conciselawnews.co.uk

Can TV really provide us with all the Legal Knowledge we need?

A recent survey, the online YouGov survey, which was commissioned by QualitySolicitors in Liverpool, has shown some rather surprising results in the way in which the UK public glean their legal knowledge.

The survey shows that almost 50% of Great Britain’s public gain the majority of their legal knowledge from films, television series and dramas, the internet and media publications such as newspapers and magazines.

Of those living in the north of the country 14% said they gleaned what legal knowledge they had from films and television, a further 15% said they had gained their knowledge from university and schools, whilst 16% gained their legal knowledge from the internet.

A total of 43% of the public residing in this particular area gained their total knowledge of legal matters through the internet, newspapers and magazines and films and television. This figure is 4% below the national average for the rest of Great Britain.

Ranking at the very bottom were the legal experts themselves with just 7% claiming they used them as a source for their legal learnings.

The idea behind the survey was brought about by the first television broadcast of a criminal being sentenced in the UK. The decision to broadcast this somewhat controversial event prompted vice-chair of the Faculty of Advocates Criminal Bar Association, Prominent QC Brian McConnachie, to note that TV dramas appear to be where the general public get the majority of their legal information and so, QualitySolicitors decided to commission the survey to find out if this was actually the case.

The criminal sentencing television broadcast showed the sentencing of David Gilroy at the High Court in Edinburgh. Gilroy was found guilty of murdering 38 year old Suzanne Pilley, his colleague and former lover.

The survey brings to light just how far removed the general public are from the legal profession, with only 9% of the general public in the entire UK gaining their legal knowledge from the ones who know best, the legal professionals.

QualitySolicitors’ chief executive, Craig Holt, stated that, although it is unsure, as yet, as to whether the television broadcasting of court proceedings will change public opinion in the way they gather their legal information, with currently 47% relying on TV, films, the internet, newspapers and magazines, one thing that clearly does have to change is the general public’s accessibility to legitimate legal advice and information.

Mr. Holt also stated that, while legal dramas and television shows are very entertaining, they can lead to much confusion when it comes to real-life law in the UK.

Artistic licence enables the director to alter specific aspects of a court process scene to fit the script so what the public are seeing does not necessarily reflect true-to-life legal proceedings.

However, it is hoped that the recent changes made to the legal system will mean that the legal world is gradually becoming more accessible and easier to understand. The complete repealing of 817 outdated UK laws and the partial repealing of a further 50 laws has begun to clear the path somewhat and should cut down on much of the confusion surrounding our laws for both the general public and UK solicitors. Read more »

Television cameras in courtrooms

Since 1925 filming in UK courts has been prohibited. The reporters and their cameras are allowed to be outside the court but not inside the courtroom. The debate about whether that should change has been live for many years. Those in favour claim that allowing filming in courts will help to deliver truly ‘open justice’ and more transparency of judicial proceedings and those against raise the issue of protecting the rights of victims, witnesses and defendants.

The current situation and proposals

Currently filming is prohibited under the 1925 Criminal Justice Act and the 1981 Contempt of Court Act. The exception is the Supreme Court, which is governed by its own legislation and which broadcasts its proceedings live. The argument here is that the highest court in the UK hears appeals of cases of great public importance.

The proposals from the Ministry of Justice and the Government are to introduce the use of cameras to broadcast the judges’ summing up and sentencing in the appeal courts and depending on the outcome expand to include the crown courts.

Arguments in favour

The justice secretary Ken Clarke claims that the use of cameras can improve transparency and public understanding of judicial proceedings. The biggest UK TV broadcasters claim that greater openness and faith that justice can be done would be facilitated by bringing cameras into courtrooms. Watching a trial live on TV can be educational and contribute to improving public knowledge on what happens in the courtroom at different stages of the proceedings. The question is whether the judicial process is not transparent enough with courts being open to the public? If members of the public are, in fact, really interested in observing legal proceedings, what deters them from coming to court and watching them live there as opposed to the broadcasted live version?

Arguments against

The director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer, though backing the idea, stated that it is important not to promote anything which might have an adverse effect on the statements and evidence given by victims and witnesses in court. The argument against could go even further: will cameras in courts not discourage some victims from reporting their cases out of apprehension , shame or fear of being recognised and watched on TV by their neighbours or colleagues?

The outcome

The discussion continues and it is suggested that it might be mentioned in the Queen’s speech in May. Whatever the result of the debate, it is of the upmost importance that safeguards are put in place to protect the privacy and wellbeing of the participants in court proceedings and only implement the cameras if it is considered fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances.

New EU Data Privacy Laws

The recent hacking of Sony’s Playstation Network and the increase in popularity of social networking sites has prompted the EU’s decision to seek to get tougher on data protection.

Some cynics may say this is another attempt to raise revenues by imposing possibly huge fines on big companies, but others will say that data and privacy are becoming a very big issue and that action and enforcement with teeth are absolutely essential.

In English law, we already have the Data protection Act and this, in theory already places a high burden on all businesses as regards data protection with potentially stringent enforcement. The problem lies in enforcement, since the resources needed to police this kind of legislation are simply immense.

One requirement of the proposed new EU rules is that every company with 250 employees or more would need to have a designated Data Protection Officers (DPO).

The DPOs will be given full reign of the company’s data to ensure that any possible occurrence of data risk for both clients and the company itself are brought to an absolute minimum and will monitor all data protection applications utilised within the company.

DPOs will report any findings to the company board but will be considered as independent and won’t take their instruction from the company’s chief executives or board.

