1. law, govt and politics
2. government
3. courts and judiciary

NOVEMBER 2014 NUMBER 84
LondonAdvocate
London
Advocate
The newsletter of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association
SAVE
LEGAL
AID
2
Editorial
3
LCCSA Notices and News
4
President’s Report
5
Interview: Next President
8
Judicial Review: Victory
9
Four Trials and a Funeral
10
European Conference
11
Book Reviews
12
Magistrates’ Court Disclosure Review
Editorial
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
When I wrote the editorial for the September
Advocate, we were awaiting the court hearing of the
LCCSA’s and CLSA’s judicial review proceedings
against the Lord Chancellor. When the news of our
victory broke, I hoped that, in this November edition,
we could congratulate ourselves and take a break
before the next round of our struggles. Sadly, we had
little time to celebrate, let alone put our feet up,
before being issued with another consultation with a
frustratingly short time in which to respond.
And so I find myself writing another editorial in a
period of waiting. The response of the LCCSA and its
members has been admirable and the government can
be left in no doubt that we are not simply going to
roll over before the juggernaut of clumsy and illinformed reforms. After all, we didn’t judicially review
them to admit defeat now!
Things change – but, fundamentally, they stay the
same. For as long as I have been in the legal
profession, there have been proposed changes and
battles against them. I think this will always be the
case. And, for as long as I have been a member of the
LCCSA, the association has made its views known
and done everything possible to represent the best
PRESIDENT
Nicola Hill
Kingsley Napley
Knights Quarter
14 St John’s Lane
London EC1M 4AJ
DX 22
London/ChanceryLane
T 020 7814 1200
E nhill@kingsleynapley.co.uk
PAST PRESIDENT
Akhtar Ahmad
ABV Solicitors
Union House
23 Clayton Road
Hayes UB3 1AN
DX 44650 Hayes (Middx)
T 08445 879996
E akhtar.ahmad@
abvsolicitors.co.uk
2
VICE-PRESIDENT
Jonathan Black
BSB Solicitors
5-7 Euston Road
London NW1 2SA
DX 37905 King’s Cross
T 020 7847 3456
E jonathanb@bsblaw.co.uk
JUNIOR VICEPRESIDENT
Julian Hayes
Hayes Law
1 Lyric Square
London W6 0NB
T 0203 159 4248
E julian.hayes@
hayeslaw.co.uk
interests of its members, who range from sole
practitioners to employers and partners of large
firms, practising in diverse areas of criminal law.
This issue of The Advocate reflects the way in
which the association serves members’ interests and
shares their concerns: it includes a report from the
outgoing president and an interview with the new
– two individuals who are wholeheartedly
committed to protecting this profession from
further attack. Julian Hayes’s account of the JR
proceedings lets readers know something of the
atmosphere during those days in September, while
Ruhena Parker’s description of difficulties in
acquiring a court interpreter reflects the
frustrations many of our members experience, from
day to day, as a result of foolish decisions at
government level. Meanwhile, Jenny Wiltshire
reminds us that the LCCSA provides useful
networking and training opportunities with her
report of the European conference.
By the time you read this, the breathing space may
be over. Plus ça change...
– Mel Stooks
TV Edwards
SECRETARY AND
EDITOR OF THE
ADVOCATE
Melanie Stooks
TV Edwards LLP
The Albany
Douglas Way
Deptford SE8 4AG
T 020 3440 8000
E melanie.stooks@
tvedwards.com
TREASURER
Tim Walker
Sonn Macmillan Walker
12 Widegate Street
London E1 7HP
T 020 7377 8889
E twalker@smw-law.co.uk
TRAINING OFFICER
Diana Payne
Blackfords LLP
Hill House, 1 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA
DX 2617 Croydon
T 020 8686 6232
E diana.payne@
blackfords.com
COMMISSIONING/SUB
EDITOR
Gwyn Morgan
Max Findlay Associates
T 020 8870 0466
E gwynmorgan@
maxfindlay.com
ADMINISTRATOR
Sandra Dawson
PO Box 6314
London N1 ODL
DX 122249 Upper
Islington
T 020 7837 0069
E sandra@admin4u.org.uk
LCCSA WEBSITE
www.lccsa.org.uk
NOVEMBER 2014
LCCSA Notices and News
More news on the website: www.lccsa.org.uk.
Follow us on
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
TRANSFORMING
LEGAL AID
In R (on the application of London
Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association
& Criminal Law Solicitors
Association) v Lord Chancellor, Mr
Justice Burnett found that the
second consultation process into
changes in the provision of criminal
legal aid services had been
procedurally flawed because the
Lord Chancellor’s failure to consult
on the content of two reports which
had determined the number of
contracts to be offered to law firms
had been so unfair as to result in
illegality.
Only six days later, having tweeted Members attending the meeting to discuss consultation responses in a crowded
Camden Town Hall.
that this failure was a “technical
issue”, the Ministry of Justice
AGM
published a third consultation, with a response period
of only three weeks.
The association’s 2014 annual general meeting will be
The association moved swiftly to assist members
held on Monday, 10 November, at Kettner’s, 29
and supporters to respond effectively. On the evening
Romilly Street, Soho, London W1D 5HP. The guest
of Wednesday 8 October, there was a packed meeting
after-dinner speaker will be HHJ William Kennedy.
at Camden Town Hall, during which past presidents
Paul Harris and Greg Powell, along with committee
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
member Steven Bird, offered guidance on the issues
The next two meetings will be held on 8 December
raised in the MoJ online consultation.
and 12 January 2015.
In addition, working with the CLSA, the London
The venue is the offices of Kingsley Napley and
Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association provided a
meetings
start at 6.30pm. All members are welcome
“response hub” through which responses to this
to
attend.
consultation could be made. This hub ensured that
the MoJ would find it difficult to manipulate the
CONSULTATIONS
figures as to the numbers taking part in the
While most of the association’s attention has been
consultation process. It also made it easier for those
focused on the latest consultation on Transforming
completing the online submission to consult all the
Legal Aid, the LCCSA has also responded to less high
relevant reports before answering the questionnaire.
profile papers published by government. Most notable
In addition, it raised questions which needed to be
of these was the Home Office consultation on
addressed, as a corrective to the somewhat bland
strengthening the law on domestic abuse so as to make
questions posed by the MoJ.
controlling and coercive behaviour a criminal offence.
The hub forwarded the responses to the ministry
The LCCSA questioned whether such an extension of
and also printed them out. These printed responses
the criminal statute book is actually necessary; but it is
were delivered, in person, by president Nicola Hill
clear that the Home Secretary Theresa May is likely to
and vice-president Jon Black on the morning of
move ahead with such proposals.
Wednesday 15 October.
There has also been a consultation process
The LCCSA is particularly grateful to Paul Harris,
concerning changes to the code of practice under the
to colleagues on the CLSA committee and to past
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996,
president Jim Meyer for his technical expertise in
whereby the Crown will no longer have to address
creating the hub.
NOVEMBER 2014
3
disclosure in cases which are anticipated as being a
guilty plea at the first hearing.
SNARESBROOK NEWS
JUST-FOR-KIDS
Members took a break from campaigning to play in the
Just-for-Kids five-a-side football tournament, which was
The Snaresbrook Crown Court users group met on
24 September and was told that the backlog of cases
at Snaresbrook has reached an almost unprecedented
level, with almost 2,000 cases waiting to be
processed. Arrangements have been made for some
cases to be transferred to other courts such as Wood
Green, Inner London and the Central Criminal
Court. The backlog is such that fixtures are currently
being arranged for March/April 2015 and warned list
cases (on bail) are being adjourned to August 2015.
Solicitors who have lost contact with their client
were asked that they should notify the court; their
failure to do so continues to be a problem.
There is a new scheme, implemented by East London
NHS Foundation Trust in conjunction with the
probation service. In cases where there are mental health
problems which may affect decisions on bail and
sentence, practitioners should contact:
Leah.Glass@probation.gsi.gov.uk and 07778 659 394.
TRAINING
Information on all LCCSA training events – including
the association’s series of webinars – can be found on
the LCCSA website: www.lccsa.org.uk
held on Saturday 20 September. The contest featured
teams from a number of firms well known to the
association, including BSB Solicitors, Kingsley Napley,
Birds Solicitors and Hodge Jones & Allen.
President’s Report
How quickly the last year has flown and now it is time
for me to say farewell (pause to sing the song from
The Sound of Music). It has not always felt as if time
was passing quickly, of course! But, looking back, it
has been a fantastic year for the association, one I have
enjoyed immensely and one I am extremely proud to
have been part of.
I started with the commissioning of the Oxford
Economics report and the roller coaster went on from
there. Along with winning the JR, my stand-out
memory will be 7 March. It was stunning to experience
so many different images and be part of that sheer
number of people, marching to the MoJ, following
inspirational speeches in Old Palace Yard. To my shame,
I had never been to a rally or demonstration before – but
now I could have a pretty good go at organising one.
Along the way, we have had some challenges, the
biggest being presented to us by the MoJ, but we were
also let down by the Criminal Bar Association and the
Law Society. Fighting on so many fronts was really
quite exhausting and so unnecessary. Happily,
following a regime change and under the new
presidency of Andrew Caplen, the message coming
4
Past, present and future presidents together at the LCCSA
conference in Alicante
from Chancery Lane has completely changed. This is
particularly clear in the Law Society’s response to the
latest consultation, for which we must thank Richard
Miller, Alice Mutasa and the various committees who
agreed it. I hope that the Society’s support in future
will be invaluable and long-term.
NOVEMBER 2014
Where we are now
We won the JR. How wonderful to be able to write
that! I spent two days in court with our CLSA
colleagues listening to the arguments. The benches
behind me were nearly always full. An enormous
thankyou to our legal team. I know I am biased, for a
number of reasons, but our team’s hard work,
preparation and ability really shone through. I think
we had all of five days to celebrate before being hit
with the third consultation (if you can call it that) in
18 months. But, once again, both associations rallied
and the “hub” was born. It takes a great deal of time
and ability to set up such a thing, so I thank Robin
Murray, Jim Meyer and Paul Harris on behalf of us all
for doing so. Their hard work ensured that thousands
could respond easily, within a very short period of
time and without too much impact on their already
busy lives.
And now we wait – again. What will the outcome
be? Common sense or political dogma? On the
MoJ’s own evidence (PA Consulting, Otterburn,
KPMG), the two-tier proposal does not work. As our
members know, representatives from both the LCCSA
and CLSA met officials from the MoJ during the last
week of the consultation period. Because that period
was ongoing, the MoJ could not comment on most
things but we made it clear that it would be madness
to press on with the two-tier idea, as the criminal
justice system will be destroyed – something which
would be extremely costly to mend. We also said that,
if they were to depart from the two-tier proposal, we
would engage with them over the next year or so to
discuss reforms and improvements to the system,
always recognising that we represent a diverse
membership. We were told that it is recognised that
relations are poor and that they do not want this to
continue. We were also advised that no decisions have
been made as to outcome as the responses need to be
considered carefully and that there is no timetable in
place for the same reason. We shall see. Please be
assured that, if the fight needs to continue, it certainly
will and that we continue to take legal advice on
developments as they happen.
Thankyou
If you will indulge me, I would like to say a few
thankyous. My whole committee has been
tremendous but I would like to mention, in particular,
Jon Black, Paul Harris, Julian Hayes, Sandra Dawson,
Gwyn Morgan, Steve Bird, Greg Powell, Greg
Foxsmith, Raymond Shaw, Mel Stooks, Tim Walker,
Tony Meisels, Rakesh Bhasin, Jim Meyer, Diana
Payne and Ali Parker. They have all carried out their
roles and gone above and beyond them, each in their
own way. And I also thank the brilliant committee of
the CLSA, who have worked tirelessly and so closely
with us and are such fun.
Finally, I thank all the members for their
tremendous support for me and the association over
the year. I look forward to seeing them at Kettners on
10 November for the AGM, when the presidency will
pass to Jon Black. I wish Jon every success, knowing
that he will continue in the same vein as he has
established during his vice-presidency: a driving and
guiding force and an excellent president.
– Nicola Hill
Kingsley Napley
Interview with the Next President
Jonathan Black is the next president of the LCCSA
Q: What is the history of your involvement with
the LCCSA?
A: I’ve been a member of the LCCSA since I qualified
and I joined the committee in 2008, when Ray Shaw
was looking for more high street legal aid practitioners
to come on board. I had previously been involved with
various campaigns against legal aid cuts.
Under Paul Harris’s presidency, I was part of a legal
aid sub-committee and also, about that time, I worked
to bring about the extradition duty solicitors scheme. I
became the LCCSA training officer in 2011, when we
put on a series of lectures, at low cost, at Hodge Jones
and Allen. Later, alongside Akhtar Ahmad and with Jim
Meyer’s technical help, I set up the LCCSA webinar
programme. Members could receive 16 hours of free
CPD points from the comfort of their own desk, iPad
NOVEMBER 2014
5
or ironing board. We’re hoping that, next year, our
webinars will also be accessed by CLSA members.
Q: Looking back on your year as vice-president,
what stands out?
A: The judicial review victory in the High Court,
which demonstrates us, as lawyers, doing what we do
best: putting the arguments before the court and
showing that the decision-making processes of the
Lord Chancellor of this country have been misguided
and unlawful. I helped in the preparation of the case
by recalling documents and information from
meetings that we’ve had over the years with various
bodies and organisations. I was part of a team of
about six of us, working in constant communication
and giving information to our solicitors, Adam
Chapman and Emily Carter at Kingsley Napley.
Certainly, one of the highlights of the year was what
happened on 7 March. I was the overall co-ordinator of
the event. We wanted to stage something major, in
conjunction with the CLSA and Justice Alliance, after
some momentum had started with the demonstration on
6 January. We persuaded the Criminal Bar Association
that it would be a good opportunity to show unity. It
snowballed with the support of a dynamic caucus who
worked to ensure maximum impact. Rhona Friedman
commissioned a friend to make the famous Grayling
puppet; and we contacted TV writer Peter Moffat who
brought Maxine Peake along. The atmosphere on that
Friday morning was one of incredible unity and
defiance; the sheer noise in Petty France is something
which everyone who was there will never forget.
Q: Were you surprised by the timing of
consultation number 3?
A: Surprised and then not surprised because the MoJ
have a habit of springing things on us. But I did not
expect it within six days of the judgment. I was also
appalled at the nature of the consultation: they felt
they only had to do the bare minimum to satisfy the
judge with regard to the “technical issues”, to use their
words, which led them to lose the case.
The impression we get is that the Lord Chancellor and
his department are determined to push through on this
timetable. It seems, at worst, almost vindictive and, at
best, like something out of a Tom and Jerry cartoon.
Three weeks is not sufficient time to respond. The MoJ
has rules for itself but different rules for others. When we
lodged the judicial review, they took much longer than
three weeks to respond to the claim. When we wait for
payments on cases, we can wait for two or three months.
Q: What do you think about the MoJ’s general approach?
A: I have been appalled by the MoJ’s intransigence,
unwillingness to talk or to listen to alternative proposals.
They have treated the solicitors’ profession differently
from our sister profession the Bar, not just in terms of
6
negotiating a deal, but also of the timetable: our first
cuts came in as soon as 20 March, whereas they had
breathing space. To date, Mr Grayling has not shown
any willingness to sit down and speak to the
representative organisations of our profession.
Q: How disappointed have you been by the
behaviour of the Law Society over the past year
and do you hope this is going to improve now?
A: Ever since the proposal that there should be a twotier legal aid contract, there has been a strong feeling that
we were severely let down by the Law Society. It seemed
that they did not have the interests of the criminal law
practitioners at heart and were more interested in retaining
a relationship with the MoJ. There was the vote of no
confidence but our relations did not really improve greatly
until the time of the JR when the individual Council
members voted to support us.
Now there is a new regime and we are heartened by
the supportive new era at the Law Society, when the
noise is being made by its elected leaders, rather than
its paid officials. Richard Miller and Alice Mutasa are
working tirelessly to protect our interests.
Q: How do you see the future for London firms? Do
you have any hopes of a possible Labour government?
A: The damage has been done, even if there is no
further cut and no two-tier contract. We’ve already
heard Labour say they won’t reverse the existing cut to
legal aid rates. If dual contracts come in, many firms
will not be able to sustain their overheads. I can see a
lot of urgent consolidation of practices, making the
most of different specialities and bringing them
together to share back-office resources. This will mean
loss of support staff, with junior members of the
profession unemployed and senior members forced to
do more that they are not trained to do. A large
number of firms will go to the wall.
Q: Are you disappointed with the Bar?
A: Relationships with the Bar are difficult. I am
supportive of an independent Bar; but we need a fair
distribution of the work so that both branches of the
profession can thrive. Back in 2008, when the advocates
graduated fees and litigator fees were introduced, the
billing structure was weighted in favour of the Bar. More
solicitors found themselves representing their clients in the
Crown Court in order to make their work viable. At that
time, the pie wasn’t sliced fairly. If it had been, we
wouldn’t be in the current position.
We can be forgiven for feeling that we were used by the
Bar during the earlier part of this year. We stepped in to
support the demonstration on 6 January. There was a
huge fanfare about unity and we formed the National
Justice Committee with the leadership of the Bar and
solicitors looking at ways in which we could negotiate
collectively. We were willing and ready participants in the
NOVEMBER 2014
“no returns” action by barristers; and it was conveniently
ignored that solicitors’ firms felt the pain of that action.
Then the Bar leadership decided, after only two weeks,
that it was time to speak to the Lord Chancellor and a deal
was agreed without telling us. It was the Criminal Bar
Association’s “27 reasons for supporting the deal” that
really soured things.
Q: Apart from the political fight against the
government reforms to legal aid, what are the
other challenges on the horizon this year?
A: Many solicitors in London benefit from the work
of the LCCSA, which has a small committee of people
who tend to give up many hours. Others help from
time to time. We’re asking that, even if people cannot
give up any of their time, they should join us. We want
to make it a mass membership organisation so we are
offering a reduced fee for new members.
Digital working is going to be a huge challenge. It
will not only change the way we work but it will also
require investment from those who are already having
to tighten their belts.
I’m also very keen we address the manner solicitors
behave towards each another. Some solicitors are
visiting each other’s clients in prison without any
invitation to do so; there are episodes of solicitors
purporting to be the duty solicitor at court when they
are not; and solicitors claiming to have been sent by a
relative to represent a client. This is not fair on those
solicitors who rely on their reputations and their
ability to serve the client properly. We need to create a
culture of professional pride and integrity.
Q: How long will LCCSA survive? And the annual
dinner?
A: The LCCSA will survive as long as we are lucky
enough to have a team of enthusiastic activists on the
committee – which we have. It is important to have an
annual event to see friends, have a drink and celebrate
the work we do; but whether the days of dressing up in
black ties in a West End hotel are now obsolete is
something we’ll review in the next couple of months and
I’m happy to hear people’s views about that.
Q: Tell me about your own firm
A: BSB Law formed in 2002. I was working for Levenes
in their Camden office and I used to meet Paul Butcher in
court and talk about our plans for the future. Paul
introduced me to Jim Skelsey and Roger Sahota and so
the four of us got together. We grew through the mid2000s and, at one point, we had about 15 full-time people
in the office. Now, as a result of the cuts, we’ve had to
severely reduce our numbers but we have a strong team of
solicitors and assistants who provide the engine room of
the firm and who are dedicated to their clients in a way
that makes me very proud.
I do general crime, largely serious crime, with a lot of
NOVEMBER 2014
Nicola Hill and Jon Black make a personal delivery of responses
to the recent consultation at the Ministry of Justice
case preparation and a great deal of advocacy in the
Crown Courts. I’m as happy in the police station as I
am in the Crown Court.
Q: What has been your worst moment in court?
A: I was in the Court of Appeal representing a sex
offender and, at the time, my youngest child was
being toilet trained. As I was on my feet, I remember
putting my hand in my pocket to get a handkerchief
and pulling out a pair of Dora the Explorer knickers.
Q: What led you to become a lawyer? Were you
inspired by your father, Barrington Black?
A: My father was a solicitor in Leeds, with his own
practice, a well-known speaker. He did not encourage
me to follow his profession. In my childhood, I
would sometimes find myself, on a Saturday
morning, downstairs in the magistrates’ court,
drawing pictures with the jailers; but it never
occurred to me to be a lawyer – or a jailer for that
matter. My father and I are very different in many
ways: I can’t do dapper quite as well.
I came out of my English and History degree a bit
of a heart-on-sleeve leftie liberal. My sister was at the
Bar and she encouraged me to look into it. I became a
barrister but I did not like that you were encouraged
to kiss solicitors’ arses to get the work; the distance
from the client, and all the pomp and ceremony that
went with the role. It wasn’t me. I cross-qualified at
Sonn and Co (now Sonn Macmillan Walker), having
learned about police station work at Powell Spencer.
Q: Why are you so keen on Twitter?
A: I enjoy the challenge of spreading a message with
just 140 characters. And, obviously, it’s very important
to aspire to get more followers than Paul Harris.
7
Judicial Review: Victory
“The failure had been so unfair as to result in
illegality” were the words that flew through the ether
during the minutes after Mr Justice Burnett gave his
judgment; the report was on Twitter, phone calls,
emails and any other social media available. It
provided criminal legal aid lawyers with a brief
moment of elation and respite. The hugs in and
outside court between many of the defence
practitioners who had attended the judgment were
out of relief, as well as out of a sense that justice had
been served and that the nonsense that had been
dished up by the Ministry of Justice was – at least for
a moment – halted in its tracks.
Apprehension
The joyful expressions on 19 September were in
complete contrast to the ashen faces that had met at
the Apostrophe cafe opposite the Royal Courts of
Justice on the first morning of the hearing: 8
September.
On that day, I had entered the Royal Courts with
some trepidation to undertake a reconnoitre ahead of
the main group. It was just a little after 9 when I
approached Court 1. The place was mausoleum quiet
and the doors to the court locked cell tight. There was
not a soul to be seen. After a couple of texts, I
rendezvoused with the pack at the café. The mood
was reminiscent of players meeting before a rugby
match, chatting, filled with nervous excitement and
anticipation.
Then the moment came for the two team captains,
Nicola Hill and Bill Waddington, to lead the way, out
of the relative sanctuary of the café and we
approached the cathedral of Justice with its long
echoing nave. Hushed voices gave a reverential feel
to those hallowed halls, where paupers and princes
have cast their fate upon the scales of Lady Justice.
Now it was the turn of those brave officers of the
committees of the LCCSA and the CLSA to play the
match of their lives. (They were brave indeed, as they
were to be personally liable in the event of defeat.)
So it was that, on 8 September 2014, the band of
LCCSA and CLSA committee members marched
with strong hearts to doors of Court 1 of the Royal
Courts of Justice.
Crowded court
We took our seats at the back of court, where we were
joined by representatives of the MoJ. I was struck by
how young many of them seemed, these career civil
servants who had never seen the inside of a court room
until this moment and, who, if in trouble with the
police, would want to have a solicitor of their choice to
8
The Royal Courts of Justice – scene of triumph for the
LCCSA and CLSA
help them. The chief policy adviser, Dr Elizabeth Gibby,
sat perched owl like at the end of a row.
As the minutes of the court clock ticked towards 10,
the tension was palpable. I looked about and counted
at least four past presidents of the LCCSA in
attendance. Counsel took their place at the front of
court. Then we rose, wave-like, to our feet as Mr
Justice Burnett stepped into the room.
Down to business
In the brief formalities exchanged between counsel and
judge, permission was sought and granted for those
present to be allowed to tweet. With this, the skies were
instantly filled with messages of 140 characters, as
counsel for the applicants began his submissions.
Jason Coppel QC started with a clear and
unequivocal attack upon the Lord Chancellor, whose
integrity was brought into issue, as was that of the
MoJ itself. The applicants argued (I paraphrase
horrendously) that the consultation process was by its
nature unfair because the MoJ had failed to disclose
two reports prepared by Otterburn and KPMG, the
latter of which they were relying on to push their
harebrained scheme. This meant that lawyers’ groups
and those they represented had not been given an
opportunity to present their views on those reports.
And we discovered that the MoJ had also
commissioned a third report, from PA Consultants,
which was damning of their proposals. No doubt they
had sat on it in the hope it would disappear. With this
revelation, any sense that the minister and the
ministry had an ounce of integrity was gone.
MoJ counsel, James Eadie QC, looked distinctly
uncomfortable trying to argue the unarguable. One
almost felt sorry for him as well as being aware of the
irony that he was arguing for principles that would
have such a devastating effect upon his own
profession. Even the loud Nokia phone tone that
echoed around the room and the culprit clattering
NOVEMBER 2014
along the benches to escape his embarrassment was
not enough to give this man solace.
