It is very disappointing to hear the chair of the @MagsAssoc giving evidence to Parliament and suggesting that junior barristers are lying about their experiences of Covid in the magistrates’ courts.
When presented with first person accounts of barristers being compelled to attend magistrates’ courts in person for no good reason, the chair of @MagsAssoc first blames me(!), and then says it is someone “enjoying themselves at our expense on Twitter”.
This is appalling.
By all means use your time in front of the Justice Committee to complain about anonymous Twitter rabbits, but don’t you dare accuse my colleagues of lying, @MagsAssoc. You owe them a public apology.
I should add that I know from private conversations on here that there are many magistrates equally worried about the safety of our magistrates’ courts. This dismissive attitude of the Association does not reflect the concerns of its members.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You don’t have to commit a particularly serious crime to receive 6 months’ imprisonment. You don’t even have to be sentenced at the Crown Court - under Patel’s plans, sentences passed at magistrates’ courts, in conditions of abject chaos, could lead to automatic deportation.
Important to note that there is already a mechanism by which the Home Office can deport foreign nationals who cause serious harm or persistently offend, and who receive sentences of 6 months. But Patel wants to make it automatic, irrespective of harm caused.
The position currently is that any foreign national sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment is liable for automatic deportation. These plans would radically increase the number of people affected.
This lecture explores the Christmas classic Jingle All The Way through the lens of English & Welsh law.
Contributions are welcome, but I'm perfectly prepared to tweet the entire film to a wall of embarrassed silence.
This paper considers, inter alia, how Arnie/Howard’s intrepid search for the perfect Christmas present might have been different had he, Sinbad and the whole gang been subject to the law of England and Wales.
Some basic rules so we’re all singing from the same song sheet:
As I am not an American lawyer, nor diligent enough to do the research, we assume that all activity takes place in the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
Some initial observations about this case, and in particular what the Court of Appeal made of the Attorney General’s application to refer these sentences as “unduly lenient”.
Spoiler: it makes uncomfortable reading for the Attorney General.
First, by way of background. I was one of several commentators astonished that the Attorney General, who has no known experience of practising criminal law, decided to personally present this serious case at the Court of Appeal.
Comments leaked to the press confirmed this was a political decision, to capitalise on a tragic case in the headlines.
A “friend” of the Attorney General told the Express that she was pursuing the case *against* legal advice. She also took a preemptive pop at the judges.
This. The number of invitations I’ve received today to support crowdfunded private prosecutions or civil claims against the person involved, solely because he is a member of a particular political party, has been thoroughly depressing.
I have no idea what happened, and whether this is the right or wrong decision by the police. It may be a terrible error. These happen, more often than they should.
But the widespread assumption of guilt because of political affiliation does not say good things about us.
It’s important to remember that there’s a process to be followed. There may be an appeal against the police decision. Civil proceedings may still be pursued. Further information may come to light. But until that is in the public domain, our opinions are largely worthless.
Skana pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. The prosecution dropped (“offered no evidence on”) the charge of murder after developments at trial relating to the psychiatric evidence. More detail on that here:
Manslaughter by diminished responsibility, put simply, means that the legal ingredients for murder are present, but that there are serious mental health issues that reduce (although of course don’t extinguish) culpability. So the law provides for this compromise.