Galloping to success

In an otherwise quiet week for legal stories, newspapers dug up the Human Rights Act again to fill some column inches.

The Daily Telegraph (6 December) reported how senior judges had 'closed a legal loophole' which could have allowed drunk-drivers and motorists to escape prosecution.

Scotland's High Court had ruled that Margaret Brown, who admitted to police that she was driving her car which was stopped on suspicion of drink-driving, had seen her right to a fair trial in article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights breached by incriminating herself.

However, the Privy Council made 'legal history' by overturning the decision on the grounds that 'public safety is at the heart of the matter'.

The Telegraph was on a roll, as it reported on Sunday (10 December) how 'hundreds of local magistrates' courts' would face closure because under the ECHR provisions outlawing torture, it is 'inhuman and degrading' for prisoners to be seen by the public wearing handcuffs.

One magistrates' court has estimated that it would cost 197,450 to provide the necessary alterations: for example 50,000 to build a 'sealed docking bay' behind the building for vans to deliver prisoners to the court away from public view, and 8,000 to provide a 'secure dock' for the prisoners inside the court.The Telegraph warned that 'the prohibitive cost of meeting these requirements will simply be used as justification to close down most rural courts'.

Showing that some stories never die, it reminded readers that the Lord Chancellor 'may have been happy to spend 600,000 of public money on refurbishing his own Westminster apartments' but said he will be 'unlikely' to approve the extra money needed for rural courts.

Another old favourite reared its head this week, with the sellers' pack (see [2000] Gazette, 30 November, 12) causing waves with its inclusion in the Queen's Speech.

London's Evening Standard (8 December) described the packs as a 'hindrance not a help', saying that although 'anything that speeds up the whole housebuying process is a good thing', there is 'little evidence' that the packs will do this.

The Financial Times (9 December) was also not convinced, voicing mortgage lenders' worries that shifting the costs of a survey to the vendor would 'dissuade many people from putting their homes on the market'.

Bad news for middle class professionals, as the Sunday Telegraph (10 December) reported how the government plans to make it much harder for them to dodge jury service.

Individuals can avoid it if they can convince the courts that their absence from work will cause 'unusual hardship' - an excuse frequently used by educated professionals, leaving juries dominated by 'the unemployed, housewives and workers unable to find an excuse'.

This apparently means that the court system is less effective, with juries 'more sympathetic to defendants'.

The government proposals to 'tighten up' the regulations will not, however, affect the other regulations exempting clergy - and lawyers - from doing their duty.Another similarity between lawyers and the clergy has always been that they maintain the principle of client confidentiality.

But the Financial Times (11 December) reported that this principle is under threat from proposed legislation on money laundering, which would mean that solicitors 'may have to ask clients hard questions about where their money comes from'.Finally, the week would not be complete without a spot of lawyer bashing, and this week it comes not from the US but courtesy of Jane Moore in The Sun (7 December).

She claimed that 'if and when' the killers of schoolboy Damilola Taylor are caught, 'their lawyer will no doubt read straight from the prepared script that always accompanies cases like this' - the script apparently being 'the same depressing message - it's not their fault'.Victoria MacCallum