the legal beagle - School of Law

THE LEGAL BEAGLE
1
Issue 5
THE LEGAL BEAGLE
[email protected]
14 February 2011
City Cycling
Code of
Conduct
Georgina Guy
The easiest way to get around Oxford is
definitely by bicycle. The more people
that cycle in a city, the safer it is to be
a cyclist there – 30% of the workforce
cycle in the Netherlands and the injury/
death rates resulting from biking incidents is one of the lowest. Anyone that
ventures into Oxford city centre can’t
fail to notice the hoards of bicycles outside colleges, cafes and shops and, with
some good designated cycle lanes, it
definitely feels far safer than cycling in
London. However, there is still room for some improvement in certain
areas of the city.
DRESSCODE
Cyclists should wear:
•
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the
correct size and securely fastened – ski helmets work really well too and
Many people are unaware of the rules governing cycling in the UK. The are warmer in winter
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get
Highway Code (ss59-82) states what cyclists must do in certain situ- •
ations and what they should do in others. Here are a few of the most tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights (Aladdinstyle trousers and long scarves are a definite no-no). Take heed from
important yet easiest to forget rules…
Continued on page 8......
Pugh. This topical article looks into the pros
and cons of pre-nups (something to bear in
mind for those planning to propose tonight)
Georgina Guy looks at the cycling laws in
Oxford, inspiring those who cycle at night
Happy Valentine’s Day
Current Legal
to dress “90s New Rave Style”, Katherine
Advancements..........................3
With the exam season fast approaching, The Byrne considers the real life legal implicaRadmacher v Granatino..........4
Legal Beagle wants to help get your brains tions of Glee’s Sue Sylvester’s dubious antics,
Sue Sylvester vs The World......6
into gear. Chine Anyaegbu has compiled a while Jessica Andrew looks into the consePro Bono...................................8
list of intelligence rich food for you to feast quence of Hadley Jons’ Facebook status.
A note from the
Editor
on during this important time (you will be
pleased to hear this includes chocolate). For
those of you looking to organise something
for after exams, our very own in-house music
critic Matthew Crockford has compiled an
informative list of festivals, including security tips, pricing and camping etiquette.
Also this month, we have another guest appearance from former GDL student Sophie
Inside
Once again we have another excellent insight into a top 100 law firm. I met TLT’s recruiter Bee Yazdani and trainee Kate Langton, who have provided us with top tips on
how to improve those application forms.
Enjoy!
Brain Food.............................12
Cinema for Solicitors.............14
Legal Gossip............................16
TLT Careers............................18
Festival Download.................19
Lecturer of The Month............20
Dear Denning.........................22
Art for Lawyers.......................24
Harriet Maas
Editor-in-Chief
2
Cover and Cartoons designed by Josephine Lyall
Legal Advancements
INNOCENT,
UNTIL PROVEN
GUILTY BY GOOGLE
Jessica Andrew
“gonna be fun to tell the
defendant they’re guilty.”
This Facebook status of 20 year old jurist Hadley Jons Detroit Michigan, was posted the day
before the final jury deliberations. The defence
lawyer on the case came across the posting
when her own son spotted Jons’s update on the
social networking site. The Judge in the case
immediately pulled Jons from the jury and she
[email protected]
was later charged with contempt of court.
Similar situations are emerging in the UK. Social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter,
as well as internet research tools like Google,
are hard to avoid when on jury service. They
have become normality in day to day life.
But what if you were accused of committing a
criminal offence and put on trial? Whilst you
may think that a panel of 12 random members
of the public may be able to make an unbiased
judgment, it seems unlikely that they will not
be influenced by the internet, thus seeping into
their civic duty.
Jury service can involve discussing deeply sensitive issues, culminating in mentally exhausting deliberations. However, no one would
expect a juror to bring in printouts of CPS
guidance of the sentencing for elements of offences into the jury room. You also would not
expect a juror to go home and discuss your
case via Twitter or post details on Facebook.
Frighteningly, this seems to be an increasingly
common theme in many trials, leading to appeals from defendants. Surely this undermines
the whole principal of ‘trial by jury’? Where
has ‘innocent until proven guilty’ gone?
Many advocates advise their clients to elect for
a trial on indictment to obtain a more lenient
sentence through a trial by jury, rather than
face hardened Magistrates. Is it possible that
the internet may soon change this reasoning?
More and more appeals are heard after jurors
have contravened their civic duty.
Continued on page 9......
An overwhelming theme of this year’s Davos, however, was the global economy, and a surprising optimism following signs of economic
growth in 2010. Corporate success was attributed to the need to make
companies leaner and more efficient during the economic crises, leading to outstanding profits in some sectors. However, with every report
of success came a note of doubt and uncertainty for 2011, with economic recovery still looking quite fragile and easily jeopardised by inflation, exchange rate fluctuation and trade wars. There was uncertainty
as to whether the economic boom in Asia, Brazil, the US and Germany
would last.
Discussion, Dinners, and
Bollywood dancing: the
World’s most Powerful People
meet to ‘Improve the State of
the World’
Lizzie Judd
For the European Leaders, much debate was had regarding the health
of the Eurozone, with Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela
Merkel staunchly defending the Euro in the face of bankers, investors
and speculators. The Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou further
attended several sessions to communicate that Greece is on its way to
recovery. Meanwhile, the continuing growth in power and status of India and China was a hot topic, supported by the fact that the two continents had sent their highest numbers of delegates to the Forum yet.
The World Economic Forum: What is it?
Every year, in the final week of July, over 2,000 politicians, bankers,
regulators and company executives meet in the Swiss mountain resort
of Davos. Throughout the week, pressing issues are raised and tackled
in over 200 open and closed sessions, forums, dinners and private parties. The exclusive invitation-only event makes powerful people think
about tackling pressing topics in science, politics, business and economics, and encourages networking and discussion amongst business leaders. Each year multi-national companies such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi and
Unilever commit to ambitious sustainability projects, while in 1986 the
event was even attributed to the agreement between Greece and Turkey
not to enter into war.
The forum saw the usual parties and late-night dinners amongst guests,
with the Google and Mkinsey parties maintaining their status as the
best around, while the week ended with a Bollywood themed evening event from India, this year’s organisers. The Daily Mail reported a
lower public profile from the Banks this year, however. The event also
highlighted the advances in social networking and technology, with the
usual secrecy being lifted in favour of regular Tweets from the event’s
organisers, who used this outlet in favour of contacting journalists this
year.
Normally, the World Economic Forum agenda is dominated by one major theme. This year, however, a vast array of topics came to the fore,
ranging from food scarcity; social networking addiction; Tunisia and
Egypt and cyber threats; to government debt and soaring inflation.
Bono even made an appearance in a panel discussion about reducing
infant deaths, while David Cameron pledged to double the UK’s contribution to the fight against Polio to £38 million.
3
Current Legal Advancements
Radmacher: the
end of equality?
Sophie Pugh
Following the decision of the Supreme Court
in the Radmacher v Granatino case, English
courts will enforce or at least attach great
weight to pre-nuptial (or as the Supreme Court
called them ante-nuptial) agreements unless
in the circumstances prevailing it would not
be fair to hold the parties to their agreement.
The jurisdiction of the court will not be ousted.
It cannot be; it is provided for by statute, but
the agreement of the parties, so long as it does
not produce an unfair result will prevail. What
are the practical implications of this? Prior to
the Radmacher case, the starting point for the
division of property on divorce was equality
(White v White [2001]). Often this resulted in
a party receiving far more than was required
either to meet that party’s reasonable needs or
to provide compensation for opportunities lost
as a result of the marriage. The justification for
higher awards was that marriage is a partnership and that in the absence of special circumstances equal division between partners leads
to a fair sharing. Following the Radmacher
case it will be possible to contract out of this
principle. The Supreme Court summarized the
position as follows:
“Where…each party is in a position to meet
his or her needs, fairness may well not require
a departure from their agreement as to the
regulation of their financial affairs in the circumstances that have come to pass. Thus it is
in relation to the third strand, sharing, that the
court will be most likely to make an order in
the terms of the nuptial agreement in place of
the order that it would otherwise have made.”
It is plainly foreseeable that parties with substantial assets will be advised to enter into prenuptial agreements if only to reduce the chance
that a court, applying the principle of equality,
will on divorce make ancillary relief orders
leading to an equal division of assets. Family solicitors and indeed
the parents of wealthy parties are likely for this
reason alone to recommend pre-nuptial agreements. So long as these agreements provide for
the needs of the parties and their children and
compensate for lost opportunities on marriage
then the agreement is likely to be enforced.
What is less clear is whether parties who have
(or are likely to accrue) modest assets will also
enter into pre-nuptial agreements. In many
such cases the available resources are likely to
be exhausted by providing for the reasonable
needs of the parties and their children. In such
cases a pre-nuptial agreement is unlikely to
have much significance. If it would` produce a
result significantly different from what a court
would order it is likely to be regarded as unfair
and not enforceable. If it does produce an outcome which is not significantly different from
what the court would order, then there would
be little benefit in having a pre-nuptial agreement at all.
It remains to be seen whether parties will be advised to
enter into pre-nuptial agreements to guard against the
perhaps remote possibility
that their financial situation
will radically improve to a
point where the principle
of sharing could be invoked
and therefore may need to
be excluded. If one of the
parties is carrying on their
own business then unexpected and significant prosperity is always a possibility.
Parties may also be advised
to consider what would
happen if they were to win
the lottery or the football
pools or receive a substantial legacy. The emotional
consequences of insisting
on a pre-nuptial agreement
which deprives one of the
parties of what would otherwise be a share in an unexpected windfall may act
4
as a deterrent to proposing such an agreement.
Mrs Radmacher was keen, so she said, to give
her fiancé the opportunity to demonstrate that
he was marrying her for love and not for her
money and thereby reassuring her parents. Mr
Radmacher seems to have taken the same view.
However, in different circumstances it would
plainly be difficult both to insist upon a prenuptial agreement depriving one party of their
right to share in future prosperity without undermining the trust and optimism which may
animate at least one of the parties in the proposed marriage.
It seems likely that the real significance of
the Radmacher case will be the diminution
(perhaps disappearance) of the sharing principle and hence of equality in the division of
substantial capital. This may disincline a less
well off party from entering into a pre-nuptial agreement. It has been said that the large
awards ordered in recent times by English
[email protected]
judges have made London the “Divorce Capital of the World”. If prenuptial agreements become commonplace then this reputation may
soon be lost. What is certain is that in a society where pre-nuptial agreements are not a regular part of pre- marriage arrangements family solicitors will be faced with the difficult task of balancing the protection
of family assets against the feelings of the prospective husband and or
wife. Great tact and careful diplomacy will be required if a pre-nuptial
agreement is to achieve its purpose.
It may well be that the most that can reliably be achieved by a pre-nuptial
agreement is a provision precluding a division based upon sharing. The
Supreme Court seems to have sanctioned such an agreement in principle (see above) so long, of course, as the reasonable needs of the parties
and any children are met and compensation for opportunities lost as a
result of marriage are not excluded.
In an ideal world even a carefully considered pre-nuptial agreement
ought to be brought up to date. However this may not be practicable
without de-stabilising the family or at least undermining trust between
the parties. There is no jurisprudential objection to a post-nuptial agreement bringing up to date a pre-nuptial agreement. However, this is in
practice unlikely to happen except where the marriage has already broken down and the parties have negotiated and resolved all disputed issues between them (including the effect of the pre-nuptial agreement).
The starting point for the resolution of disputes about the division of
matrimonial assets will now be what the parties have actually agreed
rather than the wide discretion exercised by the courts when applying
the general principles imposed by statute. This is surely both more practical and jurisprudentially satisfactory. It may also enable parties to be
advised with greater reliability about the likely outcome of legal proceedings. This may lead to fewer contested cases and reduced legal costs.
Family lawyers will soon be faced with the task of drafting pre-nuptial
agreements. This may be a delicate undertaking requiring the exercise
of careful judgment. If the agreement produces an unfair result it may
not be enforceable. This may be because some uncertain factor has been
overlooked or because a reasonable assumption - perhaps as to the future prosperity of one or both of the parties - has been proved false in
fact. If the agreement is expressed too generally it may not assist in resolving disputes. If it is too specific it is almost certain to be inappropriate if the assumptions on which it is based prove to be wrong in fact.
Parties may initially intend, for example, to have, say, two children but
in fact either have none or have five. An agreement for the payment of
school fees may prove to be impossible to implement if the means of the
party who has agreed to pay them are inadequate to meet the extent of
the actual obligation.
Jay Walking with
Headphones
Michele Agnoni
How many of you have crossed a road whilst
listening to music or texting on your phones,
and then realised you had just missed a car?
Although this may seem quite insignificant, a
month ago in New York someone was killed as
a result of this.
Jason King, 21, was killed by a truck last month
as he failed to hear the vehicle’s reverse siren
because he was listening to his ipod. This incident has led to Carl Kruger, a Democratic
State Senator proposing to introduce a new law
A well drafted pre-nuptial agreement should recognise the reality that
its terms are unlikely to be changed so long as the marriage subsists.
There may be a role for arbitration and some difficulties may be overcome by agreeing entitlements based upon agreed fractions. But this
may create its own problems and unfairness if the means of the parties
have changed significantly since the pre-nuptial agreement was made.
The reality is that individual circumstances vary so considerably and
may change so significantly that even a careful pre-nuptial agreement
which was fair and reasonable at the time it was made may ultimately
fail the fairness test. Yet as the Radmacher litigation itself dramatically
demonstrates, pre-nuptial agreements may in some cases have a decisive
impact upon what might otherwise have been the legitimate expectations of the parties.
which would impose a fine of $100 (roughly
£63) to anyone who crosses a road whilst listening to music or using their mobile phones.
This may seem like a drastic proposal as millions of people worldwide cross the road daily
without paying attention to oncoming traffic.
However, it should also be seen as welcome
news because so many like Jason King are likely to be endangered by their lack of perception
of oncoming traffic resulting in further deaths.
This new US law will also prevent incidents
such as Cathy Marrero of Pennsylvania, stumbling into a shopping mall fountain whilst answering an e-mail on her Blackberry (and yes
this did become a Youtube phenomenon with
over 1.5 million viewers).
Back home, although there has been no introduction of a similar law to the one in the USA
as yet, there has been an ongoing discussion
about the dangers of crossing/jogging/cycling
whilst listening to music. Although we might
think that this issue just relates to young people, here are some interesting statistics which
show that this affects everyone.
•
75% of adults have used a mobile
phone whilst driving or have sent an e-mail on
their phone whilst walking. This is not surprising if we consider the number of City traders
who are constantly on their phones for business purposes.
•
One in six adults have
admitted either bumping into
Continued on page 8......
5
Feature
Sue Sylvester VS
The World
Cut to Sue having a homely confrontation with
Will’s wife, Terri. In the space of five minutes,
the following events occur:
Katharine Byrne
First, she accuses Will of having an affair with
Emma, calling her not only “a real floozy and
a man-eater” but also “a mentally-ill ginger
pygmy with eyes like a bush-baby”, stating that
anyone would “need a machete to cut through
the haze of lust that surrounds them”.
In the second case, though it’s morally reprehensible, there is no crime in this instance. The
school interviews and lawfully employs Terri
Schuester, even after questioning her somewhat limited experience. If anyone should be
held to account, it should be Terri herself for
misrepresenting the extent of her skills.
Second, she suggests that Terri takes up the
newly-opened position of school nurse in order to “get into the school and sniff out those
sex pheromones for [herself]”, despite the fact
that Terri has no medical or nursing qualifications and her expertise is limited to the most
basic of first aid training.
The third scenario, however, spells a big, loud
C-O-U-R-T case for the cheerleading coach.
By intentionally tripping the former nurse on
the stairs and placing her in a coma, Sue is undeniably guilty of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm under s.20 of the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861.
Third, a flashback reveals that the position of
school nurse is only open because Sue herself
tripped the former (and rather elderly) nurse
down the stairs, which resulted in putting her
in a coma.
Therefore it would seem that The World closes
the gap, with a 2-2 draw.
Sue Sylvester – the sharp, silver-tongued
cheer-leading coach of Glee’s McKinley High
School. For those of you who are uninitiated in
the global Glee phenomenon, this popular allsinging, all-dancing high school comedy about
an underdog glee club plays host to one Sue
Sylvester, the show’s devilish antagonist who is
hell-bent on destroying every last note of musical expression which reaches her ears. Her
frank and almost outrageous way with words
has earned her a place in many viewers’ hearts,
and it’s arguable that she’s one of the most cutting and comical characters on current television.
But when she’s not reading Cheerleading Today aloud to blind geriatrics at the local library,
belting out orders from her trademark megaphone, or grinding beef bones into a smoothie,
there is perhaps a more disturbing undertone
to her character, particularly when it comes to
the law. Without wanting to spoil the fun of
Sue’s delightfully evil nature, I propose to examine whether a real-life Sue Sylvester would
ever get away with even half of what her fictional counterpart manages to pull off – and
unless her lawyer is just as cunning and ruthless in her defence as she is, Sue faces a long list
of offences, including grievous bodily harm,
slander, and blackmail to name but a few.
So let’s imagine for a moment that Sue Sylvester is a real human being subject to UK law. Episode 6 – “Vitamin D” – is where she runs into
particular trouble. After a number of her attempts to thwart Will Schuester and his merry
band of glee singers have failed, Sue suddenly
begins to catch on to the growing office friendship between Will and the school’s guidance
counsellor, Emma. While ruminating on these
findings in her journal, Sue declares “If I can’t
destroy the club, I will have to destroy the man [Will]!”
Let’s take these one by one. As you’re probably all aware, the first incident amounts to a
case of slander. Ordinarily, however, slander is
not actionable at common law without proof
of actual damage. Will, therefore, might find it
difficult to bring a valid cause of action. Another alternative would be to rely on malicious
falsehood, but this also requires proof of actual
damage, and that the malicious falsehood was
calculated to produce that damage.
For Emma, on the other hand, by virtue of s.2
of the Defamation Act 1952, if a slanderous
statement is one of a particular character, imputing a criminal offence, a woman being unchaste, or containing words calculated to disparage a person in any office or profession held
or carried on at the time of the publication, it’s
here that a viable action comes into play without having to prove any damage. Not only does
Sue accuse Emma of being unchaste, but she
also maligns Emma’s competence as a guidance
counsellor by asserting that her mysophobia (a
pathological fear of dirt and germs) makes her
“mentally-ill”. In this way, Emma could have a
potential claim for defamation.
6
That would make the score Sue:1 – The World:
1.
Yet quite how much this would intimidate a
real-life Sue Sylvester is debatable. For example, in the opening episode of the new second
series, we see Sue flaunting her own court
summons for Child Endangerment with pride,
using it to show Will just how far the long line
of wannabe Cheerios are willing to go in order to earn a place on her revered squad. She
laughs off the fact that one girl resorted to eating a pigeon and that others starting worshipping a dead possum carcass as they waited in
line from late-July to write their name on the
Cheerios sign-up sheet. Now while this may
seem over-the-top even for a fictional television programme, one thing is clear – Sue Sylvester is no stranger to being on the wrong side
of the law.
To take another example, in the episode “Bad
Reputation”, Sue reveals how she bribed Will’s
landlord to put baby monitors around his
house (though for what ulterior purpose is
anyone’s guess). But putting plot-holes aside,
she then uses this information, again, to vilify
Will’s character (this time in front of Emma)
in another attempt to strike at the glee club
leader’s integrity.
Fortunately for Sue, the Bribery Act 2010 is not
[email protected]
yet in force. But she doesn’t escape quite so easily, as this act also violates
Will’s fundamental human right to a private and family life. Though this
is a qualified right, it’s somewhat doubtful whether even Sue Sylvester
could persuade a court that her action was “in accordance with the law
and was necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national
security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the
prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,
or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
And yet apart from that single court summons which appears in the
show, it would seem that the repercussions of Sue’s actions are relatively
unimportant to both the characters and the audience. In fact, it would
seem that a good proportion of her offences exist simply to advance and
serve the plot, functioning only as madcap reasons for taking the story
in a particular direction. Granted the genre priorities of a high school
comedy are vastly different to those of a gritty crime drama, but should
such extreme behaviour be brushed under the carpet in favour of comedic gold? Is it right that Sue doesn’t receive at least some sort of sizeable
comeuppance?
Similarly in “Hell-O”, Sue ends up drugging and subsequently blackmailing McKinley’s principal in order to get re-instated after her brief
suspension for leaking the glee club’s set-list at Sectionals. These offences are contrary to s.22 OAPA 1861 (administering stupefying or
overpowering drugs to assist in committing an indictable offence) and
s.21 of the Theft Act 1968 respectively. So the score so far? Sue: 3 – The
World: 6 (if you include the Child Endangerment).
Of course! While the serious legal implications of Sue’s nefarious
schemes shouldn’t be understated, it’s arguable that her sheer extremity
serves as its own warning. No one but Sue Sylvester would be able to
get away with those types of crimes and that’s because she’s a fictional
mastermind of candid ingenuity – and that’s a rare thing on the small
screen these days. So put away those wigs and send away those judges;
instead, relish and enjoy the absurd hilarity of Sue Sylvester in all her
glory, because otherwise she might send her Nazi-hunter mother after
you – and that’s how Sue Cs it.