One particularly interesting aspect of the proposed new role is that DPO’s would get special employment protection, serving a minimum employment term of two years and only dismissable on the grounds of performance issues.

Also within the revision is the introduction of ‘The right to be forgotten’. This new ruling will mean that companies will be expected to delete data immediately on the request of the user and will also be obligated to report any breaches of data within 24 hours of the breach if feasible or as soon as possible.

One of the most frightening aspects of the revision is the possible penalties. These penalties can be up to £1 million in smaller companies or up to 2% of the annual turnover in larger companies.

When we take a look at global companies such as Facebook who have an average annual turnover of $4.20 billion then a breach in the Data Protection Act could cost them somewhere in the region of $80 million or more.

The last update of the EU Data Privacy Directive took place in 1995 since which time the advancement in technology has resulted in a vast increase in digital communication, much of which involving personal data and transaction details.

Although the review was undertaken with how new media technologies such as Facebook use their data in mind, it is thought that these new rules will have considerable impact on virtually every technology company in the EU. There’s also a good possibility that companies will be seeing far more bureaucracy within their walls once these rules come in to play.

Solicitor owes bank 70 million euros

An Irish solicitor appears to have run up a staggering debt of 70 million euros, which, surprise surprise, he is not now in a position to pay it back. The reports on this story do not make it clear whether the loan was in any way assisted by the fact that the individual concerned, Brian O’Donnell, was a solicitor, and perhaps the bigger issue is that this is further evidence of the excesses of the last decade and frankly totally reckless lending.

Mr Monkey

In a groundbreaking case of huge potential, a British person using a different account name in a twitter account has had his account details disclosed based on a court order against his consent. This was not a decision of the English courts but instead based on a California court ruling.

The underlying issue related to allegedly defamatory comments made about decisions made by South Tyneside Council by a twitter account in the name of “Mr Monkey”.

A person using a twitter account in a different name may still not use his or her real name when setting up a twitter account, but there does have to be a related email address and information may also reveal which computer has been used to make postings which can link an individual to an account.

Based on these criteria, the spotlight in terms of the Mr Monkey account has fallen on Mr Ahmed Khan, who is a South Tyneside Councillor. Mr Khan denies that he is responsible for the twitter postings in question but is known to be a critic of the Council from within.

South Tyneside Council is believed to have spent about £75,000.00 on this case. It appears that Mr Khan is now also considering applying for judicial review.

Do your research

A new survey indicates that the public ought to do more research before instructing solicitors.

It is understandable that, when instructing a solicitor, the public tend to think that they are all competent and efficient. The focus tends to be on price and service. However, in reality, whilst price and service are relevant factors, it is far more important to have a solicitor who genuinely knows about the type of law you need, who does not have a long history of complaints, at a firm that can properly deal with your matter.

Even many of the so-called solicitor comparison sites or vetting sites do not properly check this. This is even more surprising since the Solicitors Regulation authority (SRA) website now has this information. You can search by firm or solicitor.

Returning to the survey, this found :-

• just over 50% of those instructing a solicitor in the last 3 years checked their qualifications.
• the survey was commissioned by www.personalinjurylawyers.co.uk and questioned just over 1,100 people
• 41% said they were not satisfied with the solicitors service
• 76%, did not check whether their solicitor has genuine expertise in the area of law where they instructed
• 22% stated they had relied on a personal recommendation
• 62% had instructed based on locality and the first solicitors they spoke with or contacted

Will statistics from ICM Direct

Some recent statistics relating to wills are as follows :-

• Over 60% of adults do not have a will
• Nearly 70% with young children have not made a will
• In the age group of 55-65 the figure is around 50%
• Of those who have made a will only around 15% have reviewed it in the last 10 years
• Some 25% do not even consider making a will and a similar proportion think it’s very expensive to make a will which is simply not the case.

Whilst none of us wants to think about our own death, these statistics suggest that far too many people simply don’t understand the compelling reasons to make a will and that most wills do not cost more than around £300.00. This is not a small amount of money but it is hardly unaffordable in the context of the benefits provided.

Credit where credit is due. We came across this post today, thought about potentially putting a spin on it, but the article simply cannot be improved, it really is excellent and embodies are own views, So, without further ado, if you are interested, whether as a client or a lawyer in anew take on what clients want from lawyers, click this link.  Hope you enjoy.

Work and play becoming increasingly merged ?

Many will not be surprised by research indicate that convergence not only relates to the merge of ways to access the internet, phones and other devices but also to the fact that many people are finding the boundaries between work and leisure time are increasingly blurring.

The research by Gradwell found that :-

• 1 in 3 British people answer business calls while on holiday
• The biggest sector finding it hard to switch off are men, and of these, senior management and people over 65 are finding it particularly hard to shut off their business.

Commentators are of suggesting that part of the problem may be pressure imposed by work , by providing smartphones, for employees to either consciously or subconsciously form the view that this means they need to be available almost 24/7. Not great for stress or work/life balance.

Possible employment law claims in the offing based on the above ?

Accused Judge puts forward an improbable defence

Judges sit in court daily hearing some very strange and frankly ludicrous defences to all sorts of civil and criminal cases. In a bizarre turn of events, one particular Judge, accused of punching his wife, seems to have take a leaf out of the book of some stories he must have heard.

HHJ James Allen QC put forward as his defence, backed up by his wife apparently, that in the heat of an argument between them, she became so frustrated that she violently punched herself in the face.

The court did not accept this version of events and notwithstanding that the Judge has been placed on probation and fined £5,000.00.