Northpod Law & UKCLB Podcasts

It's a case law episode for this Bite, which you can listen to right here.First, R v Bondzie.  Ever wondered why the Crown has taken to serving a statement that just tells you that drug dealing is bad?  Here's why they do it; what effect it could have on sentence; what they need to do to give it an effect and why their efforts to date have been generally pointless and probably damaging to their own aims.Then two quickies: R v Bala, which upholds marriage in all its forms and R v Hussain, in which the Court of Appeal confirms that you can't second-guess a jury.The Law Commission has reported on its sentencing code project.  If you want to read more you can do so here.Let us know whether you prefer the show like this or if you'd prefer to go back to listening to us drinking wine and eating cake. PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Listen to this week's show right here. This week, Kirstin examines the little heard of s.67 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which creates a new offence of sexual communication with a child.   What is it? What does it cover? What does the Crown have to prove? What's the maximum sentence? And the perennial Northpod Law favourite, "Couldn't you just use the offences already on the statute books?"   Actually, that last one might have a bit of a surprising answer - although no doubt Ben wouldn't agree.​ Let us know if you like the new "Bites" format (shorter and with less wine and cake) or if you are longing for a return to our longer format. If you are a law student, we'd be really grateful if you would spread the news of our show's return around your law school friends. Also, get in touch. We'd love to hear from you. PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

This week Kirstin's going through s.76 Serious Crime Act 2015.  It deals with coercive control - or domestic violence that's not that physical.  We use the scandalous plot of "The Archers" to briefly explain what can make up the background to these new cases. Take a listen right here. Then we go through the section to look at who can and can't be guilty of the offence and where the problems might lie in making it stick where there are no other offences.  Is this just a way of getting 5 years for common assault? We go on to look at the practicalities involved for a trial - problems the prosecution will face and the holes that might be worth poking at if you're defending. Let us know if you like the new "Bites" format (shorter and with less wine and cake) or if you are longing for a return to our longer format. If you are a law student, we'd be really grateful if you would spread the news of our show's return around your law school friends. Also, get in touch. We'd love to hear from you. PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

In this week's show, we take a look at the Sentencing Council's recent Theft Offences guideline. Take a listen right here.  Theft is probably the most common criminal offence that appears before the courts. Of course, there are several types of theft and attitudes towards shoplifting will be rather different than attitudes towards theft from the person.  Not just that but the courts of England and Wales arguably need to have their sentencing practices standardised so that justice is the same no matter where you are.  But of course, it just isn't that simple.  The new Guideline from the Sentencing Council sets out to fix it all but, in the process, really might make some things rather a lot worse... Let us know if you like the new "Bites" format (shorter and with less wine and cake) or if you are longing for a return to our longer format. If you are a law student, we'd be really grateful if you would spread the news of our show's return around your law school friends. Also, get in touch. We'd love to hear from you. PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

In this week's show, we take a look at what happens when juries cannot reach a verdict. Take a listen right here.  Many people, especially defendants, are quite horrified when they find out that the prosecution can decide whether it wants to have not just a second attempt but, sometimes, a third attempt! In this episode, we consider what the "sometimes" above actually means.  Let us know if you like the new "Bites" format (shorter and with less wine and cake) or if you are longing for a return to our longer format. If you are a law student, we'd be really grateful if you would spread the news of our show's return around your law school friends. Also, get in touch. We'd love to hear from you. PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

You can listen to this week's show right here. We have been away for an absolute eternity but the wait is over! This week, we are looking at the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) This is a decision that will impact on most motorists at some point in their life and will have effects in contract law as it amends a fundamental doctrine of English law.  So, whether you are listening because you are looking into an unfair parking ticket or whether you are listening because you want to see how the Supreme Court has brutalised a long-standing legal doctrine, this brief analysis may help you.  Let us know if you like the new "Bites" format (shorter and with less wine and cake) or if you are longing for a return to our longer format.  If you are a law student, we'd be really grateful if you would spread the news of our show's return around your law school friends. Also, get in touch. We'd love to hear from you. PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Dear Listeners of Northpod Law and of UK Criminal Law Blog Podcast From time to time, the fates conspire against us all and the absence of our last show of the series and the delay in the start of UKCLBP (as I am now calling it) is testament to this. We don't generally take a series break as you know but we need one at the moment. We have had people moving jobs, I have been beset with Whooping Cough (I know! How very 19th Century of me to get that as an adult) and we think that one of our number might actually have been abducted by a Ministry of Justice hitsquad. So, please accept our apologies and know that when UKCLBP (it'll catch on..) comes back next week, all will be well with the world of legal podcasting once more. In the meantime, we are thinking of doing a mailbag episode of Northpod Law.  If you have a burning question for any of us, now is the time to send it in.  mail@northpod.co.uk will do nicely. Thanks for listening.

The episode that might never have happened is finally here.  You can listen right here. What with Ben being incapacitated, Kirstin being snowed-under and Jonathan having been abducted by aliens (some of this may not be true), a big dent has been made on our otherwise reliable schedule.  We apologise unreservedly. In this week's show, we have a look at R v Creathorne - an interesting case in which the question of how much credit ought to be given for a plea of guilty where the CPS hasn't handed-over the evidence at the time of the first hearing in the Crown Court.  This is crucial listening for lawyers and, just as much, for judges. Whilst bemoaning the CPS's failures in the service of papers, we congratulate them on a bit of sensible legal commentary on the subject of the need for new laws. Also, we look at judicial diversity and Kirstin takes a sideways look at a rather peculiar case from US Supreme Court about beards. Please enjoy and we hope normal service will be resumed this week. Links: https://www.crimeline.info/uploads/cases/2014/2014ewcacrim500.pdf http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/07/supreme-court-religion-prisoner-beard/16856023/ http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/oct/07/supreme-court-beard-hearing-justice-jokes-religious-rights http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11143699/Revenge-pornography-can-and-will-be-prosecuted-vow-CPS-lawyers.html PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

You can listen to this week's show right here. This week's show is about the Tory plan to abolish the Human Rights Act and to put England and Wales (though not Scotland or NI, of course) outside of the direct constraints of International Human Rights law. It's a good job that Ben is still barely croaking otherwise this would no doubt have been an angry rant full of vitriol about our Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor.  Surely Kirstin will be far more calm about it... Of course, you might want to balance the Tory slandering of the Act and the ECHR against a few examples of what the law has meant for us. For a great collection of what to read about this to know more on both sides of the argument, please see the excellent compendium put together by David Allen Green. Not only that but it has been a little while since we heard what's going on in the world of immigration law.  There has been a report about the Home Office and its ability to do its job.  Spoilers, government subcontractors are not exactly thrilling us with their efficiency.  Jonathan Holt explains all.  Visit Bail For Immigration Detainees and read all about it. Next week should be a little more chatty assuming none of contract any other horrible illnesses.   PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

With Ben still suffering from the Dreaded Lurgy and Jonathan being AWOL, Kirstin is left to man the battlements of Northpod Towers this week.  Have a listen right here. With all that is going in at the MoJ (for whom it has not been a good week!), we couldn't let that go by without a mention. But before we get to that, the rather interesting case of Serious Fraud Office v Miltiades Papachristos and Dennis Kerrison.  This case concerns a legal question about amending indictments and contains some rather odd twists and turns. All being well, we might even have a full team next week and we hope you'll join us then. PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

