Victims should be given right to restorative justice, MPs assert

The Ministry of Justice should lay the groundwork for a legislative right for victims to access restorative justice services, an influential group of MPs said today.

Reporting on the effectiveness of restorative justice provision across the criminal justice system, the House of Commons justice select committee said it is too soon to introduce a legislative right now due to capacity issues, but that such a goal is ‘laudable and should be actively worked towards’.

Advertisement

The committee recommends that changes should be brought in by the Ministry of Justice only once a minister has demonstrated to parliament that the criminal justice system has enough capacity to provide restorative justice services to all victims.

MPs also advise the ministry to produce an information-sharing template to overcome the ‘persistent obstacle’ presented by data sharing in delivering restorative justice.

The committee stops short of recommending legislation to require data sharing, but suggests it could be an option ‘which should not be excluded if non-legislative measures do not prove effective’.

Restorative justice is defined in the report as the process that brings those harmed by crime, and those responsible for the harm, into communication, enabling everyone affected by a particular incident to play a part in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward.

Restorative justice is delivered mainly in five ways:

• Victim-offender conferencing: bringing the victim and offender, and their supporters together in a meeting;
• Community conference: bringing together members of a community affected by a particular crime and some or all of the offenders;
• ‘Shuttle RJ’: a trained restorative justice facilitator passes messages back and forth between the victim and offender, who do not meet;
• Neighbourhood justice panels: trained volunteers from a local community facilitate meetings between victims and offenders for low-level crime and antisocial behaviour; and
• ‘Street RJ’: usually facilitated by police officers between offenders, victims and other stakeholders in attendance at the time of the incident.

The committee concludes that restorative justice, particularly victim-offender conferencing, has the potential to offer ‘clear and measurable’ benefits to the criminal justice system and wider society.

However, undue reliance should not be placed on a claim made in a 2008 report that £8 is saved for every £1 spent, it warns.

‘This is because [the claim] arose due to a high-performing site within the Home Office trial, applies only to victim-offender conferencing and does not take account of differing levels of cost and effectiveness across different types of offences,’ the report states.

The committee found that restorative justice is currently subject to a ‘postcode lottery’. It expressed considerable concern that restorative justice is being used by police forces in cases of domestic abuse, which risks bringing it into disrepute.

The committee says it is ‘crucial’ that frontline police officers ’are fully informed of the risks for vulnerable victims’ in such cases.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Victims should be given right to restorative justice, MPs assert

Claimant slapped with costs order after erroneous CFA letter

The County Court has refused costs protection to a claimant after his solicitors had wrongly told the defendants that a funding agreement was in place.

In Price v Egbert H Taylor & Company Limited, having failed with a claim against his employer, Raymond Price’s representatives, Worcestershire firm Prescott Solicitors, stated that qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) should apply.

Advertisement

But the firm admitted that three years earlier, it had wrongly advised the defendants that the claim was being funded by way of a conditional fee agreement, which provided for a success fee.

Prescotts said this element had been ‘included in the letter in error’ and no pre-commencement funding arrangement had in fact been entered into.

Acting for the defendants, Matthew White from St John’s Chambers told Birmingham County Court that the claimants could not escape from this erroneous communication.

He said the claimant’s solicitor had made a ‘clear and unequivocal’ representation to the defendant, even giving the additional details that the agreement provided for a success fee. The defendant and his solicitors had relied on that representation, it was argued.

White invited the court to find there was probably an oral, or implied, retainer which would be unenforceable, but which would still not mean that QOCS applied.

The claimant’s firm stated no additional costs were caused by its conduct and submitted it would not be just to make a wasted costs order at any stage.

Judge Lopez made a costs order against the claimant.

The judge added: ‘The claimant having represented that there was a pre-commencement funding agreement in place and the defendant having relied upon that representation, the claimant is now estopped from asserting that no such agreement was in place and/or that qualified one-way costs shifting applies.’

The claimant was ordered to pay £5,533 costs of the first hearing and the £8,806 costs of the appeal.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Claimant slapped with costs order after erroneous CFA letter

City firm sets up ‘hotline’ to address client fears over cybersecurity

Growing questions over cybersecurity have inspired an international firm to set up a dedicated hotline for clients. 

London-headquartered Herbert Smith Freehills announced yesterday that its new cybersecurity service will enable clients to receive advice on issues simultaneously across multiple jurisdictions wherever they may arise.

Advertisement

Andrew Moir, head of the firm’s global cybersecurity practice, told the Gazette that many clients were now ‘trying to get on top’ of their legal issues around cybersecurity.

‘We wanted to give them a medium through which they can ask questions as they arise… without having to set up a retainer each time,’ he added.

Moir said the firm was receiving queries on a spectrum of issues which were not necessarily big enough to warrant the firm to be instructed on an individual retainer.

‘One client was in the process of setting up different information handling guidelines, and had a quick question around how they should categorise different sorts of information,’ Moir recalled.

‘Other clients have experienced relatively small cybersecurity incidents and needed some guidance. For example, someone might have sent an email with a confidential document to the wrong person.’

Moir identified several reasons why cybersecurity has become a growing area of concern for businesses.

‘Each time you open the papers, there is some cybersecurity incident that has happened. This is prompting clients that haven’t worried about cybersecurity in the past to start thinking about it,’ he said.

Clients have become aware of cybersecurity from a regulatory and compliance perspective as a result of significant fines coming through from regulators.

The regulatory framework is also getting tougher, Moir said.

Penalties for data breaches are likely to be greater once a new EU General Data Protection Regulation comes into force in 2018. The regulation will replace all data protection legislation in EU member states, including the UK’s Data Protection Act, without the need for further national legislation.

Moir said the UK’s position will be influenced by Britain’s decision to leave the EU. However, the regulation will be in force before Brexit occurs.

Although higher penalties are coming through for data breaches, Moir said many of the firm’s clients are more worried about the wider commercial risks to their business that cybersecurity poses, such as business interruption and reputational damage.

‘We also get different questions from clients depending on the industry sector,’ he added.

‘For e-commerce, breaches of customer data are often a concern. But for a company operating a power station, factory or mine, securing critical infrastructure – and the legal issues that arise if it is compromised – are going to be key issues.’

Let's block ads! (Why?)

City firm sets up ‘hotline’ to address client fears over cybersecurity

Kent legal chief aims high with new ABS

The chief executive of Kent County Council’s long-awaited alternative business structure has outlined ambitious growth plans that could lead to turnover by the local authority’s in-house legal team nearly tripling.

The council hopes to have its ABS application approved by the Solicitors Regulation Authority by November.

Advertisement

All but five of the 125-strong legal team, as well as 30 support staff, will then transfer into the new company, working from new offices in Maidstone. The move will free up 19,000 feet of office space currently occupied by staff at the council’s offices in Maidstone East and Canterbury.

Meeting at his temporary office at the council’s headquarters, the company’s chief executive, Geoff Wild (pictured), told the Gazette that ambitious growth targets have been set for the new venture.

The council’s in-house team currently turns over around £10.5m, Wild said. Once the ABS is up and running, the team plans to increase turnover to £14m in the first three years, £18m in the first five years, and £29m in the first 10 years.

‘We’re really going to transform our business processes, our working methods, our use of IT and ability to really improve our customer relationship management,’ Wild added.

The company, formed with the name Invicta Law Ltd, has already secured a 10-year contract to provide the local authority’s legal work.

Wild said he is negotiating with a number of larger law firms to act as their ‘sub-contractor’ for certain work.

He explained: ‘Where you get an American law firm coming over to the UK, having to do a lot of property work for example, they don’t carry large property teams who are qualified in English law. They might think of putting that out to South Africa, India or Poland.

‘What we’re offering them is a local cost-effective alternative to that. We can do all their property legal work for their American clients and they can badge it with their own label at the end of the day.’

Absorbing legal services from other public sector bodies in Kent is another avenue being considered.

‘There are multiple layers of public infrastructure in Kent, all of which have similar legal needs,’ Wild said.  

‘They’re all serviced by in-house teams or an external service. So there is a duplication of effort, multiplication of costs and efficiency… [absorbing legal services] is an obvious way to go because all public sector bodies are affected by financial constraints sweeping across the country.

‘One of the obvious ways they can achieve savings is in the area of back-office services, one of which is legal.’

The company is also looking to extend its reach beyond Kent.

Wild said: ‘We’re having conversations with some authorities with a view to them perhaps adopting this [ABS] model – whether it’s through some kind of franchising or joint-ownership arrangement.

‘We’re looking in the north of England, the Midlands. The business model and vehicle we’re creating is currently owned by Kent County Council. You can imagine another authority buying into that model, adopting its methodologies, systems and processes.

‘We would then gain a “branch office” which would reach into those geographical areas we don’t have in Kent, but also providing that area, that authority, with the income stream and revenue that will allow it to grow.’

More than two years have passed since the council was given the green light to develop an ABS. Until the beginning of this year, it had been seeking to form a joint venture with a commercial partner.

Wild said: ‘The council had three objectives from the procurement process: to find a partner who could, together with the council, deliver something that was better, cheaper and more profitable than the existing in-house team.’

He added: ‘Kent’s in-house legal team has been at the vanguard of trading widely. It generates over £2.5m in trading surplus or profit, which it then reinvests back into the council.

‘So it’s done really well as an in-house team. The challenge was to find a partner who could exceed what the in-house team was doing through the vehicle of an ABS.’

However, most of the potential partners the council spoke to ‘were possibly looking more for an outsourced contracting arrangement, simply taking on the council’s legal work’, Wild said.

The new ABS will be wholly owned by the council for the first 10 years. Those not transferring into the new company will remain as part of the council’s new corporate law and assurance commissioning team.

The post of director of governance and law, which was held by Wild, was ‘deleted’ last month. 

The new arrangements led the council to create a general counsel post, currently held by Ben Watts as interim general counsel.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Kent legal chief aims high with new ABS