Some Law… for a change

European court may end duty on alcohol imports

The Guardian carries the story that UK shoppers may soon be able to order duty-free alcohol and cigarettes on the internet. The European court of justice will decide this month whether goods from EU countries can be delivered to British homes free of UK duty. It has always been mildly irritating thatbooze and fags are cheaper in most European countries than in Britain. I don’t have time to hire a white van, take a booze cruise to France, load the van to the roof with booze and bring back supplies of Silk Cut, Rioja and other red wines ‘for personal use’. The news that I may soon be able to log onto my EU supplier of choice (probably Latvia or Poland) and buy wine and cigarettes at considerably cheaper EU prices - free of UK duty - appeals to me. It certainly won’t appeal to The Treasury. It is believed that the government make £15 billion a year from duty on booze and fags. I’ll certainly be a customer if the EU court comes up trumps and gives the topers of Britain new hope and belief in Europe.

Is that a veil I see before me?
Ruthie, writing on the Geeklawyer website draws attention to the intervention by a senior judge (Hodge J) in the veiled lawyer Immigration case. Frankly, whether a lawyer wears a veil or not is of no importance, no concern to others - provided the lawyer can be heard and is able to do her job properly. If a veiled lawyer is not able to do the job properly, because of communication problems, then it seems not unreasonable that she should face the consequences. Ruthie makes some interesting points about judges refusing ‘to hear’ barristers who are improperly dressed - citing the old favourites of suede shoes (Cads and bounders, sah!), dirty bands etc etc.

Falconer to propose TV cameras in court

Joshua Rozenburg, writing in The Telegraph today, tells us that elevision cameras could be allowed into the courts of England and Wales under proposals to be outlined by the Lord Chancellor in the next two months.

Lord Falconer is keen to let the public see judges presiding over trials and passing sentences. Rozenberg makes the point that most practising lawyers viewed with horror the ‘circus’ which the OJ Simpson trial became because of television coverage. Caveats are attached to these proposals. Witnesses, defendants and jurros would not be filmed - so not really much to look at, really - just lawyer’s speeches and judge’s rulings being broadcast. Not terribly exciting. I don’t think it will catch on. It will be even more sleep inducing than watching coverage of dull select committees on The Parliamentary Channel - which I occasionally dip into.

Mind you… if we do start to televise trials… what ‘rules’ will be needed to ensure that barristers and other behave with due decorum when the cameras are switched on? Will we be watching ‘Strictly come judging?’ in the near future? …

On the other hand… I can see much benefit in having “Trial of the day” with full ‘trial coverage and punditry’ with a panel of experts, chaired,perhaps, by a retired judge or Silk?. Could this be my chance to appear on the nation’s televisions? What if I drank too much Rioja in the Green Room beforehand - and ended up disgracing myself like Oliver Reed? Before long, I could be on panel games..possibly even Have I got News for you or even I’m a celebrity, get me out of here. There are days when a change of career would be most welcome.