header-logo header-logo

Amendment urged

24 April 2008
Issue: 7318 / Categories: Legal News , Public , Procedure & practice , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

In Brief

The Bar Council is urging peers to oppose a key provision of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which is currently being considered in the House of Lords. It wants the upper house to approve amendments to cl 55, which proposes to extend the powers of nonlegal CPS staff (designated case workers— DCWs) to conduct serious trials in magistrates’ courts. DCWs, the Bar says, need to be properly regulated and their remit should be restricted to summary-only, non-imprisonable offences. Bar Chairman Tim Dutton QC says: “Using non-legally qualified lay people to conduct prosecutions in trials which could end in imprisonment could place the public’s confidence in doubt, and result in longer trials, more appeals and cost the taxpayer more money.”

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Law students and graduates can now apply to qualify as solicitors and barristers with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll