http://www.bindmans.com/ en G.Adumata@bindmans.com Copyright 2013 2013-05-22T08:41:33+00:00 http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/bindmans-lawyers-support-legal-aid-day-of-action http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/bindmans-lawyers-support-legal-aid-day-of-action#When:08:41:33Z Our Criminal Law Team will be attending the Day of Action in Parliament Square on 22nd May, to join in the growing campaign against the government's proposed reforms to Criminal Legal Aid. The demonstration will be attended by lawyers who work in criminal law who are opposed to the reforms. If the government's plan is implemented, the existing legal aid system will be dismantled, clients will be denied access to a solicitor of their choice and access to justice will be severely curtailed for the most underprivileged and vulnerable people in society.   2013-05-22T08:41:33+00:00 http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/alison-stanley-participates-in-the-law-society-gazettes-roundtable-discussion-on-immigration-law http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/alison-stanley-participates-in-the-law-society-gazettes-roundtable-discussion-on-immigration-law#When:10:17:15Z Alison Stanley, head of the immigration department at Bindmans participated in the Law Society Gazette’s roundtable discussion on UK immigration law. The discussion took place on the day of the Queen’s speech where proposed further changes to immigration law were given considerable importance. The announcement included a new duty on private landlords to check the immigration status of tenants. Alison commented that: “whereas stopping people accessing employment is preventing them doing something unlawful, all that stopping someone taking private rented accommodation is doing is preventing them from paying for a service, pushing them into the arms of Rachman-ite landlords.” She added: “I suspect what will happen is that we will have increased passport checks on people who look or sound foreign…I think this particular announcement has a very unpleasant smell about it." Instead, she notes, what is needed is "research and stability so we can see what the impacts are of the changes that went before, and see if there really is a problem, and where that problem is.” Please click on the link below to read the article: Roundtable: immigration (Law Society Gazette, 20 May 2013)   2013-05-21T10:17:15+00:00 http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/chris-evans-reflects-on-reconciling-personal-beliefs-with-equalities-legislation http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/chris-evans-reflects-on-reconciling-personal-beliefs-with-equalities-legislation#When:10:39:22Z Will Peter and Hazelmary Bull manage to get round equality laws by changing the status of their guesthouse to a not-for-profit organisation catering for Christians only? The couple, who are Christians, were ordered to pay £3,600 in damages for breaching equality laws by banning a gay couple from staying in their guesthouse because they said it was against their beliefs. They have now turned their establishment into a not-for-profit organisation aimed solely at the Christian community in an attempt to reconcile those beliefs with running their guesthouse.  In an interview for Lexis®PSL Commercial, Bindmans solicitor Chris Evans analyses the pros and cons of this defence. Please click below to view the article: Reconciling Personal beliefs with equalities (Lexis®PSL Commercial, 22 March 2013)   2013-05-20T10:39:22+00:00 http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/the-british-legal-profession-has-a-duty-to-help-ensure-justice-for-all-says-geoffrey-bindman1 http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/the-british-legal-profession-has-a-duty-to-help-ensure-justice-for-all-says-geoffrey-bindman1#When:10:04:31Z Legal aid and Law Centres are under threat in the UK, along with the principle of equal access to justice. Geoffrey Bindman QC says it's time for the legal profession to dig into their pockets and help meet the gap in state funding. It is hardly surprising that legal aid is a target for government cuts alongside every other public service. This should not detract from the fact that we are witnessing a combined assault on the funding of access to justice which threatens the very existence of the rule of law. As well as legal aid cuts, the government has introduced a new costs regime which will reduce the opportunity for claims to be brought on the basis of “no win, no fee”, and local authorities are cutting the funding of legal and advice services. The law centre movement began in the 1960s as a source of free legal advice and representation. While the bulk of legal services have continued to be provided by privately run solicitors’ offices and barristers’ chambers, there are now 54 law centres in Britain, mainly in the most deprived urban centres. Not only is their legal aid income being slashed; the local government funding on which many of them have relied is being reduced or even withdrawn altogether. Recently, the Camden Law Centre closed its doors. Every staff member was issued with a redundancy notice and most have left. The management committee said the closure is temporary and the centre has now re-opened with a heavily reduced service and without its former experienced staff. For several weeks clients were left high and dry, without information about their cases and not knowing how to obtain it. Camden Law Centre first opened its doors in 1973. At the time I was working in a solicitors’ firm in Gray’s Inn but I was also a Camden Labour councillor. Interest was growing in the development of law centres. I had myself been one of the members of the Society of Labour Lawyers who had written a Fabian pamphlet – “Justice for All” – in 1968.  