Sir Robin Knowles QC was allegedly mugged by man clutching champagne bottle stolen from chambers A top judge who was the victim of a mugging just a stone’s throw from the Royal Courts of Justice received a kiss on the cheek courtesy of the thief, a court has heard. Terry Brown, 45, from Bethnal Green, London, is accused of mugging Sir Robin Knowles CBE QC at approximately 9.30pm on 27 September last year. Brown allegedly told the top judge to hand over cash while he was making his way home along the historic Middle Temple Lane. Now, in an incredibly bizarre twist to this sorry tale, the Evening Standard is reporting that Knowles “appears to have been kissed on the cheek by the mugger as he fled.” Prosecutor Michael Williams told Inner London Crown Court that Knowles, a High Court judge in the Queen’s Bench Division since 2014, was approached by a man “holding a champagne bottle by its neck” and told to hand over his wallet. Having parted with around £140 in cash, the Cambridge-educated judge reportedly told the court earlier today:
Incredibly, Knowles — who was a barrister at South Square Chambers, where he specialised in financial law, contract law and company law — then helped the mugger escape after he was unable to get through the security gate that leads out onto The Strand. But the bizarre story doesn’t stop there. According to the report, it is also claimed that Brown stole the champagne bottle he was clutching during the mugging from Lamb Building chambers earlier that same evening. Williams told the court a man was caught on CCTV entering the long-established common law set, where barristers and clerks were enjoying a seminar and drinks reception. Having apparently been spotted grabbing a coat, he was then confronted by a member of staff. Continuing, Williams told the court:
Brown, who was not present in court, denies robbery and burglary. The trial continues. Comments on this article are closed for legal reasons. For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub here. The post High Court judge ‘kissed on the cheek’ during Middle Temple Lane robbery, court hears appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/05/high-court-judge-kissed-on-the-cheek-during-middle-temple-lane-robbery-court-hears/
0 Comments
Regulator hopes the move will encourage more gender diversity within the profession The Bar Standards Board (BSB) has thrown its support behind a new policy that will allow self-employed barristers to take a career break following the birth or adoption of a child. Approved at a meeting last week, the proposals allow members of chambers to have a minimum of one year off work “regardless of whether their spouse or partner takes parental leave.” However, the BSB stressed that barristers would not be obliged to take the full entitlement. As things currently stand, employed barristers — who usually work in an organisation or business as opposed to a chambers — do have the option to share parental leave. However, chambers are under no obligation to do the same for their members, who are self-employed. The scheme — which was the subject of a BSB consultation that concluded in February — would be available to “all mothers, fathers, and adoptive parents, as well as the married, civil, and de facto partners of biological or adoptive parents.” The policy still requires overall approval from the Legal Services Board before it can be officially rolled out. Commenting on the proposed changes, BSB director of strategy and policy Ewen MacLeod said:
The BSB’s parental leave plans come at the same time the regulator hunts for a new chairperson. Current chair Sir Andrew Burns has held the top spot since 2015 and will step down in December. Keen to hear from worthy replacements, the BSB confirmed that a job advertisement will be listed on its site next month. Paying tribute to the outgoing chair, the director general of the BSB, Dr Vanessa Davies, said:
Are you currently working at the bar? Why not take Legal Cheek’s short anonymous barrister survey here. For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub here. The post BSB approves shared parental leave scheme for self-employed barristers appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/05/bsb-approves-shared-parental-leave-scheme-for-self-employed-barristers/ QC crowdfunded £70,000 Tax specialist and Devereux Chambers’ barrister Jo Maugham QC has announced on his blog that his Irish High Court Brexit challenge has been discontinued. Maugham — along with Green Party politicians and fellow claimants Jonathan Bartley, Keith Taylor and Steven Agnew — had hoped the Dublin court would refer two Brexit questions to the European Court of Justice. These questions, the silk explained on the case’s crowdfunding page, are:
There’s clearly an appetite for these legal questions. As we reported last year, just shy of 2,000 donors pledged more than £70,000 to the campaign when it launched in December.
Directions in the case were agreed in April, but Maugham has now announced it will not go to a full hearing. This, he explained in his blog, is because the claimants have regretfully agreed the litigation should be discontinued. He explained:
This has consequences, one of which is the case’s timing. Seeking referral to the Court of Justice isn’t a quick process, and Maugham noted the claimants “might not have a decision on the questions referred much in advance of the date (October 2018) by which both David Davis and Michel Barnier have said negotiations would need to be concluded.” The second is costs. Hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees would need to be raised for the case to continue. Perhaps Maugham and co could obtain this cash, but he said: “I do not want to seek to raise such a substantial sum of money unless I can be satisfied that to spend it for the stated object is prudent. And I regret that I am not.” So what’s going to happen to the money that’s already been crowdfunded? Speaking to Legal Cheek this morning, Maugham said:
He continued:
Though the case has attracted some scepticism, lawyers have been quick to share their condolences with Maugham. Employment law and human rights silk Schona Jolly said:
While legal affairs journalist Joshua Rozenberg tweeted:
For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub here. The post Brexit: Jolyon Maugham’s Irish High Court challenge has been discontinued appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/05/brexit-jolyon-maughams-irish-high-court-challenge-has-been-discontinued/ Could you answer it? Final year law students at the University of Cambridge were asked to write down what the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU might look like post-Brexit in what’s been described as “an absolute nightmare” of an exam. The three-hour EU law exam — which LLB-ers sat on Thursday at 1.30pm — asked students to choose four questions to answer out of ten. As a spokesperson for the elite university reiterated: “no single question was compulsory in this exam.” Question 2 (pictured above) in particular seems to have caused the most confusion, according to a number of students who sat the exam and subsequently contacted Legal Cheek. The question was split into two parts, 2a and 2b, with the latter asking students to analyse a comment from Oxford professor — and Legal Cheek interviewee — Paul Craig. Question 2a read: ‘We will pursue a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. This agreement should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services between Britain and the EU’s member states. It should give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets — and let European businesses do the same in Britain. But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the Single Market.’ (THERESA MAY, 2017). Consider what form this new relationship between the UK and the EU might take. Tough one — in the words of one student, this question “went beyond the bounds of what must be considered reasonable.” He continued:
A University of Cambridge spokesperson responded:
The spokesperson continued:
So, could you answer it? For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub here. The post Exclusive: Cambridge law students asked to consider what Theresa May’s Brexit deal might look like in ‘nightmare’ EU exam appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/05/exclusive-cambridge-law-students-asked-to-consider-what-theresa-mays-brexit-deal-might-look-like-in-nightmare-eu-exam/ Suella Fernandes shares her thoughts from the campaign trail Barack Obama, Sadiq Khan, Marine Le Pen — former lawyers make up some of the biggest names in world politics, and many more are running for election on 8 June. Did you know Chuka Umunna, Keir Starmer, Bob Neill, Emily Thornberry and Nicola Sturgeon are all qualified solicitors or barristers? There are other names to add to the list, and we wanted to meet them. In the first piece in our snap election series, we speak to Suella Fernandes, a former barrister who is running for re-election this summer. From constitutional law to a Hampshire constituency, Suella Fernandes makes transitioning from law to politics sound seemless. “Being a barrister and being an MP are quite similar,” she says. “You take on the casework of your constituents just as you handle cases as a barrister. You are dealing with people who are wanting to challenge decisions, who are asking for help to get better housing or get a decision about their child’s special needs reversed. I have to be their advocate and argue their case for them.” The current Conservative candidate for Fareham in Hampshire once practised judicial review, planning and immigration law at No5 Chambers before switching to being an MP after her success in the 2015 election. Then, Fernandes won 56.1% of the vote with a majority of 22,262. She is running again in 2017, hoping to continue her tenure in Fareham for the next five years.
Fernandes says that there are other matching skills too where being a barrister has given her some great experience to rely on: “It’s about knowing how to scrutinise legislation. We are given draft laws by government and we have to be able to look at it line by line and focus in on particular wording and so on. A barrister background is fantastic for that.” Of course MPs come from all walks of life — such as business, teaching and so on — and Fernandes says that legal skills are not the crux of it. She thinks:
The 37-year-old’s legal education began at Queens’ College, Cambridge which was, she says, “a great privilege” not least because supervision was so “distinctive”. There were small groups of students for each tutor so undergrads were getting “very intensive face time” with an expert. Fernandes says this gave her “confidence in asking questions and presenting yourself.” A fluent French speaker, Fernandes also spent a year out as part of the Erasmus scheme at the University of Poitiers in France. She feels this was “the best year of my whole student experience, immersed in a new culture, in a different — and very international — society.” Her undergrad studies in constitutional and administrative law sowed the seeds for her interest in politics but also helped her in a more direct, practical way (which is good to know for anyone who sometimes wonders ‘what is the point of all this studying?’). As a practising barrister, something she successfully did for a decade or so, Fernandes says that there were times when she “dusted off my text books and my undergrad notes to help me with a case!” Despite being a sitting Conservative MP, the snap election came as a surprise to Fernandes (so it was not just the rest of us, then!). But she is fully confident in the PM and her team. As an MP, Fernandes has had the opportunity to work on issues which concern and interest her — that is the privilege of being in parliament. As part of that, she has been campaigning for family justice reform. She recently presented a private members bill on this. She explains: “In private law cases, for instance, fathers are often air-brushed out of the lives of their children because court orders dealing with access and arrangements are often ignored by the mother; and then the courts don’t enforce the original orders.” The bill has come to a standstill as parliament has now been dissolved to make way for the election; that is, perhaps, the more frustrating side of politics. A political life does appear to have started pretty early for Fernandes. She was active in her university and a member of its Conservative association. For any law student who is similarly gripped by a political life, Fernandes has this to say:
For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub here. The post Snap election series: The bar is ‘excellent groundwork’ for life as an MP, says lawyer turned Conservative candidate appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/05/snap-election-series-the-bar-is-excellent-groundwork-for-life-as-an-mp-says-lawyer-turned-conservative-candidate/ The morning’s top legal affairs news stories Workers have few rights in the “gig economy”. Only Labour will change this [The Guardian] The chilling law that is silencing the Tories’ opponents [The Mirror] Here’s what we learned from Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn’s “Battle For Number 10” show [BuzzFeed] Manchester attack: Home Secretary forced to defend using new anti-terror power just once [The Independent] Unlikely White House counsel at the centre of Trump drama [Financial Times] Tories pledge new law over domestic violence directed at children [The Guardian] Lord Janner sex abuse case “collapses” as six more claimants abandon legal action [The Telegraph] Judge fumes at multi-millionaire dad who owns six properties but pays a measly £7-a-WEEK in child support [The Sun] A state school educated barrister is the first criminal lawyer in Liverpool to be appointed Queen’s Counsel in seven years [Liverpool Echo] Defamation cases slump to nine-year low [Law Society Gazette] “Yah, the trouble is that “hard work” is not where it is at with law firms.” [Legal Cheek Comments] Apply to attend: The Legal Cheek and Shearman & Sterling General Election debate [Legal Cheek Hub] The post Morning round-up: Tuesday 30 May appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/05/morning-round-up-tuesday-30-may/ The Texas Legislature erupted in chaos on Monday, the last day of the legislative session, amid large protests in the State Capitol building, and threats between lawmakers, the Texas Tribune reported. Hundreds of protesters dressed in red t-shirts gathered in the Texas House gallery carrying banners and signs and chanting in opposition to Senate Bill 4, the so-called "sanctuary cities" ban signed into law earlier this month by Governor Greg Abbot. State Rep. Matt Rinaldi from Irving, Texas said that he called Immigration and Customs Enforcement on the protesters, some of whom, he says, were carrying signs that read "I am illegal and here to stay." The protests became so loud that the House had to take a break from activities and the Department of Public Safety decided to clear the protesters from the gallery. During the break, some Democratic lawmakers looked up to the protesters and clapped, Texas House Democrats told The Texas Tribune.
An altercation between Rinaldi and several House Democrats, many of whom were Hispanic, took place shortly after. The lawmakers told the Tribune that Rinaldi came up to them repeatedly and said he had called ICE "to have all these people deported" and yelled "F—k them" and "F—k you." Rinaldi said that he was angry because the lawmakers were "bragging" about the protesters breaking House rules, which prohibit any display of support or opposition from the gallery. “We jawed back and forth and one of them physically assaulted me and another threatened my life, actually,” Rinaldi told the Tribune. In a statement, Rinaldi claimed that state Rep. Poncho Nevàrez of Eagle Pass threatened his life and told him that he would "get [him] on the way to [his] car." Here's video of the altercation:
Nevàrez told the Tribune that he didn't threaten Rinaldi's life, but suggested that they take their argument out of the House floor. "He's a liar and hateful man. Got no use for him. God bless him," Nevàrez tweeted later. Rinaldi said in a statement that he told Nevàrez he would "shoot him in self-defense" if Nevàrez acted on the perceived threat.
SB4, set to take effect Sept. 1, will allow police officers to question people on their immigration statuses if they are arrested or detained. It will also allow local officials to be charged with a Class A misdemeanor if they knowingly fail to comply with federal requests to detain suspected unauthorized immigrants. Many of the Democratic lawmakers said Rinaldi's action was a "perfect example" of the problem with SB4. "Matt Rinaldi looked into the gallery and saw Hispanic people and automatically assumed they were undocumented, state Rep. Ramon Romero of Fort Worth told the Tribune. "He racially profiled every single person that was in the gallery today. He created the scenario that so many of us fear." Authorities soon broke up the protest in the gallery, with protesters continuing outside the state capitol building. SEE ALSO: Texas and its cities are already suing each other over the state's ban on 'sanctuary cities' Join the conversation about this story » from http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-legislature-lawmakers-threaten-immigration-news-sanctuary-cities-ice-2017-5 The White House's credibility crisis continues to deepen, and experts say it may now reach one of the few remaining independent voices in the Trump administration: national security adviser H.R. McMaster. After former national security adviser Michael Flynn was forced to resign in February when it emerged that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about contacts he'd had with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign, McMaster arrived to right the ship. His selection was especially notable because many saw him as the antithesis to Flynn. He was brought in as someone who was beyond reproach. "He was brought in as someone who was beyond reproach, who wasn't in [President Donald] Trump's inner circle, had a stellar reputation, and was supposed to be distanced from Trump," said Jon Michaels, a professor and expert on national security at UCLA Law. Like Secretary of Defense James Mattis, McMaster was revered by his troops while serving as a general in the Marine Corps and earned a great deal of respect from soldiers. He is an expert on military strategy, counterinsurgency, and history, and is not known for being a 'yes' man. "Put simply: McMaster isn't a political guy, unlike other officers who are trying to jockey for position and move up their careers," Business Insider's Paul Szoldra wrote after Trump chose him. McMaster has historically "been willing to risk an awful lot to speak truth to power," said Claire Finkelstein, a professor and Director at the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. But the former Army Lieutenant General has come under fire in recent days, as the White House was hit with a flurry of news stories that raised more questions about the Trump camp's ties to Russia. Now, experts are beginning to question if McMaster's role has become dangerously politicized, and whether that could pose a threat to the US' national security. Typically an apolitical positionWhen The Washington Post broke an explosive report in which intelligence officials alleged that Trump shared highly-classified information with Russian officials during an Oval Office meeting, McMaster went in front of cameras to call the story false as reported and to defend the president's actions as "wholly appropriate." His defense came as intelligence officials expressed deep concerns about Trump's handling of sensitive information, as well as the risks it posed to Israel, the source of the intel and a key US ally. Though the national security adviser is a political appointee — in that he is chosen by the president — the role has historically been relatively apolitical when compared to that of other White House staff. This is because the national security adviser has "enormous influence" over issues of war and peace, and presidents of both parties have tried to keep political concerns away from that area, according to Robert Deitz, a former top lawyer for the National Security Agency and the CIA. Experts say there is some justification for McMaster speaking out in this case, because he was brought out to address a national security concern. "The Trump-Russia controversy touches international politics in a way that others do not. ... If you're talking about whether Russia influenced the US elections, if you're talking about the US president meeting with Russian officials and giving them classified information — that is hardcore foreign policy stuff, and McMaster has, or at least had, very high credibility in that area," Deitz said. "So it seems logical that he would be pushed out to lead that parade." Did it assuage concerns our allies may have had about sharing intelligence? Probably not. But choosing him as a spokesperson may have done more harm than good. In this case, McMaster's "going before the press didn't do anything to limit" fallout from revelations that Trump disclosed code-word information to the Russians, Michaels said. "At the end of the day, are we now all saying, 'Oh, OK, everything's all hunky-dory because McMaster stood up there'? Did it assuage concerns our allies may have had about sharing intelligence? Probably not." Deitz concluded that Trump doesn't have many alternatives to McMaster. "If you look at people in this White House and compare them to people in the Obama or Bush White House," he said, "there are not that many people who have terribly high credibility." Michaels echoed that assessment and highlighted the unique circumstances the Trump administration faces. "Almost everything right now feels new and different," he said. "The fact that McMaster has to go out and talk about what the president may or may not have said about [former FBI director] Comey ... all of this stuff feels weird and unusual, and I doubt many national security advisers have been called in to do this particular type of rebuttal or contextualization." "There are only so many people in the White House who are taken credibly at this point, and McMaster is one of them," he added. "So it's a trade off." If anything, experts say McMaster's selection as the White House's point man following the Post's report likely diminished his credibility and the credibility of the US in the process, and it also appeared to politicize a national security issue. Glenn Carle, a former CIA operative and national security expert, compared McMaster's selection to former President Bill Clinton's decision to have female Cabinet members speak out on his behalf during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. "A lot of the women involved resented that and thought it was inappropriate, and Clinton was widely criticized for politicizing them because they were females," Carle said. "Here, McMaster was politicized because he's a general." And while the credibility of White House operatives like Kellyanne Conway and press secretary Sean Spicer has taken a hit since Trump assumed office, the risks of McMaster losing credibility are significantly greater given his position as the chief national security consultant. 'Not McMaster's finest moment'Experts say that McMaster is likely aware of the delicate situation he's in. McMaster's loyalties are "naturally divided," Finkelstein said. "He probably feels like he owes the president, as commander-in-chief, the greatest loyalty he can summon up under the circumstances. But I'm also guessing that standing in that room with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador, he felt that he himself was in a fairly compromised position." There have been other instances where that internal discrepancy may have been evident. Shortly after news broke that Trump had reportedly called Comey a "real nut job," and said firing him had taken "great pressure" off during the Oval Office meeting with Russian officials, McMaster appeared on ABC's "This Week" on May 21. The White House has not disputed the report. When host George Stephanopoulos asked McMaster about why Trump made comments about the FBI's Russia probe to Kremlin officials, McMaster said Trump "feels as if he is hamstrung in his ability to work with Russia" because of media coverage around the topic. "It's very difficult to take a few lines, to take a paragraph out of what appear to be notes of that meeting, and to be able to see the full context of the conversation," he added. That interview was "not McMaster's finest moment," Finkelstein said, adding that it likely reflected his need "to act within the military chain of command, while also being aware that these actions and remarks by the president are extremely dangerous for the country." 'If the national security adviser is seen as a stooge or lackey ...'McMaster is still the most independent voice in the White House, experts say, but if he continues ceding ground to the political wing, it may affect the relationship between the administration and the military. "The go-between on military matters are the joint chiefs and the national security adviser," Michaels said. "If the national security adviser is seen as a stooge or lackey of an administration that the military may be wary of, it's going to diminish [McMaster's] capacity to be seen as a reliable person to call in the White House for critical issues." And that logic applies to foreign affairs, too. "It's not surprising when a politician or statesman presents a favorable interpretation of an issue for the administration," Carle said. But when the national security adviser goes in front of cameras and says something that is "just not true, that harms the US' ability to interact successfully and win the support of our foreign interlocutors." "Truly, your word is very important" when dealing with national security, Carle said, adding that credibility is among the chief concerns allies consider when deciding which and how much intelligence to share with another country. The US' national security apparatus relies not just on heads of state calling each other, Michaels said, but on networks of high-ranking bureaucrats like McMaster whose credibility is crucial to keeping things running. "There's no more critical moment for that than now," he said, "given the lack of credibility and expertise of the commander-in-chief." And in the event that the US is thrust into a genuine national security crisis and McMaster comes out to talk to the public or to the US' allies about it, Deitz said, "the question people are going to have in the back of their minds is, 'Are we getting this straight or is this just a political job?'" McMaster is still a very respected figure, Finkelstein said. "But he will lose all efficacy as a protector of national security if he simultaneously loses that independent voice he was known to have." SEE ALSO: Experts: Trump is edging closer to 'impeachment territory' DON'T MISS: 'Things keep getting worse for the White House': Trump may hire a private attorney amid the Russia firestorm Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Here's why the American flag is reversed on military uniforms from http://www.businessinsider.com/mcmaster-trump-white-house-credibility-crisis-2017-5 Google officials were in federal court on Friday to defend its pay practices, pushing back against government allegations that it underpays its women employees. But if the tech giant hoped to prove its fairness to the world, it didn't exactly win many fans with one of its major lines of reasoning. According to a report by The Guardian's Sam Levin, Google's budget-minded lawyers argued in court that the government was being unreasonable in demanding that Google collect and turn over internal compensation data. Why? The money. Complying with a request by the US Department of Labor would be too expensive and too logistically difficult, Google's lawyers reportedly argued. The job would apparently require 500 hours of work and cost $100,000. Note that Google is the world's No.1 internet search engine, with $92 billion in cash and short-term securities on the balance sheet of its parent company, Alphabet. And given that Alphabet made $6.8 billion in profit before taxes in just the first quarter of 2017, according to Google Finance, the DoL attorney at Friday's court hearing couldn't resist a snarky response, saying "Google would be able to absorb the cost as easy as a dry kitchen sponge could absorb a single drop of water," Levin reports. The US Department of Labor (DoL) has previously accused Google of “systemic compensation disparities." The DoL has filed a lawsuit to compel Google to turn over its internal compensation data. Because Google is a federal contractor, it is required by law to submit employment data to the government as part of routine compliance procedures to prove it is not violating equal employment laws, the DoL says. Occupational segregationGoogle has consistently denied the accusations that it underpays women and it even tweeted in April that it "closed the gender pay gap globally" meaning it pays women and men equally for equal work worldwide, it says. Its HR site also released a guide that instructs others how they can do the same, including the step called "run a pay analysis." Presumably, this means that Google already has loads of salary data in a form that allows it to be analyzed, at least internally. After the suit went public, job hunting site Glassdoor released its own analysis of Google's pay based on the self-reported salaries submitted by employees. For what it's worth, Glassdoor sided with Google, finding no evidence that Google underpays for equal work. However, Glassdoor also found that women overall at Google are still paid 16% less than the men. That's because, of the women who work at Google, fewer of them have roles within the highest paying jobs at Google. It's a situation called "occupational segregation," and it's a common reason why women earn less than men across the economy, not just at Google, Glassdoor's Chief Economist, Dr. Andrew Chamberlain told Business Insider. In any case, folks on Twitter are not buying the argument that Google can't afford to dig up the salary data that the government is requesting.
SEE ALSO: The alarming inside story of a failed Google acquisition, and an employee who was hospitalized Join the conversation about this story » NOW WATCH: Former Navy SEAL commanders explain why they still wake up at 4:30 a.m. — and why you should, too from http://www.businessinsider.com/google-argument-for-not-turning-over-pay-data-to-department-of-labor-2017-5 Two of the applications received legal support from students at Northumbria University and BPP Law School A top judge has said she’s very concerned about the use of McKenzie friends, after she heard a number of unsuccessful criminal appeal cases which received support from law students. In a ruling published earlier this week, Lady Justice Hallett stated that the term ‘McKenzie friend’ — non-qualified persons who assist litigants — “is not appropriate in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD).” Hallet, vice-president of the CACD, called for clearer guidance on the matter and suggested that terms such as “applicant’s friend” or “applicant’s helper” might well be more appropriate. She said:
The top judge made the comments after hearing four renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction that had been listed together because each defendant had been assisted by a non-qualified third party. The ruling in R v Conaghan & Ors reveals that one defendant received support from a “McKenzie type friend,” while another was assisted by his wife. Interestingly, the remaining two defendants received legal assistance from law students at Northumbria University and BPP Law School’s Criminal Appeal Project, respectively. Both sets of law students had arranged for barristers to represent their clients in court on a pro bono basis, however BPP’s counsel was unable to attend and applications for adjournment were refused. Continuing her assault on McKenzie friends, Hallett said:
She duly rejected all four applications for leave to appeal. A spokesperson for Northumbria University told Legal Cheek:
BPP Law School declined to comment. Hallett’s comments come just weeks after a University of Westminster law student launched a website that allows litigants-in-person (LIPs) to hire out wannabe lawyers for as much as £100 a day. ‘McKenzie Friends Marketplace’ aimed to match law students wanting to gain hands-on legal experience with members of the public who are unable to afford the services of a fully-qualified lawyer. However, just days later and following a wave of criticism, the site’s creator, Fraser Matcham, was forced to ban “active students” from giving legal advice as part of the scheme. Read the ruling in full below:For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub here. The post ‘It’s not appropriate’: Top judge expresses concern over McKenzie friends after hearing criminal appeals prepared by law students appeared first on Legal Cheek. from https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/05/its-not-appropriate-top-judge-expresses-concern-over-mckenzie-friends-after-hearing-criminal-appeals-prepared-by-law-students/ |
AuthorHi I am Alana Smith 35 years old living in New York. I am working as an assistant in local law office. I like to share legal news with people to educate them. Archives
April 2019
Categories |