Communicating Justice

In the wake of the Boston bombings, the long standing legal battles over Abu Qatada, and recent court proceedings over three alleged UK terrorist conspirators, the Home Secretary has announced that under new rules it will be easier for the Home Secretary to strip UK citizens of their passports if they are involved with terrorism or terrorism related activities.

Under previous rules, the Home Secretary has the right to take away passports only in extreme circumstances, relating to national security. This has happened only 17 times since 1947, with the last confiscation taking place in 2005 (which itself resulting in legal actions against the government).  The ability to remove passports is one of the actions granted to the Home Secretary under Royal Prerogative powers. As such, the rules can come into effect both immediately, with neither Parliamentary approval nor an act of Parliament required; however, the rules of ministerial responsibility and judicial review mean that the Home Secretary is still fully accountable for any such actions carried out whilst exercising any such Royal Prerogative powers.

Not only does the introduction of such new rules strengthen the Home Secretary’s powers in this area, but it is a powerful message and action to take against terrorism. Many would be terrorists travel abroad to training camps; with no passport, this ensures that they cannot make such a journey. In her statement outlining the new rules, Ms May said that the new rules would be invoked only against people who gave intelligence and security services concern by their “actual or suspected” activities, or if they planned to travel to attend training camps or to carry out or support terrorist activities.

In her speech, Ms May stated that  “passport facilities may be… withdrawn from British nationals who may seek to harm the UK… by travelling on a British passport to, for example, engage in terrorism-related activity or other serious or organised criminal activity… This may include individuals who seek to engage in fighting, extremist activity or terrorist training outside the UK, for example, and then return to the UK with enhanced capabilities that they then use to conduct an attack on UK soil… The need to disrupt people who travel for these purposes has become increasingly apparent with developments in various parts of the world.”

In the aftermath of several terrorist incidents globally over the last few weeks, Ms May is returning to very old powers of Royal Prerogative to counter a very modern threat. Whilst the morality of such rules may be questionable, the legal and constitutional basis for the introduction of new and stronger rules is without question. In an age of increased global awareness and travel, such powers over passports will be very practical in countering domestic terrorists.

On Sunday 31^st March 2013, the justice secretary Chris Grayling stated the government are considering whether to abolish the defence of ‘martial coercion’, which was unsuccessfully used by Vicky Pryce in her trial regarding speeding points she adopted on behalf of her husband.

The defence of marital coercion is only available for a wife and dates back to 1925 however there have been recommendations to abolish it since 1977 considering it illogical to have a defence only open to married women. This archaic defence is now deemed to be in conflict with gender equality. Marital coercion dates back to a time women did not have equal rights and were dependent upon their spouse. Vicky Pryce was a well-educated woman who was a notable economist and as such hiding behind her status as a wife in order to avoid criminal liability for her actions is an out of date concept, conflicting with the key principle of presumption of innocence within article6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It has been argued that there is no justification left for a law which states married women are more likely to be coerced than men or unmarried women.

The government are currently considering reforms to gay marriage laws, and it is deemed this defence would also be at conflict with this due to it only being available to a woman. It is believed the defence will be removed when gay marriage legislation comes into place.

There are many who have argued this defence is not appropriate for modern circumstances as we are now in a society where women are financially independent of their husbands and therefore are less susceptible to coercion. It is also out of touch in terms of same-sex couples. Despite the advice of the Law Commission to abolish the defence of marital coercion, it is believed by some that action will not be taken unless there is political gain involved.

The first double-amputee track athlete to compete in the Olympic games, Mr Oscar Pistorius is a well-known figure and hero for many within South Africa and abroad. However, the 26-year-old has shocked the world in an incident which he claims was an ‘accident’.

Oscar Pistorius’ lover Ms Reeva Steenkamp was shot in the head and upper body four times with a gun found within the home of the star. The 29-year-old model died at the scene.  In the early hours of Valentine’s Day, neighbours heard screaming and shouting within the home, police had also visited on previous occasions in order to investigate issues of domestic violence.

The Paralympic star claimed that he believed she was an ‘intruder’ who broke into his home. The model was not due to stay the night with her murderer but had simply stayed over as she was tired and it became too late to drive to her friend’s house safely. Oscar Pistorius took a gun and shot through the bathroom door four times in an attempt to kill the intruder. Reeva was shot in the head and upper body whilst in the bathroom.

