Chris Jones Appointed Solicitor-Advocate

The February meeting of the body responsible for regulating solicitors decided that Chris Jones, a partner with lawyers Slee Blackwell specialising in Criminal Law, should be approved as a Solicitor-Advocate.
After over 20 years representing clients in the Magistrates Court, this qualification now allows Chris to appear and represent clients in the Crown Court.
The appointment comes in recognition of the extensive experience Chris has gained over the years in a range of Courts and Tribunals including Courts Martial and Coroners Inquests.
Chris commented
'It is very pleasing to be recognised by the Law Society in this way. Although it will not change Slee Blackwell's practice of employing the best barristers to represent clients in the Crown Court in cases that require it, the qualification does extend opportunities to the firm to represent clients through to a conclusion in the Higher Courts when necessary. We now have the scope to assist with all criminal cases through from investigation to conclusion in whatever Court the case is dealt with.'
Chris will join the Solicitors Association of Higher Court Advocates and make use of their specialist training and support.
Solicitor-Advocates now regularly deal with cases in the Crown Court throughout the country wearing black gowns and wing collars. They are not yet allowed to wear the traditional barrister's wig but this distinction continues to be discussed and has become less important over the years.
Chris is believed to be the first solicitor in North Devon to be recognised as a Solicitor-Advocate in this way.
Slee Blackwell already have Solicitor-Advocates qualified to deal with Civil Proceedings based at their Exeter Office.

www.sleeblackwell.co.uk

The End of Innocence?

In the 2002 Spielberg movie Minority Report our hero (played by Tom Cruise) is in charge of a 'pre-crime' unit which catches and incarcerates (without trial) would be killers before they commit their crime, on the basis of psychic evidence. Readers who have not seen the film should look away now, because I have to tell you that the ending is not a happy one for those who find this vision of pre-emptive justice an attractive one.
While film goers did not have to be psychic to realize that locking people up for crimes they had not committed on the basis of evidence flimsier than a dodgy dossier was never going to work, it appears that John Reid and Tony Blair are not fans of Mr Cruise or Mr Spielberg because, guess what? Another day, another criminal justice proposal, and you guessed right – its catch the blighters before they do it.
The Sunday Times 14 January 2006 reveals that the government proposes to introduce restrictions on potential yobs even before they have committed an offence. Orders – like existing Asbos – could ban recipients from living in their home area, associating with their friends or family, and impose curfews. Any breach of an order would render a recipient liable to up to 5 years imprisonment.
Super Asbos for violent thugs must be a good thing. After all its got super in the title, and Lord Falconer says that they wouldn't be an infringement on individual freedoms because there must be evidence before they are issued. So that’s all right then, isn't it?
Er, no, actually. Its not. Here's why. Leave aside the lawyer's concerns that the existing Asbo regime has been used to dilute the centuries old burden on the prosecution to prove a criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt, that hearsay evidence from which the citizen has been protected for centuries isallowed in Asbo cases, and that the accused has no right to a jury trial in front of his or her peers.
Leave aside the fact that Asbos have been used to criminalize a generation of children, and disproportionately used against vulnerable people including the homeless and those with mental health problems.
Even, if you will, ignore the fact that 40% of Asbos are breached and that by and large they do not work.
But consider if you want to live in a society where you could be locked up for breaching an order, before you have committed a crime, when the state decides it doesn't like the way you were brought up, because you have a history of substance abuse or because you have mental health or cognitive difficulties.
And when you are considering, remember that Mr Spielberg is only in charge in Hollywood and Mr Cruise will not be around to rescue you.

ANDREW BURKE
Residential Conveyancing Solicitor
www.sleeblackwell.co.uk