Features

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”). 

Dr Ann Brady argues that it is time to look again at local judge-directed court mediation schemes. The decision to abolish the Exeter Court Mediation Scheme and replace it with a national mediation scheme was premature, she believes 

Suffering from pains or aches? There are three key areas to focus on, advises Christopher Belderbos 

A starry audience matched by an equally eminent cast, writes David Wurtzel.  

On Sunday, 16 May the Great Hall of the Royal Courts of Justice was packed with people who normally appear there as counsel or sit there as judges. They had come for “The Dunsinane 2”, barrister-turned-writer Peter Moffat’s take on what a trial of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth would have looked like, had it happened in 2010. 

Lesley Bates reports on the Criminal Bar Association’s Spring Conference 

David Wurtzel meets Lord Justice Laws, the 2010 Master Treasurer of Inner Temple, and finds philosophy, politics and the law are closely interrelated 

Anthony Paphiti argues that the decision in Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v UK could mean that armed forces engaged in nation building tasks are saddled with the responsibility of guarding prisoners on behalf of a non-ECHR host nation. This, he says, may hamper the conduct of operations.  

On 2 March 2010 the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”), 4th Section, handed down its opinion in Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v UK (App No 61498/08) (2010) Times, 10 March. The decision has hampered the conduct of operations for armed forces of Council of Europe States, especially those engaged on nation building tasks arising in the aftermath of conflict, which seek to restore the institutions of government and law and order.