Justice Matters

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”). 

Are the criminal courts the best place for intellectual property owners to protect their rights, asks Alex Stein 

In January 2010 Alan Ellis was unanimously acquitted of a charge of conspiracy to defraud based on his activities as creator and supervisor of the peer-to–peer (“P2P”) file sharing website oink.cd. He was the first person to be prosecuted for such activities in the UK. The website which operated between 2004 and 2007 utilised BitTorrent technology allowing members to share files (mainly music but with some books) between themselves. The site was by far the most popular UK based file sharing site. It generated around £150,000 in donations, attracted in the region of 600,000 members and facilitated 21 million downloads. Ellis, who was only 21 when he started the site, ran it from his bedroom in shared student digs. 

Justin Rushbrooke argues that the manner in which the last government sought to reduce success fees in defamation cases was ill conceived. The irony is, he says, had a more moderate approach been adopted, meaningful reform would have been possible 

The Conditional Fee Agreements (Amendment) Order 2010, which sought to reduce the maximum “uplift” in defamation and privacy cases from 100 per cent to 10 per cent, had a short and inglorious life. It was ill-considered, rushed through with unseemly haste by the former Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, and his colleagues; and, in the end, counter-productive. As with much of the debate that surrounds media law issues, it was bedevilled by ignorance, exaggeration and muddled thinking. The irony is that had Mr Straw adopted a more moderate approach to what was, on his own account, only supposed to be an interim measure, he would have been able to achieve meaningful reform of a kind that nearly everyone agreed was warranted. But the manner in which it was handled cannot help but give rise to a suspicion that, with a general election looming and a government in need of friends in the media, appearance always mattered more than substance. 

Simone Paissoni outlines the tax issues involved in owning a property in France 

France is a wonderful country, but complex at all levels, and it excels in its complexity regarding the taxation of real estate.
Anyone who dreams of owning that “petit bijou” in the sun or the city, knows that the costs and duties on purchase amount to six or seven per cent, but what about after completion? What does the new owner have to worry about? What about on sale, or gift or death—how are such events treated tax wise in France? 

In Re W the Supreme Court reformulated the approach a family court should take when exercising its discretion to decide whether to order a child to give live evidence in family proceedings. However many questions still remain unanswered,  believes Chris McWatters 

 Most barristers would consider it a travesty of justice if they were not allowed to cross-examine a complainant who had made allegations against their client, especially if those unchallenged allegations were believed by a court. 

The DPP’s guidelines on assisting suicide are welcomed but are unlikely to make a fundamental difference to the way the CPS handles suspects, suggests Nicholas Kazaz 

On 25 February 2010 Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, issued “The Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide”, which sets out the guidelines that must be followed in respect of cases of assisting suicide. 

Three years on from the Corston Report, Kim Hollis QC, who has recently visited Styal Prison, outlines the implications of sending women, many of whom have children, to prison 

In 2007 the Corston Report: a review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system (“the Corston Report”), commissioned by the Home Secretary following the deaths of six women at Styal Prison in Cheshire, took a hard look at whether and for how long women needed to be sent to prison. Baroness Corston recommended the immediate establishment of an Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group for women who offend to govern a new Commission and to drive forward an agenda properly to address specific issues relating to women’s criminality, and with a visible direction in respect of women in custody. She further crucially recommended that custodial sentences/remands into custody for women must be reserved only for serious and violent offenders who pose a “threat to the public”. 

Paul Mendelle QC and Ali Naseem Bajwa argue that safety interviews should only be conducted when it is absolutely necessary to do so 

There is a growing trend in terrorism investigations to conduct one or more interviews with a suspect in circumstances where he does not enjoy his usual minimum statutory rights. These interviews have no formal title and the term “safety interview” does not appear in any Code of Practice. They would be more accurately described as “urgent interviews” but investigators and courts usually refer to interviews conducted in these circumstances as “safety interviews”; accordingly, for the sake of consistency, we too shall use that term. 

The practice of conducting safety interviews is controversial and open to abuse. Moreover, there is a degree of uncertainty amongst lawyers, the public and even investigators as to what a safety interview is, what rules govern its conduct and admissibility and the value of such an interview. Each of these issues will be addressed in this article. 

With the general election looming, Richard Gordon QC argues that the price of restored trust in democracy may be a codified constitution 

Is it time for the UK to have a written constitution? In suggesting that we had no constitution, the 19th Century French political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville was wrong. Britain does have a constitution but it is old-fashioned, top-down and—as far as the rest of the free, democratic world is concerned—of a fast-disappearing kind. 

What causes confusion is that, unlike us, nearly all democratic States have a written (in the sense of codified) constitution. Only Israel and New Zealand join us in relying on a nebulous body of rules, some contained in Acts of Parliament, some in constitutional conventions, some scattered around in the most diverse sources. The expenses scandal and the ensuing loss of trust in politics led many (myself included) to think we needed fundamental change. 

Adrian Hughes QC and Steven Thompson discuss the Bar Council’s engagement with China’s rapidly developing legal market.  

Change in China has been rapid and extraordinary since the first visit of a Bar Council delegation 20 years ago. At that time, the Pu Dong commercial area of Shanghai was still marshland and the emerging Chinese legal profession entering only its second decade. Now, as the main image of Pu Dong’s financial district shows (see below), the landscape is completely different.