The Mirror, Vol. 13, No. 641

“In the morning of 4 December 2009, the Royal Government of Cambodia approved a draft about the provision of ownership rights in co-owned buildings ['condominiums'] also to foreigners, based on a draft by the Ministry of Land Management and Urbanization in consultation with the Ministry of Justice.

“According to an announcement from the Council of Ministers, the above draft consists of 8 chapters and 24 articles, and it responds to the Royal Government’s policy to attract investors, as well as to facilitate the growth of the real estate market, and to boost development to reduce poverty.

“At the same time, the cabinet meeting approved also the draft, comprising of 6 chapters and 13 articles, for a royal decree about the creation of a national maritime security committee.

“The national maritime security committee is to be used as an instrument on the national level to regulate, manage, and strengthen maritime security. It will also be the focal point for the coordination and cooperation between other relevant authorities, to strengthen the effective management and integration of different services for the sake of our nation, and for the expansion of cooperation with foreign countries.

“The announcement went on to say that during the cabinet meeting, also the draft for a royal decree about the formation of a secretariat for the National Council for Children, and its operation, was approved.

“Based on 15 years experience, and considering the changed conditions in the country because of developments in all sectors, and also of other problems challenging children, the National Council for Children must make change to its assigned structure in order to uplift the quality of this social sector, and to prove that the Royal Government cares about the living conditions to ensure the four rights [?] of Cambodian children, as well as to protect them.

“During the meeting, an agreement about an ASEAN commerce for the preparation of an ASEAN free trade zones, and an ASEAN treaty about combating terrorism were approved to be sent to the legislative body for ratification.” Deum Ampil, Vol.3, #354, 5.12.2009

Newspapers Appearing on the Newsstand:
Saturday, 5 December 2009

Deum Ampil, Vol.3, #354, 5.12.2009

• The Government Decided to Provide Ownership Rights in Co-Owned Buildings also to Foreigners
• Four Robbers That Had Robbed two Gold Sellers [husband and wife, about three years ago, taking a car and jewelry worth about US$30,000] Were Arrested while They Were Buying a Car [Phnom Penh]

Kampuchea Thmey, Vol.8, #2116, 5.12.2009

• The World Trade Organization Director Welcomes the Fifth Anniversary since Cambodia Became a Member of the World Trade Organization
• Samdech Hun Sen Set a Deadline at Five O’Clock on 4 December 2009 for [Thai Prime Minister] Abhisit Vijjajiva to Reply [whether to send the Thai ambassador back to Cambodia or not, otherwise he will launch the construction of the road from Siem Reap to Oddar Meanchey without using a Thai loan]

Khmer Machas Srok, Vol.3, #547, 5.12.2009

• Siamese Spy Siwarak Dropped His Bail Bid at the Phnom Penh Municipal Court [and changed his defense lawyer]

Koh Santepheap, Vol.42, #6823, 5-6.12.2009

• Cambodia and Vietnam Held a Bilateral Meeting to Discuss Assistance for Victims of Human Trafficking
• Cambodia and Vietnam Agreed to Finish the Border Demarcation in 2012 [according to a meeting between the Cambodian and the Vietnamese Ministers of Foreign Affairs]
• The Number of Visitors to Siem Reap Increases Again [within 11 months of 2009, there were 2.044,577 visitors, compared to the corresponding period last year, there were 2,062,488, but it had been further down in previous recent months]

Rasmei Kampuchea, Vol.17, #5065, 5.12.2009

• [The Thai ousted prime minister, convicted for corruption, who fled the country breaking his bail promise] Thaksin Shinawatra and [former Thai general and prime minister] Chavalit Yongchaiyudh Plan to Help Arrange the Release of the Thai Engineer and Alleged Spy [according to former Thai Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Noppadon Patama]
• Vietnam Helps to Build Five Radio Stations in Cambodia [for the national radio to expand its broadcasts in provinces with no good access to radio: Mondolkiri, Preah Vihear, Prey Veng, Ratanakiri, and Siem Reap]
• [Twenty one] Civil Society Organizations [as well as international organizations that work on human rights and legal affairs] Asked to Meet the King to Talk about the Human Rights Situation [on 10 December 2009, the International Human Rights Day]

Have a look at the last editorial – you can access it directly from the main page of the Mirror.
And please recommend us also to your colleagues and friends.

Back to top

There’s the whiff of something distinctly rotten wafting from our justice system.

Justice Minister Simon Power has hastened to attend to the source of some of the pong. But not all of it.

He is to ask Cabinet to agree to sweeping changes to our legal aid service

after revelations hundreds of crooked lawyers are ripping off taxpayers.

He has vowed “urgent structural change” to shore up public confidence in the system.

Power has asked justice officials to compile an urgent report on how quickly the Legal Services Agency can be disestablished and folded into the Ministry of Justice.

Cabinet will be considering the report today, Alf has been advised.

According to the newspapers –

The agency, set up in 1991, doled out $124 million to legal-aid lawyers last year for 95,000 applications.

In a damning report on its performance, Dame Margaret Bazley says that potentially tens of millions of dollars have been pocketed fraudulently by lawyers “gaming the system”. At least 200 lawyers – possibly more – were involved in the practice, which Bazley described yesterday as “unscrupulous and corrupt”.

In one of the hardest-hitting reports in Bazley’s long career, the public service troubleshooter slated both the agency and the Law Society, saying they had a “dysfunctional” relationship and appeared either unable or unwilling to stop abuses in the system.

Fair to say, questions have been raised about the rigour of the investigation that led to those findings.

But to cut to the chase, Bazley is recommending a mix of public and privately-provided legal aid, with a public defender model using a pool of experienced lawyers set up in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch.

In other centres, legal aid lawyers should be grouped under a senior lawyer responsible for quality. She recommended that legal aid work should be bulk-funded.

Repeat clients or those who dismissed their counsel should lose the right to appoint their own lawyer, Bazley said, while high-cost cases such as murder trials should be overseen by a senior public servant.

But let’s put the legal aid system aside for a moment.

Something more disquieting has been flushed into the open in recent days.

The highest court in the land has recalled a judgment – a rare event – after one of its judges disclosed that he effectively owed nearly a quarter of a million dollars to a QC who appeared before him in the Appeal Court.

In addition, a racing industry company, Rich Hill Ltd, owned by Justice Bill Wilson and Alan Galbraith, QC, was in the process of borrowing another $700,000 to help buy a property to enlarge a horse stud.

“The judge’s shareholding in Rich Hill Ltd was not at that time merely a passive investment,” the Supreme Court said yesterday.

“These circumstances … would, if disclosed before the earlier hearing, have led the court to the conclusion that the case on apparent bias was made out. There is … a very special reason why justice requires recall of our earlier judgment”.

In other words, we have a judge, now ensconsed in the highest court in our land, who has been found to have been found wanting in the judicious department.

The Government has displayed a bothersomne lack of sense of concern.

A spokesman for Attorney-General Chris Finlayson said he was studying the ruling. He had no immediate comment.

How much bloody study is demanded?

Alf would have the injudicious judge keel-hauled, if the Navy could spare one of its ships for the occasion.

As the Supreme Court has ruled, he should not have judged a case where one of the counsel was an active business partner.

If Wilson did not know he shouldn’t have judged the case, his judgement is dead dodgy and he is unfit to sit on the bench. Any bench, come to think of it, including the benches at Alf’s favourite park.

The ruling by Justices Peter Blanchard, Andrew Tipping, John McGrath, and Noel Anderson is the first on apparent bias relating to the relationship between a judge and counsel.

A fifth judge, Justice Tom Gault, sat on the original Supreme Court bench that on July 3 ruled in favour of Mr Galbraith’s client, but was not available for the recall hearing, a court official said.

The case in which participants have been failed by Judge Wilson and by our court system involves Saxon merino growers, including the Saxmere Company. They have spent years arguing their wool should be treated separately from other merino wools in allocating Wool Board funding.

Galbraith represented the Wool Board Disestablishment Company in the Appeal Court, where Justice Wilson found against Saxmere.

Saxmere owner Peter Radford – through his lawyer Sue Grey – appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging a potential conflict of interest because Mr Galbraith co-owned with Justice Wilson land for grazing race horses.

But the court ruled in July that a “fair-minded lay observer” would reasonably understand that Justice Wilson brought an impartial mind to his judgment.

Bollocks.

Last week,

the court said “it has emerged” that at March 31, 2007, shortly before the Appeal Court hearing, Justice Wilson had advanced $984,176 to Rich Hill, and Mr Galbraith had loaned the company $1,226,980.

Justice Wilson was to balance the contributions with a further $242,804, including interest and principal on $168,555 of bank debt.

“The objective lay observer could reasonably consider that … the judge was at the relevant time beholden to Mr Galbraith,” the court said.

Since the earlier Supreme Court ruling, it had also been disclosed that Rich Hill had contracted to buy a property to enlarge the horse stud, and had arranged to borrow its one-third share of the $2.16 million price.

“The judge and Mr Galbraith must have been reliant upon one another during the very time the Saxmere judgment was reserved in the Court of Appeal”, the court said.

The rehearing in the Appeal Court will be before a new panel of judges.

So far, so good.

But what happens to the Wilson bugger?

A few quiet words from his superior, and that’s it?

Alf has often harboured reservations about the quality of the justice dispensed by our courts.

He was outraged when the Clark Government did away with the right of appeal to the Privy Council and set up – at great expense – the Supreme Court as our top court.

The Wilson case shows why the Clark Government was so wrong to eschew the services provided freely by the Privy Council, thus denying our citizens the chance to take their cases for consideration by top British legal luminaries.

Imelda Reddington

The Information Commissioner could impose fines of up to £500,000 for breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

 An announcement from the Ministry of Justice earlier this month proposes to grant the Information Commissioner the power to impose penalties of up to £500,000 for serious breaches of the DPA.

 The Commissioner can impose a monetary penalty notice if a data controller has seriously contravened the DPA and the contravention was deliberate or reckless and of a kind likely to cause substantial damage or distress to an individual.

 The Information Commissioner issued separate guidance in relation to the monetary penalties.  Before deciding the penalty amount, the Information Commissioner will take into account the sector, the size and the resources of the data controller. 

The guidance also said that the purpose of the monetary penalty is not to impose serious financial hardship on the data controller but goes on to say that the proper handling of personal data should be central to carrying out any business activity.

 A recent press release from the Information Comissioner’s Office  goes even further by proposing a custodial sentence as a deterrent to stop the unlawful trade in personal information.

Back in 2007, a disk from the HMRC containing child benefits records went missing in breach of the DPA 1998.  The HMRC issued a letter of apology to the affected carers at a cost of £2.25 million to the taxpayer.   A few hefty fines should soon make up that shortfall!

So is it custodial sentence or monetary penalties?

£500,000 Banknote Forgery

So, after an inordinate and unexplained delay from Royal Assent of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (8 May 2008) until earlier this month, the Ministry of Justice has finally published a consultation document on the maximum monetary penalty it considers should apply to the new powers at ss. 55A to 55E of the Data Protection Act 1998, once these sections are brought into effect: £500,000.

What perhaps will be more interesting is how the Information Commissioner will use his new powers to levy monetary penalties.  Draft guidelines have been published.

Could the judicious use of these powers engineer effective data subject access to personal data? We will write this up as an article, hopefully for the journal Privacy and Data Protection, but we think there may be enough in the draft guidelines concerning deliberate contraventions (of the sixth data protection principle) and the question of whether compensation has been paid to the data subject (including reimbursement of reasonable legal fees where the individual has sought to enforce their rights under s.7(9)?), to suggest a method.

Perhaps we can then, at last, get rid of the effect of the pernicious dicta in Durant -v- Financial Services Authority [2003] EWCA Civ 1746 that renders it extremely difficult for data subjects to assert their subject access rights when they are also in legal proceedings with the data controller, against the view of the Information Commissioner.  Perhaps then we can also ensure that there is equality of arms between well-financed data controllers and data subjects, who currently cannot readily enforce their s.7 rights without incurring massive and disproportionate costs.

The Mirror, Vol. 13, No. 637

“The Appeals Court of Cambodia has delayed a hearing on former national military police officer Chea Ratha over the crime of an acid attack on Ms. Ya Sok Nim, the aunt of Ms. In Soklida, who had a lesbian relationship with Chea Ratha.

“The second delay was made again without giving a clear reason, like it was also with the first delay on 22 October 2009.

“Ms. Ya Sok Nim and her husband had written a letter to the Court of Appeals requesting it to reject the decision of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court to release seven suspects that were identified by police as responsible for the acid attack.

“In the judgment, which had been openly criticized by police, a judge of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court, Mr. Din Sivuthy, ruled on 31 August 2009 to release Ms. Chea Ratha and six accomplices allegedly involved in the acid attack against Ms. Ya Sok Nim on 8 May 2008.

“Though there had been a strong challenge from Ms. Ya Sok Nim’s lawyer, the judge Sivuthy mentioned the lack of evidence as the basis for his decision, which was a surprise.

“After the court had pronounced this judgment, Ms. Ya Sok Nim and her relatives held a press conference, during which they re-played a recorded phone conversation, and in this conversation, a woman, identified as Ms. Chea Ratha, was threatening to use serious violence against Ms. Ya Sok Nim and her family. Some days later, she was attacked with acid.

“The Municipal Court has conducted hearings already twice where it finally decided to lift the accusation on two cases of acid attack from Ms. Chea Ratha. Seemingly, because of dollar power and probably a powerful person, the Court of Appeals delayed its hearings twice already.

“Ms. Ya Sok Nim’s letter, published by local newspapers on 25 September 2009, asked the Prosecutor General of the Court of Appeals to find justice for her. Mr. Uong Vibol and Ms. Ya Sok Nim wrote, ‘Your Excellency, to find justice for the victim… I and my wife, who suffers from the cruel activity of criminals… please help to order the prosecutor of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court to accept an appeal against the judgment by a group of judges led by Mr. Din Sivuthy who has lifted the accusations.’

“The crime of this acid attack on Ms. Ya Sok Nim is similar to other cases which happened previously in Cambodia.

“The victim and her family, members of civil society, and observers of the cruel acid attack against Ms. Ya Sok Nim are waiting to see whether the Appeals Court rejects the decision of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court or keeps this unjust judgment valid in the next hearing.

“The decision by a judge of the Phnom Penh Municipal Court caused the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Justice to establish a special committee, to review the courts’ work. The creation of this special committee had triggered criticism from people from professions of law and from civil society officials, saying that the government interferes in the institution of the courts.

“However, the Minister of Interior, Deputy Prime Minister Sar Kheng, wrote to explain to Prime Minister Hun Sen that this new committee just reviews the courts’ work, where there had been frequent information about irregularities by releasing perpetrators.

“Police officials of the Ministry of Interior had complained that the police had tried very hard to arrest perpetrators, but the courts released them. Therefore they wait to see whether Ms. Chea Ratha does have the same fate like Ms. Khuon Sophal or not, the former wife of a high ranking official at the Council of Ministers.

“The life and the appearance of the actress Tat Marina [who suffered also an acid attack] were saved by American doctors. But she and her family had decided to flee from the country in order to wait there for justice to be achieved by the Khmer authorities. They wait to see when the authorities will prosecute Ms. Khuon Sophal and her accomplices.” Khmer Machas Srok, Vol.3, #524, 7.11.2009

Newspapers Appearing on the Newsstand:
Saturday, 7 November 2009

Deum Ampil, Vol.3, #330, 7.11.2009

• The Court Sentenced a Man [Mr. Ruos Sokhet, a journalist of The Globe magazine] Who Threatened Mr. Soy Sopheap to Serve Two Years in Prison [for distributing disinformation by sending disparaging telephone text messages to the president of the Cambodia Television Network and to the director of Deum Ampil, Mr. Soy Sopheap]
• Samdech Krom Preah [Norodom Ranariddh] Said He Wants to Get Divorced, while Princess Marie Said She Does Not [he appeared at the court as plaintiff over his divorce case without the presence of Princess Marie]
• The Number of People Infected with the A/H1N1 Virus Increased to 313, while the Number of Deaths Remains at Four [in Cambodia]

Kampuchea Thmey, Vol.8, #2092, 7.11.2009

• Cambodian and Siamese [Thai] Army Commanders Promised Not to Interfere in the Diplomatic Dispute [between the two governments]
• A [Vietnamese] Man Tried to Rape His [Vietnamese] Girlfriend, then Killed Her by Breaking Her Neck and Threw Her Body into a River [he was arrested – Kompong Chhnang]
• America Will Not Withdraw Sanctions against Myanmar [if the generals in Myanmar, who hold power, do not make noticeable improvements toward democratic reforms]

Khmer Machas Srok, Vol.3, #524, 7.11.2009

• The Appeals Court Delayed Hearing on Chea Ratha’s Case for the Second Time
• The King Asked Mr. Hun Sen to Check a Request to Pardon Mr. Hang Chakra [the editor-in-chief of Khmer Machas Srok who was convicted to serve one year in prison for disinformation]

Koh Santepheap, Vol.42, #6799, 7.11.2009

• The Cambodian Ambassador Returned to Cambodia through the Poipet Border Crossing; Siam [Thailand] Warned They May Close the Border Crossings if the Dispute Continues
• A [female] Garment Worker Died of an Electric Shock in the Golden Mile Factory [Phnom Penh]
• The United Nations Evacuates Its Staff [of about 600] from Afghanistan [because of violent and bloody attacks at their living places during the last week by Taliban forces]

Rasmei Kampuchea, Vol.17, #5041, 7.11.2009

• Thailand Announced to Cancel the Agreements [on joint development] for Overlapping Zones [rich in gas and oil – according to The Nation] while Cambodia Said that this Is against International Law [as there is no point in the agreement mentioning a decision to cancel the agreement unilaterally]
• A Draft Decree Relating to Mandatory Military Service Was Approved during a Session of the Council of Ministers [it deals with the conditions of the census, the selection, call-up, and the delay for youth that are busy with studies; in special cases there may be exemptions, while the authorities are starting to implement mandatory military services]
• Car Hit Two Motorbikes, Killing Two People and Seriously Injuring One [no information given about the arrest of the perpetrating teenage driver – Phnom Penh]

Have a look at the last editorial – you can access it directly from the main page of the Mirror.
And please recommend us also to your colleagues and friends.

Back to top

by paulabowles

For the past few weeks the British media and public have hotly been debating the rights and wrongs of allowing the controversial British National Party [BNP] leader to appear on the BBC’s ‘flagship’ politics programme Question Time. Despite attempts to halt Nick Griffin’s appearance, the programme finally aired on Thursday 22 October 2009, with record viewing figures of 8 million.

Since the broadcast, media analysis has been at fever pitch in an attempt to make sense of the reality. Against the backdrop of debates over freedom of speech and right wing rhetoric, as well as accusations of Holocaust denial and racism, Griffin has announced he will be making a complaint over his treatment by the programme.

In essence, Griffin insists that the format of the programme was changed in order to focus purely on his party’s policies on immigration and race, leaving him facing little more than a ‘lynch mob.’ Although, many commentators have suggested that his appearance has irrevocably tarnished the limited credibility of the BNP, others have argued that he should never have been allowed to appear in the first place. Interestingly, the BNP insist that their membership has increased since Griffin’s appearance. Needless to say the debate will run for some considerable time, dragging the issue of freedom of speech once more into the spotlight.

Read more

Tanya Golash-Boza on A Confluence of Interests in Immigration Enforcement: How Politicians, the Media, and Corporations Profit from Immigration Policies Destined to Fail

Amir Saeed on Media, Racism and Islamophobia: The Representation of Islam and Muslims in the Media

by ePolitix.com

The remaining Royal prerogative powers are unlikely to be abolished or reformed, according to the Ministry of Justice.

In a report issued on Thursday, the ministry said that the continued existence of the powers has “no significant negative effects” and in many cases is “positively useful”.

It added that the government “has concluded that it is unnecessary, and would be inappropriate, to propose further major reform at present”.

The review concluded that legislation to reform them “could itself give rise to new risks: of unnecessary incursions into civil liberties on the one hand, or of dangerously weakening the state’s ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances on the other”.

Gordon Brown’s ‘Governance of Britain’ programme initiated reform of some of the prerogative powers which have attracted most attention and criticism in recent years.

Click here to continue reading this article.

This article was kindly supplied by ePolitix.com, a division of DODS.

It provides up-to-the-minute parliamentary news – focusing on events in Westminster.

More than 60,000 muggers, burglars and yobs would escape jail every year under a scheme proposed by prison governors.

They say jail sentences of less than 12 months should be abolished, with criminals given community punishments instead.

This would slash the number of people sent to jail annually by more than two-thirds.

But critics warn the proposal will make the justice system ’soft’ and claim that community services are a poor deterrent or punishment for such crimes.

The plan would also abolish the power of magistrates to send a criminal to jail. Currently, they cannot normally order jail sentences that exceed six months.

Prison places cost around £38,000 a year. The Prison Governors Association argues that, in the current financial crisis there is not enough money to afford short jail terms for convicts.

Today the PGA’s president Paul Tidball will tell its annual conference: ‘Prison, the most expensive disposal option for the courts, should be reserved for those of highest risk to communities and citizens.

‘This principle made sense before. It is the more compelling now we really can’t afford, literally, to be locking people up unnecessarily, ineffectually, and so pointlessly.’

In 2007, 64,315 of the 95,208 criminals sentenced to immediate custody by the courts were imprisoned for 12 months or less.

Commonly, they include thieves, muggers, shoplifters, some burglars and drunken louts involved in street violence.

The PGA conference will debate a resolution calling for such sentences to be abolished, arguing it is ‘deplorable’ that the prison population has reached 84,000.

Mr Tidball said he expected the resolution to attract ‘obvious and probably unanimous support’.

There were 84,354 inmates in the British jail system as of last Friday, despite around 2,500 being released more than two weeks early from their sentences every month.

Ministers have pledged to increase prison capacity to 96,000 by 2014, but these spaces are expected to be immediately filled.

Criminologist David Green described the PGA’s idea as ‘deeply misguided’ and ‘perverse’.

He said keeping criminals in jail actually saved money, compared with the wider costs of their reoffending upon release.

Dr Green, director of the Civitas think-tank, added: ‘The effectiveness argument is that people leave prison after short sentences and reoffend, and they blame that on prison.

‘I blame that on releasing them. They are released when they should not be.

‘The problem in this country is we give short sentences to people who should serve longer sentences.’

Tory justice spokesman Dominic Grieve said: ‘Gordon Brown failed to provide enough prison capacity, first as Chancellor and then as Prime Minister.

‘The answer to the current overcrowding-crisis is to build enough prison places to relieve pressure on governors and set a system in place to reform and rehabilitate offenders.’

In his speech, Mr Tidball will also warn that cuts and overcrowding could lead to ‘widespread disorder’ within the prisons system.

He will quote from an email from another governor warning of the potential for sustained violence.

Mr Tidball will add: ‘The potential catastrophe of widespread disorder resulting from foolhardy cuts takes the debate to another level.’

The Government has itself voiced frustration at the use of shorter jail sentences, and wants fewer convicts sent to jail.

Ex-home secretary Charles Clarke said he believed many of the criminals given a year or less in jail would be better served by community punishments.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘We are clear that prison is the right place for the most serious, violent and persistent offenders, and we will always provide enough prison places for those who should be behind bars.

‘But it is not always the right answer for less serious offenders, for whom tough community sentences can be more effective in terms of turning them away from crime and therefore giving greater protection to the public than short custodial sentences.

‘However we believe it is important for the judiciary to have a range of options open to them – in some cases a period in prison will be necessary to deal with some offenders.’ 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218405/Axe-jail-60-000-muggers-louts-says-scheme-proposed-prison-governors.html#ixzz0T8PrMONj

Now why didn’t I think of that, let’s stop sending violent criminals to prison, let the scum sucking bastards who terrorize neighbourhoods walk freely down our streets, give them some tough community service like sweeping the leaves off our streets, let’s send them on a tuff holiday abroad where they will have to suffer the hot sand and warm waters of the med, let us send them on a nice sailing holiday, I am sure that by not sending them to Prison and giving them hard punishment’s like I have stated we won’t have any more crimes committed? I hope you all realise I was being sarcastic? we should increase prison sentences and not cut them, bring back hard physical labour in prisons, breaking rocks ten hours a day will make the bastards think about wanting to commit a crime again.

The Attorney-General’s Department and Ministry of Justice has just completed four training workshops for Public Sector Attorneys. These training workshops covered the period August-September 2009.

The workshop formed part of the Business Law Reform Programme which itself is a component of the National Medium Term Private Sector Development Strategy. Key to the programme was capacity building. The Training Programme provided the opportunity for participants to acquaint themselves with a varied and broad range of courses which covers aspects of Business Law. Also, it was for them to study in-depth cutting edge issues and trends in general, and international Business Law. The programme was also to deepen and broaden their knowledge on a range of subjects to enable them to advise on problems that might arise.

About 137 Attorneys ranging from Assistant State Attorneys through to Principal State Attorneys participated in the Programme. The Programme was coordinated by Mrs Ama Banful, Chief State Attorney at the Attorney General’s Department and Ministry of Justice and Mr. Emmanuel Yaw Benneh, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law University of Ghana who was the course consultant for the programme.

The Consultant expressed the view that the complexities of the contemporary Global world created a challenging environment for countries, particularly those at the developing end of the spectrum. Consequently, Public Sector Attorneys in developing countries, such as Ghana must of necessity update themselves regularly on a range of law subjects so as to identify and address issues and problems.

Mr. Benneh commended the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Mrs. Betty Mould-Iddrisu for her support for the programme. He noted in particular, the desire and commitment of the AG to create opportunities for Public Sector Attorneys to update themselves on the Law and thus help in capacity building in the Ministry. The Consultant believed strongly that the participating Attorneys have tested their knowledge, competences and practical experiences and developed as well critical skills and interpretation in relation to contemporary legal problems.

The AG in her closing address congratulated the participants and made them aware that the programme was important for the upgrading of the State Attorneys. The Attorneys were encouraged to specialize especially in the area of criminal prosecution. In this era of globalization specialist areas such as, anti-money laundering, transnational organized crimes, human trafficking, extradition, rendition, financing of counter terrorism, counterterrorism, mutual legal assistance etc. She asked the Senior Attorneys to train the Junior Attorneys and also take them along when going to court.

Particpants expressed their satisfaction at how the programme was run and requested that more of these training Programmes should be organized, since it enhances will their knowledge and skills in their legal work. They assured the AG that they would apply the knowledge acquired and bring out the best in them in their various capacities as Public Sector Attorneys.

by paulabowles

For criminologists and sociologists, prison has for many decades provided a fertile environment for research. In recent decades, the focus has been on overcrowding, together with attempts to identify the composition of the prison population. As at 25 September 2009, Her Majesty’s Prisons contain some 84,382 incarcerated men and women.

On the same date the BBC reported that as many as 8,500 of these prisoners are former veterans of the British army, navy and air force. Moreover, this is not the whole picture as Napo, the Probation Office’s union, estimate that a further 12,000 plus ex-service personnel are being dealt with by the criminal justice system. For many of these men and women, their crimes relate to alcohol and drug abuse, as well as domestic violence. Although these crimes may not be unique to ex-service personnel, claims have been made by Napo that ‘[i]t’s the hidden kind of consequences of war.’ In essence, the very nature of their military career—be it post-traumatic stress disorder, or a lack of support upon leaving the services—can make the return to “civvy street” highly problematic.

Despite the government’s insistence that this particular concern is at the ‘forefront of the prime minister’s mind,’ it does raise some very interesting issues. The British media often appears to present issues in very black and white terms. Arguably the terms hero and villain are so diametrically opposed it is difficult to imagine how they will portray these particular individuals.

Doreen Anderson-Facile on Basic Challenges to Prisoner Reentry

Robin L. Riley on Women and War: Militarism, Bodies, and the Practice of Gender

I am extremely concerned by today’s announcement that the Ministry of Justice will not proceed with its proposed plan to build a prison on the former Dynamex Friction site at Caernarfon.

The decision will be very badly received in North Wales, where there is general agreement that a new prison is desperately needed.  The statement by the responsible minister, Maria Eagle, throws little light on why the scheme was abandoned; it speaks vaguely of “potential issues with the site”, but it is hardly a surprise that the site is badly contaminated with asbestos, given that it was a brake linings factory for many years.  Indeed, the fact that the Ministry knew it was buying a problematic site was confirmed in an answer to a written question I tabled last February:

Mr. David Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what account he took of the cost of remediation of asbestos contamination on the Dynamex Friction site, Caernarfon, when selecting it as the preferred location for a new prison in Wales. [257824]

Mr. Hanson: The Ministry of Justice was aware that there would be remediation contamination costs in selecting the Dynamex site at Caernarfon and when such costs are fully quantified they will be taken into account in negotiations with the owner.

The question therefore must be: what caused the Ministry to change its mind?  Given the scale of the loss to the area, Ms Eagle has a duty to clarify the position as soon as possible.

The Ministry of Justice has published a consultation paper on the civil law on defamation in relation to the internet.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice Bridget Prentice said in a written answer that it relates to the ‘multiple publication rule’, under which each publication of defamatory material can form the basis of a new defamation claim.

The consultation will consider its effects in relation to online archives and the arguments for and against the rule and the alternatives of a single publication rule.

That would allow only one claim to be brought in this jurisdiction against particular defamatory material.

The government will also look at the possible extension of qualified privilege to material on online archives in certain circumstances and what limitation period for defamation claims would be appropriate.

Copies of the consultation paper can be obtained free on the Ministry of Justice website.

by paulabowles

The charity Barnardo’s has recently highlighted the issue of incarcerated young offenders, insisting that at any given time Britain has 400+ children aged between 12 and 14 locked up, a situation described by The Independent as ‘inhumane and, on all the evidence, counter-productive.’ In addition, Barnardo’s allege that at least 160 young people were wrongly imprisoned in 2007. They claim that this ‘tragedy’ is occurring because of a misinterpretation of the law. In essence ‘[t]he law specifically states that children aged 14 and under should not be locked up unless they have committed a grave offence or have committed a serious offence and are deemed to be a persistent offender’. Unfortunately, this does not appear to happen in practice, instead it would seem that there is a ratchetting up of punishment, leading to children being imprisoned for relatively trivial offences.

Although, most would agree that prison is necessary for violent criminals, it is difficult to imagine what the long term result of locking children up will be. Looking at the ongoing penal crisis and the continual problem of revolving doors, it seems likely that such a policy will simply feed the adult prisons of the future.

Read more

Brian Hogeveen on Youth (and) Violence

Regular readers of PPT will recall that we recently suggested that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was less than truthful when he claimed that there were no government directions to oppose the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) petition for Thaksin Shinawatra’s “royal pardon.”

If any reader was still in doubt, we can now report that there have been several new official orders issued by the Democrat Party-led coalition government as it demands opposition to the petition.

Prachatai (8 August 2009: “Schools in Buriram told to collect signatures against the red shirts’ petition”) reports a letter from the local education office in Buriram “ordering schools to collect the signatures of staff and students against the red shirts’ petition.”

The letter affirms “that certain groups of people are trying to submit a petition to ask for a royal pardon for a former Prime Minister. This is considered an act of ‘lowering the sky’, ‘transgressing the royal prerogative’, ‘pressuring the institution’, and causing division among the people.” And it repeats Prime Minister Abhisit’s line that those who have signed the red shirt’s petition have been “deceived into doing so.”

The letter tells school directors to have “their staff and students to write their names and addresses, and sign an attached form” which is headed: “List of citizens who protect the institution to the death and oppose the petition submission which transgresses the royal prerogative.” The letter and form are included with the Prachatai story.

Related, a Bangkok Post (8 August 2009: “Two million oppose Thaksin pardon” – www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/151381/two-million-people-oppose-thaksin-pardon) story claims that “[m]ore than two million had signed their names in opposition of the campaign to seek royal pardon for former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra…”. This revelation is from Deputy Interior Minister Boonjong Wongtrairat.

The report notes that the Interior Ministry had “ordered provincial governors and district chiefs nationwide to arrange tables for people who want to sign to show disagreement with the royal pardon…”. Note the word “ordered” in both reports.

Boonjong expected to be able to announce the “official number” of people disagreeing with the UDD petition next week.

Meanwhile, Newin’s dad, House Speaker Chai Chidchob, said he was confident that the Ministry of Interior’s order to collect signatures against the Thaksin pardon would not create social divisions “because Thai people have the same beloved father – HM the King.” Again, the emphasis is on the orders given.

The same day it was reported (Bangkok Post, 8 August 2009: “Officials ordered to oppose pardon” – www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/151379/village-chief-told-to-oppose-thaksin-pardon) that Interior Minister Chavarat Charnveerakul on Saturday “asked village headmen and Kamnans … to explain [to] their villagers that the petition seeking royal pardon for former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was not lawful.” Chavarat was speaking at a seminar for local administrative organizations, leaders of local communities and religious leaders in an event was organized by his ministry and the King Prajadhipok Institute, a curiously named institute that promotes royalist ideas about democracy and parliamentary politics.

Amounting to another order, the minister “called on the participants to help protect the royal institution and to tell their villagers not to support Thaksin pardon seeking move. The royal pardon for Thaksin campaign by the red-shirt people group could affect the country’s high institution.”

In a related move, the Ministry of Justice issued a statement designed to undermine the UDD petition (8 August 2009 – www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/21678/ministry-discredits-petition-bid) as arrests were made of three red shirt leaders in Chiang Mai.

The government is going to extraordinary lengths to oppose the UDD making it clear the the “great fear” has deepened for conservatives and royalists. As if it wasn’t already clear, the Bangkok Post (7 August 2009: “Suthep admits effort at peace has failed – www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/21597/suthep-admits-effort-at-peace-has-failed) Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban said “the government has failed in its bid for national reconciliation as controversy over the pro-Thaksin movement’s royal pardon bid heats up.”

He was supported by Defence permanent secretary General Apichart Penkitti who said the “red shirts should end their move for a pardon for Thaksin as it was inappropriate and did not comply with the law…”. His other supporter was the former military coup leader and disgraced self-appointed prime minister responsible for the May 1992 massacre, Suchinda Kraprayoon.

The Bangkok Post (6 August 2009: “New office to hunt fugitives”) has a short report on a new office to be established by the Justice Ministry, with 160 staff, that will hunt down the more than 250,000 unserved warrants issued by the police.

Justice Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga announced this, saying that the new office would “complement the justice system as it would have the task of hunting fugitives for whom arrest warrants have been issued, those who have avoided detention or have jumped bail during police investigations or court trials.” According to the report, “Staff will have the authority to track fugitives locally and overseas. When chasing fugitives overseas, they will locate them and report the information to public prosecutors.”

Pirapan also “admitted [that] Thaksin [Shinawatra] … was a target of the new office. But he denied the former PM was its main target.”

Pro-Thaksin people have argued that the office is a waste of public funds, duplicating existing offices. That may be so, but the Democrat Party-led government seems intent on establishing “loyal” agencies in the bureaucracy.

UK’s Ministry of Justice & Consumer Focus support introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland. Evidence submitted to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee by the UK’s Ministry of Justice and Consumer Focus Scotland in favour of the McKenzie friend Petition 1247, demonstrates that ‘McKenzie Friends’ should be introduced in the Scottish Courts as a matter of urgency so that the rising numbers of members of the public who cannot afford or obtain legal representation in Scotland for a variety of reasons, can access the help & assistance of a ‘McKenzie Friend’ so they may handle their own legal affairs in Scotland’s restrictive & unfriendly courts system.

Lord President Lord Hamilton – the only one so far to suggest more delays to the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland. The written evidence so far lodged for Petition PE1249 – McKenzie Friends, has, with the exception of suggestions by Lord Hamilton to defer parliamentary consideration of the petition, been mostly supportive of the aim to introduce the facility of having a ‘McKenzie Friend’ accompany party litigants in Scotland’s courts, a facility which has existed in England & Wales for FORTY YEARS. However, the steady stream of support for Petition 1247 from consumer organisations and law reform campaigners, is raising questions on just why Scottish politicians have done nothing for the past forty years to bring equality to rights of Scottish court users, while the rest of the UK has enjoyed such an invaluable courtroom facility for so long.

You can view & download submissions to the Scottish Parliament in support of Petition 1247, from the Scottish Parliament’s website HERE or alternatively HERE

You can watch earlier video coverage of the Petitions Committee debate on the McKenzie Friend petition, here : Margo MacDonald MSP speaks at Holyrood on the merits of McKenzie Friends and my earlier reports on the progress of Petition 1247, to bring McKenzie Friends to Scotland, are here : Bringing a McKenzie Friend to Scotland

UK’s Ministry of Justice supports advantages of having a McKenzie Friend in court. Bridget Prentice MP, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice, writes : “The main advantage of a McKenzie Friend is to further the interests of justice by achieving a level playing field and ensuring a fair hearing. This is because a McKenzie Friend is allowed to quietly assist a Litigant in Person at hearings by taking notes, making suggestions, and giving advice to the Litigant in Person when called upon. That is why there has to be very compelling reasons for the court not to allow a Litigant in Person to have a McKenzie Friend. However a McKenzie Friend has no right to conduct litigation and has no right of audience.

The Under Secretary of State went on to say that : “Most unrepresented litigants cannot afford lawyers and to ensure that justice is done, it is vital that unrepresented litigants can access help to comprehend the law and procedure.” You can read the full Ministry of Justice letter to the Petitions Committee HERE

Consumer Focus Scotland also supports the introduction of McKenzie Friends. Martyn Evans, Director of Consumer Focus Scotland said in his letter to the Petitions Committee : “Consumer Focus Scotland therefore supports the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland. The SCC made such a representation in its response to the civil courts review. We see the introduction of such a measure as offering valuable support to unrepresented litigants. By providing moral support or indeed offering guidance, for example suggesting questions for the litigant to ask, a McKenzie Friend may help the litigant t present their case better, which we see as an advantage not only to the unrepresented litigant but also to the court and the other party in the litigation.

Mr Evans went onto say : “The value of a McKenzie Friend has been recognised by the President of the Family Division of the Judiciary of England and Wales, whose guidance on McKenzie Friends sates that allowing a McKenzie Friend to assist a unrepresented litigant ‘will often be of advantage to the court in ensuring the litigant in person [unrepresented litigant] receives a fair hearing. The presumption in England and Wales is strongly in favour of McKenzie Friends being allowed. We would like to see such a presumption adopted in Scotland”. You can read Consumer Focus Scotland’s submission to the Petitions Committee HERE

Law Society of Scotland are rumoured to be planning to obstruct introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland. While the petition has received support from consumer organisations, justice officials from south of the border, and some politicians, the Law Society of Scotland is rumoured to be ‘very angry’ over the proposals, worried that its member legal firms, who are already short of business, will lose out to members of the public ‘wising up’ to the advantage of presenting their own case, assisted by a McKenzie Friend, rather than trying to hire solicitors and expensive legal teams, who claim huge experience on all things legal but will invariably lose their client’s case, albeit a few years and tens of thousands of pounds down the line.

A legal insider today accused the Law Society of Scotland of ‘plotting against the introduction of McKenzie Friends’, saying : “Its all about money as it always has been. The Law Society know its not in their members financial interests to allow the use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland and this is solely why McKenzie Friends have been kept out of Scotland’s courts for the past forty years. Anyone who doesn’t realise that is living in cloud cuckoo land.”

He went on : “I have heard there has been debate within the Law Society whether to obstruct the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland. I would therefore encourage campaigners to be on their guard against any dirty tricks from the legal profession to stall progress on this issue, even if Lord Gill does recommend McKenzie Friends be introduced as we all expect him to do.”

Will Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill allow McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts, or play for time for more delays and more solicitors profits ? Well, little surprise these proposals are upsetting the Law Society of Scotland and lawyers who are more concerned with making money than giving the public access to the courts we all pay for through our taxes … but the market protectionism of the legal profession in trying to control ordinary people’s access to justice cannot be allowed to continue. McKenzie Friends must be introduced to Scotland, indeed, as a matter of urgency, and those who are responsible for access to justice being held back for these past forty years must face the questions, and perhaps be thrown out of the justice system for their ill deserved hold over the public’s right to have a fair hearing in the courts we pay for.

It is however, clearly the case that Scotland’s courts and the judiciary cannot be trusted on access to justice reforms such as the introduction of McKenzie Friends to Scotland’s courts. Simply if they could be trusted, we wouldn’t be here forty years later writing about it and asking the Scottish Parliament to legislate to introduce increased rights of access to justice for Scots, because of the fact that Scotland’s courts themselves have failed to do so.

The Scottish Parliament must therefore legislate to allow the use of McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts, rather than leaving it up to the judiciary, who if they could I’m sure, would with the rest of Scotland’s closed shop legal profession, cook up another forty year delay to implementation of wider access to justice in Scotland. That simply will not do.

Allowing McKenzie Friends in Scotland’s courts, and indeed, opening up the rights of audience system where your legal representative doesn’t need to be a member of the Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates, will lose the current Law Society controlled legal profession a lot of cases. That is a good thing for the public and a good thing for justice. Justice, and the public’s access to it should not be about profit and wealth, it is about Human Rights and the right to a fair hearing of a matter of law affecting a person’s life.

Support the introduction of McKenzie Friends in Scotland, and make your feelings known on this to the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Committee. You can support the McKenzie friend Petition 1247 by contacting the Petitions Committee via their email at : petitions@scottish.parliament.uk