Northpod Law & UKCLB Podcasts

Listen to the show here. This week, Lyndon looks at the case of Laura Cunliffe - imprisoned for 14 weeks for causing unnecessary suffering to a kitten. The case seemed to divide opinion on the blog and on Twitter between the animal lovers who thought 14 weeks was far too lenient, and those who thought the sentence was too high. The reason for the division in opinion? Ms Cunliffe's mental health difficulties. Does that reduce her culpability? Would a suspended sentence be better for all? But would a suspended sentence fail to mark the seriousness of the offence? Then, Kim discusses what it is like to be interviewed by the police. Kim used to be a detective in the Met police and latterly a police station rep, representing clients in the police station. She sets out the structure and highlights some issues which she has encountered throughout her time in the police station (on the other side of the desk!) Links: A police officer's approach to interviewing Laura Cunliffe - microwaving a kitten case

Listen to the show here. In a slightly shorter show this week, Lyndon discusses a case of rape where the offender was given a non-custodial sentence. Is it right? Why might he have received such a low sentence? I can hear the Daily Mail mob and their pitchforks now... Also, Lyndon discusses a case which came out of the Court of Appeal on 4th March 2014 about dangerous offenders. In a long judgment the Court gave guidance on the sentencing in such cases, but Lyndon takes a brief look at a comment the Court made about Automatic life sentences.  Finally, as many of you will have heard, the lawyers are going on strike this week. Why? What are the issues? Why should I be concerned? Dan answers all these questions.  Links: Independent article on the rape case Automatic life - blog  R v Burinskas

Listen to the show here. This week, Lyndon and Kim discuss the sentences imposed on Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale for the murder of Lee Rigby. After the sentencing was deferred to allow the Court of Appeal to determine whether whole life tariffs are lawful, The pair were give a whole life tariff and life with a minimum of 45 years. Lyndon and Kim look at the judge’s reasons for those sentences and question whether there might be an appeal.  Dan has a look at another homicide case in the news this week - the ‘one punch manslaughter’ of a man who challenged someone who was riding their bike on the pavement. The defendant received 4 years’ imprisonment. Members of the public have called for the Attorney General to refer the case to the Court of Appeal as ‘unduly lenient’ and Dan takes a look at manslaughter, the sentencing for ‘one punch manslaughter’ and whether the Court of Appeal are likely to increase the sentence. Finally, Kim has a quick look at Silk - the BBC One legal drama. She gives a few examples of how lawyers on Twitter grumble about the legal ‘inaccuracies’ and tells of how she had dinner with Neil Stuke, the actor who plays Billy in Silk.  Whole life Sentencing remarks  Sentencing in murder cases - Fact sheet  One punch manslaughter - AG’s Ref? Fact sheet on AG’s References Daily Mail article Silk Dan’s review of episode 1

Listen to the show here.  Hurrah we are back! This week Dan and Lyndon discuss the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the issue of whole life tariffs; widely debated, anticipated and…misunderstood by the public and press. (One Independent article couldn’t even get the distinction between the EU and the European Court right!) Also, they discuss Neknominations and the issue of manslaughter prosecution if your nominee dies as a result of downing a pint of gin etc. and Lyndon tells of what might be the first automatic life sentence – a robber who in the past 15 or so years has spent more time inside than out, but has managed to rack up a string of armed robbery convictions and looks likely to be heading for a(nother) lengthy life sentence. The usual thanks to Ben, Kisten and Jonathan. Whole life Our review of the judgment Transcript of the judgment Vinter v UK Explanation of murder sentencing Halsbury’s Law Exchange article on why the judgment isn’t a victory for UK Neknominate Independent article Robber up for third lot of life sentences UKCLB write up of the story

Listen to this week's show here. On this week's show, John Cooper QC joins our roving reporter, Keith Jones in Gibraltar to talk about the law and the Bar in one of Britain's far-flung outposts. A little closer to home, we look at what happens when you cough to something whilst in custody and when that sort of confession will not be allowed in to evidence. We take a glance over fracking near Northpod Towers and celebs on trial near our local cobbles. Also, a look at sentencing for assisting a suicide by buying the petrol used.  The rather grim case of R v Howe [2014] gets a once-over. The links are below.  Enjoy UKCLB Podcast for the next six weeks and we'll see you on the other side of that. You can listen to show by clicking right here but, of course, we'd prefer that you subscribed on iTunes or via Google Play Store or via any good podcatcher app on your phone/tablet.  Ben from Northpod Law particularly recommends this one for Android and iOS.You can also find us on Stitcher and soon on TuneIn. Beeres v CPS West Midlands [2014] EWHC 283 Admin R v Howe [2014] EWCA Crim 114 R (Purdy) v DPP [2010] 1 Cr App R 1

This week we carry on the tradition of the series in that we're a member of the usual team short. It's Ben on this occasion. He'll be back next week, I'm sure.  Listen Here   Matters under consideration are – what knowingly means when it comes to the environment; when a crime under the Dangerous Dogs Act is not a crime at all (and it's not the same as the last one); when parking is not parking and when a solicitor can hang on to papers and when he has to pass them on.  It's all very cutting edge as Jonathan gets excited about... Walker and son v Environment Agency [2014] EWCA Crim 100 Criminal Injuries not a crime of violence Parking v Ancillary Parking [2014] EWHC 211 (Admin) Liens and solicitors - see paragraph 42 - 50

Ben and Jonathan get to grips with some matters of public importance this week's show.  First up is a look at the guidance (in force from February 2014) on the publication of decisions of the family courts and the Court of Protection.  There are some interesting questions raised about how this is going to work and who is paying for it.   Either way, you'll have to know about this if you work in either of these areas of law and the public may well find the reality of these cases far more challenging than the abstract way in which they are reported at present. We move on to the case of the "Iceland Three".  This story was all over social media this week.  This was the case of three men who faced prosecution for taking food from a skip at a London branch of London.  There was outrage and a change in CPS approach but, once you factor-in other information that appeared in later reports, did the CPS make the right call or were they duped by the publicity? Then onto our favourite [redacted for legal purposes], Theresa May.  She has been calling for some powers that, if they were to be used against convicted terrorists, you might think were pretty obvious, but that's not quite what she wants.  We look at the terrible misreporting of this case by almost all UK media.  There is some very scary devil in the detail and Ben issues a personal thanks to his MP, Hazel Blears, for being one of the 297 MPs who played politics with something the UN think is fundamental to a person's very being. As always, there is stuff that we didn't get to this week.  Please see the show notes below for the links to those stories and for all of the articles for the above. We'll be back next week when hopefully Kirstin will be back with us and Mr Kipling will have sent us some cake.  Or Iceland might have sent us a prawn ring.  Let's hope it's the former. You can listen to show by clicking right here but, of course, we'd prefer that you subscribed on iTunes or via Google Play Store or via any good podcatcher app on your phone/tablet.  Ben from Northpod Law particularly recommends this one for Android and iOS. You can also find us on Stitcher and soon on TuneIn. Links: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17150054 - The public will get to peer at the decisions of the Family courts and the Court of Protection under the new transparency guidance.http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Guidance/transparency-in-the-family-courts-jan2014.pdfhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2540976/At-victory-secrecy-courts.html- Skipping case - in the public interest until the public gets interested. First story: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/three-charged-vagrancy-act-food-skip-icelandIceland 1st response: http://about.iceland.co.uk/_assets/files/Prosecution-for-waste-food-theft-29-1-14.pdfCPS decision (as reported in Indie) PLUS the shades of grey appear:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/iceland-food-bin-theft-case-dropped-by-cps-9094415.htmlIceland 2nd statement:http://about.iceland.co.uk/_assets/files/Update-on-Kentish-Town-waste-food-theft-29-1-14.pdf- Theresa May and the race to the bottom on Immigration toughness leads to 11th-hour amendment to bill to include right to strip naturalised Brits of their nationality.What does ILPA say? They say not within scope.http://www.ilpa.org.uk/data/resources/25742/14-01-29-Deprivation-ILPA-briefing.pdfBlog:http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2014/01/30/amendment-to-immigration-bill-allows-home-secretary-to-make-people-stateless/#more-12265Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/29/theresa-may-terror-suspects-citizenship-clegg-approvalNot just “terrorism suspects” or “terrorists” at all.  Read the section (at page 1651):http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0128/amend/pbc1283001m.1649-1655.htmlActual reasons for