At the risk of adding to this list infinitum, it would seem that a real-life
Sue would in fact get away with a lot less than half of the offences she
commits in the show – the figure working out at roughly one third if you
only consider what’s been discussed above.
Renting? Letting?
College and County.
Part of the Oxford landscape.
01865 722722
www.collegeandcounty.biz
7
Feature
City Cycling Code of Conduct
Georgina Guy
Continued....
Isadora Duncan who famously said that we should “suffer for fashion”
and later died after her long flowing headscarf became entangled in the
rear wheel of a convertible.
•
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road
users to see you in daylight and poor light – wearing all black is frankly
dim
•
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle
bands) in the dark – think 90’s NEW RAVE scene – glow sticks, face
paint, yellow lycra leggings etc and you’ll be far safer than the average
mime artist
LIGHTING DESIGN
•
Highway code rule 60: At night your cycle MUST have white
front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear
reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85).
White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen.
Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who
are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
•
Oxford has regular police checks for lights, particularly at the
start of the academic year; they make oodles of money from these fines
as so many cyclists do not have the necessary lighting so watch out!
RESTRICTIONS
•
Rule 64: You must not cycle on a pavement – a friend was
recently charged a whopping £30 for dismounting on the curb.
•
Rule 68: People often opt for cycling as an alternative to drinkdriving or costly taxis BUT be warned you must not ride when under
the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine.
•
Affectionately termed “backies” involve giving a friend in
need the seat of your bicycle while you stand up and pedal. These are
(apparently) a really fun mode of transport but carry a high risk of injury. However, backies too have been outlawed and you must only carry
a passenger if your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one (no definition seems to be given for what the adaptation must be like so there
is a potential loophole here, but obviously sharing a seat is unlikely to
qualify).
•
However creative you are on your bike, all stupid/exhilarating ways of riding it have in fact already been outlawed. Holding onto
moving vehicles is asking for trouble and strictly prohibited. Oxford
doesn’t have any (now almost extinct) routemaster buses, so hopefully
the temptation is not there for anyone mad enough to try to hitch a lift.
You should also try not to ride side by side however interesting your
conversation is…save it for the destination.
Check out http://www.cyclox.org for easy to access maps and route
planners to find more scenic routes in and around Oxford city.
Happy cycling!
Jay Walking Michele Agnoni
This just shows that it is a worldwide trend which has resulted in many
fatal accidents, most of them very preventable.
Continued....
someone or something because they were distracted by talking or texting on their phone. Both these statistics have resulted in psychologists
branding this behaviour as “ipod oblivion” or “inattentional blindness”.
In conclusion, it will probably be a good idea to also introduce in the UK
a law like the one in the USA. Although it will certainly be faced with
severe criticisms, as it will affect a large majority of people, it should
be introduced nevertheless as it will help prevent incidents like the one
involving Jason King. So boys and girls, next time your crossing a road
whilst listening to music or texting on the phone, just be aware that you
may soon be faced with a hefty fine.
With regards to cyclists, the dangers of listening to music whilst cycling
can be demonstrated through what has happened in Australia. In Queensland, it was reported that 40 cyclists were
killed as a result of inattention caused by listening to music.
8
Feature
INNOCENT,
UNTIL PROVEN
GUILTY BY GOOGLE
Jessica Andrew
Continued from page 3....
There are strict rule against investigations or
inquiries into jury deliberations. Evidence
about the deliberations of the jury is inadmissible, except for in two specific circumstances.
One of these is where extraneous material has
been introduced onto jury deliberations. Over
the past few years, the issue of jurors bringing
extraneous material from the internet into the
jury room has grown. In R v Marshall and another [2007] EWCA Crim 35 two defendants
appealed their sentences, after material on sentencing was found in the jury rest room. In R
v Karakaya [2005] the defendant’s conviction
for rape was quashed and a retrial ordered, after material was found with details of the defendants previous convictions. In the case of R
v Thompson and Others [2010] the Court of
Appeal gave guidance as to the issue and suggest that judges give ‘...a direction in which the
principle is explained not in terms which imply that the judge is making a polite request,
[email protected]
but that he is giving an order necessary for the
fair conduct of the trial.’
Parliament has also become concerned with
the extent to which the media publicizes cases.
The murder of Joanna Yeates can be seen as
such an example. Chris Jeffries arrest demonstrated how far the public were able to create
a culture of libellous attack on those arrested
on suspicion of a crime before they have been
charged.
Mr Jeffries has had every part of his life torn
apart by the media. Individuals on social networking sites labelled him amongst other
things as a ‘paedophile’. Mr Jefferies, who was
released on police bail, has yet to be charged
with anything and is considering taking legal
action against the media. No one would blame
him; the man’s life has been ruined by a herd of
gossip-hungry tabloids and countless hate forums canvassing for the inevitable (or so they
thought) murder charge to be brought. But
what if he had been charged? Jurors taking this
new line of internet research on cases would
have found some of the horrendous allegations
made by all sorts of sources and use it to influence their decision as to his fate. The old saying
that today’s news is tomorrow’s chip papers no
longer applies, thanks to the immortal vacuum
that is the internet. Words now stick around
forever in cyberspace. A simple Google search
CAFCASS READING
The Attorney General in October 2010 made
this the topic of his Kalisher Lecture. He stated that he believed that the current laws and
‘editorial rigour’ that apply to newspaper publications should apply to online publications.
Indeed, so disgusted by the treatment of Chris
Jefferies by the media, Conservative MP Anna
Soubry has tabled a private member’s bill
which would prohibit newspapers and broadcasters from naming anyone who is questioned
or arrested until they are charged with a crime.
The bill would put any journalist who broke
the rules liable to be slapped with a six month
jail sentence.
But it is more than the media who need stricter
rules laid down. Jurors constantly flaunt pleas
by judges not to research or talk about the case
they are involved in. This still does not stop the
ignorant from Tweeting in the retiring room or
discussing potential offenders on internet forums. Contempt of Court is a serious offence,
we seem to be living in a reckless age where
you can ‘tweet’ your opinions without thought
or consequence to those who might need you
to make a judgment call independently of your
Blackberry.
This was a great opportunity for me to learn from other peoples applications, it is so much easier to spot mistakes when you are the recruiter.
I am looking forward to applying this new perspective to my training
contract applications!
Christina Bingham
Cafcass, as those budding family lawyers will know, plays an intricate
part of Family Court proceedings. The organisation is pivotal in advising the courts on supervisory issues, adoption cases, and issues for children with divorcing parents.
On Wednesday 2nd February we travelled to Reading to interview 16
candidates. The afternoon was long but we found a number of fantastic
candidates that expressed a strong interest in Cafcass and in Family Law.
We are excited about taking the successful candidates to meet the Cafcass Reading team in two weeks’ time. The candidates will be working
alongside office juniors, conducting general administrative duties, including file archiving. This will act as a strong pro-bono component on
applications to law firms, and give students the opportunity to deepen
their interest in family law. This has been a wonderful opportunity for
both Harriet and I to further understand how the recruitment process
works. It has been great being on the other side for once. I believe that
the candidates chosen will be a great aid to the staff at, and
I am confident the project will be continued for many years
to come.
Due to the success of the pilot programme set up for LPC, GDL and
Brookes law students last year, this year Harriet Maas and I are setting
up a similar project for Reading University law students in their local
Cafcass office. The Cafcass office in Reading has been very enthusiastic
about the opportunity to receive outside help. As with Oxford the office
is understaffed and overworked.
Although the University of Reading boasts many projects such as CAB
and Street Law, the Cafcass project will be the first family law pro-bono
scheme. We had an excellent response with over 30 students applying.
From these we were able to narrow down the number of applicants.
reveals far more than yesterday’s paper would
have ever done. Suddenly, the prospect of facing trial by jury is less reassuring.
9
Headington Hill Headlines
GDL NEWS
Richard Granby took on the Oxford University team last Wednesday
in a brilliantly eloquent and at times rather vicious contest. The ‘Judge’
declared Brookes the winners by one point, although the consensus of
viewers is that this grossly underestimated the victors’ prowess. Calling
the opposition’s point ‘intellectually desolate’ surely entitles a team to a
greater margin in their victory!
The start of this term has certainly been busy for many on the GDL!
Amongst the exams, vacation scheme and pupillage applications, and
getting to grips with three new subjects, there has been plenty more going on. A large proportion of the class took part in the Client Interviewing which was fantastic fun and a really good insight into the practical
side of being a solicitor. Despite strong competition from Alpha LoveBhabuta and Will Buchanan in the final, Nadine Howlett and Sharon
Davies emerged winners, managing to also breeze through the Regional
Client Interviewing Competition and they’ll be going to Nationals on
the 4th March… would it jinx them to say their trajectory so far is just
like last year’s? Our resident mooting champions, Will Beetson and
OXILP Mock Trial
Sian Lias
It appears that the time has come again for all
the LPC students to don their smartest attire
and head down to Oxford Town Hall Court
Room in the battle for victory regarding the
fictitious character, Mr Raymond John Burrell.
On Friday 4th February, OXILP were privileged to host Mr Jeremy Wright of 2 King’s
Bench Walk, and Mark Trafford and Kate
Lumsdon of 23 Essex Street, in their adaptation of a mock trial regarding the Burrell
scenario. Mr Jeremy Wright sat as the Crown
Court judge, with the Main Lecture Theatre in
the Gypsy Lane campus becoming a make shift
court room, with those students who attended
giving the role of jurors, listening attentively to
all arguments in a view to make their final decision by passing a majorities verdict.
Kate Lumsdon took the role of the Crown
Prosecutor, with her learned friend, Mark
Trafford, taking the role of Mr Burrell’s defence
advocate. The witnesses, and defendant, in the
case were made up of members of OXILP’s
very own LPC group 2; Sam Lloyd playing Michael Gilman, the obese drunken victim in the
case; Stuart Nash playing Crowley, the nosey
passer-by; Charlie Cairns playing Derek Gray,
the ‘concerned’ neighbour; and the Legal Beagle’s very own Matthew Crockford
playing Raymond John Burrell, the
defendant.
Do you have any GDL related news you think everyone should know
about? Let Natalie know if you want something published on the
Legal Beagle’s GDL section. Find her at University Tuesday to Friday
(the common-room is a good place to start) or email her at
[email protected].
The trial commenced with an application to
the court for the admittance of Bad Character
Evidence under sections 101(1)(c) and 101(1)
(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The prosecution argued that the incidents occurring
around St Patrick’s Day should be allowed
into the trial as relative evidence to the issue
in trial as in determining the motive of Burrell. Further they argued that Burrell’s previous
convictions, primarily that of assault, should
be allowed in the issue of establishing Burrell’s
propensity to violent offences. The defence
argued that both these points were highly
prejudicial and not relevant to any matters in
the trial. The judge, after hearing both parties’
arguments, decided on the admissibility of the
contested Bad Character, allowing for the admission of the St Patrick’s Day incident, but declaring the previous convictions inadmissible.
The Prosecution began the case with a very
succinct opening speech before calling its
witnesses in order of Mr Gilman, Mr Crowley and Mr Gray. Mr Gilman, played by Sam
Lloyd, openly admitted, whilst under oath, of
his inebriated state, placing himself at point 6
on a scale of 1-10 (1 being sober and 10 being
absolutely smashed). Gilman admitted throwing his last can of lager at Burrell in a response
to feeling threatened but could not remember
any further details of the incident until the
stabbing. When confronted, in cross-examination, with the question of whether Gilman
even knew who had stabbed him, the witness
had no answer, and following a long pause, the
10
defence continued its rather aggressive crossexamination toward poor Mr Gilman, who is,
after all, the victim of a supposed ‘deep’ wound.
The examination in chief, and following crossexamination, of Mr Crowley, played by Stuart Nash, consisted of some very impressive
amateur dramatic performances from Stuart.
Mr Crowley was asked to act out the scene
in which he saw, and the action of which he
claimed he saw Burrell lunge the knife into
Mr Gilman. During cross-examination, Mr
Crowley aided the defence significantly in his
assertion that Mr Gilman, in running up behind Burrell and jumping on his back, was not
giving a very fair fight whatsoever. The defence
managed to adduce that Mr Crowley did actually think that Burrell probably just wanted
Crowley off his back and therefore may not
have been intentionally stabbing the victim.
The judge was quizzical over the calling of Mr
Gray, played by Charlie Cairns, to the witness
stand by the prosecution, in what the witness
could actually add to the Crown’s case, however the Crown persisted and Mr Gray was indeed called. Perhaps the Crown may have been
right to follow the judge’s curiosity as all Mr
Gray could state was that he had seen continuous pushing and shoving between the victim
and the defendant but could not state who had
started it, nor who was getting the better of the
other. In cross-examination, the defence likened the incident to an episode of Family Guy,
of which the witness and the jury mutually understood. The chosen episode was that of Peter
[email protected]
Griffin vs. The Chicken, and the similarities of fatty vs. fatty in the given
case. The defence were quick to play on “the great obese character” of
Mr Gilman and “the great lump of drunkenness” that Mr Gray had seen
in the witness that day.
With the last of the prosecution witnesses called, the defence were invited by the judge to call their own witness, the defendant himself.
A very well presented Mr Burrell, played by Matthew Crockford, took
to the stand and began to explain his version of events. After a long day,
mainly spent in the pub, Mr Burrell was at home peeling potatoes to add
to his Irish Stew with Shin (the delicacies of the defendant causing a bit
of a stir in the courtroom), and a slurring, staggering Mr Gilman, who
Mr Burrell placed between 7-8 on the scale noted above, appeared at the
house with Ms Burrell. On being told to go away, Mr Gilman remained
outside the property kicking at the door, very much upsetting Mr Burrell’s young daughter, his pride and joy, Ruby. Mr Burrell grabbed a knife
in order to scare him off as he is such a ‘big boy’, yet Gilman was highly
aggressive, kicking and shoving Mr Burrell, eventually chasing after Mr
Burrell, mounting him with his arms tightly around Mr Burrell’s neck.
With a 23 stone heffa on his back, Mr Burrell immediately tried to shrug
him off, forgetting he had the knife, and accidentally stabbed Mr Gilman.
In the prosecution’s cross-examination, it appeared that counsel for the
prosecution were on a roll in insisting that if Mr Burrell had stayed in
the house and done nothing, would Mr Gilman not have just beggared
off? Mr Burrell did agree with the prosecution, but with Ruby becoming
so distressed he could not wait for the abuse to the stop.
stance, and where, if Mr Burrell had truly intended to be aggressive and
‘wound with intent’ why did he not, at risk of sounding clichéd, ‘kick
him when he was down.’
In their closing speeches, the prosecution invited the jury, as the only
people who the Crown, court and general public could trust, to determine who is lying? Who is telling the truth? Was there intention? Or was
the defendant merely reckless? The defence, on the other hand, invited
the jury to listen to a poetic closing speech, quoting The Dubliners song
7 Drunken Nights:
The jury, having observed the mock trial and both the arguments of the
prosecution and defence respectfully, were invited to lodge their verdict.
With a majority of 23:18, the jury acquitted Mr Burrell of all accounts,
the first acquittal ever received in this given mock trial scenario.
A massive thanks must go to Mr Jeremy Wright, Kate Lumsdon and
Mark Trafford for staging the mock trial for those students who attended. The attendance rate was rather poor in all fairness considering
that the sign up list was full, yet this did not perturb our guests, who
put on as a dramatic and humorous performance as ever. A further
thanks must go to Sam Lloyd, Stuart Nash, Charlie Cairns and Matthew
Crockford, for their Oscar winning performances, even if Sam did get
slightly embarrassed by the court discussing his weight problem... with
the judge even adding an extra stone...but he does hold himself well as a
24 stone, great lump of drunkenness, obese character.
And as I went home on Thursday night as drunk as drunk could be
I saw two boots beneath the bed where my old boots should be
Well, I called me wife and I said to her: Will you kindly tell to me
Who owns them boots beneath the bed where my old boots should be
Ah, you’re drunk, you’re drunk you silly old fool,
So drunk you can not see
They’re two lovely Geranium pots me mother sent to me
Well, it’s many a day I’ve travelled a hundred miles or more
But laces in Geranium pots I never saw before
The Legal Beagle hopes that all the LPC group’s mock trial were as exhilarating as the main one definitely was.
The defence claimed the events leading to the trial were merely a mix
match of drunken misunderstandings, of which ‘Gilly Gill Gill’ (the alias
of the victim) could, highly coincidentally, not remember any real sub-
11
Health and Wellbeing
Brain Food for
Exams – I’ve got the
power!!!
Chine Anyaegbu
All play and no work make students very dull
they say. Hmmm, quite ironic but with the
forthcoming exams looming across the horizon, it is time to get to work! At times like
these the pressure on the brain can be quite
significant. So what better way to ensure that
our brains can cope with this enormous pressure? By making sure it gets the right food!
You can actually increase your mental agility
and improve your memory by choosing the
right foods. So here are a few tips on what to
eat to ensure your brain does not malfunction
or worse still, break down in the middle of the
Prof Con & FSMA exam.
Make sure you’re eating a diet rich in a mix of
whole grain foods such as whole-wheat pasta, cereals, wheat bran and wheat germ. One
study found that women who increased their
folic acid, vitamin B12 and vitamin B6 intake
showed an improvement in recalling information compared to women who were not taking
a supplement.
Delight in oily fish – they contain essential
omega -3 which are high in Docosahexaenoic
acid (DHA), fatty acid crucial to the health
of our nervous system. Omega-3 can also be
found in fish oil, walnut oil and linseeds (flaxseeds). Fish such as sardine, salmon and mackerel also contain iodine – known to improve
mental clarity. Low DHA levels have been associated with higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease as well as memory loss. Also, the
body cannot produce omega-3; hence they can
only be obtained from diet. They provide fluidity to cell membranes and improve communication between brain cells. They may help to
boost learning power, but also greatly enhance
mood.
C is for chocolate – for those of us
who are besotted to this particular
lump of beauty, good news! Some
studies have suggested that eating milk chocolate could boast brain function. It contains theobromine, phenethylamine and caffeine which
act as stimulants that may lead to increased
mental performance.
kidney beans, chick peas and lentils.
So…. so soya – soya contains natural plant
Oestrogens known as Isoflavones suggested
to act on oestrogen receptors in the human
brain, mainly in the hippocampus – a crucial
memory area. This means that nerve connections may occur more readily. Medical studies have further indicated improvements in
non-verbal memory and mental flexibility in
people fed a high soya diet. Excellent sources
of soya include soya milk, blueberries, blackberries, strawberries, cranberries and raspberries (these berries containing anti –oxidants
which enable the body to rid itself of harmful
free radicals produced in the body’s process of
converting oxygen into energy). A number of
scientific studies have claimed that dietary intake of antioxidants from fruits and vegetables
decrease the potential of developing ‘cognitive
impairment. Guys, remember the 5 a day rule
– seriously, it’s government approved.
Pump up the volume with pumpkin seeds – a
couple of mouthfuls are sufficient to arm yourself with your daily recommended amount of
zinc – essential for memory enrichment and
thinking skills. With Business Law & Practice
– there will be a lot of thinking…
Blue is the new black with blueberries – blueberry extracts can improve memory loss according to a research from Tufts University in
the USA published in the Journal of Neuroscience.
Two supplements are causing excitement within the medical world.
Become best mates with tomatoes – it is suggested that lycopene (an antioxidant found in
tomatoes) could help protect against damage
to cells which are present in the development
of dementia, especially Alzheimer’s disease.
Indulge in vitamins – both folic acid and vitamin B12 help in the prevention of homocycteine building up in the body (people who
suffer from Alzheimer’s have been found to
have higher levels of it). Fortified cereals such
as Multigrain Cheerios, Frosted Flakes and
Wheaties are a huge source of vitamin B12.
They also contain complex carbohydrates
which release energy over a long period and
will keep you more mentally alert throughout
the day. P.s. never skip breakfast! Other sources
of complex carbohydrates include soybeans,
12
Buddy up with blackcurrants – it is one of the
best sources of vitamin C which is linked with
increased mental agility. So its Ribena time!
Go green with broccoli – being a great source
of vitamin K, it is known to enhance cognitive
function and improve brainpower
Go nuts (absolutely!) – Nuts (as well as seeds,
eggs, leafy green vegetables, brown rice and
whole grains) are an excellent source of vitamin E and according to a published study in
the American Journal of Epidemiology, vitamin E is suggested to help prevent poor memory.
Brain food supplements
Eye Q, a blend of high grade marine fish oil
and evening primrose oil, is believed to boost
brainpower in children. A study by Durham
County Council and Mansfield College, Oxford, concluded that 40 per cent of the children
sampled improved both their reading skills
and attention spans when taking the supplements.
Ethos Endymion – contains L-Carnosine, a
strong antioxidant which appears to have positive results for a number of conditions which
include cataracts, improving skin tone, speeding up wound healing, and protecting the
brain from plaque formation that may lead to
senility and Alzheimer’s. L-Carnosine is found
in chicken and lean red meat so this powder
supplement could be especially useful for veggies.
So have you got the power?
