“Examples of poor or unnecessary use of section 44 [Terrorism Act 2000] abound. I have evidence of cases where the person stopped is so obviously far from any known terrorism profile that, realistically, there is not the slightest possibility of him/her being a terrorist…In one situation the basis of the stops being carried out was numerical only, which is almost certainly unlawful…A section 44 stop, without suspicion, is an invasion of the stopped person’s freedom of movement…It is totally wrong for any person to be stopped in order to produce a racial balance in the statistics”.

Not the words of a crusading civil libertarian but the sober judgement of Lord Carlile, the government’s official anti-terror law watchdog, in his annual report. Under section 44, police can stop and search anyone in a designated area without suspicion that an offence has occurred. Last year out of a total of 117,278 people stopped and searched, 73,967 were white, 15,218 were blacks and 20,768 were Asians. Lord Carlile said that he can understand the concerns of the police that they should be free from allegations of prejudice, but it is an invasion of the civil liberties of the person who has been stopped, simply to “balance” the statistics. According to the ‘Guardian’, he later went on to say that “if, for example, 50 blonde women are stopped who fall nowhere near any intelligence-led terrorism profile, it’s a gross invasion of the civil liberties of those 50 blonde women. The police are perfectly entitled to stop people who fall within a terrorism profile even if it creates a racial imbalance, as long as it is not racist”. He could here be accused of validating the concept that it’s OK to stop a non-white, but not OK to stop a blond woman, even though the vast majority of Asians and black people are as far from any known terrorism as he perceives blond women to be.

Nearly 90 per cent of the searches were carried out by the Metropolitan Police, whose officers use section 44 to carry out stop and search between 8,000 and 10,000 times a month. Lord Carlile admits a sense of frustration that the Metropolitan Police still do not limit their section 44 authorisations to specific boroughs, rather than to the entire force area. He can see no justification for the whole of the Greater London area being under permanent special search powers. None of the many thousands of searches has ever resulted in conviction of a terrorism offence, and he says that its utility has been questioned publicly and privately by senior Metropolitan Police staff with wide experience of terrorism policing.

Lord Carlile calls for greatly reduced use of section 44 powers and repeats what he calls his “mantra”, that terrorism related powers should be used only for terrorism-related purposes. Otherwise their credibility is severely damaged. “The use of section 44 has attracted particular criticism as having a negative effect on good community relations. Its purpose and deployment are poorly understood”.

The full text of Lord Carlile’s report can be found at:-
http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-publications/publication-search/general/Lord-Carlile-report-2009/Lord-Carlile-report.pdf?view=Binary

In the mid nineties, as a very mature University student, my research for an assignment on the implications of European law on British life led me to a forthcoming hearing before the European Court of Justice of the case of Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman. The case eventually led to an important decision on the free movement of labour and had a profound effect on the transfer of footballers within the EU. In 2003 the European Court of Justice ruling in favour of the Slovak handball player Maros Kolpak effectively extended the freedom of labour to any player from any nation which has an associate trading relationship with the EU. This has had a wide-ranging effect, especially in regard to English county cricket and British professional rugby.

Sport and the law used to be strangers, with sports being run according to their own rules and regulations. Problems and disputes, on or off the playing field, were settled by the appropriate governing body. This is no longer always so, as many disputes are resolved by court cases, affecting those who participate in or administer sport. Ian Hewitt, a sports law barrister and former Freshfields partner, as well as being a member of the management committee of the Wimbledon Championships and helping in the formation of the Premier League, has brought together some of the most important and readable cases in Sporting Justice — 101 Sporting Encounters with the Law (Sportsbooks). There is a star-studded cast. Eric Cantona’s kung-fu kick against the Crystal Palace supporter Matthew Simmons, for example, led to a charge of criminal assault and a jail sentence of two weeks (later reduced to 120 hours of community service). Other on field reckless tackles and punches have resulted in convictions. Bruce Grobbelaar’s occasionally eccentric performance in goal for Liverpool resulted in an eight-week trial for match fixing. He was acquitted but the judge was less than complimentary about his behaviour. Elsewhere champion jockey Kieren Fallon was acquitted of corruption, and South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje found guilty of it. An amateur rugby referee who was successfully sued for allowing a scrum to collapse, injuring a player, and an upset Leicester soccer fan who sued a referee for shock suffered as a result of the official’s penalty decision in the last minute of extra time in an FA Cup tie, are examples of the not so famous involved when sport has rubbed up against the law.

Sport in civilised societies should be about playing by the rules and it is a shame that so many sports have been forced into the legal arena. Nevertheless the temptation to go down the legal route is fraught with danger. As the illustrious trio of Ian Botham, Allan Lamb and JPR Williams would ruefully agree, suing for libel is ruinously expensive if you don’t win.

Conditional Fee Agreements, also known as ‘no win, no fee’, are alternative methods of funding litigation, introduced widely in 2000 when legal aid for personal injury claims was axed. In this type of funding the solicitors share the risk in that if a case is lost the solicitor will not be paid but if the case is won the solicitor will charge a success fee.
CFAs can be used in all civil litigation except for family cases and provide access to justice for those who could not afford to pursue litigation and who are not eligible for public funding. But according to ‘Press Gazette’ a number the rich and famous have taken advantage of the CFA scheme.

As reported in ‘The Times’, organisations such as Citizens Advice Bureau have been urging a review of the scheme, saying that it is not widening access to justice in the way intended – in fact the actual number of claims has fallen since ‘no win, no fee’ schemes were introduced. The complex legal and financial processes involved are often misunderstood and consumers are misled into thinking the system will be genuinely ‘no win, no fee’ but can often find that costs are hidden and unpredictable. Another criticism is that these deals can create “perverse incentives for the legal profession” and encourage the cherry-picking of high-value cases with a good chance of success, leaving the smaller claims.
The Ministry of Justice has commissioned a review of the arrangements in England and Wales. Justice Minister Bridget Prentice said: “No win, no fee arrangements are vital in helping to give the public a voice in courts. However, we are aware of growing concerns that they may not always be operating in the interests of access to justice. We feel that now is the appropriate time for a comprehensive, objective and evidence based examination of the operation of no win, no fee arrangements in relation to personal injury, employment and defamation cases.”

Jack Straw has made his views clear. Addressing the Labour Conference in Manchester last week he said “I am concerned about …‘no win, no fee’ arrangements. It’s claimed they have provided greater access to justice, but the behaviour of some lawyers in ramping up their fees in these cases is nothing short of scandalous. So I am going to address this and consider whether to cap more tightly the level of success fees that lawyers can charge.”

The review is being led by Professor Richard Moorhead, Deputy Head of Cardiff Law School. He is due to report to ministers in the autumn.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regulates more than 100,000 solicitors in England and Wales. “Our purpose is to protect the public by ensuring that solicitors meet high standards, and by acting when risks are identified. We are the independent regulatory body of the Law Society of England and Wales.” But there have been repeated complaints that black and minority ethnic (BME) firms have been disproportionately targeted for interventions, and that complaints and disciplinary proceedings have been handled in a discriminatory way. Lord Ouseley, former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, was jointly commissioned by the SRA and the Society of Black Lawyers to conduct an independent investigation into the SRA’s treatment of BME solicitors and firms.

His report has just been published and it makes very uncomfortable reading for the SRA. Lord Ouseley says “it is the issue of disproportionality that has focused the concerns of BME solicitors.” Why are they over-represented in all aspects of regulation as depicted in the statistics produced by the SRA? He highlights two areas of concern in that BME solicitors are more subject to forensic investigations than white solicitors and, as a consequence, are disadvantaged considerably through the non-disclosure of information about allegations made about them. He finds that “not sufficient leadership emphasis has been given to the values of equality and diversity (which) leaves the SRA open to the charge of institutional racism.”

One of his more damning conclusions is the “level of prejudice and bias which exists among personnel” and the “evidence of some stereotyping being applied.” He cites case evidence of BME solicitors who are often assumed to be guilty of complaints or allegations made against them. They are more vulnerable as sole practitioners or practising in firms with four or fewer partners, firms which tend to score higher in the SRA’s risk assessment and therefore feature more in regulatory work. Another reported disadvantage is the failure to deal effectively and independently with complaints made by BME solicitors and staff of alleged discrimination in the way they have been treated by the SRA. “The processes applied seemed designed to ensure that the outcomes are virtually always against the complainer.”

Lord Ouseley makes 40 specific recommendations and “urgent, active and swift implementation is the most important.” The full text of the 106 page report can be found at:
http://www.sra.org.uk/documents/SRA/equality-diversity/ouseley-report.pdf