header-logo header-logo

13 January 2021
Issue: 7916 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-detail

Criminal lawyers at risk

The Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has questioned why the courts are to spend time piloting COVID-19 testing at selected sites when such a scheme has already ‘been administered in car parks up and down the land for many months’

James Mulholland QC, in his Monday Message to members this week, said the CBA raised the issue of testing with HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) before Christmas but have ‘just been informed that the Service is developing a limited pilot scheme in relation to lateral flow testing for all court users…We need testing brought in immediately. Testing kits should be on their way to all court centres now.’

He said there were problems with HMCTS’s attempts to track and trace court users, since not all barristers who tested positive for the virus had been contacted, and nor was HMCTS locating all those who had been in contact with those who had positive tests.

The CBA met with unions and representative bodies of professional court users last week to discuss ‘serious concerns’ about safety. Mulholland said: ‘A mass testing system needs an immediate, court-wide roll-out. We need a faster Covid vaccination programme for professional court users.’

He warned the new variant of the virus increased the risk of visits to poorly ventilated cell areas and trials where judges fail to take regular breaks. Various accounts, particularly from magistrates’ courts indicated the desire to push on with hearings was taking precedence over safety, he said, while ‘in the last few days alone, we are seeing professional court users continuing to test positive for the virus from Cardiff to Sheffield to Norwich’.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: ‘We continue to work with DHSC (Department for Health and Social Care) to understand whether rapid testing could be delivered in a court setting.’

 

Issue: 7916 / Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Criminal , Profession
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll