header-logo header-logo

14 February 2008
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Statwatch

In Brief

Serious Crime Act 2007 (Commence­ment No 1) Order 2008 (SI 2008/219) Commences 15 Febru­ary 2008 and 1 March 2008. These provisions relate mainly to powers available to authorities for combating fraud, and the abolition of the Assets Recovery Agency. Also, if a member of the Serious Organised Crime Agency’s staff applies for a disclosure order, an application to discharge or vary the order need not be made by the same member of staff.  

 

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 2008 (SI 2008/167) Commenced 1 February 2008. Brings into effect revised Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) codes of practice (codes A to E). The changes: clarify stop and search powers under PACE, s 1(9); implement Lord Carter’s review of legal aid procurement (published on 13 July 2006); enable the police to caution suspects in Welsh where appro­priate; and enable the audio recording of interviews on secure digital network to be piloted. Reflects other minor legislative changes and makes minor corrections to the previous code of practice. Includes the ability for police to photograph people given a direction to leave and not return to a specified location for up to 48 hours under the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, s 27 (code D). Clarifies the definition of offensive weapons under PACE, s 1(9) (code A). Introduces reforms in rela­tion to the arrangements for providing publicly funded legal advice at police stations in straight forward matters via the CDS Direct service (code C).
 
 
Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2008 (SI 2008/132) Commences 29 February 2008. Specifies a maximum penalty of £10,000 which may be imposed by the secretary of state under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, s 15(2) on an employer who acts contrary to that section in the employment of an adult subject to immigration control.
 
 
CHOICE FOR BARRISTERS
The Bar Standards Board (BSB) says that long-standing restrictions on how barristers are allowed to prac­tise—notably the “cab-rank” rule and the prohibition on partnerships—need to be questioned. It says that remov­ing some of the restrictions will give barristers more options about how they choose to practise and it will be for them to decide whether to take advantage of the new opportunities. BSB chairman Ruth Evans says: “The policy purpose of the Legal Services Act 2007 is to increase choice in legal services by creating a permis­sive framework for different models of practice. This will mean the emer­gence of new types of consumer-oriented, legal businesses.”
 
 
UNLAWFULLY DETAINED
The Court of Appeal has ruled that police unlawfully detained a 16-year­old persistent offender while they waited for a charge decision from the Crown Prosecution Service. The offender was detained for three hours after returning to police having been charged following an attack on bus passengers. Sir Igor Judge ruled “with reluctance” that guidance used by the director of public prosecutions under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, s 37A was “not adequate to create the power which the custody officer believed he was exercising” and was in conflict with the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
 
 
WAG PANEL
The list of law firms that have won the right to provide legal services to the Welsh Assembly government (WAG), certain assembly government sponsored bodies, and the Office for National Statistics for the next four years were announced this week. Bevan Brit-tan, Browne Jacobson, Eversheds, Geldards, Hugh James, Morgan Cole, Ashfords and Beachcroft won places on the WAG panel following a tender process and will provide advice on property and commercial law, corpo­rate finance, litigation, employment and environmental law.
Issue: 7308 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Legal services , Human rights
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