Food
[email protected]
Love me tenderloin
can put the loin and the rest of the marinade and the onion and pears
in a Ziploc bag. Refrigerate until about 30 minutes before you plan on
chucking it in the oven - you don’t want the meat to be super cold when
you put it in to cook, so let it rest outside of the fridge for a bit before
roasting.
Jo Jimenez
Here’s a recipe for the weekend, a good roast for only 2 (very hungry)
people. The tenderloin of the pig tends to be the most expensive part of
the oinker but the free-range fillet I managed to get at Waitrose was only
about £8 – which you’d spend and then some on getting a ‘proper roast’
somewhere in town. I ended up serving the pork alongside mashed potatoes (Irish-style champ, with spring onions, to be specific) as my boyfriend is Irish and I know how to keep my man happy, but I’d actually
recommend serving it alongside a crunchier potato rosti, as a crunchy,
direct contrast to the tender pork and the sweet sauce.
Most of the recipes recommend letting the loin - which can otherwise
be flavorless and quite dry - marinate for as long as possible. I found 4
hours sufficient.
When ready to cook, pre-heat the oven to 190 d C. Stick your meat thermometer in the loin. Arrange the onion and pears so they line the bottom of your roasting tray, and then rest the loin on top. Cook for 45-60
minutes - the pork is done when the meat thermometer reads 155 d
F/68 d C.
N.B. that it took just less than an hour and a quarter from putting the
tenderloin into the oven until I was able to cut it in order to ‘plate’ (damn
you, Jamie’s 30 Minute Meals, for worsening my delusions of culinary
grandeur!!). However, what seemed to take me an hour and a half was
passing the roast onion and pear through a sieve to make the dish real
classy like - I could have very well left the non-meat components intact,
but the thought nagged at me - WWJTD? What WOULD MasterChef ’s
John Torode do? Probably say something mean to me in an Australian
accent and definitely NOT fast-track me to the finals.
Let the meat rest under tin foil. Meanwhile, prepare your sauce by pushing the roasted pears and onions through a mesh sieve and a wooden
spoon or ladle into a sauce pan. Heat gently for about 5-10 minutes,
stirring occasionally.
Carve the loin into pieces about 1.5-2 inches thick. Feel free to swoosh
away with your sauce.
And even though afterwards I felt like I’d done 5 push-ups (what can
I say, even after 15 years of tennis, upper body strength has never
been one of my selling points), being able to swoosh the sauce prettily
across the plate with the back of a spoon like I was James Martin himself was incredibly satisfying. Did my boyfriend completely ignore the
swooshes and dump the rest of the pear and onion sauce on his pork
and champ? Yes. But the plates were nice while it lasted.


     
       
 
    
    
 
        
      
  
     
       

Pork tenderloin with a roast onion and pear sauce
serves 3 normal, or 2 hungry, people
1 pork tenderloin (also known as the pork fillet)
1 tbsp thyme
1 tbsp rosemary
3 cloves garlic
2 large onions
3 pears
1/2 cup olive oil (more or less)
salt & pepper
misc: meat thermometer







     
       
   
  
       
       


       

Prepare your marinade - peel, core, and quarter your pears. Peel and
quarter your onion. Mince your garlic. Mix your olive oil with the
thyme and garlic, then use the mixture to rub your loin down. Then
you can either line a large, shallow bowl with the pears and onion
and lay the loin on top, then cover with cling film (like I did), or you
13
Headington Hill Headlines
BLOG- The life of an
LPC student
free afternoon?
As the deadlines for vacation schemes are drawing to a close, I am enjoying hearing the bizarre questions being asked by law firms this year.
I am sure my friend and fellow LPC student will not mind me sharing
our favourite- If you were to write a biography of your life what would
it be called? Seriously, what do law firms hope to achieve by asking this
question? The mind baffles. As for me, I am currently working on updating my CV. Although I am thankful to have had some great employment
and work experience, I have decided that I must be a very boring person
as I do not seem to have any interests at all! Unlike ‘Andrew Goodman’whose model CV we considered on the careers course at the beginning
of term 1- I have not travelled extensively in the Far East, achieved a
brown belt in Shotkan karate or speak foreign languages. I fear that if
Andrew Goodman could not obtain a training contract with his wide
ranging interests, what chance do I have? Apparently law firms do not
mark highly candidates who claim to enjoy ‘lounging on the sofa, with a
tub of Ben & Jerry’s watching chic-flicks’.
By Natasha Baker
Hello again. It has been such a long time I felt it must be that time again
to put pen to paper, or fingers to keys to be more accurate. I hope you
all had a fantastic Christmas and New Years. I know it seems such a long
time ago, but I am fortunate to still be working my way through my
supply of Christmas chocolates with the hope I can ration them until
Easter! Fingers crossed, although with exams looming I am unsure I will
be able to make it.
So on to what has been happening since I last wrote. We were welcomed
back after what was a relatively short Christmas break in comparison
to the good old undergraduate days, to a week of mock exams. I did
have very good intentions over the Christmas break to be a diligent LPC
student, but when it came to it I failed to get much revision done past
marking my books with brightly coloured sticky markers. Although
when it actually came to completing the mocks, this time proved to have
been very well spent and there is definitely something to be said for
knowing where to find everything you need in your materials. Although
with the amount of sticky page markers I have already gone though on
the LPC, I wonder whether I could ever persuade OXILP to provide
these free of charge along our materials at the start of each term. I would
be saving myself a small fortune!
I heard a whisper that we are nearing the end of teaching which is a
scary thought. It feels as if it was only yesterday I was handed the two
big brown boxes full of books/materials and my 30 page timetable and
sent on my way. Now we have nearly completed the teaching of the core
subjects, to be honest I am thankful we do not have much more of BLP
to learn as my folder simply cannot take anymore pieces of paper. Although what now faces us is much worse- the exams! To be precise, a
whole month of them. So now is the time to say goodbye to the social
life, goodbye sleep and hello to some seriously intensive revision.
As soon as we had completed the mocks, along came the Wills/Administration of Estates exam which really did creep up on me whilst I was
not looking. Although I quite enjoyed completing taxation calculations
in the group sessions (a little bit geeky I know) when faced with the
reality of having to do it under exam conditions, all the knowledge I
thought I had acquired seemed to disappear. I spent the week cramming
in as much revision as I could (despite having a session until 5pm on the
Thursday evening- which I am still a little bit bitter about). Although,
I fear to be too positive, I feel the exam went OK and the cramming
definitely paid off. Although unfortunately I did not have much time
to celebrate this fact because as soon as I worked out how to escape
from Wheatley it was back to university for a double session of Litigation- oh the joys of the LPC. Would it have been too much to ask for a
Cinema for
Solicitors
Elliot Fry
This Month - Intolerable
Cruelty
The Facts - This month’s absurdly
attractive lawyer is George Cloon-
Good luck to you all for the exams. You can only do your best and no
one can ask any more of you (so I have always been told by concerned
family members). Go mad and highlight your whole folder and stick
page markers in everything that has ever been covered in a session,
stock up on pro-plus, coffee, highlighters and do not forget to breathe.
I will see you in the exams. I will be the one sitting at the front (thanks
to having a surname at the beginning of the alphabet not because I am
actually an invigilator), biting my nails and frantically arranging my materials neatly on the table.
So until next time, take care and see you for the next phase of the LPC.
ey, playing a highly successfully and charismatically amoral divorce attorney. The Coen
brothers take a break from serious Oscar bait
like Fargo and No Country for Old Men, and
black comedy like The Big Lebowski to bring
us a romantic comedy.
The film begins with Geoffrey Rush of Pirates
of the Carribean fame discovering his wife in
14
flagrante with another man, and then being
beaten over the head by her and stabbed in the
backside. George Clooney’s keen legal mind
and lack of ethics enable him to win the case
for the cuckolding wife.
Catherine Zeta Jones, with a trade mark aloofness, plays a serial divorcee who has the misfortune of going against Clooney, who tracks
Cinema for Solicitors
down the fantastically camp Heinz, the Baron
Krauss von Espy and his dog, revealing her
plan to marry her husband for his money, and
leaving her with nothing out of the divorce. In
revenge, she marries the wonderfully amusing
Billy Bob Thornton (a man used to punching
above his weight, having married Angelina
Jolie in real life), who pretends to be a fabulously wealthy oil heir. The reason for this cunning ruse is eventually revealed as she divorces
him, and fakes a moment of vulnerability to
Clooney, who impulsively marries her in Las
Vegas, leaving himself exposed and without a
pre-nup, so that the considerably less wealthy
Zeta Jones can take him for all he’s worth.
I’ll stop with the spoilers for a second to examine what I like and dislike about this film. The
script is awash with quick wit and excellent
characters, Clooney repeats his effortless charisma from previous Coen brothers venture O
Brother Where Art Thou? and, when the story
calls for it, provides interludes of charming
confusion, fear, and panic. Unfortunately Zeta
[email protected]
Jones sails along on a winning smile and not
very much else. The story requires love, instead
we see a few moments of intense verbal sparring and not much else. Clooney has a closer
relationship with his hapless assistant. Having
the Beatrice and Benedick style couple quote
Shakespeare at each other, and hearing Clooney say “You fascinate me” in a raw voice is not
enough to make this a romantic comedy. This
is, first and foremost, a Cohen brothers film.
The dialogue is crisp and clever, the acting by
and large is superb, and the plot displays their
trademark dark humour. Yet this is supposed
to be romantic, a film in which the two love
interests hire a hitman to kill each other destroys any chance of us being invested in this
couple. The conclusion of the film is obvious
and inevitable (Clooney is set to abandon his
practice and go into Pro Bono), a good thing
in a romantic comedy, but the way the Coen
brothers play it is too dark, too cool, to be an
effective rom-com. But this doesn’t mean it’s
not enjoyable. A hitman isn’t romantic (possible exception for Grosse Pointe Blank), but
an asthmatic and largely silent hitman is very
Coen brothers.
The Law - The legal humour is a tad more
whimsical and less smugly dry than most
laughs you find in a courtroom. Clooney’s
membership of the National Organisation of Matrimonial Associates Nationwide
(N.O.M.A.N, as in let N.O.M.A.N put asunder) is a nice touch. The film features very little
actual courtroom drama, and far more sexual
tension during cross-examination than most
advocates will ever experience. There’s also a
glaring (and crucial) error that anyone who
has ever studied Wills and Probate will pick
up on. Despite this, most viewers will be able
to look over the legal imperfections of the film
and accept it for the amusing piece of fluff it is.
The Verdict - All lawyers look like George
Clooney, and anyone who doesn’t do Pro Bono
has the morals of a jackal with a machete.
ALBION BEATNIK CAFE/BOOKSHOP PRESENTS
(Monday Feb. 21, 7:30 p.m. free/donations welcome)
THE OXFORD TALK-IN DEBATE:
‘STREET FIGHTING MAN/WOMAN’: ‘VIOLENT’ vs. ‘NON-VIOLENT’ PROTEST
TACTICS
Following the recent Radical Protests against Government budget cuts and tuition fee
increases, the OXFORD TALK-IN, with the help of its panelists and audience will explore and debate the Tactical options open to Radical Protesters.How do we define the
word ‘Violence’? Should Protesters be Non-Violent at all times? Is ‘Defensive Violence’
against Property and/or Police justified in way that ‘Offensive Violence is not? Are AntiProperty tactics truly ‘Violent’ and are they justified tactically and/or morally? Is Violence against Police ever justified whether ‘Offensive’ or ‘Defensive’? Are there spiritual
implications of Protesters’ choice of tactics?
This debate will give Protesters/Activists a chance to interact with the ‘Public’ on questions of this kind and hopefully together we will move the Political Protest Paradigm
forward. Audience participation will be encouraged.
Panelists: To be named, stay tuned.
Host: Jeff Laster (Parallel-Youniversity/Synergy Project)
[email protected]
15
Legal Gossip
Legal Gossip
Emily Neale
Lucky Escapes
We all make mistakes, including Cupid, so in the celebration of Valentine’s Day here are a few of his more interesting mis-haps.
Wilhelm Schulz of Stuttgart demanded a divorce from his wife after becoming sick of her insistence that her male psychoanalyst share their
marital bed. She in turn argued that this was in order for the psychoanalyst to ‘interpret what Wilhelm said in his sleep’.
In the case of Lines v Lines, the marriage fell apart after the long suffering wife became tiresome of her husband’s relentless requests that
she tickle his feet for hours, leading to uncontrollable movement in her
hand. The court upheld this as being a reason leading to an irretrievable
breakdown of the relationship.
John Turner, the long suffering husband of Pauline Turner finally waved
the white flag after the court heard how his wife ‘moved furniture around
every day for 38 years; she had a particular mania for blocking up doors’.
Arthur Corbett attempted to have his marriage declared void in 1970,
after discovering his glamour model wife, April Ashley, was in fact born
as George Jamieson.
Some people enjoy getting divorced; it appears none so more than
American couple Dorothy and David King Funk. The couple were first
married in December of 1950, divorced in 1957, remarried and divorced
in 1962, 1964 and 1865. It was the year of 1970, which saw them finally
call it quits.
Another example of his impulsive behaviour was his request that the
courtroom spectators at one of his trials vote on which of the two conflicting witnesses to believe.
Forbes reported the most expensive celebrity divorce in entertainment
history as being the split of Michael Jordan and his ex-wife Juanita. The
U.S basketball star had to fork out a reported $168 million, which came
from the $350 million Jordan had earned throughout their marriage.
LPC students are currently in the midst of their criminal litigation studies, part of which focuses on criminal evidence, therefore this tale seems
a fitting one. The phrase sweet F.A, as in ‘there is sweet F.A on television,
oh not wait Jurassic Park is on ITV2 again’, originates from the phrase
‘sweet Fanny Adams’. The phrase was coined following the investigation
into the disappearance of a young girl named ‘Fanny Adams’ in the late
1800s.
Sweet F.A
Trial and Error
Judges must arguably get bored with seeing some of the same faces,
cases with similar facts, they may get tired of handing out the same sentences, so is it unfair for them to attempt to liven things up? Judge Friess
sat in a New York courtroom throughout the 1980s; he clearly got fed up
with some of his more monotonous duties. He faced disciplinary action
after bargaining with the defendant on the sentence handed down, resulting in the sentence being shortened following the flipping of a coin.
The judge apparently had a history of strange behaviour;
one incident saw the judge release a female defendant from
her murder conviction and kindly offering her a lift home.
The story is a gruesome one; once the body was eventually found it appeared her arms had been severed, her eyes were missing, as was an ear
and both of her legs. What was left of the poor girl was arguably next to
nothing, essentially sweet F.A of Fanny Adams. Hence the modern day
usage of the phrase e.g. ‘There is sweet F.A in my bank account’.
The suspect protested his innocence, however he was found guilty after
some rather strong evidence was discovered; a diary entry of his, which
read ‘killed a young girl’.
16
[email protected]
Andy Gray
Most readers will have heard about the recent controversy surrounding
the removal of Andy Gray from his position as a football presenter for
Sky Sports. The pundit was sacked after making sexist comments about
a female referee’s knowledge of the offside rule.
Rather than add substance to the pros and cons of sex discrimination
in the workplace, it seems more productive to attempt to equip those
interested (both men and women) with the ability to make their arguments a bit more interesting.
Below is (hopefully) a comprehensive guide to ‘the Offside Rule’.
During a football match, when the ball is played forward, there must
be at least 2 players of the defending team between the attacking player
and the goal.
So, when an attacking player passes the ball to his teammate who may
be further up the field and closer to the goal, there must be 2 of the defending team in between the player further up who is to receive the ball
and the goal. One of these 2 players may be the goalkeeper.
A player will thus be offside if at the time the ball is passed or played to
him by his attacking teammate, there are less than 2 of the defending
team in between him and the goal.
Love Law is in the
air...
Emma Good
Today is Valentine’s Day- the most romantic
day of the year. Take a break from the studying to peruse cheesy cards declaring undying
love, purchase lingerie and book yourself in to
overpriced restaurants.
Whether loved up or not, the prudent law student will be aware of, and at hand to advise on,
the potential legal implications of this lovefilled day.
If there happens to be a fellow law student you
pine for from afar (and just happen to know
their timetable off by heart), please proceed
with caution when attempting to woo said target/object of affection. If your actions in the
lead up to Valentine’s Day include, inter alia,
sending gifts from the seemingly “romantic”
A player maybe in an offside position during the match, however, as
long as he doesn’t interfere with the play, for example- touch the ball, he
won’t be committing an offside offence. The impetus behind the rule is
to prevent goal hanging.
More sex discrimination…..
A John Lewis shop assistant is bringing a claim for sex discrimination
against his former employer. Konstantinos Kalomoiris argues a female
colleague allegedly slapped his arse on 3 occassions. The accused pertpetrator of the crime, is 68 year old Bianca Revrenna.
Kalomoiris stated that; “every time she did it she would pause for a couple of seconds like she was savouring it”. She argues that all she did was
“touch him like a grandmother”. The case is ongoing.
Celebrity Divorces of 2010
Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren
Sandra Bullock and Jesse James
Eva Longoria and Tony Parker
Scarlet Johansson and Ryan Reynolds
Courtney Cox and David Arquette
(i.e. flowers) to the bizarre (i.e. pornographic
gifts), gathering information on the victim
by contacting people who know the target;
searching public or personal records, or ferreting through the rubbish, for information or
engaging in “surveillance” of the individual by
means of persistently watching or employing
detective agencies to watch the individual (!)
then be aware that said actions may constitute
stalking. Although there is no explicit offence
of stalking in English law, it qualifies as harassment, and therefore is indirectly governed
by the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
and carries maximum penalties of 6 months
imprisonment and/or a fine of £5000.
If you have a training contract, or you are employed in some other capacity and have secured your sweetheart’s affection without the
need to stalk, do not think you are home and
dry. If you happened to have met your partner in the workplace, your employers could
be hatching a plot as you cuddle in the copy
room. UK employers have been considering
17
the introduction of “love contracts”- a contract
governing the consensual relationship of work
colleagues. The primary purpose of such a
policy is to limit the liability of an organisation
in the event that the romantic relationship of
the dating couple ends. With around a quarter of long-term relationships beginning in the
work-place , ensure you put into practice the
age-old adage of reading the small print before
you sign, otherwise your employer could be
regulating your relationship.
A further legal land mine relating to love in the
workplace is that of items charged as business
expenses for the purposes of Valentine’s Day.
The recent US case of Freeman v. Ace, [2005]
concerned a relationship between the CEO of
a company and one of the company’s customer
service representatives. During the course of
their relationship, Mr CEO charged Viagra to
the company credit card and had it delivered
to work “in hopes that it might assist him in pursuing a relationship”
with Ms CSR.
Continued on page 22......
Careers
Meet the Trainee
Kate Langton from TLT
1. Please could you tell me a little bit about
yourself?
I am a third seat trainee at TLT in Bristol. I
studied law at St Hugh’s College, Oxford and
then moved to Bristol to complete the LPC at
the University of the West of England before
starting my training contract in September
2009.
2. Why did you choose to apply to TLT as a
trainee?
I knew I wanted to work in a reasonably large
full-service commercial law firm. However,
although most of my friends from university
went to work in London, I preferred the idea
of working in a slightly smaller city. I chose to
focus on Bristol, which is closer to my family
and offers a fantastic quality of life. I love the
fact that I live within easy walking or cycling
distance of work and within 30 minutes I can
be in the countryside horse riding at the weekend!
Bristol has a busy and competitive legal market
with a number of very well respected firms. I
chose to apply to TLT as it is one of the largest
in the city, with a very broad range of practice
areas. I was particularly excited about my application to TLT as it is a relatively new firm
(currently just over ten years old), which has
grown significantly since its formation and has
a truly ambitious feel to it. Since submitting
my application in 2007, the firm has continued to grow in staff numbers, profitability and
national reputation, and still retains the strong
feeling of aspiration that I first noticed. I find
it refreshing to work for an organisation that is
not taking its position for granted, but is constantly reassessing what it can do and how it
can be better and differentiate itself.
3. What do you think in particular helped you
to secure your place with TLT?
I’m not sure if there is one factor that was key
to my successful application, but I
know that academic results, work
experience, interview skills, com-
mercial awareness and assessment centre or
vacation scheme performance are all important. I believe that at TLT personality and a
team mentality are also crucial to success.
One thing that is really important is the ability to discuss your experiences and skills in a
relevant and interesting way. For example, I
had not been on any vacation schemes, and
only had informal legal work experience that
was in-house rather than in private practice.
However, I thought carefully in advance about
how to explain the lessons learned from this
experience and why I wanted to work in private practice, and particularly at TLT.
contracts, and therefore it’s very important
to the graduate recruiters that trainees can
clearly demonstrate that they also have a genuine commitment to TLT. I was open about
my reasons for wanting to work at TLT and
my thoughts on practice areas I might be interested in, and I think this honesty allowed
my personality and genuine interests to shine
through. As a general rule, candidates who
only answer questions with answers that they
think the interviewer wants to hear are likely
to seem boring and insincere.
4. Which departments have you completed
seats in so far, and which one have you enjoyed
the most and why?
TrainingContract_210x148.5-14:Layout 1 5/7/10 14:45 Page 1
TLT works very hard to offer all of its train- My first seat was in Corporate/Turnaround,
ees NQ positions at the end of their training a part of the general Corporate team that
We’re working in the future.
Join us here.
Training Contracts and Vacation Schemes
We’re open here. Open to your ideas. Open to connected working. Open plan and open
minded. Here you’ll find the future of law – a new way of thinking, and a new way of doing
business. Breaking down barriers, encouraging creativity, and caring for the world around us.
A Top 100 firm, we have accolades from the best in business who agree that our way is the
way forward. You need to be part of this. This is where your career really begins.
Whether you join us for your training contract or a one week vacation scheme placement, you’ll
work on live cases for real clients, get input from a Partner, and develop a broad range of skills
across the full legal and business spectrum. Our vacation schemes are held every Easter and
summer in Bristol, and every summer in London. Second year law students, final year non-law
or law students, graduates and mature candidates can all apply. And, we’re recruiting now for
trainees to join us in September 2013 and March 2014.
Find out more and apply at www.TLTcareers.com/trainee
A NEW KIND OF LAW FIRM
18
Careers
[email protected]
Meet the Recruiter
specialises in advising clients on M&A transactions in a turnaround
context, i.e. companies that need to change their business structure in
some way to improve their position, for example by selling a subsidiary
or purchasing a competitor’s business. The seat was fascinating and I
learned a lot about how companies are regulated and operated and I
practised drafting skills that have really benefited me in the rest of my
training.
Bee Yazdani from TLT
1) Please tell us a little bit about yourself and how you came to work as
a recruiter at TLT?
I manage the recruitment of Support Staff and Trainee Solicitors at TLT.
After a few years working within hotel management, I returned to recruitment which is what I had done after graduating.
My second seat was in the Real Estate Group, in a seat split between the
Development and Social Housing teams. The Development team acts
mainly for private sector property developers carrying out both commercial and residential projects, whereas the Social Housing team primarily acts for housing associations and local authorities. This has been
my favourite seat so far, as I particularly enjoyed the project-based nature of the work, which allows solicitors to build strong ongoing relationships with clients. It was also really interesting working on a broad
range of matters for private sector developers, housing associations and
public sector bodies.
2) What are the most/least enjoyable aspects of recruiting?
Telling someone that they have got the job is wonderful but on the flip
side, telling someone that they have been unsuccessful is not so great.
Going to career events, such as law fairs, can also be good fun.
3) TLT has grown very quickly. Does the firm intend to continue to
expand?
It’s true that TLT has grown quickly. TLT is very ambitious and will continue striving to achieve its goals. This is likely to involve more growth
in certain areas of the firm. The London office has recently moved to a
new City premises which is enabling it to extend its service offering and
further develop its capability in London.
I am currently sitting in the Corporate Defence team, advising clients
on compliance with various regulations, and defending clients who are
subject to regulatory enforcement, including criminal prosecutions.
The diversity of work is enormous, and recently I have assisted in matters relating to fire safety, food law, health and safety, environmental
issues, product safety and advertising.
4) What three main attributes do you look for in candidates?
Drive, flexibility and commercial awareness.
5) What has a candidate done that has most impressed you?
I’m always impressed when candidates can prove to me that they haven’t
just skimmed our website and that they have researched in publications
and legal websites too. It shows a level of commitment and interest.
5. What has been the best moment so far of being a trainee at TLT?
There have been a number of high points, but it was a really great feeling when I received praise from my supervisor and the client on a
complex report I had written about the client’s legal options in a very
unusual situation while in my Real Estate seat.
6) Apart from spelling and grammar, what is the most common mistake
you see candidates making?
A lot of candidates fail to give original answers on the application forms.
6. What has been the worst moment so far of being a trainee at TLT?
Missing the train to London for a client meeting, and having to phone
the partner I was going with to tell him what had happened. That was
mortifying!
7) How should candidates approach you for feedback after an interview?
Candidates who would like feedback following an interview should
email me. I am always happy to provide detailed feedback. All I would
ask is that candidates acknowledge that due to busy times in the recruitment cycle it can sometimes take me a little while to get the feedback
to them.
7. What would be your advice to those looking for a training contract
with your firm?
As mentioned above, think carefully about how to answer questions
both on application forms and in interview in an interesting and convincing way.
8) Please list three top tips on how to secure a training contract at TLT.
Do your research and be clear on why you are specifically interested
in TLT. Be commercially aware – read/watch the news, follow the legal
press. Get involved with things outside of your academic studies.
It’s also really important to read the legal press, to think carefully about
the issues that are important to TLT, and to have an opinion on them.
To assist you in doing this, in addition to looking at the firm’s website
and legal directories, take every available opportunity to speak to people at law fairs and open evenings to find out more about the firm’s
business, its particular focuses and specialisms.
By Harriet Maas
19
Music Review
‘The Best UK Music
Festivals of 2011’
Matthew Crockford
The UK music festival scene has steadily grown
over the last 15 years, meaning there are now
a multitude of high-quality events which one
can attend. All of these events will be well organised (and highly profitable for their promoters) but they will also provide a plethora
of bands and artists to watch in an attempt to
cater for everybody. Such is the popularity of
music festivals nowadays many people forgo a
week in the sun over the summer, and spend
a week in a sodden field, with only a tent as
accommodation instead. Not everybody’s idea
of a relaxing holiday, but for those who do, it
proves to be a very enjoyable way of using paid
leave from work.
So, with so many festivals to choose from, how
can a newcomer to the scene be sure they are
going to attend the right festival for them?
Fundamentally, the most important aspect to
consider is the line-up. If the bands which are
playing are those you have no interest in seeing, you are going to have a lot of spare time
on your hands! That is not to say you will not
have a good time, because there is plenty else
to do at festivals, but viewing bands should be
the thing you structure your days around.
Cost also has to be an important factor. Ticket
prices for festivals can vary greatly. Of course,
travel cost will also need to be included, as will
the costs of buying food and alcohol. For example, at Glastonbury, you can take as much
of your own booze as you can carry, which
can also take it into the arenas where you view
bands. No such luck at V. So every time you
fancy a beer, you are going to have to pay £4.50
for the privilege. Add to that the cost of food,
which frankly is extortionate (£8 for mush in a
plastic tray), it soon adds up.
Another consideration should be
the weather. The British summer is
notoriously difficult to predict. Be
prepared for intense 30 degree days requiring
plenty of sun lotion, as well as torrential rain
and brusque (that one is for Tim & Ed) winds
and the need for Hunter wellies! Note as well,
if Glastonbury is wet, then Reading will be dry,
and vice versa. Absolutely no scientific fact in
that statement, but it usually works out that
way, weirdly!
The final aspects of ensuring a good festival are
security, and consideration of the other people
that will attend.
If you are going to camp in a field for a weekend, you are going to need a few creature comforts, as well as valuables. To that end, you need
to feel safe about leaving your cash/car keys/
alcohol/clothes in an unlocked tent. Unlocked,
because putting a lock on your tent is pointless,
as tents are made of tarpaulin and fabric – a
would-be thief will just cut a hole in the side!
And it also shows you have something to keep
safe, inviting unwanted attention. So, with that
in mind, you should make friends with those
camping around you, so they can look after
your tent while you are out, and you theirs.
With regard to other attendees, just be wary
of who is the festival’s target market. For example, there is very rarely trouble at Glastonbury. This may be in part due to their stringent
ticket buying policy (registration and ID), but
also due to it’s catering for all, which tends to
encourage a more ‘mature’ audience. However,
watch out fo hippies. On the converse, Reading festival tickets are available to anyone, a
day before the event (certainly day tickets, anyway). It is not uncommon for thieves to buy a
day ticket and ‘go on the rob’, targeting empty
tents. Also, Reading is a notoriously ‘young’
festival. This can result in being surrounded by
drunken 14 year olds, arguing into the night
about who-shagged-who, vomiting as they go;
usually over your tent!
Now, a list of the three best festivals, with information about the above to help you decide
which field you want to live in for a week this
year!
Glastonbury
20
Location Worthy Farm, Pilton, Somerset
When 22nd June – 26th June (entry 21st,
departure 27th)
Line-up Yet to be announced, but guaranteed
to have the most diverse collection of bands.
Having attended last year, there were 46 bands
I wanted to see. Rumoured headliners this year
are U2, after having to pull-out last year, and
Prince.
Cost Tickets are £195 for the whole 6
days. However, it is already sold out, but a resale of returned tickets is rumoured to occur
first Sunday of April. Travel to the festival is
cheap (approx. £40 return by coach) and accessible from anywhere in the country. Ample
parking should you choose to drive. Own alcohol permitted, but drinks in the venue are £3 to
£4. Food can be great, or terrible. If your vegetarian or vegan, you will be very well catered
for. I was vegetarian for a week when I went,
because it was cheaper, and easier. Seek out the
cafes away from the main stage for better quality, choice and value.
Weather Often wet, but last year was scorching, with minimal shade. So could be either. Be
sure to camp on the hill in case it does rain,
as this will help avoid flooding ruining your
campsite.
Security Excellent. Also, the stewards at the
festival are knowledgeable and helpful.
Crowd Very diverse. From babies to pensioners.
Reading
Location Little Johns Farm, Richfield Avenue,
Reading, Berkshire
When 26th August – 28th August (entry
24th, departure 29th)
Line-up Again, line-up yet to be confirmed,
but Reading tends to be the more ‘alternative’
festival, particularly Sunday which is usually
the ‘metal’ day. Rock, punk and indie are the
norm. Always big headliners, but only 5 - 6
stages, so quite limited variation.
Cost Weekend tickets £190, day tickets
£90, on sale Spring 2011. No alcohol in the
arenas, so £4 a pint all day. Quite limited and
expensive food choice, but all close to the main
stages, so convenient. Travel, again approx. £40
Profile
[email protected]
by coach, but British Rail may be easier – the station is only a 10 minute
walk away from the venue.
Weather Usually warm, but have been when it rained all weekend. Did
not have wellies either, so charged £30 for a pair at the festival – you have
been warned! Flooding not usually an issue.
Security Quite good, but a little less easy going than other festivals.
Plenty of helpful staff though.
Crowd Young and often annoying. A usual favourite is to shout ‘Bollocks!’ all night. This soon spreads, so sleep can be hard to come by! 30
man mass brawl last time I attended and someone pissed on my tent
while I was in it.
comedy, theatre, cabaret, dance, poetry, literature and art all well represented.
Cost
£165 on sale Spring 2011. Alcohol is permitted in the arenas,
like Glastonbury. But a pint is £3 - £4. Lots of locally brewed ale available (Adnams Broadside is particularly good!) for approx. £2.50 a pint
though. Food is varied and relatively cheap compared to other festivals
with lots of local produce available. Travel options are not very widespread, but ample parking is available.
Weather In July, so quite reliable sunshine wise
Security Historically, awful. Began with no police presence or CCTV,
this has been rectified since 2007. Last year capacity was increased to
35,000 but security was not beefed up. Over 100 tent thefts were reported, as well as, lamentably, an allegation of rape. Expect things to be
much more organised this year. Threats of closing down the festival have
been fairly vocal, so the organisers are keen to improve.
Crowd Given the arty pretence of the festival, it is quite an ‘hipster’
affair. But, Suffolk has its fair share of ‘chavs’, so it can be rowdy if the
locals get too involved. On the whole very friendly.
Latitude
Location Henham Park Estate, Beccles, Suffolk
When 14th July – 17th July (entry 13th, departure 18th)
Line-up Again, yet to be announced, but last year saw The National, The xx, The Maccabees, Vampire Weekend and Mumford & Sons
amongst many others. Notably, the focus is not purely music, with film,
Lecturer of the
month Shirley
Shipman
apply for the prestigious Bachelor of Civil Law
Higher Degree at Oxford University.
Having demonstrated her capabilities at undergraduate level, Shirley was awarded a full
scholarship to St Anne’s College to study the
prestigious Bachelor of Civil Law. The BCL
standard is higher than that required in a first
law degree, such as a BA, LLB, or JD. It admits
only those with outstanding first law degrees
from common law jurisdictions.
Harriet Maas
This month I met with the much loved Land
Law Lecturer Shirley Shipman. To those of you
on the LPC who have not come across Shirley,
she is the GDL Course Director.
Shirley came from a non-academic background; none of her family had been to university or studied A-levels, her father had left
school at age 11 and her mother at age 14. Not
considering higher education as an option,
Shirley left school at 18 and trained as a PA, before taking up the role of administrator at AC
Nielson, an international marketing research
company on London Road in Oxford. After
a few years she left, focusing on bringing up
her three children. During this time, Shirley
became involved with local activities, and for
some time worked as the administrator to a
music centre set up as an educational charity
where she oversaw the marketing.
It wasn’t until her youngest child went to primary school that she considered furthering
her education. When deciding what to study,
Shirley had remembered how much she had
enjoyed jury service in her 20s. This was her
first insight into the English Legal System and
became the catalyst for what would become an
impressive academic career in law.
Bachelor of Civil Law
Shirley began on an associate course studying
Business and Law at Oxford Brookes University. It quite quickly became evident that her
capabilities lay beyond the associate study level
and she was enrolled in the part-time undergraduate Law degree.
In 2001, after five years of hard study, she graduated with a 1:1. Having been awarded a number of academic awards, she was encouraged to
21
Shirley had not studied fulltime before and
had to juggle raising three children with one of
the most intensive higher degree courses in the
world. Being taught by many of today’s leading legal academics, such as Sandra Fredman,
Christopher Mucrudden and Andrew Ashworth, she excelled in the course.
Andrew Ashworth gave gentle guidance on her
dissertation, which took apart Hart’s theory on
punishment. Shirley’s academic ability was
further recognised when at the end of the year
she was awarded the top dissertation mark on
the course. This firmly established her potential for a career in academia. During the interview, Shirley described feeling like Pygmalion,
achieving things that she never
had foreseen as possible.
Continued on page 22.....
Profile
have in a three year law programme (having completed the GDL last
year it certainly felt like a three year degree!). The course strap-line - “we
make students think like a lawyer and reason like a judge” further emphasises the rigorous academic angle the course takes by comparison to
our peers at BPP/College of Law.
Lecturer of the month Shirley Shipman
Continued from page 21....
Merton College
Her keen intellect and natural academic ability had captivated her tutors. Shirley had to decide between going to the Bar and staying in Oxford to focus on an academic career. With the encouragement and support of her tutors, Shirley applied for a position on the M Phil course at
Oxford University. Central to her choice, was the welfare of her children.
Shirley applied to Merton Collage for funding for her studies and became the first mother to be awarded a full scholarship for an M Phil and
then a D Phil. Having enjoyed a similar module on BCL, her studies
focused on the rights of a fair trial and its impact on our Civil Procedure
System.
With roughly 90 students in total, it is easy to make friends quickly, and
cultivating a sense of community is central to Shirley’s management of
the course. She believes that the initial induction week allows people to
gel-together, paving the way for more productive and integrated workshop groups.
It is clear that Shirley is proud of what her students are achieving. Recently two GDL students won an external moot against Oxford University students and two others won the regional Client Interviewing
Competition (competing next week in the finals of the National Client
Interviewing Competition (see Natalie Neilson’s GDL page for more details).
Shirley was awarded a distinction for her M Phil and completed her D
Phil in 2007. Whilst at Merton she worked as a part-time lecturer, first
for Oxford Brookes then as a college lecturer for Merton. When both
the Law Fellows at Merton went on leave at the same time, she was appointed acting senior law tutor.
When asked what personal qualities solicitor firms look for in candidates, Shirley placed a focus on excellent communication skills – both
oral and written, an acute mind and an ability to discern the relevant
from the irrelevant – “you can’t spout at clients as you are taking their
time and their money”.
Academia as a profession
Shirley came to Oxford Brookes in 2006, and began running the GDL
in 2007. She perceives academia to be one of the most rewarding careers
and, although running the GDL is challenging, she loves the variety,
flexibility and autonomy of an academic career which enables a healthy
balance between family and work. Her favourite aspect of teaching is
meeting new students and developing different ways of interpreting
complex theories in a manner that is clear and concise.
If she could change any aspect of our law it would be the Civil Justice
System – she would ensure that everyone could have access to free legal
advice – “we have all these laws but how easy is it for us to use them if
you can’t access them”. Today the court room is seen as a last resort but
so few can afford to access them that many cases are lost in the system.
Shirley’s inspirational journey from working as a PA to achieving the top
dissertation in the world renowned BCL, demonstrates that whatever
your background maybe – hard work and intelligence can get you far
in life.
When asked what distinguishes Brookes from other GDL providers her
immediate response was the process of student selection. The demanding academic nature of the course is reflected in its high calibre of students. Shirley wants students to have the same experience as they would
Love Law is in the air...
Emma Good
Continued from page 17....
Ultimately, his employment was unsurprisingly terminated. The moral of the story is not
to buy performance enhancing drugs and then
proceed to include it as a deduction in your
PCTCT calculations, as this does not quite
qualify as “business entertainment costs”.
Regardless of whether or not your
Thank you Shirley for taking the time to speak with me and for giving
students an insight into your remarkable academic journey.
sex life avails of the little blue pill, it is advisable that one considers one’s neighbours when
night falls. Whether you decide to celebrate
Valentine’s Day with, say a raucous party or in
an altogether more private manner, ensure to
keep the decibels at an appropriate level (below 30). If you stick to this sound advice, you
should be able to avoid embarrassment, unlike
Mr and Mrs Cartwright from Washington on
Wearside, who found themselves on the receiving end of an ASBO which banned them
from “shouting, screaming or vocalisation at
such a level as to be a statutory nuisance” dur-
22
ing their intimate sessions, which disturbed 25
of their neighbours, including one who was
partially deaf.
Whether your status this Valentine’s Day is
loved-up, single or indifferent (but amused at
the thought of desperate divorce lawyers sending out hundreds of anonymous valentine’s
cards) - this article has flagged a few of the factors which should be borne in mind in making this February 14th a peaceful, romantic,
ASBO-free day for one and all. Enjoy!!
Dear Denning...
[email protected]
Dear Lord Denning,
As Valentine’s Day approaches, I find myself dateless, loveless, and
hopeless. In my desperation I turn to you. Do you have some advice
as to how to make myself a Casanova rather than a Casanochance?
Yours,
Desperately Seeking Soulmate.
Dear DSS,
Valentine’s Day is that time of year that I don my special wig (the one
with the hearts dotted on it) slip into some satin red robes, and bang
my [Ed - Careful!] gavel. February 14th is the one day of the year that
Mrs Denning addresses me by my first name, a startling show of familiarity that can only be excused by the heady romantic air.
My enduring contract with Mrs Denning means that I haven’t had
cause to woo a lady in some time, but in my distant past I was a most
talented suitor. My marriage to Mrs Denning was not the result of
some particularly creative sentencing on my part, I waited some years
before subpoenaing her. I instructed her, and after some deliberation,
she returned a verdict of smitten.
To give you a helping hand, I have included some of the romantic
verses I once sent in disclosure bundles to the respondent of my affections:
My heart is laid bare,
My passions admitted,
My crime’s loving you,
I won’t be acquitted.
Despite being “off the market”, I unfortunately still receive many a protestation of love from an admiring young lady. It may be my commanding presence, my judicial activism, or my sizable obiter dictum. Either
way, it is most undignified to find women’s knickers being flung at one
during a trial.
My bones are achey,
My gavel is wood,
You may not want to date me,
But I think you should
In summary, make eloquent declarations of love, and attempt to advance
yourself as far as possible in the legal profession. After all, there’s nothing a woman loves more than a man in a wig and a gown.
Your eyes that shine,
Your lips so bitable,
Girl you’re so fine,
It should be indictable.
Yours Denningly,
If these fail you, I suggest you purchase one of my cards, available from
all good retailers. They feature my judgement in the case of “insert name
here” v My Heart. In my own inimitable style, I outline the reasons that
the respondent has no chance of holding out against “insert name here”.
At the bottom, there will be sufficient space for you to write “For the
above stated reasons, I concur with the judgement of Denning LJ”.
Lord Denning
23
Proud Father [to son home for half-term holiday]: “I SUPPOSE THE BOYS SOMETIMES
TALK OF THEIR FATHERS. HAVE YOU TOLD THEM THAT I’M A LAWYER?”
Son: “I DID TELL ONE OF MY PALS, AND HE WAS AWFULLY DECENT ABOUT IT.”
Art for Lawyers
By Alpha Love-Bhabuta
George Belcher
Punch, 4 November 1925
This satirical sketch, the work of celebrated cartoonist George Belcher, portrays the lawyer in keeping with
common stereotype: arrogant; overbearing; inflated with an unfounded sense of self-importance. By contrast,
his son considers membership of the legal profession as cause for contrition rather than celebration - stigmatized and pitied for his father’s occupation. The archetypal image of lawyers as boastful and belligerent beasts
remains even today as a residual reason for mockery. Underlying the humorous overtones in this cartoon is an
important message: whilst the latest buzzwords in legal practice may be commerciality, competitiveness and
corporate awareness, they are no substitute for plain old-fashioned courtesy, compassion and humility. As law
schools across the country churn out the newest generation of solicitors-in-waiting, a challenge awaits them:
to subvert the existing stereotype and ensure that this outdated and outmoded perception persists no longer.
24