He now awaits trial before the South African courts and is currently on bail. He admits shooting her dead however denies murder. The couple had an argument prior to the shooting the court has heard. The trial is expected to take place on 4^th June 2013 for pre-mediated murder. Prosecutors had said probation officers would visit the accused twice a week before the trial takes place.

Early reports had revealed that the double-amputee star would need to sign with police on Mondays and Fridays within a certain time. The Magistrate who granted bail however did not mention anything about reporting back. However reports have said that Mr Pistorius has still been signing in with the police.

The requirement had been agreed by both the prosecution and defence teams, but Chief Magistrate Desmond Nair did not include it in his final order granting Mr Pistorius bail on Friday, prosecutors said on Monday.

Pistorius is now facing life imprisonment for the murder of his girlfriend. He has been told not to go to his home which is still currently a crime scene. He has also been told not to leave the capital without permission of the probation officer, nor to consume drugs or alcohol.

Technology giant Apple is on a quest to become the leading manufacturer of smartphones. But in its bid for worldwide domination, it found itself in hot legal water with a number of different businesses last year.

The global brand was embroiled in bitter court battles with several other smartphone providers in 2012, and all of them involved patent disputes. Apple claimed that a host of manufacturers of Android devices directly copied the iPhone design.

Here we take a look at how Apple locked-horns:

• Apple vs. Motorola Mobility

Apple filed a lawsuit against Motorola in 2011, claiming that it had abused patenting laws with its license fees. Apple claimed that Motorola, which was recently acquired by Google, breached its agreements with international standard-setting bodies, to offer license technology at reasonable rates.

Apple meanwhile said that their charges of 2.25% of the price of a device, infringed this agreement.

However, the case was thrown out by a US judge, just hours before the trial began in November 2012. The damage? The company had spent $32 million on the patent- infringement dispute.

• Apple vs. HTC

Apple may have lost against Motorola but it called a truce in its patent battle with Taiwanese smartphone marker, HTC.

In November 2012, the pair announced a cross-licensing agreement, after Apple accused the Android manufacturer of infringing the iPhone patent. The ‘fight’ began back in March 2010, but the two firms have reached a ceasefire, and have now signed a 10-year license agreement, dismissing all current lawsuits.

The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed but it is rumoured that HTC is paying Apple up to $8 per Android phone. Peter Chou, CEO of HTC, said he was pleased the dispute had been resolved “so HTC can focus on innovation instead of litigation.”

• Apple vs. Samsung

This has been Apple’s most notorious patent battle, with long-standing rival Samsung.

At first, the war broke out when Apple accused Samsung of copying its ‘double tapping’ functionality, as well as emulating the iPhone’s physical appearance. A judge in America ruled that Samsung had infringed six of Apple’s patents. The damage? Samsung was slapped with a $1.05 billion compensation bill.

However, that is not the end of the story. The war continued when Samsung lost its bid to keep their sales data private, with Apple seeking additional damages.

Apple may have raked in $1 billion from Samsung’s patent wars, but the cost for these suits topped $100 million.

A win-win? Well not entirely. Apple was ordered to pay Samsung’s legal fees when UK courts controversially ruled no breach against the iPad design patent suit. And the business was ordered to revise its apology statement, after the courts ruled that the previous apology was false.

As you can see, such large scale court cases can have astronomical financial implications on businesses. Even the simplest, most risk-free case can take a long time to resolve, and the verdict is always indefinite. This is why litigation funding is increasing in popularity in the UK, to help businesses financially when taking a case to court.

This article was written by Lauren Grice on behalf of Vannin Capital, the go-to-experts for litigation funding. Visit the site today or speak to the experts, to see how a funding scheme will work for you.

Many critics have protested the laws regarding criminal background checks. They feel that these laws violate people’s right to privacy by forcing them to disclose even the minutest violations. The current privacy laws have kept many people from being able to receive employment for minor childhood problems.

The government is finally taking a hard look at these laws and considering the impact they may have on people who are struggling to get jobs in the workforce. One the people who struggled is comedian and human activist Fern Brady. Brady said she got into a few scuffles as a teenager, which have shown up in her background checks. Other offenders have been given warnings as minors for petty theft and still face challenges when seeking employment.