You can listen to show by clicking right here but, of course, we'd prefer that you subscribed on iTunes or via Google Play Store or via any good podcatcher app on your phone/tablet.  Ben from Northpod Law particularly recommends this one for Android and iOS. The Court of Appeal recently took the opportunity to set straight a peculiarity in the law that has existed since 1991.  Most criminal lawyers will have dealt with the scenario with which the court was concerned and the Court of Appeal have used their powers of statutory interpretation to fix what most would see as a terribly unfair and poorly-drafted bit of legislation: the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. It had appeared, until recently, that s.3(1) of the 1991 Act had created an offence whereby you could go to prison for up to two years even if you did nothing wrong.  It is unlikely that this case will be overturned any time soon as it needed fixing but see what you think about it. The case and some other reading material are below. Then we move on to our second case of the week; in fact, it's one of Mr Knight's. The appeal against sentence of Connor Martin was described as an exceptional case by the Court of Appeal because it dealt with the unusual scenario of a Crown Court Judge giving an express indication of what sentence would be imposed after a Newton hearing and then imposing a higher sentence.  The case was regarding legitimate expectation and gives the strongest indication that judges should never give such indications prior to the decision being taken to hold a Newton hearing.   We do have a quick look at the QASA judicial review decision of the High Court but it contained few surprises.  We promised in the show that we would give you a link to a good set of reactions to the decision.  It is in the links below. LinksA very important precedent has been set in Dangerous Dogs cases.  The strict liability offence of having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place has just had a much-needed caveat added to it by the Court of Appeal.http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/2396.html(http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/case-reports/animals-regina-v-robinson-pierre)(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264113/Symieon-Robinson-Pierre-Dog-owner-sentenced-22-months-failing-stop-dog-mauling-police-officers.html) R v Martin [2013] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/2565.html Reactions to QASA: http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/qasa-criminal-barristers-react-to-rejected-challenge/

