Conscious that I have neglected the blog a bit, a few notes from me.
Firstly, I have taken to writing about the Post Office Scandal here. If you want to follow that please subscribe to the substack (it’s free). I wanted to keep this blog from being dominated by PO as important as it is. My first two posts cover further informaiton about how prosecutions were handled (why the Clarke advice did not lead to widespread idsclosure; tldr – other advices!) and why PO were wrong to instruct a firm in volved in the Bates litigation to help with their compensation scheme post-Bates.
I got sent this interesting piece on why an International lawyer resigned from representing Russia over Ukraine having felt it was ok to represent them over Crimea . The absence of a code of ethics for international lawyers (I am resisting the jokes about not having a code for lawyers doing something that is not law sounds very SRA because I will get royally ticked off by my International Lawyer frineds who are smarting from the REF panel telling us there are far too many of them [yep. I’ll get ticked off for that interpretation too). There’s also an interesting shellacking of another of this guy’s clients. He seems to take some succour from being a professor not a normal advocate and that sounds good enough to me.
Joshua Rozenberg is rightly concerned abotu the role of Attorney General given Suella Braverman’s recent prounencements. With the PM setting the least impressive standards of ethical leadership imaginable for a PM (so far), it is perhaps unsurprsing that an AG would weaken further the sense of independence that is supposed to attach to the office. A lack of surprise should not in any way pass for approbation. It does not.
An interesting wee case on anonymity in the SDT (anonymity also an issue in the PO Inquiry) has prompted some interest. I have not read it yet. I take any opportuntiy I can take however to remind everyone the SDT does not seem to have a proper respository of cases where one can look back more than a short period of time or, indeed, search them properly. Throroughly inappropriate in 2022 I would say.
Finally, I cannot even begin to get my head around the defence being offered in the ‘burn your evidence’ case. (And see here). I have not seen the outcome of the case and would be grateful for links if the outcome is known.