news – Page 2 – BRUCE AND HOLLY

Concerns Over Jury Trials in Leveson’s Proposals

July 12, 2025 bruceandholly

I’m nervous about Leveson’s proposals to abolish jury trial in intermediate cases and replace them with trial by a judge and two magistrates. It is as though he’s suggesting that either way offences carrying a likely penalty of less than 3 years imprisonment are not serious. But a theft conviction can be very serious if you lose your career as a result. Fair enough if you are actually guilty of the offence charged. That’s where the jury comes in. People like you and me with the same collective sense of fairness and justice. Not quite the same when you are facing an impatient prosecution-minded magistrate or judge who just wants to get through their case list. And what is the point of even electing trial, if you are not going to get to argue your case before 12 people who are living similar lives as you are.

Another thing I have long noticed is the increasing remoteness for our justice system from common expectations of right and wrong. Where everything seems to be decided on on academic technicality. We’ve come a long way since the passing of ‘people’s judge’, Tom Denning. Then there is the secrecy over the judicial appointments process itself. Whether it’s the appointment of judges and magistrates or the members of a parole board, who ignore public outrage when releasing a dangerous murderer. Who appoints these people? I’m sure that I have never been consulted. All that is left between them and us is 12 members of a jury. Now they want to take that away, Why? Because of successive government incompetence when it comes to our criminal justice system. How does it save money by delaying a case for two or three years instead of bringing it on now? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

My own solution would be to move to an American system of elected judges and magistrates. Make them accountable.

Law

AI in Legal Research: Risks of Fake Case Citations

May 26, 2025 bruceandholly

The Law Society Gazette recently reported on a case where a pupil barrister had mistakenly cited fake cases as part of her legal submissions in a case involving a local authority’s duties towards a homeless man. She had found the cases through her internet research and did not realise that the cases which she had cited did not actually exist. They had been entirely made up by an artificial intelligence program even though they appeared to her to be genuine. The result was a wasted costs order not only against her but also against the Law Centre which had instructed her. Add to that the reputational damage against both as well as the possibility of professional sanction. That’s not to say that artificial intelligence should never be used as a research tool. Only that it is a professional responsibility to carry out the follow-up due diligence to ensure that what is cited is absolutely correct.

It’s important to recognise what exactly AI is. As far as I can see, AI, in this situation, is nothing more than an advanced search engine which not only identifies data but then goes on to mash it up and serve up something else out of its components. It’s like me going down to my local breakers yard and collecting bits and pieces to build my own car. I’m sure that if I asked AI to write my next Eurovision hit in the style of Elton John, it would present to me a rehash of Lulu’s ‘Boom Bang Bang’. Which brings me onto another controversial issue. Because if I then go on to use that content as part of my Eurovision entry, I will then be breaching copyright. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t use AI in my work, including the writing of this article.

As I was aware that this was not the first instance of fake cases being cited by AI, I asked my Gemini search engine to find me some other instances where lawyers have been caught out using fake cases generated by AI. It came up with the following cases: New York Aviation Injury Claim (Mata v Avianca 2023); Morgan v Morgan (Wyoming); UK Tax Tribunal Case (Harber v Commissioner for HM Revenue and Customs) which involved a self-represented tax payer.

Have I checked any of those cases out before including reference to them in this article? No I haven’t. But neither am I intending to cite them in any court proceedings anytime soon. So I’m afraid that you will just have to trust me.

One of the reasons given by the pupil barrister for her use of AI generated cases was that she did not have direct access to Lexus Nexus or the White Book, which contains the civil practice rules. In those circumstances my own ‘go to’ would be the British and Irish Legal Information Institute, which provides a free on-line legal resource for current case law. It also makes it incumbent for anyone acting for an opponent to also check out case law provided to them by another party, just to make sure that it actually exists.

business, politics, protest, society, Uncategorized

Economic Impact of Opposing UK Fossil Fuel Extraction

February 1, 2025 bruceandholly

Photo by Jan-Rune Smenes Reite on Pexels.com

My heart always sinks when I see news footage of hobby eco-protesters standing outside a court building, waving placards, and celebrating the stalling of yet another commercial project. This time It was the Rosebank oil exploration project, off Shetland, in which Shell had invested £800 million and involved one of the largest undeveloped oil and gas fields in the UK continental shelf, containing an estimated 300 million barrels. And why do our most senior judiciary seem to think it is their mission to wave their green credentials to tease out the tiniest administrative flaw in the regulatory approval process, to send everything back to the drawing board? Who appoints these people? It follows hot on the heels of another court judgment crushing implementation of proposals to open Britain’s first new coal mine at Whitehaven, for more than 30 years. In each case, the judicial mantra was the same. “That the proposals failed to adequately assess the greenhouse gas emissions tied to burning fossil fuels.” And we know that with a government energy minister so opposed to fossil fuel extraction, that none of these projects are ever likely to happen. But haven’t these eminent legal brains slightly missed the point?

Yes – we know that burning fossil fuels causes climate change. Which is why we need to put in place viable alternatives .But neither the Rosebank nor the Whitehaven projects were about burning fossil fuels. They were about extracting fossil fuels so that we don’t have to import them from abroad. Either way. fossil fuels will still be burnt, because at the moment we have nothing else. And of course those projects would have also created thousands of well-paid jobs. So what is the point they are making? And it is entirely appropriate for me to refer to these eco-protesters as hobbyists, as none of them would have suffered direct personal detriment as a result of either of these projects. It is all about the big abstract ‘we’. And what message does it send to the outside world? A Britain which is so up itself that it is prepared to cut off its nose to spite its commercial face. Who would want to invest in us? The next big battle is going to be about the proposed third runway at Heathrow Airport. Even if it goes ahead, I’m not sure that I will still be around when it is completed. But that’s no reason not to support it.

I really blame the last conservative government for this farce. They had 14 years to drive these projects through. But instead they preferred to spend their time posturing about Brexit and their precious Rwanda scheme, as everything else around them fell apart. And they were a government which was in hock to the NIMBY lobby, which is why the cost of HS2 ballooned almost to the point of cancellation.

When it comes to the third Heathrow runway, I’m with Rachel Reeves. I know she’s had a bad press, but I’m convinced that she’s trying to do her best to grow the British economy. Again, so different from the last lot, the ‘party of business’. But even now, opposition to the third runway is cranking into gear, not least from London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who has promised court proceedings to try to stall the project.

Spending my money to fight a court case against his own parliamentary party? What is that all about? And he hasn’t even consulted me. A case of public money fighting public money. How wasteful. But that is Britain today.

Uncategorized

Cornwall Council’s Car Park Outsourcing: Legal Concerns Explained

December 15, 2024 bruceandholly

I have to query the legality of the proposal by Cornwall Council to outsource the management of up to 22 of its car parks, to take them out of statutory control under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Isn’t that precisely what Robert Goodwill MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, warned against in his open letter to local authority parking managers of 16th September 2014? Well not quite! Goodwill’s letter was aimed at some councils who thought it okay to opt themselves out of the statutory local authority parking regime and instead manage their car parks under Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, which now governs the management of private car parks. It was the 2012 Act which abolished unregulated wheel clamping on private land and instead introduced a regulated process to enable the owners of private car parks to manage their operations. Though why any local authority could have thought it lawful to opt out of statutory regulation is beyond me. But Cornwall’s case is different because the Minister’s 2014 letter makes no mention of leasing arrangements, which is what Cornwall Council is proposing in this case. Hang on!

The prospective lessee of Cornwall’s 22 car parks is not any old company. According to a council report, the prospective lessee will in this case be a wholly owned subsidiary of Cornwall Council. Least, that’s what the Scrutiny Committee report of 4th September 2024 states:

“Following a successful trial at Tower Headland ( Little Fistral) in Newquay, a new model of managing some of our car parks has been considered which supports the principle of decentralisation. Essentially this involves the transfer of a car park site by means of a lease to a council owned company, who would then manage the land; paying rental at least sustaining the income to the council and removing the liability of the council to maintain and manage the asset.”

A council-owned company! How arms length is that? The only other companies we can see mentioned in the reports are the privately owned Treveth and Conserve, which would be managing the day-to-day operation of the car parks.

Key to the legality of outsourcing an off- street parking place is paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which defines ‘relevant land’ to which Schedule 4 applies and which is stated as follows:

“In this schedule relevant land means land (including land above or below ground level) other than:

a) a highway maintained as a public expense ( within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980;

b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic Authority;

c) any land not falling within paragraphs a or b on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.”

The other thing which I noticed when reading the officer reports is that, as far as I can see, no mention was made of the Minister’s 2014 warning letter. Nor of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012. Forgive me! But aren’t those ‘material considerations’ for any decision of this type? Apparently not. Let’s see what the Parking Adjudicator makes of it.

Law, Uncategorized

Dorset Council and Planning Enforcement

November 17, 2024 bruceandholly

Speed is of the essence when it comes to the enforcement of planning regulations. Unauthorised building work can become immune from planning enforcement in as little as four years. For an authorised change of use, it is 10 years. Although the law was changed on 25 April, 2024 to extend the enforcement of time limits from four years to 10 years in relation to unauthorised building work, that change does not apply retrospectively. It means that unauthorized building work completed before that date will continue to be subject to the four year rule before it becomes immune from enforcement. Nor are planning irregularities always a victimless crime. Imagine if you were disturbed day and night by the revving of car engines because your next door neighbour had turned their domestic garage into a motor repair shop. Wouldn’t you want your council to take action?

Nor are local authorities obliged to act against planning irregularities in every case. Only when they consider it ‘expedient’ to do so. But this does not absolve councils from the responsibility to investigate complaints of planning breaches, where they are reported, in order to make that crucial decision. The council which refuses to do this and allows a planning irregularity to become ‘established’ by default, opens itself up to the possibility of ombudsman complaints. Nor is it any excuse for the local authority to say that it does not have the resources to investigate planning irregularities. Does it have the resources to pay out the compensation claims which will inevitably follow if it fails to act against planning irregularities where there is a need to do so?

Once a planning irregularity has been reported, it needs to be investigated. Only then, can a decision be made as to whether it is ‘expedient’ to take enforcement action. But that is only the beginning of a statutory process.

Information has to be gathered. A decision made whether it is expedient take planning enforcement action or to ignore the irregularity because it is considered harmless. Once it is decided that enforcement action has to be taken, a legal decision has to be taken as to the appropriate course of action to be taken against that planning-breach. There are several choices. Including a planning contravention notice; breach of condition notice; or the traditional enforcement notice, against which there is an appeal to the Secretary of state, which could, although rarely, lead to the cost of a public inquiry. Once any statutory appeals against the enforcement process has been exhausted, the local authority have to follow up with prosecution if the breach continues.

It is also important that councils are seen to be robust when it comes to regulatory enforcement. Otherwise it sends the wrong message. That planning irregularities can be ignored. It is why Dorset Council’s backlog of 900 cases is so problematic. Many of those pending cases are already on their way to becoming immune from planning enforcement, as well as those cases which have already become immune. If the council does not have the resources in-house to deal with it, and maybe it should consider outsourcing that function.