You can listen to show by clicking right here but, of course, we'd prefer that you subscribed on iTunes or via Google Play Store or via any good podcatcher app on your phone/tablet.  Ben from Northpod Law particularly recommends this one for Android and iOS.On this week's show, we take you through the details of the Sexual Offences Guidelines on sentencing.  We consider not only the mechanics of the guidelines for rape and assault by penetration but also the reasoning behind some of the changes.  The link to the guidelines is below.Jonathan takes a look at the case that made the CPS cringe this week.  Did cost considerations really lead to the CPS binning at trial?  The full text is below.The CBA meet with Grayling and it does not look good.Andrew Neil meets with Grayling and makes him look a fool.  Turns out ministerial responsibility is a principle no longer appreciated by the Lord Chancellor.  Thanks to the BBC for the clip.And a whole pile of other news stories that caught our eye but for which we had no time left.  Lots to get through in the links below. LinksSexual Offences Guidelines: http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_SexualOffencesAct_2003.pdfCPS bin a trial when things get costly: http://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-renate-andrews-and-others  and http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/14/cps-criticised-for-wilful-calculated-and-prolonged-disobedience-in-trial/ In it to win it (and we are) says Nigel Lithman QC: http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9e935b7a6c6c561621aaf46ab&id=a4a2f8c45e&e=cded007a3d AND STOP PRESS: 16th January at 1730 hours: http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9e935b7a6c6c561621aaf46ab&id=f3ecdaebd2&e=366745fc1e Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics:1. Grayling admits that the barristers’ earnings figures published out of nowhere last week were not an accurate reflection of the actual earnings but says that, even though his department published the stats, he could not be responsible for it.  This was during interview on Sunday Politics with Andrew Neil. 2. Law Society says that the drop in crime, year on year, will save £80m in legal aid by 2019 so no cuts are needed.http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jan/13/declining-crime-save-80m-a-year-in-legal-aidBut it’s a bit undermined by its own preamble: Top of page 6 'The MoJ and LAA have been extremely helpful in supporting this work. However the LAA’s forecasting model draws on a number of datasets and assumptions that are not publically available. Without first-hand access to the LAA model or the confidential datasets, it has not been possible fully to recreate the LAA’s forecast for future years. The criminal Legal Aid expenditure forecast generated  by our model cannot therefore be directly compared to the LAA’s figures in any given year.'and the MoJ told the Gazette: ‘This forecast is far less accurate than our own. Last year our forecast was correct to within 1%, whereas if we had used Oxford Economics analysis, we would have repeatedly overspent our legal aid litigation budget in the past few years.’ - interesting based upon Grayling’s view of the Ministry’s ability with figures... 3. A few days later, tory-rag the Daily Mail trumpets that that MoJ’s crime figures are wrong and that crime is not falling at all - therefore the Law Society’s argument must be wrong too.  Will May and the police get thrown on to the sacrificial bonfire by Grayling to continue his hate campaign against legal aid lawyers?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540003/Its-official-Crime-numbers-NOT-trusted-statistics-watchdog-strips-police-data-seal-approval.html 4. 140 fewer courts but still the same costs for security?  Law Soc Gaz gets all FOI on the MoJ and reveals some odd answers:http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/security-spending-unc

Welcome to Series 11 of Northpod Law. You can listen to show by clicking right here but, of course, we'd prefer that you subscribed on iTunes or via Google Play Store or via any good podcatcher app on your phone/tablet.  Ben from Northpod Law particularly recommends this one for Android and iOS. This week, we talk about the statistics on sentencing and how most of what you hear about them is nonsense.  We say "told ya so" about IPNAs after the House of Lords gives the Government a bloody nose. We look at the actual findings of the Mark Duggan inquest jury (as opposed to the claptrap spouted by many a public figure this week). We take a look through the hits and misses of the strike action (oops we used the S word) on 6th January and call out the scabs.  We can find many positives in this though. Last but not least, Jonathan takes us on a tour of the recent decision on Gulshan in which the wheels get a bit wobbly when free-wheeling around article 8. Links are below, folks. Whilst we were off air: - thanks to UKCLBP - and see their very good piece on the sentencing statistics that have been misreported everywhere. http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/01/08/criminal-justice-statistics-and-politicians-talking-rubbish/  - IPNAs a no-no http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25648019 - Mark Duggan inquest - jury’s actual conclusions http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf - Vote of no confidence in Law Soc management - http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/news/stories/special-general-meeting-vote-results/ - 6th Jan 2014 - a partial success - sols hang heads in shame - says Bill Waddington (CLSA) http://www.clsa.co.uk/index.php?q=And-so-the-bells-have-rung-the-old-year-out-and-the-New-Year-in. Immigration case Full Case: Gulshan (Article 8 – new Rules – correct approach) [2013] UKUT 640 (IAC)  http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2013/%5B2013%5D_UKUT_640_iac.html Commentary: http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2014/01/08/gulshan-article-8-new-rules-correct-approach-2013-ukut-640-iac/#more-12059

Listen to the show here. This week, Lyndon and Dan discuss Europe and the ECHR. First off, after the announcement by the Government that murderers could receive “hundreds of years in prison”, Lyndon and Dan revisit the whole life tariff debate and look at how the proposals might work (spoiler - they wont). They recap the decisions concerning whole life tariffs such as Ian McGloughlin (not whole life) and the Lee Rigby killers (sentencing adjourned pending the Court of Appeal decision on whole life) made by Mr Justice Sweeney.  Secondly, Dan and Lyndon look at the prisoners’ right to vote and the recommendation by an Parliamentary committee that short term prisoners should be given the right to vote in European, local and national elections.  Links Whole life and 100 year sentences BBC News report The Telegraph Law Society Gazette UK Criminal Law Blog - Vinter v UK  Prisoners’ right to vote Law Society Gazette

Listen to the show here. Lyndon - on his own again - discusses Two of Mr Justice Sweeney’s recent cases: Denis MacShane and the Lee Rigby murder. Denis MacShane was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment on 23 December 2013; Lyndon looks at his case, the way in which the defence attempted to distinguish his from previous cases of MPs/Peers fraudulent expenses claims and whether or not it would have been ‘right’ to suspend the sentence.  Lyndon takes a brief look at the Lee Rigby case, what the defence was, why there was a trial and what the sentence might be. It will provide for an interesting sentencing exercise because Sweeney J has previously ruled that a whole life order  - the sentence that the two defendants are in line for - is unlawful due to a decision by the ECtHR (European Court). Finally, Lyndon takes a (very) brief look at Nigella’s complaints that she had not opportunity to rebut the allegations made against her in the recent trial of her two former assistants. Should the law provide for a method of redress where a witness’ character/reputation has been impeached, or, is it simply a case of ‘it ain’t all about you honey’?  Links: Denis Macshane  BBC News report Sentencing remarks Lee Rigby UK Criminal Law Blog report Jury nullification Nigella Matthew Scott’s blog post 

Listen to the show here. This week, Lyndon focuses on the Ian Watkins case. He looks at the offences to which the defendants pleaded, some of the facts (not too graphic) and the sentences imposed. Further, he explains what an extended sentence is, as there seemed to be some confusion in the press as to what it meant, and also briefly looks at the issue of protection post-release. Links: UK Criminal Law Blog post on the Watkins sentence Judge’s sentencing remarks Explanation of what an extended sentence is Paedophiles and pass codes – By Felicity Gerry New Sex Offences Guideline Old Sex Offences Guideline Guideline on concurrent or consecutive sentences

Listen to the show here. This week, Lyndon and Dan discuss the Law Commission's recommendations in relation to contempt of court and they take a look at the new Sentencing Council guideline for sentencing sexual offences.  The Law Commission made numerous recommendations in relation to contempt of court in what is a wide project taking a fresh look at contempt of court as a whole. These recommendations relate only to juror contempt and internet publications. Dan explains the process and looks at whether the recommendations might make it onto the statute book.  Lyndon briefly explains the 'headlines' from the new sexual offences guideline. Hardly ever out of the news of late, sexual offences is a topic which gets everyone talking. Lyndon runs through the rape guideline and he and Dan pick holes in some of the self styled 'big changes' to the sentencing of sexual offences. Links Sexual Offences Guideline Blog post on the consultation, prior to publishing the sexual offences guideline Law Commission recommendations

Listen to the show here. On this week’s show, Dan interviews Bob Scott, a solicitor advocate who represented Marine C. They discuss the Court Martial, give some background as to how it works and why it exists, and briefly talk about Marine A’s sentencing (prior to the hearing).  Lyndon and Kim discuss the decision of the Divisional Court to dismiss the application for judicial review against the decision of the Judge Advocate General to lift the anonymity order (basically, to name Marine A as Sgt Blackman) and the reasons given for imposing a life sentence with a minimum term of 10 years. Many thanks to Bob.  Links: Bob Scott, Solicitor advocate Bob Scott’s profile  Anonymity Named as Sgt Alexander Blackman, 39Summary of legal arguments re anonymityJudiciary press release re anonymity Sentence Joshua Rosenberg's predictionHarsh or lenient sentence? Neither is appropriateShould we scrap the mandatory life sentence for murder?Sentencing remarks