Law Engine

Home Office’s controversial Data Communications Bill

With data protection laws in place, most information about individuals in the UK is kept strictly confidential. A new bill however which is to be introduced by the Home Office has been facing strong opposition from various groups. The Data Communications Bill could soon require companies to collect information about their customers, retain them and then provide the police with automated access to the system if such information is needed.

The Home Office have said that this step needs to be taken in order to ‘keep the public safe’. Currently when requested by police, information is passed on from businesses, in order to maintain a stable society through cooperation. The bill however has been criticised by privacy campaigners, all types of businesses, and cyber security experts.

The proposed changes to be made by the bill could cost around £1.8 billion, with which comes several other problems. The plan is to be carried out by an internet based company, chosen by the Home Office, who would need to set up a database system to carry out these functions. The system would need to be able to collect new data, and store it. Automated access would then need to be given to the police, however which information is passed on to the police would remain discreet in the eyes of the business that initially had collected the data.

For small businesses in particular, the bill could seem quite a challenge with the additional cost of setting up a way to collect the necessary information and then to retain it. Tech startups could also be affected on all scales, national and international. On the global level UK startups could be at a disadvantage where negotiations fail as a result of the new data rules. New businessmen and businesswomen could eventually move their business elsewhere due to the strict penalties for breaches of data laws imposed by the European Union. Digital businesses could be faced with a major barrier in growth. Whether or not the new data laws will be a success yet remains to be seen!

Legislative Changes — Leave a comment
01
Apr 13

Changes to Legal Aid come into Effect

Legal aid changes are due to come into force today through the Legal Aid and Punishment of Offenders Act with the purpose of reducing the legal aid bill by £350 million. A warning has come from the Law Society, which represents solicitors, stating that the cuts may mean people will take the law into their own hands in order to seek justice.

The reforms cut funding for huge areas of civil law, inclusive of some family law cases in order to preserve legal aid for those who need it. However it is estimated that some law firms will see a reduction of 75% of those who qualify for legal aid. The head of Legal Aid at the Law Society, Richard Miller, has said that the society has warned of the effects of cutting legal aid numerous times.

The Bar Council is also concerned that vulnerable people will be the people who suffer. The chair of the Bar Council, Maura McGowan QC, has suggested that the cuts will lead to more people going to court without legal representation, as access to justice is not being funded adequately.

The cuts will have an impact upon the legal profession as less people are going to be able to fund representation with an estimated 650,000 cases no longer qualifying, causing a downturn in work. This issue is particularly acute for those involved in fighting personal injury or negligence cases, as theoretically the no win no fee option is to become obsolete. It also means that legal professionals are taking time to compile documents to assist those who cannot afford legal representation, in order for them to conduct themselves properly in court. The Bar Council have created a guide for representing yourself and things to avoid.

The legal aid cuts are not only affecting society in terms of access to justice but have a knock on effect to the legal profession as less people will be able to afford representation, further decreasing the amount of work for legal professionals.

Legislative Changes — Leave a comment
19
Mar 13

UK opposes cap on bankers’ bonuses at EU summit

George Osborne earlier this month challenged proposed EU rules concerning bankers’ bonuses. With limits ratified by a majority of EU nations, Mr. Osborne tried to oppose the motion, citing the detrimental effect it would have in the City of London.

The motion was passed, but there is room for it to be fine tuned prior to a formal vote next month. The Chancellor’s failure to stand up for British banking interests was seen to show just how weak Britain is in the EU, and gained him and Prime Minister David Cameron criticisms for their relationship with Europe. UKIP spokesman Godfrey Bloom commented that “this outcome on bankers’ bonuses perfectly illustrates how weak and ineffective the British government is in defending the interests of one of our largest industries.”

The motion debated at the meeting of ministers the other week ended up with draft regulations setting out that bankers’ bonuses would be capped at a year’s salary- or, if the shareholders agree, double that. If ratified by the EU lawmakers, this would come into effect next year, and would help to stabilise EU banks against future economic crises. Before the talks, Switzerland had backed the idea of curbing bankers’ lucrative pay packages.

While there was great consensus across the EU in support, George Osborne, representing the UK and the City of London, strongly dissented, stating firstly that such a cap on bonuses was never part of the Capital Requirements Directive under negotiation.

The UK negotiating team had warned EU ministers that the cap could have “perverse effects”, such as increasing bankers’ basic salary levels. Such a cap would be bad for business across the European banking sector, and might potentially drive both banks and bankers out of Europe, Mr. Osborne warned. In support, Mr. Cameron’s spokesman added that there should be measures in place to “ensure that there are the right long-term incentives linking remuneration to long-term performance” in the financial services industry. Underlining his opposition, the Chancellor told EU finance ministers that he could not support “the proposal currently on the table” in Brussels.

