It is difficult to know where to start this week. The law just keeps giving.
Tax law seems to be in the news with the Times revelations about comedian Jimmy Carr who manages to salt away, apparently, £3 million yearly for his ‘produce’. Apparently Carr is having the last laugh having reduced his tax exposure to 1% with the K2 scheme. Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is not.
There appears, however, to be some form of ‘aggressive tax avoidance’ which chancellor Osborne and prime minister Cameron regard as ‘morally repugnant’. It now seems that Mr Gary Barlow, recently elevated to OBE, may be a participant in – a perfectly legal tax avoidance tactic – as well, though with a different consultancy who don’t name their schemes after mountains.
The answer seems to be relatively straightforward. The government hold all the aces. They have the power to draft tax laws clearly – to minimise or even stop tax avoidance schemes. Of course, it cannot possibly be as simple as that or the government would have done it. Or would they?
Blogger LoveandGarbage doesn’t mess about on this issue – a good read. He analyses the matter with precision: Spartacus restored scene – starring David Cameron
Julian Assange, facing extradition to Sweden to answer questions about his sexual conduct, took refuge in the London embassy of Ecuador on Tuesday evening.
Apart from Ecuador, not noted for human rights or freedom of the press, is a a rather curious choice for the ‘champion of free speech’ – Assange may well fail in this latest tactic to avoid extradition to the USA via Sweden. Francis Fitzgibbon QC analyses the legal issues in a very clear blog post – Julian the Asylum Seeker – pointing out, that in any event, Sweden would not be able to extradite Assange to the USA without the consent of the British home secretary until any charges put are proved in court, at which time Sweden would not be permitted by the European Convention to order authorisation to the USA if there was any prospect of Assange facing the death penalty.
And… it is not often that we see cases of judges being subject to judicial review which are successful.
Nearly Legal, a leading housing law blog, comments on such a case: Judicial review of a closed minded appeal.
“This is by any measure an unusual case. It is a judicial review of the conduct of an appeal to a circuit judge in an unlawful eviction and harassment claim. What is more, it is a successful claim for judicial review (sorry to spoil the tension)…
Tony Nicklinson wants to die. Unfortunately, he is ‘locked-in’ and needs a compassionate third party to kill him. Will the law go so far as to include ‘necessity’ as a defence to murder or somehow find a solution to this awful situation for Mr Nicklinson? Given that Parliament is unlikely to sanction euthanasia – and even Lord Falconer, a keen supporter of assisted suicide, does not go so far as to accept Mr Nicklinson’s proposition, it is unlikely that the court will find in Mr Nicklinson’s favour. The legal argument has been put to the judges. We await their decision.
I wrote about the issue in broad terms – covering suicide, assisted suicide and Mr Nicklinson’s predicament earlier in the week: The right to sign our own ‘death sentence’. The right to die and to refuse medical treatment or intervention.
***
Natasha Phillips of Researching Reform on topical family law issues
Natasha Phillips is a non-practising barrister and author of the Researching Reform blog – an excellent and thoughtfully 
Legal Cheek podcast: PODCAST: Be Yourself, Not Some ‘Made In Chelsea’ Clone
The quality of advocacy – BBC Law in Action
“As the lines blur between the work of solicitors and barristers , Joshua Rozenberg asks whether a cheaper service provides better value for money or is it leading to poor representation in court and ultimately miscarriages of justice? He discusses the issues with Baroness Deech of the Bar Standards Board, a solicitor advocate Sundeep Bhatia and Elisabeth Davies, Chair of the Consumer panel at the Legal Services Board. He also speaks to senior appeal court judge Lord Justice Moses and asks about the best way to assess quality and what dangers lie ahead if suffers.”
***
The UK Human Rights blog from 1 Crown Office Row produces yet another thoughtful piece – this time from the pen of Adam Wagner.
There is a democratic deficit in the courts… here’s how to fill it
The current Government often complains about a “democratic deficit” in the courts. It seems that ”unelected judges” are making important decisions on social policy without any kind of democratic mandate, particularly in controversial human rights cases.
I agree that there is a democratic deficit in the courts. But it isn’t about elections. It is about access.
I agree with Adam Wagner’s viewpoint – but I would go a bit further and push the discussion to include wider access to the ranks of the judiciary. Most of the judges come from the Bar. That is a historical fact. Increasingly, judges are being selected from the solicitors and legal executives sides of the profession. In the recent round of judicial appointments – women fared better, but ethnic minorites not so well.
While a legal academic would not be qualified to sit at first instance or, possibly, on appeal to the Court of Appeal – unless they were practising as well – there is a case to be made for eminent legal academics to be appointed to the UK Supreme Court where issues of law, rather than fact and evidence, dominate the discussion. Academic reflection and study of the law (and the skills which such deep study brings) seems to me to be a most useful qualification to have when considering the difficult issues faced by the UKSC. I certainly believe that our judiciary should reflect better the changing mores of our times and the constituent peoples of our nation. It will take time – but progress does seem to be rather slow. I can see no reason, in the changing legal landscape with solicitor-advocates taking on more court work – for the bench to be an exclusive sinecure for or preserve of the barrister.
I was delighted to see that Inner Temple Library’s hard work over the past years with their excellent Current Awareness service has been recognised with BIALL’s Wallace Breem Award 2012.
Obiter J provides an insightful look into: Justice and Security Bill ~ second reading in Lords
Obiter J notes
Liberty believes that the proposals are dangerous and unnecessary. They will not only overturn centuries of common law fair trial protections for those seeking to challenge the actions of the State, but also undermine the vital constitutional principle that no one is above the law, including the Government.
“LIBERTY” – Campaign “For their eyes only” and see their briefing paper on the bill.
So, what do others have to say?
***
Offering Julian Assange asylum in Ecuador could be an empty gesture
Julian Assange asylum: questions and answers
Secret court plans ‘address genuine problem in disproportionate way’
‘As hard as it gets’: the case of anorexic E and the right to die
Daniel Sokol: The judge in this challenging case relied on intuition. In such a dilemma, can law or ethics ever yield a single right answer
Officer accused of Ian Tomlinson killing appears in court
Legal Week: Ex-Dewey partners offered settlement deal to avoid future liability
The Lawyer: Mishcon unveils turbo-charged results as turnover leaps 20 per cent
The Lawyer: SJ Berwin turnover flatlines after year of “consolidation”
The Lawyer: Court of Appeal in key corporate veil ruling
Sponsored by the Law SocietyProfessional Update Thursday 14 June 2012
This week’s issue features equal civil marriage, new CML instructions, member offers, and more.
Excellence Awards are now open for nominations
Ambush marketing: join the debate
Sponsored by CILExVQ Day 2012
CILEx is supporting VQ Day, which is being held today, 20 June 2012.
Bar Council Responds to Consultation on Separate Legal Jurisdiction for Wales
“The Bar Council has responded to the Welsh Government’s consultation on whether there should be a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales. The Bar Council does not express a view on this matter, which is essentially a political question, but it seeks to identify a number of practical issues relevant to arguments for and against the proposition.
It argues that, even if a decision was taken to create a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales, it is in the public as well as the UK national interest that there is free movement of legal professionals within the UK by assisting the administration of justice. It also argues that there would be no need to create any separate institutions for the legal professions in Wales.”
Please click here to read the Bar Council’s full response.
BAILII: Recent Decisions
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Carboex SA v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA [2012] EWCA Civ 838 (19 June 2012)
High Court (Chancery Division)
Entrust Pension Ltd v Prospect Hospice Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 1666 (Ch) (18 June 2012)
High Court (Administrative Court)
High Court (Commercial Court)
Moloobhoy v Moloobhoy [2012] EWHC 1670 (Comm) (19 June 2012)
Source: www.bailii.org
XX (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JUSTICE intervening) – WLR Daily
IMMIGRATION — Deportation — Conducive to public good
Hutton and others v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority [2012] EWCA Civ 806; [2012] WLR (D) 176
CRIME — Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority — Application for compensation — Application made outside prescribed time period
***
The Bar’s tricks have been revealed... hat tip to @legalaware on twitter.
Fraud Prevention Services have provided a nifty guide for cons and others likely to end up in a court of law: Tricks barristers often use and how to overcome them
The Yes/No You Lie Trick – The Keep Talking Trick – Play Around the Borders Trick – Irrelevant Technical Point Trick – Provoking Anger Trick – Questions with Assumptions Trick
All rather tricky? Oui?
Legal Cheek weighs into the sea of ignorance with: Getting a Pupillage Contract At Slaughter & CILEX: Report Reveals That Young People Are Ill-Informed About Careers
“Young people are overconfident slackers who don’t have a clue about the real world, new research has revealed….Want to find out if your knowledge about legal careers beats your average moron teen? Take the Legal Cheek test.”
RollonFriday.com has a bonza of a post for you…
Defendant launches into potty-mouthed courtroom tirade
The Supreme Court of Queensland was subjected to an expletive filled rant from a disgruntled defendant last week, who used the word “f*ck” 77 times during a hearing.
The defendant did little to endear himself to the judge during the short hearing. Effing and blinding from the outset, he opened by telling the judge: “look – listen here, mate, you don’t know what you’re f*cking talking about“. He added that the judge was a “lard arse“, telling him to “stick your trial up your f*cking arse” and, enigmatically, complaining that the judge was “talking but not in the lingo language“. And when the judge made an order he responded, with rapier wit, “Order me a f*ckin’ pizza while you’re at it“. Boom.
And finally…
Legal Week Student Q&A in association with BPP Law School. In this Q&A, Legal Week editor-in-chief John Malpas discusses the hot topics in legal education with Peter Crisp, dean of BPP Law School. Crisp gives his take on the pressure to improve diversity in the legal profession, the 2020 Review of legal education and how candidates can stand out from the crowd when applying for a coveted training contract.
Charon QC 