Result
So we won. What of it? Well, there was a brief hiatus
as the MoJ collected itself for another attack. The next
consultation was squeezed into three weeks. We
attempted to get details of the model used by KPMG
in their report. The MoJ refused to disclose it.
However, we could now see those three reports.
Otterburn and PA Consulting denounce the
proposals. The KPMG report is so heavily qualified
that it cannot be taken seriously. The only reason that
KPMG could argue that the proposals might work
was based upon assumptions that were imposed upon
them by the MoJ. Their suggestion that a
businessman would give away 50% of his work so
that he can do more of the same work is nonsense.
We must all keep up the good fight until these
proposals are consigned to the dustbin of history –
where they belong.
– Julian Hayes
Hayes Law
Four Trials and a Funeral
In 2011, the MoJ outsourced interpretation work in the
courts to Applied Language Solutions – which was sold
to Capita before the contract began. A year after the
sale, the House of Commons justice select committee
described the ministry’s move as “shambolic”. Two years
later, not much seems to have improved.
My firm was instructed by a mild-mannered Thai
gentleman, accused of pushing his wife down their stairs.
Charged in December 2013, the man worked as a chef
and did not qualify for legal aid. He denied the assault,
and we were instructed as section 36 advocates (solicitors
appointed by the court to cross-examine those witnesses
whom the defendant cannot cross-examine himself). It
was a “his word against hers” trial. Both complainant and
defendant needed Thai interpreters. Before you get
Farage-fever, both had resided and worked legally, paying
tax in the UK for nine years.
Trial no 1: March 2014
The prosecution had their bright-eyed, bushy-tailed
interpreter from Lomer Translations (the CPS don’t
have to use Capita). Sadly, the court had not booked
an interpreter for the defendant. The matter was put
over to the afternoon. By 2pm, we were informed
Capita would not be able to send one today. Trial
adjourned until the next day.
Trial no 2: March 2014
Groundhog day. The prosecution again had their
interpreter from Lomer Translations. The court had
none for our client. Capita helpfully confirmed no-one
would be coming. Trial adjourned until June 2014.
The client remained separated from his wife by bail
conditions throughout. Luckily, they had fallen out
anyway.
The court contacted Capita to ensure they would
provide an interpreter for the June trial. All parties
assumed that three months would be sufficient notice
for their administrative geniuses.
NOVEMBER 2014
Trial no 3: June 2014
You know the drill. Prosecution had their interpreter,
from Lomer. The court did not have one for the
defendant. Having booked one in March, the court
received a reply by email from Capita at 9.06am on
the day of June trial. The email said that they weren’t
providing one.
The lay bench continued to insist that only Capita can
be used. In desperation, someone had the brilliant idea
of asking Capita to instruct Lomer Translations as their
agent. Capita foiled everyone by replying, “No”.
The interpreter from Lomer then piped up,
explaining that “No Thai interpreter works for Capita
because their pay is so poor”. Everyone pretended
that they hadn’t heard her.
Undeterred, the court doggedly adjourned again, in
the faith that all problems will eventually be solved.
We were firmly told Capita are the only show in
town. It is a pity they are a no-show. The poor
defendant looked more bemused than angry.
The bench addressed him earnestly, after his now
third adjourned trial: “It is not the court’s fault, nor is
it your fault. Those responsible will be written to.”
Two things occur to me: first, the court have been
writing to Capita for months already. Another letter is
really just a spare scribble pad for them. Second, the
court is very lucky my client is a mild-mannered
deferential Thai chap and not a fiery, impatient
Westerner. In the land of outsourcing, his patience
and tolerance is pure weakness.
Trial no 4: July 2014
Take a wild guess what happened. Prosecution
interpreter from Lomer arrived on time. No
interpreter from Capita for the defendant. By 12
noon, a troubled District Judge Moffat magically
announced another Thai interpreter was now on the
way. It all happened mysteriously. No-one was
allowed to say who had been instructed, but whatever
9
happened, it needed authorisation from the court
manager, the Ministry of Justice – and probably MI5.
Finally, eight months after charge and on the fourth
trial listing, this trial started, without Capita, at 2pm.
The funeral
I suppose it could have been worse. Today, a colleague
tells me of a Saturday first hearing at Westminster
magistrates’ court where Capita could not provide a
Portuguese interpreter all day. To be fair, the Portuguese
language has only existed for several thousand years.
The defendant would have been returned to a mental
health unit where he had already been sectioned under
the Mental Health Act. Tragically, the District Judge
would not let the hospital collect him from court
without it all being explained in Portuguese first. As a
result, three days in an unsafe and overcrowded prison
now await a seriously vulnerable man. This is courtesy
of Capita, courtesy of awful outsourcing, and courtesy
of a system that allows the court staff to pass the buck
by citing their inflexible rules.
And with that, Justice died. Slowly, simply, and
summarily.
– Ruhena Parker
Emery Halil & Brown Solicitors
Alicante Conference 2014
It was back to sunny Spain for the LCCSA European
conference this year. Such was the excitement on the
flight out, that the plane crew had to put on the
“fasten seat belt” signs to keep everyone at bay. They
assured us, however, that this was due to the hordes
of stags and hens on their way to Benidorm, rather
than that rowdy lot from the LCCSA.
As we landed in Alicante, the sun came out to greet us.
The Melia Alicante Hotel was only a short journey away.
It was perfectly located, overlooking the beach and the
harbour, only moments from the heart of the Old Town
with its narrow streets, lined with restaurants and bars.
On Friday evening, we enjoyed a tapas meal at La
Terraza del Gourmet, a two minute walk from the hotel.
Dish after dish kept arriving, all served with copious
amounts of wine. After some debate as to exactly what
was in the “chicken croquettes”, those with a stomach
for more headed off to the bars surrounding the
cathedral, for some rather large cocktails.
Saturday morning, we emerged for breakfast, some
rather bleary eyed, where we were treated to panoramic
views of the coastline from the huge breakfast area.
Then to the morning lecture. As we peeked out,
from behind the conference room curtains, to glimpse
the beach and the castle, Professor David Ormerod
delivered his update on criminal law. He also spoke of
the Leveson Review, and encouraged everyone to
send in their experiences of the failings and
inefficiencies of the criminal justice system.
The castle proved the main venue for the city tour that
afternoon. Perched high up above the city, it looked a
rather daunting climb, but thankfully, there was a lift to
get everyone to the top. There was then time to explore
the Old Town. Some took the opportunity to use the
hotel’s gym and pool. Others attempted to relax on the
beach, although, due to the wind, it proved rather an
endurance test. As we began to receive reports of a mini
heatwave back in London, the rain began to fall in Spain;
but this was not going to dampen our spirits.
10
Attendees at the conference join a guided tour in Alicante
Saturday evening was the big London derby
between Arsenal and Tottenham. Allegiances were
torn: networking or football? Obviously the
hospitality of 5 St Andrews Hill won the day, with a
drinks reception generously laid on by them, on the
hotel terrace.
We then headed off for dinner and, afterwards, to
explore the varied nightlife of Alicante. Some were
reportedly last seen salsa dancing into the early hours…
Sunday morning, it was time for lectures again, with a
panel from 25 Bedford Row. Colin Wells kicked off
proceedings with Fraud and the New Sentencing
Guidelines, followed by Paul Mendelle QC on Young
and Vulnerable Witnesses and Defendants, and, finally,
Paul Keleher QC on Homicide.
Thanks to everyone for such an enjoyable weekend,
to all the panellists and for the support of 5 St
Andrews Hill and 25 Bedford Row. Particular thanks,
as ever, to Sandra Dawson, for making it all happen!
– Jenny Wiltshire
Hickman and Rose
NOVEMBER 2014
Book Reviews
Parole Board Hearings – law
and practice
Hamish Arnott and Simon Creighton
LAG £35
Parole board hearings stand apart from the usual
processes and hearings of the judicial system and, for
the uninitiated, can seem like a confusion of procedure
and abbreviations (seemingly known only to probation
and the prison service). The third edition of Arnott
and Creighton’s book, four years after the second
edition, once again provides essential guidance on
both the law and practical aspects of the parole
process, including issues surrounding changes to
public funding and judicially reviewing decisions.
The book strikes the right balance between providing a
background and update of the essential case law and
legislation whilst providing more practical information
and advice on each stage of the process. The structure and
conduct of parole hearings can differ substantially between
prisons and boards but this book covers the fundamental
procedures that must be followed and gives useful general
guidance on format, structure and style.
It is clear, well written, easy to navigate and
distinguishes between the appropriate regimes
according to determinate or indeterminate sentences.
Tables give clear guidance on licence requirements
whilst providing advice on applicability and necessity.
The issue of recall to prison is also dealt with and the
chapter provides excellent guidance on the different
types of recall, applicable timetables and reviews. This
is invaluable information on an area which causes
considerable anxiety for those who once again find
themselves in custody.
Unlike many of the legal tomes we find ourselves
forced to carry around, this book is portable and good
value. If current cuts to funding continue, it is likely that
this book will not only assist lawyers but also provide
vital assistance to those who may find themselves
unrepresented at these most crucial hearings.
– Krystelle Wass
Church Court Chambers
Sexual Offences
A Practitioner’s Guide
Nigel Richardson and Peter Clark
Bloomsbury £66.50
Many LCCSA practitioners will have benefited from
the recent CPD talk, “Everything you wanted to know
NOVEMBER 2014
about sex but were afraid to ask”. This book not only
provides the basic information you need to know, but
also shows how to put it into practice.
It comes at the right time. The government have
confirmed their intention to enact their policy on
compulsory training for advocates undertaking sex
cases – a development to be welcomed, as poorly
conducted cases lead to trauma for victims and
witnesses, miscarriages of justice, and bring the
profession into disrepute.
