Television Courtroom broadcasting has just arrived at the Court of Appeal. This aptly highlights many of the forms, issues and issues of debate. Courts and policy makers have increasingly had to deal with - and sometimes even embrace -technology, from podcasts to the Internet. Televised courtroom broadcasting especially remains an issue in various jurisdictions. As always the prototypical argument is that television courtroom broadcasting will always result in educational public effects being achieved
A series of recent Appeal Court judgements has seen the triumph of scientific experience over experiment, and the relegation of DNA evidence from the gold standard of scientific evidence to no more than a subjective opinion. The recent case at the Court of Criminal Appeal for England and Wales of Dlugosz represents the final stage in the descent of DNA evidence, and perhaps scientific evidence generally, to subjective guesses based on the somewhat awkward, limited, and difficult to assess concept of the experience of the scientist (if that professional name can be applied in the circumstances).
Chambers and barristers don’t need to procrastinate to make the decision as to where "they" are at, it’s really quite simple, clients and customers are already making it for you...... it's online.
Through the many sources of social media with a range of mobile devices, anytime, anywhere. Perhaps the biggest risk of all is ignoring the facts and not getting involved or being visible in this huge space and the opportunities it offers
Mediation is now firmly on the legal agenda as the austerity-ridden 21st century develops. As the years go by it will probably be seen as a complimentary system rather than a replacement for traditional court-based decisions much to the relief of some members of chambers.
‘The notion that there exists an evil conspiracy given to preying on children and causing them harm is an ancient one…when fantasy is mixed with fact in unequal proportions, the fantasy can sometimes become even more dangerous and even more destructive’
The Government’s response to the second consultation, ‘Transforming Legal Aid – Next Steps’, was finally published on Thursday 27th February 2014. The response which had been expected before Christmas was subject to repeated delays, whilst a series of meetings took place in January and February between Ministers and senior civil servants, and representatives of the Bar, and, separately, solicitors’ groups. It has been met with widespread dismay
The criminal courts of England and Wales do a tough job, ensuring the rights of the public are protected and the guilty are sentenced fairly. But our courts are often seen as conservative institutions, reluctant to embrace change. There is often a perception that it is only Government-led initiatives that can encourage (or provoke) reform. The current administration is already embarking on a significant range of reforms, to legal aid, to the provision of community supervision of offenders, and to the processes of courts themselves. Many of these have not proved to be particularly popular, to put it kindly. At a time like this, it can be hard to see how more change can be contemplated, let alone driven through by the courts themselves.
Dilapidation Disputes are a growing field of work and with the number of high street retail leases alone due to expire over the next 2-years, it shows no sign of abating. But as more and more Experts become involved in the process, what should barristers and solicitors be looking for when reviewing an Expert’s report or advice and what points should be ringing some serious alarm bells?