You can listen here! This week we scrabble around in the mud to bring you a frankly minimal offering of law.  It may have been the silly season but the law has (at least in this country) remained aloof and above such matters. Sadly this show was recorded before the Lord Chancellor was defeated in the High Court by criminal solicitors using judicial review - a system Grayling would like to seee abolished - and now we can see why.  He acted illegally.  That didn't stop his press office tweeting (like a petulant child) that it wasn't a complete victory for them but they did get to keep the 8.75% cut.  Not that that was the point of this particular action.  He's like this government's Comical Ali. Nevertheless, the bulk of this week's show does deal with another announcement by Chris Grayling.  He has been electioneering announcing what he's doing for complainants victims.   So what's new?  In our usual vein, this week Ben brings us a thoughtful report on the MoJ's recent publication.  Regular listeners may think they know where this is going... If you would like to read the two papers, then they are below. The 2013 Code of Practice The 2014 pamphlet PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Hear this week's show right here. This is a silly episode to end series 13.  We are doing cake, bourbon and tea.  Yep, we are covering rulings of the tax tribunal and the Advertising Standards Agency.  You might think that this would be a bit dry but no.   We go to town on Tunnocks and get passionate about pyramids. Please don't expect the usual cutting analysis of heavy-weight appeal decisions.  Instead, expect munching and slurping.  And some chortling.   Normal service will be resumed next series! In the meantime, stay subscribed for UK Criminal Law Blog Podcast.  They'll be up next week. PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Listen to this week's show right here. In a CBA vice-chair election special, we are joined by the two candidates, Mark Fenhalls QC and Paul Keleher QC. There was no bloodshed in this head-to-head but we think you'll want to hear what both candidates have to say on the wide-ranging topics up for discussion. We cover everything from "The Deal" to the future use of direct action; from how to stop the slide back into the Bar being for the white, male, middle-class to what the future holds for the Bar in light of the reviews. We put some of your questions to the two candidates and ask about the very structure of the CBA. If you are a CBA member, you'll probably want to listen to this in order to help you decide on how to use your vote. If you are not a CBA member, you might still find this little chat illuminating as to what is the sights of those who will serve initially under Tony Cross QC. For more information on the candidates and the CBA, please visit their website right here. PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!

Listen to this week's show right here. We have swapped Kirstin for Jonathan this week as we take on what must be the two biggest immigration cases of the year, MM and PLP vs Grayling - not their official titles! These cases may be weighty immigration cases but they are important far more broadly as they involve the relationship between the State, Europe and private individuals.  They also demonstrate that politics may be getting in the way of good law-making, not for the first time. Following on from that, we took a look at Re: Ian Stuart West - a case where a friend of our little show appealed a finding a contempt against him and landed-up winning before Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court.  Many have wondered why this Judge should hear this appeal and many lawyers are coming out on both sides of the battle lines on this one.  To hear extracts from the spat between Ian and Judge Kelson QC, you need look no further.  This is cathartic stuff for many criminal lawyers, faced with an increased feeling of being asked to be complicit in the manipulation of defendants, rather than the representation of them.   In any event, lots to mull over in this week's show so enjoy and get in touch with your views. PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds! Feeding BritCaster.com

Listen to this week's show right here. We have talked about expert witnesses many times over the past 12 series but we have seldom explored exactly what an "expert witness" is, what they do, to whom they are accountable, how they are regulated and how they come to be involved in cases.   This week, we fix that by catching-up with Glen Siddall of Aequitas Forensics, Manchester.  Glen is an expert in digital forensics and he is instructed by "both sides" in criminal proceedings.  We ask him about his work and about recent changes in the world of the expert witness and about hacking Richard Bacon's iPhone. We also talk to Glen about the recent BBC documentary, Panorama - Justice For Sale?  Did the programme accurately reflect his experience of being an expert and does he agree with the conclusions of the journalist and of Timothy Dutton QC, former Chair of the Bar about future regulation? In the news this week, fresh evidence appeals.  We record on the day after a man walks free after being wrongly-convicted of raping his wife multiple times.  Fresh evidence emerged that the complainant (who still cannot be named) had lied about the rape, had talked about lying in advance of the trial and seemingly boasted about lying after the event.  This is the nightmare scenario that, whilst certainly rare, we would prefer to think never happens.  He had been sentenced to 9 years for each count but this was increased to 13 years by the Court of Appeal, following an Attorney-General's Reference. With that and other matters in our minds, we look at what the Court of Appeal has recently said about fresh evidence and we'll consider whether its approach is consistent. A little bit of Freedom of Information too, this week.  We heard that the CPS was using unpaid students to prepare cases in one of its offices.  We asked if this could possibly be true.  They answered our FOI request.  Is the answer surprising or not? PLEASE RATE/REVIEW US: wherever you subscribe, please take two seconds as we start this series, to give us some stars and a few kind words.  We'd be e'er so obliged.  It helps us get up the search rankings, ya see.  If you use iTunes, please click here and it'll take just seconds!Feeding BritCaster.com