She said that she worked hard to get past her youthful indiscretions. She made it through a great university with high marks and was nominated for several prestigious awards. Unfortunately, her past continues to haunt her. Every employer she applies to in the human services industry has a different policy regarding what types of offenses will bar applicants from consideration.

Fern said that the treatment of many reformed convicts is tantamount to discrimination. Only a fifth of all employers in the United Kingdom will consider hiring anyone who has been convicted of a crime. Fern said that ex-offenders are statistically more likely to work harder, because they are desperately trying to prove people wrong.

Lord Byson has recently ruled that these legal practices are morally hazardous and violate the rights of every citizen to a private and family life. Some members of the government are expected to challenge his decision in the appeals court.

Critics are claiming that the government is going to need to find a new way to challenge the discrimination against former offenders. They argue that discrimination against them doesn’t help anybody in the long run. They are advocating either for new laws that protect them from discrimination, new laws that enhance their privacy rights or some combination of the two.

Bob Diamond, former chief executive of Barclays Bank, is one of the senior members who have been denied anonymity in the upcoming UK Libor banking scandal trial. The scandal, which involved collusion on interest and trading rates, is one of many to have rocked the industry in recent years. Diamond, along with fellow executive John Varley and head of investment banking Rich Ricci, attempted to keep their names out of the papers ahead of the trial. In total, 104 people appealed for anonymity, without success.

The legal challenge to disclose the names came from the Telegraph newspaper group, with associated media groups backing the challenge. In the light of recent rulings and speculation on press freedom this will be seen by many as a major success story. The judge also awarded the Telegraph, and others involved, their costs for challenging the ruling.

Guardian Care Homes seeks £38m

The case is brought after Guardian Care Homes, which was sold a product linked to the Libor rate, claimed £38m in damages after it challenged the Libor rate as being ‘unfair’. The sheer breadth of collusion between banks in setting a rate that influenced certain areas of trading in no small manner has been revealing in the extreme. Banks are already under scrutiny after the disastrous payment protection insurance (PPI) scandal, the biggest in history affecting the UK banking industry.

Barclays took a dim view of the decision, announcing: “This started as an alleged mis-selling case which the bank considers has no merit. The addition of a claim based on what happened with Libor does not change the bank’s view. The fact that someone’s documents were reviewed by the bank during its review of millions of documents does not mean that such person was involved in any wrongdoing.”

The Community Legal Services (CLS) grant, which currently funds the Advice Services Alliance, Law Centres Network and the Royal Courts of Justice CAB will soon come to an end. The consultation paper which proposed the abolition of the grant in July 2012, stated that the Legal Services Commission (LSC) were to seek further views on this proposal. The CLS grant which was created in 2000 under direction by the Lord Chancellor will cease from 1^st April 2013 the LSC has announced. The grant has funded many projects and clients who do not satisfy the legal aid criteria. The LSC has said that the decision to stop the funds was taken ‘in light of the future impacts of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act on legal aid, financial pressures and the LSC’s current priorities’.

In April last year three currently funded organisations were granted an extension of one year after their three year grant funding arrangement came to an end. The CLS grant has provided a total sum of £4,336,723 since 2008. It is estimated that by ending funds to these organisations £655,317 could be saved each year. The main purpose for funding the Advice Services Alliance according to the consultation paper was to provide ‘a national policy voice for the not for profit advice sector and to provide support and guidance to not for profit organisations holding LSC contracts’. The aim of the grant was also to assist the Law Centres through legal aid reforms and to improve the quality of services delivered.

The Royal Courts of Justice CAB currently deals with 2,000 clients per year. Chief Executive Alison Lamb said ‘It’s ironic that we’re struggling to keep the service going when we know that the number of self-represented litigants will increase dramatically with the legal aid cuts in April.’ The LSC had provided the organisation with the grant in order to provide access to justice for self-represented parties. Alison Lamb had also said that the organisation is trying to secure funding from the Ministry of Justice who has recently provided the organisation with funding of £75,000 for self-represented parties. The LSC is now of the view that alternative methods of funding can be provided.  Picture from The Guardian:

The controversial use of unmanned attack drones in war zones across the world has come under intense scrutiny, with the United Nations announcing it is to look closely at the use of the machines in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The investigation will be into both US and UK drones, which it is claimed have inflicted casualties on civilians in many attacks. The unmanned drones are remotely controlled, and many see them as the future of aerial warfare.

The UN has selected between 20 or 30 strikes to examine in detail, and will focus on possible civilian casualties with a view to the severity and ability to avoid such. This is a serious blow to the military which has long maintained that unmanned drones are accurate, and pointed to the fact they do not endanger the life of a pilot in carrying out necessary strategic raids.

Justified Strikes

Both the US and the IK military have called strikes with drones ‘justified’, and are keen to highlight how the technology can be used quickly and efficiently without endangering the lives of servicemen. However, it is with the alleged civilian casualties that the enquiry is concerned, and it is on this that the investigation will focus. The work will be carried out under the guidance of Ben Emmerson, QC, who had the following to say:

“One of the fundamental questions is whether aerial targeting using drones is an appropriate method of conflict … where the individuals are embedded in a local community. One of the questions we will be looking at is whether, given the local demography, aerial attacks carry too high a risk of a disproportionate number of civilian casualties. The explosion of drone technology [raises the question whether] the military dependence on UAVs carries an unacceptably high risk of civilian casualties.”

The current E.U. data protection laws have been in place for nearly 20 years. Some lawmakers feel that these laws may not offer the necessary protections to European citizens. They proposed revisions to the existing laws recently in a meeting in Dublin.

Most lawmakers have supported the privacy and well-being of citizens who use various forums and social networking sites. However, many politicians are concerned with some of the proposals in the new bill.

The proposal stipulates that citizens could erase some of the details that businesses collected on them from some websites. This could prevent these websites from some of the targeted marketing strategies that are directed towards them. The existing laws don’t address consumer data mining strategies, because the Commission passed them before the Internet became a mainstream medium of communication.

Some lawmakers said that the proposals are interesting and can benefit many people throughout the country. However, they will need to weight the interests of citizens against the needs of businesses.

Lawmakers recognize that they have to take the needs of both groups into consideration, which means that they will be hard-pressed to find an equitable solution anytime soon. Discussions are expected to continue through the end of the year. Some lawmakers expect that changes to the law could be passed by the beginning of 2014, but a few legal challenges may curtail their efforts to come to an agreement within the specified timeframe.

A number of privacy advocates said that changes to the law would benefit both consumers and businesses. Justice commissioner Viviane Reding said that many consumers are distrustful of businesses. Reding said that consumers will be more open to working with businesses if they understand how their personal data will be used and are allowed to have it retracted.

The bill has received support from Estonia, France, Ireland and Austria. Other countries have some concerns about the new legislation. They hope that they will all be able to come to an agreement over the next year.

Supreme Court justice Lady Hale made a bold statement in the Guardian recently. She predicted that views on constitutional matters are evolving. She said that many new cases that come before the court have taken a more constitutional focus. Lady Hale and the other justices are trying to adapt to a new system that will allow them to preside over these cases effectively.

A recent decision supports the statements Hale made. Counsel General for Wales, Theodore Huckle has questioned the role the Supreme Court plays in deciding constitutional issues. Huckle has challenged a recent decision over Government byelaws with the Supreme Court in recent years. He went head to head with Dominic Grieve, the attorney general of the Supreme Court. Huckle’s decision was upheld 5-0 by the Supreme Court.

The United Kingdom’s highest court has never acted as a constitutional court. Most legal experts never felt there was any reason to make the court take on a constitutional role, because the United Kingdom doesn’t have a written constitution. However, a new landmark case shows that the Supreme Court is taking on a new role that resembles the Supreme Court in the United States and other western nations with constitutions.

The implication of this new ruling is that the court may make new laws and strike down existing ones. Huckle said that the court is considered a constitutional court because of its ability to change statutes.

This new case marks a sudden and extreme shift in the way the Supreme Court will be viewed. The decision was not initiated at a lower court. The decision started at the Supreme Court itself. The binding precedent has changed the way lawmakers and legal observers view the nation’s highest court.

The courts and legal scholars are currently debating the outcome of the new decision. They are discussing the need to setup new institutions that will hear constitutional cases in different jurisdictions.