 

Defendants are now required to provide written notice of the witnesses they seek to call at trial. Monica Stevenson considers the likely pitfalls 

Over the last decade criminal practitioners have been greeted with a deluge of legislation, the effect of which has been to increase case workloads at the same time as the government has panicked over the cost of paying lawyers to deal with it all.  Continuing the trend is the new requirement that defendants provide written notification of those witnesses they intend to call at trial. This change is ushered in by virtue of s 6(c) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (“CPIA”) (as amended by s 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“CJA 2003”)) which entered the statute books seven years ago but only came into force on 1 May 2010. It is accompanied by regulations, the Notification of Intention to Call Defence Witnesses (Time Limits) Regulations 2010, SI 2010/214 (“the 2010 Regulations”), and a Code of Practice for Conducting Interviews of Witnesses Notified by the Accused (“the Code”).