header-logo header-logo

12 January 2012 / Hle Blog
Issue: 7496 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Seeing both sides

HLE Blogger & NLJ consultant editor David Greene recounts the experiences of a civil litigator in the criminal court

"As some of us do from time to time in the course of our civil litigation practices, we venture into the criminal world on behalf of existing clients who face criminal sanction for some alleged transgression. Often, this type of work for the civil litigator is pushed over to a firm undertaking criminal law as a full time practice. Sometimes, however, clients additionally demand the personal attention of their solicitor to ensure that there is some oversight as to what is happening.

For the civil litigator, the criminal world works in a strangely relaxed and sometimes bizarre fashion. From recent experience, it is not uncommon for witnesses, the accused, or even the relevant judge, not to turn up and for the matter to be routinely adjourned. On occasion, the reason for adjournment is a lack of communication between the court and the prison service—no notice of production and the prisoner is not produced.

There are, of course, more significant issues at stake in the criminal court than in the civil court. At the end of the day, one can be looking at very serious crimes and of course a most important human right—the freedom of the individual—but the way in which the criminal courts work seems, to this civil litigator, vastly wasteful. The relaxed way in which fixed dates are approached would not be tolerated in the civil courts. As a civil practitioner, we become frustrated with the way in which the county courts work from time to time, but it is rare that they will allow repeated adjournments of cases, as appears to happen quite regularly in the criminal courts.

There are other marked differences. First, a dip into the criminal system and consequent discussions with barristers and clerks reminds you of the low levels of remuneration for the junior Bar at both magistrates and crown court level…”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk

Issue: 7496 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll