Courtesy: criminalsolicitor.net/newsletter.asp

Andy Bolton

Solicitors in the UK | Compensation Solicitors

Prison Population Projections

The Ministry of Justice has published a prison population projection up to June 2015:

* This bulletin presents projections of the prison population in England and Wales from September 2008 to June 2015. The projections are based on assumptions about future criminal justice trends (e.g. sentencing) and incorporate the anticipated impacts of policy and process initiatives that have agreed implementation timetables.
* Three scenarios (High, Medium and Low) have been projected based on assumptions about future sentencing trends. The Medium scenario assumes no increases or decreases in custody rates or determinate sentence lengths. The High/Low scenarios reflect a 1% per annum increase/decrease in custody rates and a 0.5% per annum increase/decrease in the average (determinate) custodial sentence lengths. Other impacts included in the projections, such as those of legislation and processes, are applied equally to all scenarios.
* Projected prison populations for the three scenarios are given in Table 1. By the end of June 2015 the demand for prison spaces is projected to increase to between 83,400 and 95,800.

* The assumptions informing the projection, and therefore the projections themselves, are subject to considerable uncertainty. This is represented by the three scenarios, with each scenario being only as likely as the assumptions that inform it. While these assumptions are based on extensive consultation, and emerging data on them are being monitored, the department does not know yet which one is most likely to occur in future. They do not include impacts for any future measures for which implementation timetables are not yet known, or measures for which the effect cannot be projected with reasonable confidence.

Courtesy: criminalsolicitor.net/newsletter.asp

HTML clipboard

Andy Bolton

Solicitors in the UK | Compensation Solicitors

By Luke McLeod-Roberts

The family team at Birmingham-based Martineau has established a Saturday-morning practice so that rich potential divorcés can get a more discreet service.

The firm is offering the weekend surgery to target high net-worth individuals who are too busy to see a lawyer during the week.

“We had people saying they weren’t going to be in the country until the weekend,” said head of private capital Mary Kaye. “If you think of any other service, whether it be the bank or the doctor, [they are available on a Saturday]. Family lawyers can’t say, ‘I’m available nine to five or on my BlackBerry’, if they want to work with high net-worth individuals.”

Courtesy: thelawyer.com/martineau-opens-on-saturdays-for-convenient-covert-divorces/1002169.article

Divorce UK | Claiming Compensation UK

Andy Bolton

Author: Nikki Petken When I get older, losing my hair, many years from now …… will you still need me…… when I’m sixty-five? The answer from businesses to Paul McCartney’s love song today will be … No. The high court has ruled that is legal for UK employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65. In this case, the court was required to determine if forcing people to retire at 65 is against European law. The ruling means that employers can dismiss a member of staff without a redundancy payment on their 65th birthday. This is still subject to following the correct procedure and the worker can request to work beyond that date which an employer must consider but can refuse without having to give a reason. It is never as simple as it seems however, as the government has said they will review the retirement age in 2010 and at which point they could choose to end the default retirement age.

Read the original here:
Heyday Decision - “When I’m 65…”

Author: Simon Walsh Experian’s announcement that 25% fewer firms became insolvent in August 2009 compared to July 2009 is welcome not only in its own right, but also because it continues a trend of positive economic indicators which has developed over the last month or so.  On top of this, the FTSE 100 is currently managing to stay above the 5000 mark and some big ticket M&A announcements regarding Cadbury’s and Kraft as well as T-Mobile and Orange have lead to more positive sentiment being expressed in many quarters. Such upbeat comment can only be welcomed after the plethora of bad news which has been dolled out for so many months and whilst no one is prepared to call recent events as a recovery, the signs are increasingly that there are more opportunities for businesses to exploit if they can position themselves correctly.  However, such opportunities must always be looked at in context and deals should not be done at any price.  Proper customer/product due diligence is still required and, if anything, greater care should be taken in the current climate because dealing with disputes when human and financial resources are under more pressure than ever can quickly have a disproportionate and counterproductive effect on a business. Simple steps that we are currently seeing being overlooked when contracts are being negotiated include:- Not taking steps properly to investigate a potential customer’s or supplier’s financial standing. Accepting your customer’s or supplier’s terms and conditions without either asking to see these where they are simply referred to on a purchase order or giving them the proper attention they warrant if they are provided. Not seeking to assert your own terms and conditions in place of, or alongside, your customer’s / supplier’s terms and thereby losing the protection of valuable limitation and/or exclusion provisions or, worse, more generous payment terms. There will always be cases where there is very limited scope for negotiation.  However, our experience suggests that both suppliers and buyers recognise that in the current climate more realistic provisions have to be taken to secure a signature on an order form and a few simple questions can often lead to more favourable terms being secured which could well pay dividends and avoid potentially costly problems further down the line should unanticipated problems arise.

See the original post:
Insolvencies Fall, But Care Is Still Needed

Author: Guy Thomas The recent coverage concerning the “Pheonix 4”, and especially the comments of Business Secretary Lord Mandelson, might lead people to believe that the directors concerned were facing the imminent threat of a life ban from acting as directors. In reality, it would be surprising if the directors concerned were subsequently found to be “unfit” to act as directors and banned from acting as directors in the future for anything more then five years (if at all). The Companies Act 2006 provides that a director’s primary duty is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders’ members’ as a whole.  However, where the company is in financial difficulties and is likely to become insolvent, the directors must also have regard to the interests of the company’s creditors. The Insolvency Act 1986 contains various concepts such as fraudulent or wrongful trading, which, if applicable, qualify a director’s primary duty. A finding of fraudulent or wrongful trading would also be relevant to the possible application of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (CDDA 1986) and is almost certain to lead to the disqualification of a director. Under the CDDA 1986, the court has the power to disqualify directors from acting as such, or being involved with the management of a company, for a specified period of time, the minimum period being two years. The grounds for making disqualification orders under the CDDA 1986 include where the court is satisfied that the director’s conduct makes him “unfit to be concerned in the management of a company”. In considering whether to make a disqualification order, the court will look to see whether there has been dishonest conduct, whereas ordinary commercial misjudgements would not be enough to justify disqualification. Practical considerations Directors should monitor the financial position of their company carefully and regularly review the management accounts. If concerned seek early advice from a specialist. Hold regular board meetings and keep appropriate minutes. Be aware that the directors’ conduct will be scrutinised later in the event of insolvency. If in doubt, avoid taking on further credit other than in the ordinary course of business and take action to ensure that as far as possible no further debts are incurred and avoid “vulnerable transactions”.

Read the original post:
Do the “Pheonix Four” Really Face Disqualification as Directors?

Author: Helen Duffy A former police sergeant is suing Kent Police under the Disability Discrimination Act (“DDA”).  She suffers from a voice disorder, which results in her generally only being able to speak in a whisper.  She wanted to become a dog handler but experienced problems because she could not shout controls to the animals.  She claims that the force did not give her the opportunity to carry out the dog training.  She has further claimed that she felt discriminated against after being asked to attend a meeting with the assistant chief constable after she left. When an employee suffers from a ‘disability’ under the DDA, an employer is obliged to make any ‘reasonable’ adjustments in order to assist that person in their employment.  However, there is a limit to what is ‘reasonable’. It seems in this case that there is little that can be done if the employee’s disability actually prevents her from being able to do her job.  Perhaps the dogs could be communicated to through whistle commands, but it would certainly go beyond reasonableness to expect the police force to re-train all of its dogs to respond to whistle, rather than shout commands, simply to cater for one officer’s disability. Employers are (and indeed should be) expected to assist employees with disabilities in any way that is reasonable, but there is a limit to what is expected of an employer. The Tribunal Judge made his opinion clear in his comment that, “The Disability Discrimination Act is not a charter to blame someone for everything that happens to them in life”

Read more from the original source:
When a “reasonable” adjustment is “unreasonable”

Andria Bolton

Local Solicitors UK | Compensation UK

Author: Laura Allen Diageo is in the process of taking legal action against Sainsbury’s for selling it’s own version of the gin-based drink called Pitcher’s. Sainsbury’s released Pitcher’s back in April this year stating that it was available in time for events such as Ascot, Henley and Wimbledon. Sainsbury’s has also advertised Pitcher’s as being cheaper than the branded equivalent, as well as saying that it has performed better in taste tests. Trademark experts say that Diageo is likely to be concerned that Sainsbury’s will be passing off the ‘copy’ drink as Pimm’s, as they have recently spent millions of pounds advertising their product using the catchphrase “it’s Pimm’s o’clock”. Comparisons can be drawn between the packaging of the two drinks, with both using red lettering in similar fonts, with a gold logo at the top of the label. This is not the first time that such matters have reached the courts, in 1997 Asda was found guilty of passing off its Puffin bars as United Biscuit’s Penguin biscuits. Brand owners will now be watching this matter carefully as it may encourage them to come forward if other retailers have ‘copycat’ items on their shelves. Diageo has admitted that it is taking legal proceedings in relation to an intellectual property matter, with Sainsbury’s saying that it will defend itself ‘vigorously’ against the allegations.

Read the rest here:
Protect your brand - Diageo and Sainsbury’s in legal battle over alleged copy of Pimm’s drink

Andria Bolton

Local Solicitors UK | Compensation UK

Author: Chris Cook SA Law won the toss and elected to bat - openers Satinder and the skipper got off to a lively start with some unexpected quick singles until Satinder was caught off a top edge.  Chris A joined the skipper at the crease, both batting well to retire after reaching 25.  Gary and Terence then formed a useful middle order partnership, both experiencing some good fortune as catches were spilled by the opposition.  Terrence T had a rare failure with the bat after trying to force the pace in the last few overs.  The returning Simon then reminded the team of his “talents” from former years as he joined Terence at the end of the innings to lift the score to a respectable 104 from SA Law’s 16 overs.   In reply, both Terrence and Satinder had tidy opening spells to keep the Rayner Essex openers below the required run rate, assisted by some enthusiastic fielding as always, most notably from the ever-exuberant Nat and Terence.  Matthew had trouble finding a good line and length and was punished by some solid stroke play by a suspiciously Aussie-looking Shane Richards, although later improved and was rewarded with a wicket.  Chris A also bowled well, his first ball clean bowling Rayner Essex’s opening batsman.  As the pressure mounted towards the end of the innings, SA Law’s fielding started to become suspect, as Gary, the usually dependable Terrence and Simon all spilled catches.  Terence was left to bowl the last over with Rayner Essex needing 8 runs to win, and with a streaky two through the slips, a dropped catch for which the batsmen ran two and a powerfully struck four from the third ball, Rayner Essex reached their target with three balls to spare to record their seventh straight win of the summer.   The team will look to drown their sorrows from a season of defeats at the end of season curry night next month.

See the original post here:
SA Law v Rayner Essex Accountants - Cricket Match

Andria Bolton

Local Solicitors UK | Compensation UK