Skip to content

Law

No you don’t. Fuck off

Whole life sentences without parole to be applied retrospectively

You get tried, charged and sentenced under whatever the law is at the time of the alleged crime. No exceptions, ever.

Fuck off.

Oh, right

The parents of disgraced cryptocurrency entrepreneur Sam Bankman-Fried have been accused of siphoning off millions of dollars in “misappropriated funds” from FTX.

Claims against Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried have been made in a lawsuit by administrators of FTX, as the crypto company seeks to claw back cash that they allegedly received prior to its collapse.

FTX has alleged the pair “exploited their access and influence” at the business to “enrich themselves”, as they benefitted from perks such as luxury hotel stays and the use of private jets.

They are demanding that Mr Bankman, a law professor at Stanford University, return a sum of $18.9m (£15.2m) allegedly used to pay for a beach house in the Bahamas.

Aren’t they supposed to be deeply caring lefty lawyer types?

Ahahahahaha

Fining motorists by post using CCTV camera evidence has been ruled “illegal”, The Telegraph can reveal.

Drivers may be entitled to refunds for millions of pounds of penalty charge notices (PCNs) after a ruling by a panel of lawyers that hears appeals against motoring fines.

A special test case found that Transport for London (TfL) had “illegally” fined motorists who had stopped on parking bays on red routes in the capital.

The transport authority, acting on behalf of Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, breached government guidance by using CCTV rather than traffic wardens to enforce road rules.

Ruling looks at DfT guidance
Laws limiting the use of CCTV to issue fines were introduced in 2015 because of what ministers described as “overzealous enforcement by local authorities”.

The judgment by London Tribunals has implications for drivers across the country and could be relied upon in appeals where a CCTV motoring fine has been issued. A London Tribunals spokesman said while its rulings do not set a legal precedent, “adjudicators may take previous decisions into consideration before reaching a conclusion”.

The ruling, on eight red route fine appeals, has emerged just one week after Rishi Sunak declared he was on “the motorists’ side” and ordered a review of low traffic neighbourhoods.

Analysis of TfL data suggests it issues about 435,000 PCNs of all types a year, which if paid in full at £160 would net £69 million.

Three adjudicators accused the authority of a “procedural impropriety” by issuing fines through CCTV rather than “civil enforcement officers” – or traffic wardens.

The ruling says the “most recent version” of Department for Transport guidance states that “approved devices” – or CCTV – should only be used “where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and enforcement by a civil enforcement officer is not practicable”.

Explaining how many motorists may have legitimate reasons for stopping, such as loading or unloading, they “may find it impossible to obtain the necessary evidence after the event” when the £160 fine arrives by post.

“A motorist parked in such a bay who encounters a civil enforcement officer may, there and then, be able to show that he or she is loading or unloading … or can readily obtain the evidence … to substantiate that claim,” the adjudicators said, scrapping all eight fines.

This won’t make any difference at all

Wrongly convicted prisoners will no longer have to pay for their bed and board, in a victory for an innocent man who served 17 years for a rape he did not commit.

Andrew Malkinson had his conviction overturned by the Court of Appeal last month. But once he was declared a free man, he was told that he would need to repay costs incurred during his prison stay.

Now Alex Chalk, the Justice Secretary, is to scrap the requirement for prisoners who have been victims of miscarriages of justice to pay for “saved living expenses” out of any compensation they receive from the state.

I used to get outraged by it too.

Compensation for a tort is always calculated to put you back in the position – as far as possible, of course – of where you would have been without the wrong done to you. This does have the weird effect that someone higher paid before being jugged gets more compo than someone lower paid.

No one “had to pay” their bed and board. Their compo was worked out, then from that was deducted the fact that they had not had to pay bed and board for x years. So that, in the end, their compo put them in the position they would have been without the unjust conviction.#

It wasn’t paying the prison service for a sandwich every night. It was that the amount of money you have now, free and clear, reflects that you didn’t pay for a sandwich every night while jugged.

OK, bit of a kludge but it maintained that common law idea about compo for a tort. Now Ministers have been stampeded into changing this.Might have been better to stick with hte old idea so that compo is the same for every tort. But, you know, politics and the public screaming about things.

It’ll make no damn difference at all to the amount of compo paid of course. Because the calculation on how much it is will simply absorb this new info and change. There will be no line charge for bed and board – but the numbers will still be in there.

Now, if you really want to get outraged, some American counties (it is by county, and so is the county jail for, usually, sentences under 6 months, not state prison for those longer) really do charge bed and board. Get rightrously jugged, serve your 90 days in the county jail (I feel a blues song coming on) and they issue a bill for $5,520 ($60 x 90) on your exit. Not from your compo, you were guilty, served your time and are now being released. And they expect that bill to be paid too. Will use credit agencies to chase you, try to bankrupt you over non-payment etc.

Now that’s just plain evil.

So, shrieking on Twitter works then

Dr Charlotte Proudman and I are sitting in a scruffy meeting room at Proudman’s chambers in the Inns of Court just off Fleet Street in London.

Say idiot things loudly and often enough on X and you get a full page profile in The Times.

Sigh.

So, not just wrong fuckwits but incompetent fuckwits

A chambers which unlawfully victimised a barrister for standing up to Stonewall has been ordered to pay her £20,000 in costs for “unreasonable conduct”.

Unreasonable, sorta, yes.

Now, an employment tribunal has made the unusual decision of awarding a substantial sum in costs to Ms Bailey for the way Garden Court and its legal team conducted itself during the acrimonious litigation.

The panel singled out for criticism the chambers’ failure to compile an adequate trial bundle, which is crucial for the coherent running of a case.

The stinging judgement says it was unclear whether this was the result of poor resourcing or an issue of “personality” on the part of those involved.

Actually, that’s simply incompetence.

Whether it’s a general thing or specific to this case it’s still not a good look.

Amazin’ what counts

Flatulent barrister denied chance to work from home wins £135k
CPS found guilty of disability discrimination in case of lawyer whose heart medication caused him to become gassy

Sure, there are disabilities and there are disabilities. But once you pass a law shouting that no one can discriminate on the basis of disability then you get flatulence (see, see, a pune, or a play upon words?) like this.

At which point, of course, change the law to include “reasonable efforts” to accommodate disability. At which point all the tossery goes away.

Trademark, yes

Assuming this is true:

the Consortiums cannot overcome what the record makes clear: cheese consumers in the United States understand ‘gruyère’ to refer to a type of cheese, which renders the term generic.”

If it’s generic, cannot be trademarked.

Cheeses made outside Switzerland and France can now carry the name gruyère in the US after a recent court ruling put an end to Europe’s monopoly on the product.

The decision from the US appeals court in Virginia on Friday is being hailed as a major victory for US dairy farmers amidst ongoing battles between European and American producers on the rights to use common food names like parmesan, bologna, asiago and fontina.

It’s a matter of who uses the language to mean what. If people do use it as a generic then it cannot be a trademark. Which is why you used to 0 I’ve not seen one for a decade or two – see letters to the Editor.

“Sirs, Bic and Biro and registered trademarks and must be used as such” when some sub had allowed a writer to say bic or biro. Because to stop it becoming a generic you’ve got to do exactly that. Protest about people doing so.

and the label Champagne, which must be produced in the Champagne region of France in order to carry the name. Rules in the US are much more relaxed.

Of course, they never did ratify Versailles…..

I think it rather depends, doesn’t it?

Calling colleague a slag is ‘acceptable workplace banter’

Depends upon the workplace. Possibly not in the Cathedral Deanery and probably so on a trading floor? Bit like farting – Mum, of all folk, knows about your botty but you still try rather hard not to fart while having tea with her. While farting is, in a rugby changing room – and from memory which might be failing me – compulsory.

Times and places, horses for courses etc.

Umm, yes, OK…..

Like many women, Ms Edwards thought she was protected from losing her job because she was on maternity leave. But in truth, it is only illegal if the reason for the dismissal is because of the pregnancy or maternity leave and therefore constitutes discrimination.

Seems reasonable. You’re allowed to fire a dusky bloke – or a gammon – but not because they’re a dusky bloke or a gammon.

And?

Snigger, no, really, hahahaha

A female rapist on her way to prison. A female prison. Rape being a crime which can only be committed with a penis in this jurisdiction.

No! No! No!

Tsk, no, don’t get angry. Laugh. Nothing at all pisses them off so much as laughing at them, our Lords and Masters.

Err, yes?

Trusts holding billions of dollars of assets for Roman Abramovich were amended to transfer beneficial ownership to his children shortly before sanctions were imposed on the Russian oligarch.

OK, so he no longer owns nor benefits from those assets then. If he does, then the asset transfer hasn’t actually gone through. We’ve already got masses and masses of trust law on this point.

Sanctions experts said the sweeping reorganisation of the trusts could complicate efforts to enforce sanctions against the oligarch and potentially frustrate attempts to freeze assets previously believed to belong to the metals tycoon.

But you don’t get to freeze assets that “formerly” belonged. You get to freeze what does belong. If he sticks a tenner into some beggar’s cup you can’t freeze the £10, that belongs to the beggar. So with transferring assets. If it’s done before sanctions then he’s free to transfer as he likes. Those assets are now no longer his. What’s difficult about this?

Sanctions experts said the changes may have been a deliberate but not unlawful attempt to distance the oligarch from his wealth before sanctions were imposed.

See?

My suspicion is that this story is being driven by greed. Sanctions! We get to confiscate the rich! And then that disappointment, well, no, not this one. So, quick, quick, change the law!

Might not be a good idea

On Tuesday, President Joe Biden signed into law H.R. 263, known as the “Big Cat Public Safety Act,” which puts a slew of new amendments on an older law that regulates wildlife trafficking. The legislation bans private citizens from breeding, purchasing, and transporting big cats, mandates owners register animals they already own, effectively phasing out private ownership of big cats. The bill, which unanimously passed the Senate earlier this month, also restricts public contact with six species: lions, tigers, cougars, leopards, snow leopards, and jaguars.

It’s said that US private ownership amounts to 25,000 tigers. Half of all that exist. That’s half the entire species to now be made progressively illegal.

Might not work out as people desire you know.

My word yes, isn’t it glorious we’ve a new system!

The old way of mutterings in corners of clubs, horrors, appalling:

Until about 20 years ago the award was bestowed by the lord chancellor, after a much-criticised process of “secret soundings”, which allegedly favoured privately educated white men in fashionable London chambers and discriminated against women, those from ethnic minorities and solicitors. In 2003 the Labour government of the time began a consultation on the future of the award, and ultimately the independent appointments body was founded by the Bar Council and the Law Society to replace the system of patronage, with the new process beginning in 2006.

Had to go, obviously.

At present candidates must complete a 65-page application form…..It costs £2,280 to apply and a further £3,840 to be appointed if successful…..Earlier this year, successful candidates described the process to The Times as “soul-destroying” and “absolutely hideous”.

There, see, isn’t a properly organised bureaucracy vastly better than that English system of just muddling through and hoping that the really big chunks float to the top?

Err, no

“Here,” I had been telling my children, “where you see the red flag with the eagle, is Albania. And over there,” I added, pointing at the other flag, blue with white stripes, a few hundred metres in the distance, “is Greece.”

“But where are we now?”, the six-year-old asked. The tortoise was slowly trailing behind us, through what is sometimes referred to as terra nullius, a portion of territory that does not belong to any state and that usually demarcates two bordering jurisdictions.

No, that zone between two border posts is not terra nullius. Actually, it’s entirely and wholly the opposite. Terra nullius is land belonging to no one. With the attached insistence that therefore anyone can go occupy it. Try occupying the area between two border posts – see?

Lea Ypi is a professor in political theory at the London School of Economics,

Sigh.

Bet they don’t write this law right

People who share so-called “deepfakes” – explicit images or videos which have been manipulated to look like someone without their consent – will also be criminalised.

Both offences are expected to carry maximum jail terms of two or three years.

Look like someone else” is pretty wide. For example, making deepfake porn, well, by definition because it’s a fake it’ll look like someone else. Even if generic someone else.

So it sorta depends upon the draftsmen – hmm, not looking good, is it?

No, not really

In fact, Hell No!

Cryptocurrency regulation is needed to stop the next FTX-style implosion spilling over into a wider financial crash, the deputy governor of the Bank of England has said.

Sir Jon Cunliffe said Britain should “continue to bring these activities and entities within regulation”, including “most obviously, the need to protect consumers”.

If FTX – or any of the others – had been inside the regulatory boundaries then they would have been tied in with the regular banking system. Which would have meant considerable contagion. As it is we’re able to leave it outside and allow it all to go bust. Sure, $3 trillion – or whatever – is real money but it’s not a systemic problem even if the entire sector evaporates. We can leave that wild west to sort itself out, either into useful legality or into business. But if it had been inside the curtains of the system then we’d have a very much larger problem.

Bring it under the King’s Law after the frontier has been conquered, not before or while.

Which comes first, society or the law?

The significance of the Senate’s historic vote on same-sex marriage
A bipartisan majority has voted to move forward on a bill protecting marriage equality.

Largely speaking and roughly enough no one gives a shit.

They’d give one or more about the legal absence of it, now. But the presence? Ah, who cares? That’s how it can be bipartisan.

Which gives us an interesting little insight. Society changes before the law does…..