Justice Matters

Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson explain the new ground rules for counsel and the recently launched advocacy toolkits designed to help.  

Counsel will need to “up their game” when dealing with vulnerability at court, thanks to recent guidance which requires greater fl exibility and advance planning. New Criminal Procedure Rule 3.8(4)(d) requires courts to take “every reasonable step” to facilitate the participation of witnesses and defendants. This includes ground rules hearings (GRHs), at which the judge, advocates – and intermediary, if any – discuss how a vulnerable person should be questioned, or how a vulnerable defendant can be enabled to participate effectively in the trial. Decision-making at the GRH is given a high profile in the Lord Chief Justice’s Criminal Practice Direction 3E and the Judicial College’s Equal Treatment Bench Book chapter 5, both issued this autumn. While GRHs have been obligatory in intermediary trials since Part F.1 Application for a Special Measures Direction was introduced in 2010, the new guidance emphasises that a GRH should be scheduled in any case involving a vulnerable witness or defendant,  whether or not an intermediary takes part in the trial. 

In his final Court of Appeal judgment as Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge gave significant guidance to counsel on how to conduct a criminal trial. David Wurtzel explains  

At the very moment that the Operation Chalice trial was taking place in Stafford, over in Manchester another trial, equally worrying in terms of advocacy, was underway. R v Farooqi and others [2013] EWCA Crim 1649 concerned a trial of four men charged on a 10-count indictment alleging terrorism and soliciting to murder. 

Just because a witness has lied once does not mean they will always be lying, argues Deborah Gould, who explains the new Guidelines issued after the collapse of the Stafford Case  

In May 2011 the trial of Operation Chalice began at Stafford Crown Court only to collapse 16 weeks later. The first of a string of similar multi-handed trials, the indictment charged counts of sexual abuse, traffi cking, “grooming” and prostitution of numerous teenage girls. 

How does a drug addict who yearns to change their life around do so? HH Michael Baker QC explains one police force’s pioneering scheme.  

Drug addicts do not have an easy life. Class A drugs do not come cheap. Purloined property can only be fenced for a fraction of its value. Thousands of pounds worth of goods may have to be burgled or otherwise nefariously acquired each week in order to feed a Class A drug habit. And the addict is constantly looking over his shoulder, suspicious, insecure and afraid. Not surprisingly many addicts yearn for a quieter, easier and better life. In 2006 Hertfordshire Police pioneered an interviewing technique based on this desire for a changed way of life. By befriending suitable addicts and respecting their aspirations they persuaded them to admit to all their past offending in a series of drive-rounds and interviews. So effective was this that, by the time they got to court, they often had scores – sometimes several hundreds – of offences waiting to be taken into consideration. 

Seeing and Believing? Professor Penny Cooper on observing witness and defendant demeanour  

On September 16 2013 HHJ Peter Murphy gave a ruling in R v D (R)  in relation to the wearing of a niqaab by the defendant during proceedings in the Crown Court. This first instance decision was widely reported in the media and generated discussion about religious freedom (though the judge found that the wearing of the niqaab was not a religious requirement) and to a lesser extent discussion about observing witness and defendant demeanour. 

A Government consultation led to proposals to downgrade the status of Lewisham Hospital. The people of Lewisham took action and set up an Independent Panel of Inquiry. Michael Mansfield QC and Elizabeth Woodcraft explain the role that barristers played.  

In 1945 a remarkable vision was forged. People wanted a fresh start and a continued role in shaping their future. This deeply felt belief was in no way daunted by the paucity of resources nor the exhaustion of war. Intrinsic to this revitalised democracy was a foundation built on universal healthcare, education and access to legal welfare. 

Martin Canny explains recent case law on CPR 17.4(2) and the interaction with the Latent Damage Act 1986  

Building work on Mr Bala Perampalam Chandra’s ill-fated Manchester hotel development project commenced in October 2001, ran significantly over budget in 2002 and came to an abrupt halt in August 2003 when his company’s financiers called in their loans and appointed receivers. Thereafter, his situation worsened as he was fixed with a significant element of the cost overruns incurred after the original contractors were re-appointed to complete the project, in addition to the sums he had personally guaranteed. 

Daniella Waddoup on reforming the criminal defences of insanity and automatism  

The relationship between crime and mental disorder is a complex and multi-faceted one, leaving criminal justice and mental health systems to grapple with a range of difficult questions. These include, but are not limited to, the following: does mental disorder cause crime? Are mentally disordered offenders less culpable by reason of their condition? Are they criminally responsible at all? What role does the severity of mental disorder play? 

Ali Naseem Bajwa QC and Terry McGuinness examine port stops carried out under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000  

In June this year, journalist Glenn Greenwald published in The Guardian newspaper the first of a series of reports detailing US and British mass surveillance programmes, based on documents obtained by the National Security Agency whistleblower, Edward Snowden. On 18 August, Mr Greenwald’s partner and occasional assistant, David Miranda, flying via London from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro was stopped at Heathrow Airport under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Mr Miranda was detained for nine hours, questioned and had various items of electronic equipment seized from him. The link between Mr Greenwald’s publications and Mr Miranda’s detention is undisputed. 

Andrew Otchie reflects upon the Commercial Court’s approach to granting an anti-anti suit injunction  

The jurisdiction to grant a final injunction to prevent the breach of an arbitration clause is provided by s 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which confers upon the court a general power to grant injunctions “in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so”.