Features

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. 

Tom Bingham
Allen Lane; Hardback (February 2010); £20
ISBN 9781846140907 

There is a general, though not universal, feeling that the rule of law is a Good Thing. But it is a notoriously elusive concept, one that can be wheeled out in support of all manner of propositions and one whose meaning, if any, remains something of a mystery. In The Rule of Law, Lord Bingham (“Tom Bingham” in the obligatory demotic) shares his characteristically clear vision of the meaning and value of the concept. Readers who are familiar with his judgments will be delighted to read the characteristically robust and straightforward prose in which he expounds his theme. 

Pupils can follow more than one path to the Bar, advises Melissa Coutino. Split pupillages enable pupils to spend time with an employer and in chambers. They can be an attractive option for all, she believes 

Pupils need to follow a single path” is a generalisation that both some self-employed and employed barristers may be culpable of making. This is not the case. Split pupillages, whereby a pupil spends time with an employer and  with chambers, can be an attractive option. They allow chambers and an employer to share their investment risk, regulatory burden and commitment to training, while benefiting from the work of a person who is keen, bright and eager to qualify.  

David Wurtzel reports on the latest development in the quality assurance assessment process for the Bar.  

This month the Joint Advocacy Group (“JAG”) is due to publish the results of its consultation on standards in advocacy. It will be closely followed by a consultation on the next stage, namely the methods of assessment. In February the Legal Services Commission (“LSC”) produced a Discussion Paper “Quality Assurance for Advocates” which confirms that they are passing the baton to the JAG along with advice, warnings and a complete report on their own experience in running a quality assurance assessment (“QAA”) pilot which was carried out by Cardiff Law School. 

A pupil gives her impression of the pupillage interview process and the insight it provides into life in chambers 

Pupillage: without a doubt the most daunting and challenging hurdle to be overcome on the long and rocky road between university and finally becoming someone’s “learned friend.” For anyone with ambitions to become a barrister the Pupillage Portal Scheme (formerly the Online Pupillage Application System (“OLPAS”)) is fraught with anxiety: either you get it right or you run the pupillage gauntlet again in 12 months time. And it was not until I started pupillage that I thought about it in any other way. Not once had I thought of the hours that it must have taken barristers at the other end to read, mark and order. It was only when I was asked, for this article, to think about the impression different chambers created to me as the interviewee—did I start to think about the whole process a little differently. 

As the pupillage interviewing season commences, a leading criminal set describes how it runs the recruitment process 

Like most chambers, our junior tenants are almost always recruited from our own pupils. Over the last 15 years, we have taken on one or more of our pupils each year. The importance to us of pupillage selection is obvious and the responsibility falls on our Pupillage Committee. 

16 May 2010: “Well, after this I should think nothing of falling down stairs.” Lewis Carroll 

was called to the Bar in the late seventies. A year later I invited an old friend to afternoon tea in Inner Temple: a splendid hour in the common room where delightful crumpets were toasted in a little kitchen. I thought my friend would be impressed. 

Names: Mark Ellison QC and Martin Secrett
Positions: Criminal/Fraud Silk and Senior Clerk
Chambers: QEB Hollis Whiteman 

James Sharpe discusses the stages of a Law Commission project from start to finish 

Although many are aware of the work of the Law Commission (“the Commission”), fewer may be aware of the stages of a Commission project and how its recommendations fit into the overall process of law reform. This article offers an insight by taking the example of the Commission’s Report, “Children: Their Non-Accidental Death or Serious Injury (Criminal Trials)” (Law Com No 279) which was implemented via ss 5 and 6 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. This introduced the offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult. 

Mr Justice Fulford believes that trial by jury would cause insurmountable practical problems in administering justice.  

The most effective means of delivering international criminal justice has long been debated, and perhaps this vexed issue was most vociferously and comprehensively addressed during the relatively recent Preparatory Committee for the International Criminal Court, which culminated in the Rome Conference in 1998. During those memorable – indeed, now near legendary – debates the majority of the countries of the world investigated, wrestled with, and argued over how best to create a workable and appropriate form of trial for the world’s first permanent international criminal court.