Press Round-up

The Guardian, Financial Times and Independent all did their bit last week to stoke the fires of concern over the likely impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 when it comes into force in October.Last week's concerns arose after the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg found that the Court of Appeal was wrong to put itself in the place on the jury in deciding that a conviction was safe despite a misdirection from the trial judge.

The judge had directed that the jury could draw an adverse inference from William and Karen Codron's refusal to answer police questions because they claimed to be suffering heroin withdrawal symptoms at the time.

The couple were found guilty of supplying the drug.The Guardian (3 May) concluded that the decision could lead to a 'flood of applications to reopen cases', while the Independent concurred that 'dozens of criminals could have their convictions overturned' as a result of the ruling.

The more restrained Financial Times left it that courts would have to be 'more careful' in future in interpreting a defendant's failure to answer questions.Oddly, last week two papers suddenly seemed to cotton on to the fact that lawyers have cottoned on to the potential of IT and IT-related work.The Financial Times listed law firm initiatives (3 May), which included: the first Internet-only law firm, the first free legal Internet service provider, the first virtual deal rooms for big transactions, and the likely future commoditisation of straightforward legal services.

The paper concluded that despite the profession's 'innate conservatism', there were signs that law firms were 'finally waking up to the possibilities of the Internet'.

However, the brave new world of IT awareness was tempered by the news that recent surveys had shown that only 59% of the country's top 1,400 law firms had Internet sites and only 16% of clients are offered direct access to law firms' systems.

So it was not all good news.Taking a different angle, Sunday Business (7 May) pointed out that some lawyers had stepped away from tradition and were trying cash in on the investment potential of emerging companies by offering them shares in lieu of fees for the first time.

Sadly, again this was not all good news, according to the article, which pointed out that after the recent battering of share prices amongst high-tech companies, some firms might now wish they had taken the cash.The plight of criminal barristers in the face of legal aid changes was highlighted by The Guardian on 5 May.

Under the Lord Chancellor's most recent proposals, criminal barristers will soon face stringent new court-applied tests which will see judges deciding on the required rank and number of barristers needed to defend a case.

Apparently, this could lead to a reduction of work for QCs which, in turn, could lead to some of them being forced to take on work certified for juniors to keep the pennies rolling in.

This dreadful situation has not moved Lord Irvine to revise his plans, except to ensure thoughtfully that the rules were changed to allow QCs to take on work certified as fit for juniors 'providing payment is on a junior basis and the QC does not look to the client to top up the payment'.The government's consultation on the possible tightening of the law on corporate manslaughter provided fodder for an editorial in the Independent on 8 May.

Whilst there was a danger that the government might be pressed into making 'bad law' as a result of the public anger over recent disasters like the Herald of Free Enterprise and the Paddington rail crash, this had to be balanced against putting directors in prison for omissions and oversights for which they bore 'only the most tenuous responsibility'.

However, after reviewing all the evidence, the paper concluded: 'It is only by sharpening the threat felt by directors that they will have the incentive to ensure that they know what the safety systems are, and that they will assign responsibility more clearly.'Sue Allen