Fast and furious

One thing which strikes me as I study the law is the amazing increase in the number of laws and regulations. However even more than this, I am amazed by the overall fast and furious pace of change in the entire legal system. I can only imagine what it must have been like to study the law back in the early eighties as opposed to now. To be sure, common law traces its roots back hundreds of years but without a doubt the last thirty years has seen an exponential growth in the legal web which ensnares us. Not only does statute after statute fly out of the halls of parliament, but the amount of delegated legislation expands so rapidly one needs to be a specialist to keep up. Sadly it seems to me that the expanding use of laws and regulations pushes personal freedom ever further and further into a small corner. As parliaments feel the need to act to solve all of the woes of humanity, individuals seem to slowly but surely lose their freedom to act. Power is continually funneled down from the omnipotent lawmaking body into the hands of ministries, bureaucrats and unelected officials, many of whom have the power to act arbitrarily. What does the future hold if we keep up at this pace? Will there be anything left which is not legistlated or prescribed?

Cut to the bone

The Con-Lib government yesterday came out with their long awaited and well feared comprehensive spending review. As expected, there was blood everywhere from the deep cuts imposed over the next several years. Perhaps nowhere were these as keenly felt as in the Ministry of Justice where budget savings are expected of over 25%. Obviously 25% saving cannot be achieved with 'economies of scale' or 'cutting the fat'. To reduce costs by 25% the Ministry is expected to close prisons, put less people in prison, slash legal aid, close courts, cut staff, reduce the CPS, put those already in prison out to work and sell off property. All of these steps might just bring them close to meeting their savings target. One of the most interesting comments however came from Ken Clark the Lord Chancellor who said that it is nigh upon impossible to rehabilitate a person who is sentenced to prison for under a year. Obviously the notion is that with the cost of every one person in jail to the taxpayer of about 40,000 pound a year it is better to have lesser offenses dealt with by income generating fines or some form of community service. More importantly perhaps is the acknowledgement that short term prison sentences are far more retributive in nature than rehabilitative. Personally, I believe the punishment should have a strong retributive aspect, if not for deterrence, then for the mere fact that criminal behavior should be punished. However maybe some creative thinking is involved in seeing what actually might be the best punishment for those convicted of crime. I will give some thought to it and should you have any suggestions I would love to hear them…

How good are you?

I seem to be bumping my nose against this question this week. Despite all the studying and all the essay writing, I still don't really know how good my performance is while studying the LLB. Am I doing work which is good enough for a First? An Upper Second? Hard for me to really judge. I don't think that my fellow students have the necessary skills either to give my work a proper grade. What's left then? To hope for the best and just keep on giving it my all? To splash out and pay to have some of my work reviewed by a professional? Usually, one is able to get feedback from professors in order to gauge how things are going. They are experts in pointing out what areas are strong and where improvements need to be made, however in this LLB course I do not have teachers whom I can draw upon. I am on my own. Normally this would not be too much of a problem, and I doubt seriously that I would actually fail a course (ha! I am sure that such arrogance will come back to haunt me). However the problem is that the access to the legal profession seems to narrow significantly for those with a 2.2 or below. To be sure, one can break into the profession even with a pass I suppose but the going is quite tough and the 'rebuttable presumption' is that you are not good enough for the law. So this rambling takes me back to the initial question - how good am I? I suppose the only way is to get out there and prove it. To be as active and involved as possible, interested and actively learning. To dive into competitions when I can find them and to get feedback as much as I can from others and be open to what they are saying. Hopefully at least with all of these things I will find that I am good enough for myself.

A room with a view

I have to say that one of the joys of being a law student is the voyeuristic pleasure derived from the glimpses into private lives through law cases. Where else but in the case of Tabassum (2000) could we learn of one man's overwhelming desire to fondle women's breasts? Little did he know that thousands of future students would then read about his escapades and the role which identity plays in consent. Or the sadomasochistic play in Emmett (1999) in which Emmett's partner willingly gave her consent to have lighter fluid poured upon her breasts and set aflame? Undoubtedly Emmett never expected this little episode to come to light (pardon the pun). Yet now we not only read about it but also take notes on the legal principles applied by the court in his case and how the common law develops as a result. I suppose that there are literally thousands of examples that one could draw upon that expose private dealings to public scrutiny. Could it be more than just a matter of chance whether or not we one day find ourselves as a case study?

Down the slippery slope...

A few weeks ago I wrote about how one small town was recuiting residents to monitor traffic speed in the town, now more disturbing news is out about a proposal to lower council tax for those who volunteer their services to the police. The notion is that those who volunteer as 'special constables' could have their tax bills halved for their efforts. Believe it or not these 'special constables' are not paid, but wear identical uniforms to sworn officers and can make arrests.

Just how are we going to develop a police state? Is it not enough that the government can hold you without charge? That CCTV cameras are everywhere? That you can receive a tailored anti-social behavoural order prohibiting you from doing almost anything under pain of criminal offense? Where are we to find liberty and privacy these days? When I was writing about having someone to spy upon others in a block of flats or in a school class I thought it was an example of something extreem, now I fear that it may be much closer to reality....

Work it, work it...

So I've been hard at work gentle readers over the last few weeks on the LLB. Actually, I had a good session the other night with some other students on contract law of all things. Have a look at the attached and let me know your thoughts:

On Monday, Albert inspected Betty’s car at her house in Woking and offered to pay £10,000 for it. Betty wanted £12,000. Later in the day, Betty wrote to Albert and stated that she would take £11,000. The letter was received by Albert at his home on Tuesday morning. At 4.00 pm on Tuesday afternoon, Albert at his office in London wrote a letter to Betty accepting her offer. On his way to post the letter Albert met Cuthbert who told him, ‘I gather that Betty has finally sold her car.’ Betty had, indeed, sold the car. Albert posted his letter and, upon arriving home at Woking, discovered a message on his answer phone from Betty. The message had been left at 3.00 pm; Betty had stated, ‘I withdraw my offer.’ Albert bought a similar car for £12,500. Advise Albert.

In the situation above, Albert is £1,500 worse off due to the actions of Betty. The question is whether Betty could reasonably withdraw her offer in the manner in which she did or was there a binding contact between the two of them for Albert to buy Betty’s car for £11,000?

Albert’s case rests upon the strength of the postal rule as first established in Adams v Lindsell (1818) and Household Fire Insurance v Grant (1879). Under this exceptional rule, acceptance of an offer is completed when it is posted. This Albert did during the course of Tuesday afternoon sometime after 4pm. As seen in Quenerduaine v Cole (1883), it was reasonable for Albert to rely on the postal means of communication despite its old-fashioned nature, due to the previous letter which Betty wrote to him offering to sell her car. Thus the use of the post was reasonably contemplated by the parties.

Albert will have to contend against Betty’s claim that he knew the car was sold because he was informed by Cuthbert. While Albert did hear from Cuthbert that the car might have already been sold, this was no more than hearsay as there is no supposition that Cuthbert was reliable and authorized to communicate for Betty as set out in Dickinson v Dodds (1876). In advising Albert it should be clearly necessary to review with him if Cuthbert ever said that he was acting for Betty by telling him this information. If not, it could be reasonably disregarded.

Perhaps the most difficult point for Albert to contend with is that there is little clarity on what to make of Betty’s withdrawal of her offer on a voice mail message at 3pm. Albert would need to reasonably argue that voice mail does not fall under the postal rule exception to communication, thus it is valid when received. As
Albert’s posting of the acceptance to Betty’s offer was prior to receiving the notice of her revocation then the postal rule should apply and Albert should have a reasonable claim for £1,500 compensation.

Under pressure

Sad story in the New York Times today.

which takes a look at a study done of those who have confessed to a crime which they did not commit. I have to admit while sad and tragic that innocent people confess to crimes they have not been involved in the study itself is brilliant and sheds a lot of light on an area relatively unexplored. Why would an innocent person confess? Not only to minor crimes but also to charges such a murder and rape. I mentioned only in passing in an earlier blog post about the pressure one must feel to confess. In my case it was to just have done with a simple parking ticket. By would such feelings really hold true to those threatened with incarceration? Apparently so, in at least 250 documented cases. Many of these involved defendants who had some limited mental capabilities, in some cases they were young, but more than anything the confessions seem to be driven by the investigators. They were not merely "I did it" confessions but detailed descriptions of the acts and facts surrounding the case. In almost all instances this information could only have come from the examining officers who "helped to describe" how the crime took place. It makes chilling reading especially given that a confession usually closes the book on a defendant's case. Beyond the miscarriages of justice why is the relevant? Well the UK is considering reducing sentences of offenders who confess their guilt, not only before trial as currently happens, but at the earliest opportunity when apprehended by police. As this study makes clear, such a path may open the door to more false confessions and greater injustice.

You can access the study here.