The reversed love-life injunction?

Unlike the acts of John Terry, Ryan Giggs and BBC Presenter Andrew Merr, Jeremy Clarkson has taken the unorthodox celeb approach to lift his injunction he had placed over his ex-wife. Claiming they have little use other than being ‘pointless and expensive’. 

After being married for a year in 1989 to Alexandra Hall he had the injunction imposed. It forbade Ms Hall from reporting on any sexual or intimate acts or dealings between the pair. As well as preventing the report of intimate thoughts and feeling of Clarkson, his health or other financial affairs. 

Celebs began using the legal loophole of injunctions to aid themselves when the ambiguity of Britains privacy laws was unearthed as a benefit to them, opposed to struggling to use the difficult libel laws to establish a case. 

However, it does seem that Clarkson is the first to make the realisation that with modern day media ‘Facebook and Twitter mean everyone knows everything anyway... and the assumption of guilt exists about which there was nothing you could do, because like everyone else you are also bound by it’. 

Commercial Awareness

Gaining a grasp of and understanding the ever elusive phrase of commercial awareness is now more important than ever to law students. Yet despite a completed degree, talks from numerous professionals including the FSA, work experience with solicitors and a mini-pupillage I realised the general concept was still a bit vague to me. 

After some research I think I’ve got there! 

Most importantly I have realised its not the definition of the phrase itself that matters but how you can demonstrate it. It seems that being able to do this is the best way to illustrating your commitment, strive and ambition towards the legal world. Employers are of the belief that those who hold the skill of being commercially aware are people who can take a step back and see the bigger picture from a business perspective. Those who are able to look at the long and short term implications of a proposal and are aware of an organisations SWOT (strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) when doing this. 

You can use your CV to help you illustrate commercial awareness through work experience and your roles and responsibilities. For example working in a role with customers shows you have an understanding of their needs, requirements and expectations. Likewise in your workplace if you have ever made any improvements or implemented explaining the procedure, impact and overall outcome of doing so.

The ability to demonstrate the understanding as well as illustrate the existence of commercial awareness in yourself will be tested by employers both at the interview stage and also within the group exercises. In interviews employers will ask focused questions on topical issue within the news. For these it is important to know firm specific details, for example what they do and how they interact with other commercial firms such as investment banks. Also knowing in detail any recent cases in particular the role the firm played and if it had any significant impact in regards to the law or key clients. Our ability to apply commercial aspects to given situations will also be tested by employers during group exercises. 

So it seems that when broken down commercial awareness is not actually so elusive and a great deal more achievable than first thought. 

It wasn’t a thug, a rioter or a criminal.... it was a court clerk!

The first individual to be convicted under the new bribery legislation, Bribery Act 2010, was in fact court clerk, Munir Patel. Exposed by The Sun newspaper he was found to be arranging a bribe, where monetary sums would be exchanged for preventing a driving summons being entered onto the database.

Patel exploited his position as a clerk at Redbridge Magistrates Court, London by arranging the exchange of £500 in return for a speeding penalty not being inputted onto the system, preventing a summons to court occurring and so in effect ‘losing’ the penalty. The misconduct charge facing Patel stated that between 2009-2011 he gave advice to the public on how to avoid being summoned over similar matters. 

Patel is the first to be convicted under the new legislation, which received royal assent in April 2010. Before this Act Britain’s Bribery legislation had developed over 100 years and was contained in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, Prevention of Corruption Act 1906 (amended 1916) and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2007. In reference to the UKs bribery law, Jack Straw, the then Secretary of State for Justice and Anti-Corruption said ‘it is old and anachronistic.. its never been consolidated and contains inconsistencies...resulting in bribery law that is difficult to understand for the public and difficult to apply for prosecutors and courts’. 

Reform was needed and even more so after the 2006 collapse of the investigation into Al-Yamama arms deal between BAE system and the Saudi Arabia Government. A collapse which was blamed on these problematic bribery laws. Reports followed that criticised the failure to bring anti-bribery law in-line with international obligations under the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). This led the UK Government to ask the law commission to begin an investigation into modernising the bribery laws.

The new Bribery Act is intended to make it easier for enforcement agencies to bring successful prosecution. It has extended bribery to both the public and private sector and increases the range of offences available to the UK enforcement authorities. The penalty has also been lengthened, imprisonment increased from 7 to 10 years and there is an unlimited fine for individual/commercial offences. It has also enabled the UK to be brought in-line with international obligations. 

Patel was warned by Judge John Price that he could face immediate custody and this could be the maximum 10 years. Sentencing has been adjourned until 11 November and Patel has been bailed until this date. 

Tweeting after death!

Top lawyers within wills and inheritance are now modernising their approach in line with ever developing technology by ensuring clients are including passwords and usernames from their online world into their wills, protecting this side of the individuals life. 

With banking, social networking and the increased ability of todays technology to hold and store some of our most prized images and music collections, an increased number of us now have an online as well as offline life, so it seems only natural that these should be passed onto someone when we ourselves pass.

Lawyers have recommended details to Facebook, Twitter, online Banking, email accounts   and storage sites (for music and images) are now all included in our wills. This ensures that our affairs are tied-up after death, preventing the estate becoming liable financially, for example through magazine subscriptions. Also ensuring our online possessions are passed on too, as web-hosting company Rackspace estimates that 53% of us have treasured possessions in our online world. 

Online industries are still relatively new and so remain unregulated causing significant discrepancies to exist when dealing with life after death. Banks for example require a death certificate and documentation by post, Yahoo refuses all access but will delete an account with proof of death, Facebook, with a death certificate will allow families to memorialise or shut a profile and Twitter will let families have access to tweets on receipt of a death certificate. 

Possible reform is on the horizon with lawyers calling for a need for regulations and Richard Roberts, Chairman of the Law Society Wills and Equity Committee stating ‘website providers need to have a code of conduct’. All in all it seems that when preparing for the inevitable death it is a sensible piece of advice to remember the virtual world that we are all apart of as well.