Author: Wyatt

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) is an Agency of the Ministry of Justice. We supply payment to blameless victims of violent criminal activity in England, Wales, and Scotland and, since 2012, victims of abroad terrorism. We are looking to designate a high carrying out lawyer as a senior lawyer, reporting straight to our Director of Legal Services.

As a senior lawyer, you will need to show management in the arrangement of legal assistance and suggestions. You will help handle a versatile and expert group, guaranteeing that stakeholders get an outstanding service and sound legal suggestions. You will have direct line management obligation for our recently certified legal advisor and our law students. You will be our designated training manager and for that reason have a duty for guaranteeing our students get an outstanding requirement of training and abide by all Law Society of Scotland requirements.

You will also be accountable for handling a caseload of intricate judicial evaluations and other litigation, preparing submissions and advising counsel as suitable. This will consist of cases in the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Session in Scotland and the High Court and Court of Appeal in England and Wales. Your function will also include deciding on complex legal questions as intensified to you by our functional groups or straight from service users. The function will also include handling trust work, in addition to the arrangement of information defense recommendations and different other advertisement hoc tasks as needed.

You will support the Director of Legal Services in guaranteeing that CICA runs in accordance with legal and policy structures and in making sure the reliable arrangement of a variety of legal and policy services. You will be anticipated to show an understanding of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Schemes and appropriate legislation, an outstanding understanding of public law and a strong grasp of the criminal law, trust law and information defense legislation.

You will be needed to carry out the following jobs:

 Lead and handle our freshly certified legal consultant and our students in adding to the accomplishment of CICA’s business goals by offering sound legal guidance to guarantee we provide a caring, effective and reasonable service to blameless victims of the violent criminal offense.

 Set clear expectations of people within the group, talk about performance routinely to inspire and boost services which meet customer expectations and adhere to Law Society of Scotland training requirements.

 Manage a caseload of intricate judicial evaluation cases and other litigation, making sure that the CICA’s benefits are secured; draft submissions and advise counsel as suitable in Tribunal and court procedures.

 Manage a caseload including trust deeds, making sure trusts are prepared and worked out in accordance with the regards to the pertinent Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

 Provide sound legal recommendations on a variety of problems as they emerge, consisting of analysis and application of the Scheme, information security and liberty of info matters.

 Support our group of choice-makers who represent CICA at appeal hearings before the First-tier Tribunal, screen Tribunal choices, represent the CICA before the Tribunal where needed and, where essential, raise judicial evaluation or appeal procedures on behalf of CICA.

 General ad-hoc jobs and responsibilities as they emerge.

Abilities and Qualifications:
A lawyer certified to practice in Scotland, with a present practicing certificate and who has remained in constant practice as a lawyer for a duration of at least 3 years.

The capability to prepare written an argument, assistance, and correspondence to the greatest quality requirements.

An outstanding understanding of public law and an understanding of criminal law, trust law and information security legislation.

Exceptional legal research abilities.

Strong organizational and time-management abilities, with the capability efficiently to prioritize when under time pressures.

Strong analytical and thinking abilities, with the capability to take in info rapidly and analyze statutes, case law and other sources of law.

Positive choice maker, able to work individually and as part of a group.

Exceptional people abilities, to supply high-quality management to our legal consultant and students.

Read more

Picture a good friend approaches you with a chance for what he thinks will be simple money: a man he satisfied understands where some local drug dealerships store their merchandise– a huge stack of it, fifty kilos, gently secured. Your buddy’s man believes it might be gotten reasonably quickly and turned for substantial earnings. The entire thing sounds questionable to you, but money is tight this month and taking from drug dealerships does not feel like the most ethically objectionable of criminal offenses. Maybe not the most advanced sort (and having viewed a bit excessive TELEVISION), you quickly find yourself in a van on your way to the ball game.

Other than there was no rating– it never ever existed– and your good friend’s “person” is, in fact, a law enforcement officer, whose coworkers get here and apprehend you and charge you with conspiracy to traffic in an illegal drug (the legendary fifty kilos) while bringing a gun (your pal brought one along). Never ever mind that the drugs you are being penalized for trafficking are make-believe– as is the place from which you were to take them– you now deal with fifteen years in jail for indulging a yarn spun by the federal government.

These are, with some simplification, the realities of United States v. Conley, bied far recently by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit felt bound to promote the conviction, but not without very first describing the practice as “tawdry” and “questioning the knowledge and function of using up the level of law enforcement resources and judicial effort and time in this prosecution.” The Court of Appeals priced estimate from the trial judge’s viewpoint in the exact same case, who stated Conley’s fifteen-year sentence for a fictional criminal activity “without real fairness … serv [ing] no real function aside to damage any vestiges of regard in our legal system and police that this offender and his neighborhood might have had.” The trial judge was needed nevertheless to enforce it due to compulsory minimum sentences set by Congress.

The Seventh Circuit is not the very first to experience this practice of prosecuting theoretical wrongdoers for criminal activities of the federal government’s mixture, nor the very first to reveal its annoyance. The viewpoint itself points out 8 other viewpoints from around the nation that takes a dim view of this trick. One judge on the Sixth Circuit stated: “the principle of these ‘stash house sting’ operations [is] at chances with the pride we take in providing American criminal justice as a system that deals with accused relatively and similarly under the law.” Another, on the Third Circuit, argued “the capacity for abuse and mischief [here] is endemic.” In case after case, courts offer the thumbs up.

Possibly the most troubling element of this tactic is that it empowers the federal government to specify the criminal offense it is creating. Since drug sentences are connected to the weight of the drugs at issue, the officers can pump up the sentence by pumping up the fictional bag of drugs. Since they comprised a stash house with fifty kilos, Conley was charged with fifty kilos, if they ‘d stated 2 kilos, or 3 hundred, or one million, the sentence would have been different– criminal justice as wonderful realism.

The typical reader might well question why this might be considered anything besides entrapment. If the federal government informed you to dedicate a criminal activity it ought to not have the gall to require you be penalized for it– a sort of the inverse of the standard meaning of nerve, where the guy who eliminated his parents asks the court to take grace on him as an orphan. The entrapment defense is very narrow, developing outcomes that would be farcical if they were not so awful. Take Conley: because the federal government representative didn’t go to Conley straight but to his ultimate partners who in turn hired Conley, the Seventh Circuit held Conley could not declare entrapment. The federal government might for that reason cook up a conspiracy and cause one party to bring it out, who then hires 3rd parties to assist him. Are jailed, the main party, who has a possible claim of entrapment, is offered a minimized sentence for affirming (as taken place in this case), and they toss the book at whoever else was captured.

And to what end? Supporters of more aggressive criminal police caution we are experiencing a brand-new criminal activity wave; the claim appears suspicious, but even if it holds true, the mind boggles regarding how it enhances matters to let the federal government comprise nonexistent criminal offenses to penalize. Could those resources be much better focused towards those pursuing violent ends on their own effort? Offered the bulging joints of our existing jail capability, what good does it do to shackle unwary rubes with decades-long sentences of the federal government’s manufacture? The mischief will continue till courts stop just gritting their teeth and start revealing some judicial grit.

Read more

The most argument– implicitly accepting that the law will be used in Hong Kong– has rotated around the question of whether this law might be used retroactively. This conversation has occurred, above all, because of the continuing spoken and written reject directed at the nationwide anthem at specific sporting occasions in Hong Kong. Some have argued that to prevent such behavior, retroactive application of the law ought to be considered.

Different claims made by legal representatives and lawyer-politicians argue that retroactive laws– or retrospective laws– do not exist within the criminal laws of the typical law system. It follows from this, it is stated, that the nationwide anthem law (which will use some level of criminal sanctions to any breaches) cannot be made to use retroactively. These claims are merely incorrect. The greatest courts in the UK and Australia, for instance, have each okayed to retroactive criminal laws.

In 1961, in Shaw vs Director of Public Prosecutions, your home of Lords in a consentaneous choice validated the retroactive conviction of Shaw for the criminal offense of conspiracy to corrupt public morals. In 1933, in R vs Manley, the UK Court of Appeal also validated the retroactive application of criminal law. A crucial post in the Criminal Law Journal in 1989 mentioned that: “Both Manley and Shaw were condemned of having actually devoted criminal activities that were not identified as such when they devoted the acts in question.”.

In Australia, the High Court initially found in favor of the retroactive application of the Commonwealth Crimes Act in 1915, when it comes to R vs Kidman. This choice was unsuccessfully challenged in 1991 in Polyukchovich vs The Commonwealth. In the latter case, the High Court verified the credibility of the Commonwealth War Crimes Amendment Act of 1988, which developed brand-new criminal offenses that might be prosecuted more than 40 years after the appropriate, formerly non-criminal (in Australia), acts had been dedicated.

In the 1980s, the federal government in Australia passed tax laws which used chastening sanctions arranged, prior tax evasion activities, believed to be not captured under the existing criminal law. These laws had a retroactive effect both regarding sending out founded guilty people to jail and gathering back taxes which might not otherwise have actually been payable. Numerous other examples of judge-made retroactive criminal law in England exist, going back to the 17th century.

For these factors, if the brand-new nationwide anthem law were to be used retroactively in Hong Kong, this would be broadly constant with enduring practice within the typical law system.

What, however, are the options for retroactive application? One possibility would be to state October 1 as the retroactive start date in the Hong Kong SAR law, this being the date when the nationwide anthem law worked on the mainland.

Significantly less questionable would be to choose the date from when the standard information of the brand-new Hong Kong law was known– for instance, the publication date of the draft Hong Kong variation of the brand-new law.

All Hong Kong locals would then be on notification, with an understanding of the draft law, that the law might be used back to the defined date. This is the “federal government by news release” method used in Hong Kong over the previous several years for changes to the Stamp Duty Ordinance genuine property deals. This technique has also long been commonly used in Australia by income authorities. It would be the more sensible way to make the law retroactive.

Why Chinese Nationwide Anthem Is the Saddest Ever

Although exceptional court precedents make it clear that retroactive criminal law is an accepted function of the typical law system, the cases usually worry that this need to be used just in remarkable situations. The essential question which should be discussed, hence, is: does the suggested nationwide anthem law present any such remarkable situations that could validate retroactive application?
Richard Cullen is a checking out the teacher in the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong.

Read more