Such strong opposition was not enough to counter the motion. Agreed by a majority of EU nations, the motion moves forward to the next stage in becoming legislation. EU ministers fear that at the next set of meetings on this matter, the UK might attempt to use a “national interest” motion to block the agreement.

Under the Luxembourg Compromise, although rarely used, a member state can block a majority decision if there is sufficient evidence that such a decision would have a detrimental effect a matter of great domestic national interest.

Although criticised for not opposing the motion strongly enough, many in the City of London feel glad that Mr. Osborne is doing the right thing in standing up for Britain’s banking interests, and in championing the British financial industry, one of the UK’s biggest industries, in Europe.

Legislative Changes — Leave a comment
20
Feb 13

Mixed reaction to changes to ‘no win, no fee’ civil cases

Lord Justice Jackson’s report into civil courts and claims has been heavily criticised by many parties, including leading compensation claims company, PerfectClaims.co, since it was published in 2009. Adopted by the government after protracted Parliamentary debate, the changes will come into force in April 2013.

The Jackson Reforms are concerned with civil courts, and Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) cases in particular. Better known as ‘no win, no fee’ cases, traditionally it was the defendant who paid the solicitor’s fees (the uplift fees) and the cost of the insurance premium (usually taken out by the claimant to pay the defendant if the claimant loses). The claimant was allowed to keep all the damages awarded. Under the reforms, such fees would be the burden of the claimant, solicitors would only be allowed to claim up to 25% of any settlement in fees, and damages would rise by 10%, amongst other reforms.

The reception has been varied and heated. Many say that the increased risk of losing a civil case will deter people going to court and seeking justice. The higher fees and risk will effectively deny the application of justice, to those who cannot afford it and allow tortfeasors (civil wrongdoers) to escape prosecution. This will effect personal injury claims the worst- and have an impact for solicitors.

Fewer lawyers will be able to offer ‘no win, no fee’ cases, or will be enticed into taking up some civil cases. According to Muiris Lyons, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), ‘solicitors will be less able to offer a CFA to someone whose claim is complex, meritorious, and difficult to win’. Specialist legal insurers will also be affected- but also admit that, with fewer cases, premiums will fall.

Alternatively, however, according to Ministry of Justice (MoJ) figures and press releases, the reforms will help the civil courts procedures, and will be complemented by a review of the civil and county courts. The reforms will encourage more cases to be settled out of court, and more mediation to occur. Increased mediation will free up court time- and prove less costly and time consuming for both parties than a court cases. This view is shared by many, with supporters adding that it is only personal injury, and small claimants, who will be affected the most. Supporters claim that medium to large businesses and larger, complex claims will remain relatively unaffected by the reforms, and welcome the increased emphasis on mediation (which is more cost effective, and ensures a guaranteed settlement) as opposed to court cases.

It is uncertain, and debatable, as to exactly what affect the changes will have. Both supporters and critics are in agreement, though, that further change of the civil courts is necessary to deliver justice effectively. Indeed, as former Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said, ‘with no major reform for 15 years, the civil justice system has got out of kilter.’

EU laws — Leave a comment
26
Jan 13

Social Networking Companies may Regret Dublin Choice

The decision by Google, Facebook and Twitter – three of the main players in the social networking phenomenon – to set up their European bases in Dublin may backfire on them, a leading libel lawyer has warned. The problem, it seems, is that they may be open to EU defamation and privacy laws thanks to their location. Abuse using online media such as Facebook is rife, and the belief is that lawyers will be able to sue the companies on behalf of individuals who have been harassed by anonymous people.

Paul Tweed, a Belfast based expert in libel law, is the man who has made the warnings, and he believes that there is potential for serious problems ahead. His firm has been involved in action against bloggers and tweeters who have abused politicians and celebrities online, and he also warns that the law will not only be directed at the individuals, but at the companies hosting their comments.

Take Down Notices

Tweed, who has represented the likes of Hollywood actor Harrison Ford and Jennifer Lopez, explained the process:

“We will send a ‘take down’ notice to either Google, Facebook or Twitter and we get various responses. Two or three years ago our demands for ‘take down’ notices were largely ignored by the likes of Google who are based in Seattle and could quote us back the American constitution. In those days we used to tell our clients ‘look, even if we get a judgment we are not going to be able to enforce it’. Because US courts would not enforce them and our clients basically had to turn the other cheek.”

He went on to explain that things are very different now:

“Now the whole landscape has changed. The massive game-changer is that the likes of Facebook, Twitter and Google have established European headquarters in Dublin and in doing that they have subjected themselves not only to Irish defamation and privacy laws but also those EU laws on libel and privacy. That means they are potentially a target because they are providing anonymous abusers on line with a platform.”

