Press round-up

The papers have been busy with the trampling of ancient laws this week.

In relation to Tory proposals to alter the double jeopardy ban, The Financial Times (16 May) said: 'The principle that acquittals should be final is rooted in Roman law and in British tradition of the 12th century.' If the ban on double jeopardy goes, the editorial continued, 'it would give the state unacceptable powers to torment and harry, and it would reduce the pressure on the police to get robust evidence first time round'.

Such measures, it concluded, would be 'a step on the ugly road towards oppression.'Former High Court judge Sir Michael Davies told Radio Four's Today programme (May 15), that the abolition of double jeopardy could lead to a situation where: 'The police and Crown Prosecution Service sometimes say, "Well, we haven't got much of a case, let's have a go, we may pot him, if we don't, we'll find something else in five year's time and have another go".'Even the voice of tabloid Britain, Peter Hitchens in the Daily Express (May 16) thought it was a bad idea: 'Before long, we will be living in a country where we can be arrested by government bureaucrats, locked up without trial by government bureaucrats, prosecuted by government bureaucrats, and judged by a government bureaucrat in a wig.

If by any chance we get off, we can then be forced to go through the whole thing again.''What worries us is the the shifting in the burden of proof which overturns 1,000 years of law in this country.

That is very dangerous.' Not double jeopardy this time, but Alison Lea, head of policy at the Institute of Directors, telling the Daily Mail (19 May) what she thought of plans by the government to reverse the burden of proof in sex and race discrimination cases onto the accused.Equally traditional was the reaction to news of higher salaries in the City last week.

'What, we ask, is it about lawyers?' The Independent demanded (May 18), 'We - and surely you too - know some very nice lawyers', the editorial continued, pointing to the many positive role models of Perry Mason and Sir John Mortimer.

'The lawyer may well have a claim to be the first social worker.

And yet this same group seems to attract more obloquy even than muggers or chartered accountants.' So the answer to its question? 'Well, yes, they can be a bit on the pompous side.

But no, you're right, it's the money.' Marcel Berlins in the Guardian (May 22), reacting to the US law firms' salaries that lure young lawyers from UK firms, seemed less envious: 'The only downside is that they have to work 80 to 90 hours a week, have no time for a social life or a relationship, take to drink or drugs, ruin their health and are burned out, sick and lonely before 40.' No regrets there, then.It was not ever thus in the City though, as readers of the obituary of former Ashurst Morris Crisp senior partner Martin Lampard in the Daily Telegraph (May 16) saw.

'He swore like a trooper,' the affectionate obituarist recalled.

Not for Mr Lampard, an endless night's work: 'He was quite capable of cutting short an important meeting and announcing that he was going to the pub instead.' On one occasion he told a client, who complained of being gratuitously insulted by a barrister: 'I can assure you this is not gratuitous.

It is very expensive.' On another, he told Robert Maxwell: 'You're a f***ing liar, Bob.' The reply was characteristic: 'I know, but I always get away with it.'The Independent (May 19) reported that Clint Eastwood faces a claim of $25,000 damages and $577,000 compensation for legal costs in a three-and-a half year old dispute with a disabled woman relating to disabled access at a hotel he owns in Carmel, California.

'Mr Eastwood said he had no problem with the existing disabilities Act, just with lawyers he thinks are trying to make fast buck out of it,' the paper reported.

Dirty Harry's solution, apparently, is to use his connections to get new legislation introduced so potential claimants give hotels and others 90 days to introduce changes.

Jeremy Fleming