Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘legal news’

Everyone’s at it. Now the Law Society has launched a JR of the LSC in respect of their tender process in family matters. See the Gazette. As reported yesterday another JR application yesterday got off to a positive start, with Collins J describing the LSC’s approach as irrational. That matter was adjourned off for 8 days. So that’s 2 JRs, and if Nearly Legal is right (see yesterday’s post) there may be more to come. Who says there’s no legal news in August?

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

On Monday Panorama showed a report on the journey through the family courts of a family accused of causing serious non-accidental injuries to their baby son: ‘Parents’ Child Abuse Nightmare’. After lengthy police investigation and care proceedings no prosecution was pursued and a finding of fact hearing exonerated the parents, the Judge holding that there was no cogent evidence that causation of the injuries was non-accidental.

.

It was a shocking story, perhaps more so for those who do not work in the system and have not been caught up in it in respect of their own families. On another level, for care practitioners like myself it was however in many respects unremarkable – although the case broke new ground in respect of issues concerning publication of judgments and the identity of experts the care proceedings themselves raised familiar issues and followed a well worn path. What was unusual in terms of the care proceedings was the total failure of the Local Authority to make out threshold.

.

There were several predictable references to the secrecy of the system, though the system was not so secret as to prevent the programme from being made. The fact that permission had been given for the proceedings to be reported did not appear to attenuate the hyperbole about the cloak and dagger approach of the courts (In fairness though, the lengths to which the parties and the BBC had to go to get permission were not insignificant as can be seen from the number of citations which follow at the end of this post). (more…)

Read Full Post »

Nearly Legal has posted a really important blog post on the LSCs shifting position on the question of matter starts given to firms under the recent tender process. He suggests that the LSCs new position may now put it in breach of its own tender rules and at risk of legal challenge from firms who were unsuccessful in the tender bidding process.

If you are from a firm who has lost out in the tender process to a local firm who successfully bid for a large number of matter starts you should read this NOW and circulate it widely.

POSTSCRIPT:

Email from a colleague:


Though it applies to housing rather than family, the judge criticised the arbitrary nature of the tender process.
High Court judge has today branded some of the criteria used by the Legal Services Commission in its recent social welfare tender ‘utterly absurd and totally irrational’.

Mr Justice Collins also said the ‘tick-box’ exercise adopted by the LSC was not appropriate for tendering to provide a public service that is designed to ensure access to justice.

Collins made the comments during a hearing in relation to a judicial review of the social welfare tender process which has been lodged by Birmingham firm The Community Law Partnership (CLP).

CLP claimed the criteria and scoring system used by the LSC to award contracts was irrational, because the system rewarded firms that took more appeals to the upper tribunal. It said firms that were more successful in the lower tribunal were penalised.

CLP, which specialises in housing law, had unsuccessfully appealed against the LSC’s decision not to award it a contract.

The judge said: ‘I am bound to say this is a dreadful decision and on the face of it the approach [taken by the LSC] is totally irrational.

‘How can it be rational to penalise a firm that takes fewer cases to the upper tribunal, when any decent firm will do its best to make sure it doesn’t have to appeal?’ he said.

Collins added: ‘If firms have a good record of ensuring they succeed in the lower tier tribunal, then appeals to the upper tribunal won’t be needed. To adopt a criteria which looks to the number of appeals to the upper tribunal and punishes those who do not need to appeal to it, because they are successful in the lower tier tribunal, is utterly absurd and totally irrational.’

He said: ‘There is ample evidence that this is a highly reputable and utterly efficient firm that is approved of by the judges, and you’re going to ruin it. You’re bringing it to an end as a result of this decision. How can you justify that? You can’t.’

Collins asked counsel for the LSC, Peter Oldham QC, if a firm’s reputation could be taken into account or whether it was simply a ‘tick-box exercise’.

Oldham replied: ‘I’d hope they’d take everything into account,’ but said the LSC had to comply with public contract law and could not exercise discretion.