It argued for a national network of centres, one of which, in North Kensington, was soon established with charitable funds. Another was proposed in Paddington with local authority support. A group of local residents campaigned for a centre in Camden. It included a young barrister, Stephen Sedley, later a Lord Justice of Appeal. My fellow councillors and I agreed to provide the funds to establish the Camden Community Law Centre and I was the first chairman of its management committee. We appointed Walter Merricks, a solicitor (later Chief Financial Ombudsman) as director. As the Camden New Journal recently reported, “the Law Centre has provided free legal advice, representation, and a drop-in service to local residents for 40 years.” During this period the Council continued to give financial support, and provided premises in Kentish Town, close to where the most needy residents live. The centre has also received legal aid income and its staff over the years grew to about 20 – a mixture of solicitors and advice workers. In addition a number of others gave regular voluntary assistance. While of course neither Camden Council nor the management committee of the Law Centre can be held responsible for the government’s drastic cuts in legal aid (more of which took effect on 1 April), the Council is responsible for withdrawing contracts to provide advice on housing, welfare rights and debt. The management committee failed to secure alternative funding and has been unable to engage its staff in a viable programme of re-organisation. Some of those so abruptly dismissed had worked loyally at the centre for decades, in at least one case for over 30 years. A new plan to fund justice for all   When legal aid was introduced by the Labour Government in 1949, it was administered by the Law Society with public funds and all solicitors and barristers were encouraged to sign up to it. Obviously this was little more than symbolic for the City and Mayfair firms who served the property owners and business entrepreneurs. Yet there was some recognition that access to justice regardless of means was a duty of the whole legal profession. The unique status of the profession is often overlooked, or dismissed with cynicism. It is there to uphold the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law. Much of the work of lawyers is the resolution of disputes, whether by negotiation or through the litigation process in courts and tribunals. It is of the essence of conflict resolution that their should be a level playing field. There has to be “equality of arms” between the parties. That is why it is the professional commitment of lawyers  (and indeed of government itself) to remove as far as possible any imbalance which  denies equal access to justice. In fairness, most of us recognise this. Unfortunately, too many have ignored the need for that commitment to be reinforced by an obligation to contribute financially. There is another reason why it is fair to expect affluent commercial and property lawyers to make an especially substantial contribution to the cost of legal services for those who cannot afford them. It is these people who are the source of the popular myth that all lawyers are rich. Because it is widely believed that lawyers in general are overpaid, it has become easy for governments to reduce legal aid funding. The public do not complain, as they do when medical services are cut. The annual legal aid budget, even before the recent cuts, amounted to less than the NHS spends in two days. The legal press in recent years has been able to report on steady growth in the incomes of commercial lawyers. It is now 12 years since Lord Sumption  - now a Supreme Court judge but then still practising at the Bar - acknowledged in a letter to the Guardian that he had earned £1.6 million in a single year. Such earnings may well now be commonplace in such circles and the profits of some City solicitors’ firms often exceed £1 million per partner. In 2011 legal services were said to have contributed £20.9 billion to the country’s GDP. Of course many lawyers, commercial and others, give free ‘pro bono’ legal services to those who cannot afford to pay, and some give grants to law centres. All credit to them but the spare time services of commercial lawyers can never be a proper substitute for the dedicated and skilled advice of lawyers trained and experienced in the problems faced by legal aid and law centre clients. The most useful contribution they can make is to part with their excess earnings. The pain would be mitigated by tax reliefs, at least when subsidising law centres, which are usually charities. How can this be achieved? Strenuous efforts have been made in recent years to persuade City law firms and commercial chambers to give money to support law centres and access to justice generally. The Access to Justice Foundation [8] is a worthy initiative which has promoted such fund raising. It supports a scheme, which has been successful in the United States and Commonwealth countries, whereby firms donate unclaimed interest received on client accounts. A few firms have agreed to do this but the sums raised are small because interest rates are low. Similarly, efforts have been made to raise funds by charitable activities such as  “the London Legal Walk” led by senior judges. The proceeds of fund raising in the more prosperous quarters of the legal profession have fallen far short of what is needed. More importantly they pale into insignificance when contrasted with what these lawyers could afford without reducing their very high living standards. It is time for more effective measures. In the early 90s the Law Society appointed some of its members to form a working party on pro bono. I was one of them. I argued for a levy on solicitors of profits above a certain level, I think at the rate of 10%. This could produce several millions today. There were different views among the members and we compromised by recommending a voluntary levy. The Law Society decided to consult some of the large City firms to see if they would support it. Disappointingly, it received a resounding thumbs down. Before the 1997 general election, the Labour shadow minister of justice (now Lord Boateng) supported the idea of a compulsory levy, but in government he was given a different ministerial job and his party did not pursue his proposal. It should now be revived. To recap, there are two main sources of funding which need to be pursued to maintain the law centres and access to justice. These are public funding, both from central and local government, and funding by private donors, especially the legal profession itself. A third possibility for law centres is to charge fees for their work, or some of it. This has only recently become possible through a relaxation in the regulations that previously prohibited it. Several law centres have apparently embarked on fee-paying work with enthusiasm and there may be limited scope for it. It is bound to be limited unless law centres stray far from their traditional expertise. Personally I would like to see the law centres remain a free public service but in these hard times it may be that this source of income cannot be ignored. The government and the legal profession both have a duty to keep legal aid and the law centres alive. Government has the greater responsibility and the public has much to lose by their increasing inability to get legal assistance. The withdrawal of funding may indeed be a false economy, thrusting the cost of social dislocation onto other services. However, the attitude of the organised legal profession in the past – that legal services for the disadvantaged are solely a government responsibility – is no longer tenable. The government is entitled to ask for a much greater contribution from the profession. This article was originally published on openDemocracy (http://www.opendemocracy.net) 2013-05-20T10:04:31+00:00 http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/judgment-reserved-on-right-to-die-cases-heard-at-court-of-appeal http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/judgment-reserved-on-right-to-die-cases-heard-at-court-of-appeal#When:15:09:52Z On Monday 13 and Tuesday 14 May the Court of Appeal heard the appeals of Bindmans clients Paul Lamb and Jane Nicklinson, represented by partner Saimo Chahal. Paul Lamb, who is paralysed, and Jane Nicklinson, the wife of the late Tony Nicklinson are seeking to appeal the decision of the Divisional Court of August 2012 refusing the claims of Tony Nicklinson. They want a doctor to be legally protected if s/he assists Paul Lamb to end his life. The case was heard by three judges, the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Elias.   The court has reserved judgment and is  expected to make a decision in the next few weeks. It will decide whether the judgment of the Divisional Court was right or wrong to dismiss the claims of Tony Nicklinson seeking Declarations that there should be a defence of necessity available to a doctor assisting him to die and that the current law  of murder is incompatible with his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8, which he argued includes a right to autonomy and self determination at the end of life. Jane Nicklinson has taken over the Article 8 claims in her own right and as the Administratrix of the estate of Tony Nicklinson. Paul Lamb is pursuing both the Article 8 claims in his own right as well as the claim that the common law defence of necessity should be available to a charge of murder where a doctor assists a person such as himself to end his life.  The Appeal has received widespread media attention on television, radio and the press. Please click on the links below to read a selection of the coverage: TV Right-to-die cases heard at Court of Appeal (BBC News, 13 May 2013) Right-to-die: Paul Lamb takes case to Court of Appeal (BBC News, 13 May 2013) BBC Look North (BBC, 13 May 2013) This Morning (ITV, 14 May 2013) Radio Victoria Derbyshire (BBC Radio 5 live, 13 May 2013) Print Assisted suicide should be regulated by courts, senior judges told (The Guardian, 13 May 2013) Nicklinson right-to-die appeal (ITV News, 13 May 2013) Assisted Dying Activists, Including Tony Nicklinson Widow Jane, Fight For Right To Die In Court Of Appeal (Huffington Post, 13 May 2013) 'It's not a matter of personal sympathy': Judges say they will not be swayed by emotion in latest round of right-to-die legal action started by Tony Nicklinson (The Independent, 13 May 2013) Right-To-Die 'Three' In New Legal Challenge (Sky News, 13 May 2013) Wife: 'We feel that our case wasn't properly heard' (ITV News, 13 May 2013) Tony Nicklinson's widow at Court of Appeal (ITV News, 13 May 2013) Right to die will give me reason to live – assisted suicide challenge man (Telegraph, 13 May 2013) Lord Chief Justice won't allow 'personal sympathy' to sway decision on assisted suicide (Telegraph, 13 May 2013) Courts will not be swayed by emotion, judge tells men in right-to-die fight (Daily Mail, 14 May 2013) Tony Nicklinson’s family renew right-to-die fight in Appeal Court (Metro, 13 May 2013) Court told of 'unbearable' lives (Evening Standard, 14 May 2013) Assisted dying isn't contested on religious grounds - it's about power, paternalism and control (New Statesman, 14 May 2013) Paralysed British men fight right-to-die case in court (Reuters, 13 May 2013) Tony Nicklinson widow vows to continue his right-to-die court battle (The Times, 13 May 2013) Tony Nicklinson's widow joins new legal push for right to die (The Week, 13 May 2013) Pudsey man in London for right-to-die court case (Bradford Telegraph and Argus, 13 May 2013) Family back in court to continue Tony Nicklinson's fight (This is Bath, 14 May 2013) Appeal Court Right To Die Case To Begin (4RFV, 13 May 2013) Edinburgh backs assisted dying (Scotsman, 13 May 2013) Melksham family take right to die case to Court of Appeal today (This is Wiltshire, 13 May 2013) Assisted dying should be legalised say majority of Britons (Gibraltar Chronicle, 13 May 2013) Disabled father of two demands legal right to die (Yorkshire Post, 14 May 2013) 2013-05-16T15:09:52+00:00 http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/tamsin-allen-is-featured-as-lawyer-in-the-news-in-the-law-society-gazette http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/tamsin-allen-is-featured-as-lawyer-in-the-news-in-the-law-society-gazette#When:13:33:36Z Tamsin Allen, head of media and information law at Bindmans is this week’s Lawyer in the News in the Law Society Gazette. Tamsin acted for Leslie Austin, a Hackney resident who helped victims and the police on the day of the London riots, but in May 2012 found that his photograph was on wanted posters in shops and other public places suggesting he was guilty of offences in the riots months after officers accepted that his only role was as a “model citizen” during the riots. Please click on the link below to read the article: London riots ‘model citizen’ wins damages (Law Society Gazette, 13 May 2013)   2013-05-13T13:33:36+00:00 http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/paul-lamb-and-jane-nicklinson-case-court-of-appeal-hearing http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/paul-lamb-and-jane-nicklinson-case-court-of-appeal-hearing#When:11:08:26Z On Monday 13 and Tuesday 14 May, the Court of Appeal will hear the appeals of Paul Lamb and Jane Nicklinson. The hearing will take place in Court 4 at the Royal Courts of Justice, 10-4pm each day. The case will be before a Court, comprising the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Elias. What the court  will consider The court will hear both appeals against the claim of Tony Nicklinson which was dismissed in August 2012.   The court will decide whether the judgment of the Divisional Court was right or wrong to dismiss the claims of Tony Nicklinson seeking Declarations that there should be a defence of necessity available to a doctor assisting him to die and that the current law is incompatible with his right to respect for private and family life under Article 8, which he argued includes a right to autonomy and self determination at the end of life. Jane Nicklinson has taken over the Article 8 claims in her own right and as the Administratrix of the estate of Tony Nicklinson. Paul Lamb is pursuing both the Article 8 claims in his own right as well as the claim that the common law defence of necessity should be available to a charge of murder where a doctor assists a person such as himself to end his life.  The claims were dismissed on the grounds that these were matters for Parliament to determine and not the courts and that the common law defence of necessity could not be available in these circumstances. If successful, Paul Lamb will be asking for his case to be reconsidered properly on the facts and referred to a first instance Court again so that all of the evidence can be fully heard. Judgment on this hearing The court will not give judgment after the case has finished but will almost certainly reserved judgment to be given at a later date. We cannot say when. The following people will be available to discuss the cases: Paul Lamb (contact Jonathan Robinson at Bindmans Solicitors, email: j.robinson@bindmans.com for any interviews. Jane Nicklinson: 01225 700 827, M 07929 662 561; Jane.nicklinson@sky.com Saimo Chahal, Solicitor acting for Jane Nicklinson and Paul Lamb. (Contact s.chahal@bindmans.com. Please email only in the first instance) Lauren Nicklinson: 07794 362051; laurennick@hotmail.co.uk Also, there are 5 people who have given statements in support of Paul Lamb’s case, all in circumstances where they want a doctor to assist them to end their lives. The following are available to speak to the press by email or phone. Supporters: Colin Campbell: 07881 344873; c.g.campbell@btinternet.com Mike Carlisle:  0161 282 7839 or 07859 882710; carlislemike@hotmail.com Sally Macgregor: 01329 231833; sally@macgregor470.orangehome.co.uk Pat Homer – please only contact Pat Homer by email in the first instance as she cannot communicate by telephone very easily. Please copy in Jonathan Robinson. pathomer@btinternet.com 2013-05-10T11:08:26+00:00 http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/my-legal-life-sir-geoffrey-bindman-qc-featured-in-the-law-society-gazette http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/my-legal-life-sir-geoffrey-bindman-qc-featured-in-the-law-society-gazette#When:09:38:38Z Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, founder of Bindmans LLP says he never wanted to be a commercial or business lawyer, much of whose job it is to make rich people richer. Commenting in a Gazette article about his long legal career, he added: “My guiding interests… have been civil liberties, human rights and equality. Read the full article here 2013-05-09T09:38:38+00:00 http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/london-riots-good-samaritan-receives-subtantial-libel-damages-and-apology-from-the-police http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/london-riots-good-samaritan-receives-subtantial-libel-damages-and-apology-from-the-police#When:12:40:43Z The Met today apologised in open Court to Leslie Austin, a Hackney man who helped victims and the police on the day of the riots, for having continued to publish a poster suggesting he was guilty of offences in the riots months after officers accepted that his only role was as a “model citizen” during the riots. Mr Austin, who works in housing services in Hackney, left his office and saw elderly clients and other vulnerable people caught up in the developing lines between police and rioters.  He escorted an elderly woman to safety, helped a bus driver and entered a building beside a burning car to rescue its occupants.  Despite this, and the accolades he received from the police on the night, nine months later his image appeared among others on a police poster in shops in Hackney - describing him as a person wanted for involvement in rioting.  He immediately cleared the matter up with local police officers, but regrettably, some posters remained in shops in Hackney, and on the Police website.  The poster had also been given to the Hackney Gazette where it was published after the police had accepted that the allegation about Mr Austin was not true.  In view of the damage done to Mr Austin's reputation, he issued libel proceedings in October 2012. The Met today joined in a statement in open court (available at Court or on request) and paid substantial damages and legal costs to Mr Austin in settlement of his claim. Tamsin Allen, who acted for the Claimant, said: “This is an embarassing climb down for the Police.  Even after accepting that Mr Austin was a Good Samaritan on the night of the riots, these damaging posters continued to appear in Hackney shops and online.  However,  Mr Austin is pleased that this matter has finally been resolved and his reputation has been vindicated.” The full statement in open court by Mr Austin is here. Please click on the links below to read the related media coverage: Good Samaritan who helped police during London riots wins 'substantial' libel damages (Daily Mail, 3 May 2013)‎ Hero of London riots wins damages after police put his face on a wanted poster (Evening Standard, 3 May 2013) Met Police pay damages to 'Good Samaritan' of London riots (ITV News, 3 May 2013) London Riots Good Samaritan Leslie Austin wins Libel Payout (Huffington Post UK, 3 May 2013) London riots Good Samaritan wins libel payout from Met after they wrongly put him on wanted poster (The Independent, 30 May 2013) Riots hero wins poster libel payout (Wharfevalley, 3 May 2013) Met Police pay libel damages to riots 'Good Samaritan (BBC News, 3 May 2013) Riots Good Samaritan wins poster libel payout from Met police (The Guardian, 3 May 2013) 2013-05-03T12:40:43+00:00 http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/shazia-khan-co-authors-handbook-about-duty-of-care http://www.bindmans.com/news-and-events/news-article/shazia-khan-co-authors-handbook-about-duty-of-care#When:15:29:14Z Shazia Khan, Partner and employment and discrimination lawyer at Bindmans LLP, has co authored a handbook giving practical advice on the duty of care of healthcare professionals and their employers and what must be done to help protect patients and staff. The Mid Staffordshire Hospital Public Inquiry Report exposed deep failings at one hospital, and concluded that those failings could recur elsewhere.  This practical handbook advises staff at every level on how to collectively and individually respond to pressures that could compromise standards of care. Underpinned by an understanding of the law this practical Handbook is designed to assist staff in upholding standards of ethical behaviour,  professional accountability, and fullfulling their duty of care to patients. Duty of Care is co authored by Roger Kline and Shazia Khan and published by Public World.  Public World works with clients and partners to support sustainable development, better quality of life and social value by improving jobs, livelihoods and productivity in democratic ways. To read full text please click here   2013-05-01T15:29:14+00:00