The foundation of any training is knowledge of the
law, procedure and practice, and this text – which is
set out clearly, well indexed and extensively referenced
– serves as a useful refresher, a summary of current
legislation and case law, and a guide on every aspect
of both litigation and case preparation.
Part A of the book divides the law into concepts
(consent, sexual, penetration, intoxication) which are
relevant to the numerous offences. Then, in parts B
and C, each offence is considered individually.
What distinguishes this from other textbooks and
makes it truly a “practitioner” guide is the inclusion of
additional topics such as how to deal with PII,
medical evidence and toxicology, DNA, previous
inconsistent statements and so on. And, contributed
by LCCSA member Samira Noor-Khan, police
station attendances is covered as a distinct topic.
There is also guidance for “historic” sex offences,
though it does not include the new guidance and
protocols for prosecuting historic sex cases recently
issued by the DPP. But there are chapters dealing with
offences under previous legislation such as the 1956
Sex Offences Act, which need to be revisited in
historic allegations.
Like all books, this guide is stronger in some areas
than others. The section on false statements (and
section 41 YJ&CEA generally) is excellent and userfriendly, while the section on bail, by contrast, is not
informative, and there is no advice or commentary on
excessive bail periods, so prevalent in sex-case
investigations (and currently topical, with promised
legislation following the high-profile investigations of
Freddie Starr and Paul Gambaccini).
I would also have liked to see a section about
advocacy. But these are minor niggles in what is
generally a useful asset to the lawyers’ armoury: a
concise, practical guide to the labyrinthine legislation
and the overriding topics. There should be a copy in
the library of every criminal law firm, and if there is
not, you will have to buy your own or risk being
caught out next time you are advising or representing
in this area.
– Greg Foxsmith
11
Magistrates’ Court Disclosure Review
Squirrel Nutkin and Felix Mansfield are
preparing their LCCSA webinar with
typical thoroughness in the Dog and Dealer
Felix Mansfield: Hello, Barry. Fancy a
pint and giving us a CPS perspective? It’s
a webinar on the Magistrates’ Court
Disclosure Review.
Barry Badger (CPS): Can’t help. I refuse
to read anything with the words “Strategy
And Action Plan” in it. Just means a
month’s extra shouting from my line
manager. Why add to the pain by reading
the thing?
Felix Mansfield: Quote: “The CPS will
serve unused disclosure on the first date
of hearing.”
Barry Badger: Foof! Foof! Snarf!
He falls off the chair and continues in the
same vein on the floor. Leaning over the
prone, foaming Barry, Felix administers a vicious slap.
Squirrel Nutkin: That’s a bit much, Felix, even if he
is CPS!
Felix Mansfield: Deal firmly with one’s opponent,
Squirrel. Besides, DJ Cuddles handbags him in court
on a daily basis; broke the strap last Thursday. She has
to: he flips and foams every time she asks him why he
hasn’t got the victim’s dates to avoid – again.
Otherwise it takes ten minutes for him to un-gibber.
Barry Badger: (bewildered) Where am I?
Felix Mansfield: Camberwell, Planet Earth and it’s
your round. Don’t forget the nibbles!
Barry returns with three pints and packets of “dawngathered garlic pork scratchings”.
Barry Badger: Sorry guys, you’d have PTSD too if
you had prosecuted Camberwell Court 1 for five years.
Felix Mansfield: Barry, we share your pain, and
indeed, your therapist. Now, at the risk of ripping the
plaster off the wound...“CCTV will be available on the
first hearing.”
Barry Badger: Wahoo-oo-oo! Hyak! Hyak!
Although, this time, he stays on the chair
Squirrel Nutkin: I’ll put down: “CPS colleagues
express reservations.” OK, next: what do we think of:
“The police will ask represented defendants their likely
plea to assist with court listing”?
Barry Badger: (calmer now) Why bother? Sgt Ferret
always verbals them anyway; no need to formalise it.
Squirrel Nutkin: And “Guilty pleas listed in 14 days
so the police can take a victim’s impact statement to
be read to the court”?
Barry Badger: Fergus Ferret’s got that covered too.
He’s got his own website: for a fee, punters can
download a draft according to the offence and just
sign it. I was the consultant on that; had to tone
down the UKIP bits that asked for the death penalty...
Squirrel Nutkin: “The Review supports the
judicially-led reinvigoration of the Stop Delaying
Justice initiative.”
Barry Badger: ...which translates as “Official! It
didn’t work!”. When will these people realise that we
could do this job with carrier pigeons and parchment,
if they only gave us the birdseed and quills?
Felix Mansfield: You think you’ve got it bad, Barry;
from October, the MoJ will handle all Legal Aid
applications from a central office. They are poaching
staff from British Gas and the SRA, housing them in
a converted battery chicken farm in Crewe.
Barry Badger: You’d have thought the MoJ would
simply train up the original inhabitants...
Felix Mansfield: Chickens can’t type. Feathers
instead of fingers. Same again?
Our heroes drink too much to continue. Bruce Reid has to
deliver the webinar.
– Bruce Reid
Save Legal Aid
12
NOVEMBER 2014