Oldham said: ‘The tender invitation went out last year. If they wanted to argue about the criteria they should have done it then, not now.’

But the judge said: ‘Those tendering are entitled to take the view that access to justice criteria will be taken into account and discretion used, rather than just box ticking.’

Collins adjourned the hearing and advised the LSC to ‘consider carefully’ its position. ‘If you fight this and lose it, you could set a precedent,’ he warned.

Collins said that if the LSC’s decision not to award a contract to CLP remained unchanged, he would expect a judicial review to succeed.

‘I take the view that it’s not only arguable, but it would be difficult to dispute that the criteria relied on to mean this firm didn’t get a contract is totally irrational,’ he said.

POST POST SCRIPT: Nearly Legal has also posted on this JR. I understand the full hearing is scheduled for c 10 days time. Watch this space…

Read Full Post »


diamond in the rough

Image by Justin Bugsy Sailor (flickr)

I’m dumbfounded by the blithe obliviousness of Naomi Campbell, opining at how inconvenient it is to her to have to give evidence to a tedious war crimes tribunal, as if it is something of no significance. Inconvenient, Naomi? Echoes of Tony Hayward wanting his life back anyone? It’s quite shocking to hear someone express herself in quite this way where she plainly has relevant evidence to give, which could assist the tribunal in deciding charges of rape, murder, enslavement and child soldiering. Almost as astonishing is the apparent ease with which Naomi says she discarded or disposed of a gift of several diamonds, without much question or concern (diamonds that until today she is reported as having denied receiving). Although perhaps knowledge of the latter makes the former somewhat less astonishing.

.

But is there another viewpoint? Naomi says she was a reluctant witness due to fears for her safety and that of her family. What if she is genuinely fearful? It would explain much about her reaction to the situation thus far, and indeed even the tone of her testimony today. In Naomi Campbell’s solipsistic world, it may just be a genuinely held fear that Charles Taylor’s cronies will come and duff her up or seek retribution against her family: genuinely held even if not genuinely likely. Although it must be said that it’s not a fear that Mia Farrow or anyone else has let stand in the way of obvious public duty. And no doubt the high security apparently rustled up for her today will have done nothing to dampen Ms Campbell’s sense of her own centrality.

.

Then again, perhaps its just egocentric whining and publicity seeking? Siobhan Butterworth comments here, and I’m inclined to agree with the thrust of her piece, noting as she does that of course we have not heard all the legal arguments for privacy but that it is strange to be granted requests for privacy entering and leaving the court whilst her testimony is streamed live to the world.

Read Full Post »

Essential reading for bloggers: Kaschke v Gray & Hilton [2010] EWHC 1907 (QB). Background on Jack of Kent blog. Long live the ‘not-worth-the-candle’-strike-out.

Read Full Post »

I think I’m missing something. I’ve read a couple of pieces online and in the papers about the complaint by Reprieve that Sir Peter Gibson should recuse himself from the torture inquiry on the basis that his former involvement in the oversight of the intelligence services as Intelligence Services Commissioner puts him in a conflicted position. And I’ve read extracts of the Treasury Solicitor’s response that are set out in today’s Guardian. It seems clear enough to me – there’s an appearance of bias. Perhaps it would be clearer if I read the whole letter (I can’t find it reproduced anywhere on the web) but I’m struggling to understand the merit in the government pointing out the lack of a legal duty to satisfy tests of impartiality and independence (although I suspect in fairness they were doing this in response to specific questions posed in Reprieve’s letter). Regardless of what prompted that assertion, it rather begs the question: if the inquiry is neither impartial nor independent what exactly is its purpose?

Read Full Post »

Lord Justice Munby recently delivered the annual Hershman Levy Lecture on the topic of Transparency and the Children Schools and Families Act 2010, in which he referred to my recent article in Family Law, republished here. You can read the lecture here on the Association of Lawyers for Children website.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »