Category: News

On 19th December 2014, a jury at the Old Bailey returned unanimous not guilty verdicts on counts of solicitation to murder and threats to kill in respect of a defendant represented by Jose Olivares-Chandler.  They did so within an hour, notwithstanding that the trial judge had allowed the jury to hear evidence of the defendant’s previous convictions for possession of a handgun, a firearm and Class A drugs with intent to supply, as well as a GBH allegation involving the same complainant and letters sent to the complainant by the defendant which included threats to kill and harm her.

Mr Justice King, sitting in The High Court in Manchester, today upheld submissions made on behalf of ten Claimants that the Merseyside Police Authority had acted unlawfully in seizing and immediately destroying ten dogs.  Permission had been granted by Mr Justice Stewart, following an oral renewal hearing.  Barrister Pamela Rose, instructed by James Parry of Parry Welch Lacey LLP and both Dangerous Dogs Act specialists, represented the ten Claimants, who were each granted a declaratory order in respect of their dogs.  Altogether, twenty two dogs had been seized and destroyed in this operation.

The Court confirmed that a contingent destruction order made pursuant to section 4B of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies only until such time as the dog is exempted, consistent with the wording of sections 4A and 4B(3) of the Act, which states that “the court shall order that, unless the dog is exempted from that prohibition within the requisite period, the dog shall be destroyed”.

Once the dog is exempted, that contingent element therefore ceases: it could not be read into the Act that if the dog subsequently ceases to be an exempted dog by virtue of a failure to comply with a condition of the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991, the contingent destruction order continues to permit destruction of the dog.  Regard must be paid to the principle of due process.  There is nothing within the Act that permits such destruction; neither is there any provision in the Exemption Scheme which spells this out as a consequence of any failure to comply with a condition of the exemption.

In March 2014 the Merseyside Police seized 22 dogs and immediately destroyed these dogs without affording any opportunity for the Claimants to make representations, provide an explanation or to appear before a court.  All of these dogs had been exempted by the Magistrates Court, on the basis that the court had found that the dogs did not present a danger to public safety under section 4B(2) of the 1991 Act.  The police authority sought to justify the summary destruction of these dogs on the basis that the contingent order was a continuing order for life entitling them to proceed to summary destruction.

The case was reported by BBC News.

Chambers is pleased to announce that Jemma Levinson has again been recognised by Chambers & Partners as a notable practitioner in crime.

Chambers is proud to announce that David Stephenson has been recommended in Legal 500 2014 as a leading junior in the field of employment.

The directory recognised, in particular, David’s client care skills, described as “second to none”.

1MCB was founded in 1977, with the aim of providing quality representation to all sectors of the community.   We continue to be committed to being approachable and accessible to all, and to that end, strive to maintain and promote diversity within our membership.  To achieve that, we have in place robust Equality & Diversity policies and biennially survey our members and staff in order to identify any sectors of the community which are underrepresented within Chambers.

32 barristers and 8 staff members responded to the survey, representing a response rate of 63% amongst barristers and 89% amongst staff.

The responses collated were as follows:

Gender

Male – 44%

Female – 49%

Other – 0%

Prefer Not To Say – 8%

Age

16-24 – 3%

25-34 – 25%

35-44 – 40%

45-54 – 10%

55-64 – 13%

65+ – 8%

Prefer Not To Say – 3%

Ethnicity

White British/English/Welsh/Northern Irish/Scottish – 40%

White Irish – 5%

Gypsy or Irish Traveller – 2%

Any Other White Background – 7%

Mixed White/Caribbean – 0%

Mixed White/African – 0%

Mixed White/Asian – 5%

Any Other Mixed Background – 7%

Arab – 0%

Any Other Ethnic Group – 2%

Black Caribbean – 7%

Black African – 2%

Any Other Black Background – 2%

Asian Indian – 7%

Asian Pakistani – 0%

Asian Bangladeshi – 4%

Chinese – 2%

Any Other Asian Background – 0%

Prefer Not To Say – 11%

Disability

Do you consider yourself to have a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010?

Yes – 3%

No – 85%

Prefer Not To Say – 13%

Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?

Yes, limited a lot – 0%

Yes, limited a little – 8%

No – 85%

Prefer Not To Say – 13%

Socio-Economic Background

If you went to University (to study a BA, BSc course or higher), were you part of the first generation of your family to do so?

Yes – 35%

No – 38%

Did Not Go To University – 15%

Prefer Not To Say – 10%

Did you mainly attend a state or fee paying school between the ages 11 – 18?

UK State School – 60%

UK Independent/Fee Paying School – 24%

Attended School Outside the UK – 10%

Home Schooled – 0%

Prefer Not To Say – 7%

Caring Responsibilities

Are you a primary carer for a child or children under 18?

Yes – 23%

No – 65%

Prefer Not To Say – 13%

Do you look after, or give any help or support to family members, friends, neighbours or others because of either long-term physical or mental ill-health / disability or problems related to old age?

No – 63%

Yes (1-19 hours per week) – 20%

Yes (20-49 hours per week) – 3%

Yes (50+ hours per week) – 8%

Prefer Not To Say – 8%

Chambers also collates data in relation to religious belief and sexual orientation.  However, not all respondents consented to publication of such data.

John Benson QC and Ignatius Fessal‘s client was cleared of attempted murder following a trial at the Central Criminal Court, arising from a nightclub shooting between two rival gangs.  At least four firearms were discharged, with two members of the public and a Co-Defendant being hit in the cross-fire.

An interesting feature of the case was the Crown’s reliance on anonymous witnesses, which gave rise to unique challenges in confronting the evidence.  Extensive argument was also heard as to the admissibility of evidence of gang association.

The Defendant faced two counts of facilitating unlawful immigration, having applied for British passports on behalf of two babies, with a view to bringing them from Nigeria to the United Kingdom.  Notwithstanding that DNA and ultrasound evidence subsequently revealed that the Defendant was not the babies’ mother, as claimed, she maintained that she had conceived with the assistance of traditional herbal medicine, a factor which led the media to dub the case as the ‘miracle baby’ trial.

Despite the fact that the Defendant was convicted after a contested trial, Gwawr Thomas was able to secure a suspended sentence for her client.

To read press coverage of the case, see here.

Through Judicial Review proceedings, the Applicant (P) – represented by Jessica Russell-Mitra – successfully struck down the decision of the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police to include unproven allegations in his Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC).

During his previous employment as a care worker, P had been the subject of accusations of sexual assault and inappropriate behaviour.  The Court noted that the assault allegations were fully investigated, unsupported by other witnesses and eventually no prosecution arose as there was “no case for him to answer”.  The reference to the assault was removed but the Chief Constable refused to remove other complaints about P’s conversations with service users and staff about inappropriate matters.

P complained, and further argued that he had not been given a proper opportunity to rebut the allegations.

Agreeing that the inclusion of such information effectively amounted to a “killer blow” to P’s prospects of future employment in care work, the High Court was persuaded to examine the way in which the Chief Constable had considered the reliability of the information disclosable to future employers.

At paragraph 25, Foskett J commented:

…How reliable was the information that they were used and what opportunity did the Claimant have to rebut the allegations?  …The senior officer only included in the information matters that could be corroborated by others.  Whilst, as I have said previously, that was an entirely fair way of going about the decision-making process, that process did require also the need to bear in mind that all of the other residents were themselves known to the police and I have detected no critical analysis of the veracity of each of the others by the officer.

Having heard detailed submissions about the unreliability of the allegations and the fairness of the Chief Constable’s decision, Foskett J held, at paragraph 29:

Putting together all these various factors – and, of course, giving such weight as I can to the experience of the senior officer in issues such as these – I am of the view that the inclusion of these matters (which, without diminishing them, are hardly at the most serious end of the relevant spectrum), the basis for which is disputed and is arguably unreliable, when judged by reference to the “killer blow” effect that they must have on the Claimant’s future employment prospects, does represent a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights.

The High Court concluded that the ECRC should therefore exclude any reference to such matters.

Find the full judgment here.

Chambers has been pleased to support the Justice Alliance’s film, ‘Are You For Justice?’, which was launched this week.

The film features a number of individuals who could not have accessed justice but for legal aid, including Patrick Maguire, wrongly convicted of bombing two Guildford pubs in 1974; Lance Corporal Gyanendra Rai, a British Gurkha veteran denied the right to settle in the UK after thirteen years’ service in the British Army; and Vivian Meneses, whose cousin Jean Charles De Menezes was killed by the police at Stockwell tube station in 2005.

The film can be viewed here.

To learn more about the stories of those who feature in the film, and how legal aid helped them secure justice, see here.

A team of 1MCB barristers will be cycling from Temple to Cambridge on 21st June to raise funds for four legal charities with which Chambers has a close link.

Please do consider sponsoring them by making a donation to one or more of the following charities.
Colombian Caravana 

The Colombian Caravana UK Lawyers Group is a group of international lawyers that monitor human rights abuses faced by legal professionals in Colombia. The Caravana was invited by ACADEUM (Asociación colombiana de abogados defensores ‘Eduardo Umaña Mendoza’), an umbrella organisation for Colombian human rights lawyers, to send international delegations of lawyers in 2008, 2010 and 2012.  It will be sending a fourth delegation to Colombia in the week of 23rd August 2014: funds raised through the bike ride will be used to support this years’ delegation.

You can donate to this charity through BT Donate, by following this link.
Project 17

Project 17 works to end destitution among migrant children, because it believes that all children have the right to a home and enough to eat, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.  To achieve its vision, Project 17 provides advice, advocacy and support for individuals.  It works with families experiencing exceptional poverty to improve their access to local authority support, builds capacity in other organisations, and campaigns for the improved implementation of statutory support.

You can donate to this charity through BT Donate, by following this link.
Greenwich Housing Rights

Greenwich Housing Rights offers free, independent, specialist advice on all housing and related issues.  It focusses on resolving housing problems and campaigning on housing issues affecting the residents of Greenwich and the surrounding boroughs.  It also seeks to raise public awareness of housing issues and provides training to local organisations on housing and related areas of law and policy.

You can donate to this charity through BT Donate, by following this link.
The Centre for Capital Punishment Studies’ Uganda Capital Mitigation Project 

The Centre for Capital Punishment Studies (CCPS) undertakes numerous pioneering activities within the field of the death penalty and penal research, with the overall aim of informing and supporting governmental moves to replace capital punishment with more humane alternatives and to give support for families of homicide victims and the condemned.  Formed in 2011, the CCPS Uganda Capital Mitigation Project’s objectives are to build sustainable capacity through the training and sensitisation of lawyers, law students and judges so that capital defendants receive effective representation and a fair hearing, and to contribute to the overall development of the criminal justice system.  Its partners include Makerere University law school in Kampala, the Uganda Prison Service (with which it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding), the Uganda Law Society, UNAFRI and UNOHCHR, the Death Penalty Committee in the condemned section of Luzira prison, Justice Centres Uganda and the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development.

For details of how to donate to this charity, please email tanya.murshed@1mcb.com.

Our Head of Chambers, Lord Gifford QC, is representing a gay Jamaican, Maurice Tomlinson, in a challenge before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to the immigration laws of Trinidad and Tobago and Belize, which contain express prohibitions on the entry of homosexuals into those countries.  The case was brought under the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) treaty which provides for freedom of movement for CARICOM nationals.  Mr. Tomlinson is seeking declarations and orders, including an order that the laws be amended.

Under the original jurisdiction of the CCJ a national of a member state is entitled to seek special leave to make a claim if his country refuses to make it on his behalf.  The Jamaican government refused to espouse Mr. Tomlinson’s claim.  On 8^th May 2014 the CCJ granted special leave, saying that it was arguable that the mere existence of laws such as these could constitute a violation of a person’s rights under the treaty.  The governments of the two countries had argued that the laws were not enforced in practice.  The case will now proceed to a full hearing.

The judgment is available on the CCJ website under citation [2014] CCJ 2(OJ): a summary can be read here.

In another high profile case, Lord Gifford QC is representing Nationwide News Network, a leading Jamaican radio station, in a suit brought by former Jamaican Prime Minister P.J. Patterson.  The station had broadcast a report about a chartered plane landing in Jamaica from Cuba with a diplomatic pouch containing a large amount of cash.  The story turned out to be untrue.  Lord Gifford QC is arguing that the radio station had reliable sources and acted responsibly, so that this is a classic example of the “Reynolds privilege” defence, which protects media houses which act in good faith in a matter of public interest.

In the Supreme Court of Jamaica on 9^th May 2014, Justice Paulette Williams heard closing arguments and reserved her judgment.