London | Frankfurt | Madrid | Milan | Rome

MODERN LAWYERSFOR CHANGING TIMES 'a City firm in a non-City location' - Legal 500

APR
05

Government Reviews Police Cautions

The Government has announced the launch of a review into the way in which cautions are used by the police, in the wake of concerns that they are being used too readily.

There are two types of caution available at present for adults – simple cautions and conditional cautions:

  • A simple caution is an out of court disposal given by the police to adult criminals when specified criteria are met. It is designed to be used for low-level offending.
  • A conditional caution is an out of court disposal with set conditions attached to it with which the offender must comply. If an offender fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the conditions attached to a conditional caution he or she may be prosecuted for the offence for which the conditional caution was originally given. 

The review will focus on the use of cautions for repeat offenders and for those who commit serious crimes. In particular, it will examine:

  • existing guidance and practice relating to the use of simple cautions;
  • whether there are some offence types for which the use of simple cautions is generally inappropriate – and if so, what procedures should be adopted;
  • the reasons why multiple cautions are given to some criminals;
  • the difference in the use of cautions by different police forces and whether increased scrutiny is needed to ensure they are used consistently; and
  • the impact on individuals of accepting a caution including any potential impact on future employment.

The review is due to be completed by the end of May.

Contact our Criminal Lawyers in London

For specialist legal advice and criminal defence in the UK, contact our London criminal lawyers: please contactJeffrey Lewis or Siobhain Egan on 020 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form here.

Continue reading
  3420 Hits
3420 Hits
APR
04

HMRC & Film Tax Partnerships: Important Update – by Siobhain Egan

Have you received either a telephone call or a letter offering settlement in respect of a film tax partnership from HMRC?

What should you do now?

Doubtless you will have seen all the publicity over the last 18 months or so about these tax partnership schemes. Whether it is tax tribunal decisions concerning Ingenious Media, Eclipse Film Partners 35, Patrick Degorce or even the recent prosecution which resulted in five criminal convictions relating to a movie that was never made (Landscapes of Lives)

You will know that HMRC are looking at all film partnership schemes set up in 2003/4 and 2005/06. They will gradually make their way through all schemes set up over the years, and they have a clear view that these schemes have been set up for the purposes of tax avoidance.

We are currently advising investors facing such difficulties; we work with leading tax counsel and specialist tax accountants and can give multi disciplinary advice.

Please see our full update on HMRC and Film Tax Partnerships here, together with contact details for our solicitors.

Continue reading
  1682 Hits
1682 Hits
APR
03

Operation Elveden: a Real Cause for Concern? – by Siobhain Egan

Operation Elveden is the Metropolitan Police investigation into corruption primarily between the press and the police. It is a spin-off of Operation Weeting and is under the overall supervision of the IPCC working with the Crown Prosecution Service.

So far over 60 people have been arrested and have been on bail for lengthy periods, 12 of whom are now facing charges. This is an operation costing anything from £4.5 million to £5 million per annum.

However it’s the more recent developments which are causing us, as defence lawyers, great concern.

There are stories of journalists under surveillance. Journalists such as the Deputy Editor of the Sun, Geoff Webster, are in court today who have not been given full details of the allegations against them. The arrests of senior (former or otherwise) Police officers accused of giving information to the press where no money has change hands at all, such as the arrest of Frank Armstrong, former Assistant Chief Constable of City of London Police, apparently authorised by the IPCC with the involvement of the CPS (which the CPS denies).

There are already deeply disturbing after-effects of this Operation, journalists complain that they are unable to access informal information from police, whistle blowers within the police (and indeed in other public sector organisations) are too frightened to speak to the press because of fear of arrest.

Is this Operation out of control? Is it a question of poor management? Should the IPCC really be in overall control? This is an organisation with a poor track record and is under resourced as it is; one wonders whether they really have the expertise to manage such a large and important investigative operation.

Siobhain Egan is advising a former News of the World journalist who is on bail as a result of Operation Elveden.

Contact us for objective, robust, skilled defence advice.

Continue reading
  1415 Hits
1415 Hits
MAR
28

New drug driving offence

A new offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a concentration of a specified controlled drug in the body above a prescribed limit is being introduced in the Crime and Courts Bill, currently making its way through Parliament.

Drug driving is a growing problem in the UK and, according to Transport Minister Stephen Hammond, is a factor in an estimated 200 road fatalities each year.

The Government commissioned a review of the law relating to drink and drug driving back in 2010 and has been working to tighten the rules since then. The focus of this latest change is on the fact that the existing law seems to be of limited effect in tackling drug driving.

Issues with the current law

At the moment drug driving is dealt with under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which makes it an offence to drive while unfit to do so through drink or drugs.

In practice, however, few prosecutions are actually brought and of those which are initiated, many are eventually thrown out or withdrawn.

This is because of the technical difficulty of securing a conviction for driving while unfit through drugs: to succeed, the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant was driving or in charge of the vehicle; that he was so impaired that he was unfit to drive; and that the impairment affecting him was caused by drugs.

New offence

The Government has therefore decided to introduce a new strict liability offence of driving with a controlled drug in the body – removing the need to prove impairment. This will mirror the position with drink driving, and will run alongside the existing Section 4 offence.

New defence

However, as Stephen Hammond said in a recent statement:

"We must ensure that the new offence would not unduly penalise drivers who have taken properly prescribed or supplied drugs in line with medical advice."

The Crime and Courts Bill therefore gives a defence to people who have driven after taking a controlled drug that has been prescribed or supplied "for medical or dental purposes." To succeed in the defence, that person must have followed the directions given for the use of the drug in question.

It's also worth noting that this defence will not apply to the "old' offence of driving while unfit to do so under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This will still be available to prosecutors.

What is a controlled drug?

The Crime and Courts Bill does not list which drugs will be regarded as controlled drugs, nor the limit of concentration at which they will bring the offence into play. These details are going to be dealt with in separate regulations, currently being developed by the relevant government ministers in England, Wales and Scotland.

However, technical advice on the identity of the specified controlled substances, and the maximum permitted levels of each, is already available. This comes in the form of a report from a specialist panel, published earlier this month.

According to Stephen Hammond, the Government hopes to consult on the draft regulations later in the year.

Contact us for legal advice

For specialist legal advice on any of these issues relating to driving under the influence of drugs or other motoring law issues, contact Lewis Nedas on 02073872032 or complete our online enquiry form here.

Continue reading
  2791 Hits
2791 Hits
MAR
27

Jackson Reforms-A Major Change in Law? by Jasbir Kaur

During a House of Lords debate on 26 February 2013, Lord Beecham was unflinching in his criticism of the proposed implementation date of the Jackson reforms.

He observed:

“My Lords, I always like to be consistent and it certainly would be inconsistent of me not to begin with a complaint about the process here. These regulations come to us some five weeks before they are due to take effect. The Bar Council has drawn attention to this, rightly stressing that a major change in the law, particularly in relation to DBA’s, is being introduced with very little time before they come into effect for people to work out how it is going to be applied”.

The implementation date of 1 April 2013 means there is less than a fortnight for litigants, courts, and practitioners to comprehend what has been described by Lord Beecham, as being a “pretty defective-looking set of regulations”.

So what forms part of the Jackson reforms?

  • Contingency fee agreements (now called "damages-based agreements") will be permissible for all types of litigation;
  • Litigants who have entered into a conditional fee agreement with their lawyer will no longer be able to recover the success fee when they win their case, and similarly after-the event insurance premiums will not be recoverable from the losing side;
  • The disclosure exercise will be tailored to each specific case;
  • There will be a change in respect of a defendant having to pay an additional sum to a claimant where the defendant fails to beat a claimant's Part 36 offer to settle (this reverses Carver v BAA [2008] EWCA Civ 412 in which it was held that where a claimant beat a defendant’s Part 36 offer but only just, the claimant should prima facie pay the costs from the date of this offer);
  • The small claims jurisdiction for cases other than personal injury claims will be increased from £5,000 to £10,000;
  • Claims worth £100,000 or less will no longer be able to be heard in the High Court and so will come before the County Court (the current limit is £25,000);
  • There is more encouragement towards mediation and consideration of schemes for pre-action directions;
  • Judges will be encouraged to use their case management powers more strictly, &
  • Judges will also manage the costs of litigation by approving the parties' budgets for costs.

For those unaware of the implications of the new regulations, they will revoke the 2000 Conditional Fee Agreement Order, which allowed for a means of litigation funding where the solicitor agreed to perform the litigation services for no fee if the litigation is unsuccessful. If, however, the litigation is successful, then the solicitor is entitled to claim an uplift, which is known as a success fee, in addition to their base costs. This uplift is recoverable from the losing defendant.

In his Review of Civil Litigation Costs, Lord Jackson made the point that,

“In some areas of civil litigation costs are disproportionate and impede access to justice. I therefore propose a coherent package of interlocking reforms, designed to control costs and promote access to justice.”

Lord Jackson recommended that the right to recover additional fees from the losing side should be removed, in all cases, and as a result Part 2 Sections 44 – 62 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LAPSO”) will be implemented, which restrict the ability of the claimant, or indeed their legal practitioner, to recover more than their base costs.

It is clear that Rupert Jackson is clearly trying to promote justice and access to the courts system for the majority of those who require it. Therefore, given that this is the main focus, it must be assessed if this is actually the case as this will help to establish the success of any legislation. The prime areas for clarification are: how damages-based agreements will be regulated; what changes will be made to Part 36, and the contents of the new rule on disclosure.

There is a justifiable concern within the legal profession at the lack of time which it will have to digest and prepare for the new rules.  The Law Society's president, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, has written to the Justice Secretary/Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling, recommending that implementation be deferred again.  Her concern - shared by many - is that, even if the current deadline is achievable, rushing to meet it "at breakneck speed" is a "recipe for chaos".

Nevertheless, the main question is will these reforms actually provide the access to justice that Rupert Jackson intends? If he intends to provide access to justice, he must also intend for there to be a greater level of access to the courts, as this is where justice would be achieved. By cutting out success fees and after the fact costs, this could potentially lead to more mediation instead of using the court system, which may benefit all parties as attending court can be an anxious experience and the courts are often overwhelmed by trivial cases.

So are the reforms really a call for practitioners to press the panic button? Or should we welcome a set of changes aimed at extending access to justice to all?

Overall, it is clear that the aim is to make the dispute resolution process quicker, cheaper and easier. As Jackson himself says,

“The idea that justice has no price tag is unacceptable in the modern world. Our civil system must mend its ways and provide every court user, whoever they may be, with a dispute resolution system at a proportionate cost. This provision is my objective. I have sought to deliver it by proposing a structured package of integrated rules applicable to the conduct of proceedings, funding, and costs.”

Therefore, practitioners now need to give serious consideration to costs budgets and look to embrace these changes with careful compliance being at the back of their minds at all times. Failure to observe these changes may result in draconian measures with costs penalties being imposed by the Court. In spite of dire warnings about the effects of the Jackson proposals on access to justice and on the wellbeing and finances of lawyers, the government has decided to press on with implementation of Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations for the reform of civil costs. How effective these reforms will be on the dispute resolution process is yet to be seen but there is no doubt, the Jackson reforms are here and are here to stay.

If you require further information on this or on any of these changes and how it may affect you, please contact Jeffrey Lewis or Jasbir Kaur, our Litigation Specialist, on 0207-387-2032.

Continue reading
  2112 Hits
2112 Hits

Accreditations
and Awards

legal 500 uk leading firm 2017 chambers leading firm 2017