Illegal Activities — Leave a comment
22
Jan 13

British Officers to Defend Conduct during Iraq War in Court

Britain may need to defend military measures it took during the Iraq War. Nearly 200 Iraqi citizens claim that British military officers were illegally detained and unnecessarily tortured during the Iraq War over the course of five years. They allege that these officers have violated international law.

The case will be heard in the High Court early next week. The hearings will take place within a couple of months of the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War. The courts have not disclosed how many military and intelligence officers have been implicated in the case. However, the lawyers have explicitly listed the charges that the officers in question are facing. The charges include but may not be limited to:

• Physical violence
• Sleep deprivation
• Religious torture
• Sexual humiliation
• Unnecessary levels of deceit

Renowned human rights lawyer Phil Shiner will be lead counsel for the plaintiffs. Shiner and other attorneys representing the Iraqis filing the charges claim that their evidence shows at least several of the prisoners died as a result of the treatment. The charges also state that female officers made sexual advances towards the prisoners to extract information from them.

The High Court will need to need to determine the level of culpability of the United Kingdom government. Lawyers on both sides debate whether or not government and key military leaders were aware of the abuse that was taking place. The Ministry of Defence has always stated that they looked into any wrongful death allegations seriously. However, they have still come under fire after a wrongly accused man died in custody of the British government.

Some critics have said that the isolated reports of deaths do not do justice to all the people who have allegedly been victimized during interrogation. One observer said that this case will be the last opportunity for the world to know what really happened and get justice for the victims in question. He said that Britain will need to hold itself to the same standards that it holds the rest of the world.

Illegal Activities — Leave a comment
18
Jan 13

Technology Helps Curb Illegal Logging

The plight of the Amazon rainforests is much written about, and with illegal logging adding to the rapid deforestation of the region further concerns have been raised about the future of Brazil’s tropical wonder. However, a Dutch security company – Gemalto – has come up with an ingenious solution that is being trialled right now, and it involves the very latest technology.

The system, named Invisible Tracck, is based around transmitters that are attached to the trunks of trees in a way that makes them practically undetectable. These small devices – smaller than a pack of cards – send out a signal that, when within 20 miles range of a mobile phone network, can be picked up and used to locate the illegally felled tree. The system is being piloted right now, and the devices are specially designed for the Amazon climate and have a battery life of up to a year.

Real Time Tracking

The main advantage of the new system is that it allows for real time tracking of illicit timber, rather than leaving the investigators to rely on outdated and time-wasting methods. Cinterion M2M, which is the Latin American arm of Gemalto, is running the scheme, and General Manager Ramzi Abdine is enthusiastic about its future:

“The rainforest in Brazil is approximately the size of the United States so it’s impossible to monitor each and every acre.”

Further enthusiasm came from Marcelo Hayashi, of Cargo Tracck, who explained:

“Gemalto’s Cinterion M2M was vital in enabling us to develop a tracking and tracing solution rugged enough to withstand the heat and moisture of the Amazon. It is unique because it’s small for inconspicuous deployment in the field and power-efficient enough to operate over long stretches of time without recharging batteries, which is crucial when tracking trees in remote areas.”

Data Laws — Leave a comment
10
Jan 13

Facebook and Google in Privacy Row

The latest stage in the ongoing concerns regarding online privacy has seen the likes of Facebook and Google, and other online giants, criticised for the use of personal data. It is not the first time concerns have been raised, and it certainly will not be the last. This time it is the EU that is looking for users to be given more control over how their personal information is used. Currently it is permissible for such companies to sell browsing habits and other useful information to others, although many users are unaware that this is so.

The call is for users to be able to opt out – deny the company the opportunity to profit from such information – or agree to its use. Both Facebook and Google, who make a great deal of money from such practices, are strongly against this option. However, data of this sort is also used by health services and other service industries, and they are concerned that any changes may affect their ability to provide the best service.

Flourishing European Market

Erika Mann, head of European policy for Facebook, expressed her concerns over the proposals:

“We are concerned that some aspects of the report do not support a flourishing European digital single market and the reality of innovation on the internet.”

She went on to point out that, by its very nature, the internet is inescapably global. Privacy lobbyists have also been vocal on the subject, and have been pointing out that such companies are not concerned with the privacy of their users, but with making profits. There is, however, a precedent for increased privacy, as image-hosting site Instagram recently pulled a proposal to sell users photos to advertisers. After announcing the plan it found almost 25% of users had deserted it within a week.

Facebook, Google and others may do well to heed this instance as online users do not want their private information used for the gains of others.