In the spotlight: Perverting the course of justice

It will only involve the defendants identifying themselves and then the date for the first appearance at the crown court being fixed.

The ingredients of the offence are that a person has to do an act, you cannot commit the offence by not doing anything which has a tendency to and intending to pervert the course of justice.

Therefore there has to be a positive act, you can not be reckless and commit the offence.

The word pervert has almost the same meaning as “alter” and that the act may lead to a “wrongful consequence” the course of justice does not need to be altered but if the consequence of the act is that it may lead to a “wrongful consequence” then that is enough.

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice adds an ingredient of “agreement” between the parties, this element is an aggravating factor in that it was planned.

Yahoo to investigate chief executive’s academic credentials

This particular example looks to be something of a storm in a teacup since it is not in dispute that Thompson holds a Bachelor’s degree – merely the exact subjects he holds the degree in.

Nevertheless, the story should serve as a reminder to candidates for any position that lying on a CV or other document submitted in support of an application for employment is likely to result in summary dismissal if the lie is uncovered.

Contrary to the view apparently taken by Alan Sugar when one of his executives, Steve McQueen, was found to have ‘lied’ on his CV, candidates who misrepresent their qualifications demonstrate a fundamental lack of honesty and fair play.

If they can lie on their CV, then they can lie about any other aspect of their work and hence cannot be trusted.

The Crisis in Care for the Elderly

The fact that social care is in crisis at the moment is universally accepted, and with the ageing baby boomer generation, the issue is increasingly urgent.

This is a problem for everyone in society, not just morally, but also on a very personal level, as whichever way you look at it, the ongoing failure to deal with the problem will touch us all individually at some stage, whether in relation to relatives, friends, and/or potentially ourselves, representing at the very least a “Sword of Damocles” over everyone’s heads.

Furthermore, if the government fails to deal with this issue, personal injury lawyers will sadly have to pick up the pieces at the other end.  As funding cuts squeeze services, this often leads to care service providers cutting corners, inevitably resulting in the standards in the care provided falling, which can all to often lead to negligence, and consequent suffering on the part of vulnerable elderly people. Stretched staffing resources leave gaps in care, or, worse still, leave gaps for perpetrators of abuse to flourish.

Nursing home and care abuse cases are always harrowing, and something no one wants on any level, and will also have the additional unwanted result of adding a further financial burden to an already stretched system.

The government clearly needs to take urgent action as otherwise huge numbers of vulnerable elderly people will be condemned to a potentially wretched existence, which must be a condemnation of any “civilised” society.

Are we turning our backs on the elderly?

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/d3hjvzy

If we are not careful we are going to be remembered as the generation that turned our backs on our elderly.

The whole system is in need of reform as the latest wave of horror stories to emerge has proved. Whether we are considering the allegations of abuse, training of staff or grades of pay for care workers or the difficult question of funding of care whether private and/or state.

We as a firm have recently been involved in whistle blowing regarding a care home where regular episodes of abuse were occurring as a result of a care worker who had mental issues of his own, and at the other end of the spectrum we are helping clients to plan for the future so they can enjoy life today rather than worrying what may happen in the future.

It is not fair to deprive our elderly of living life now whilst they have some degree of quality purely because they are so worried about what may happen to them in the future, and whether they can afford to fund a better standard of life in the years to come.

This is an issue for everyone, we all have elderly parents, relatives or friends who are being affected by the current system and we all need to step up to our social responsibility to look after and protect our elderly and to ensure they do not become the forgotten generation.

The Truth About Whiplash Claims

Indeed, today the Transport Secretary Justine Greening will chair a second Whitehall summit looking at ways to reverse the “compensation culture”, apparently focusing on the fact that in the last five years, road traffic accidents have decreased by 23% but claims have increased by 70%, according to the Department for Transport, as Britons make 1,500 claims for whiplash every day, costing insurance companies around £2bn a year.

They will also be looking at the issue of false claims, which apparently add around £90 to insurance premiums, focusing on whiplash injuries.

This is the second Whitehall government summit to discuss the issue of “compensation culture”, and as it is undeniable that it is the insurance companies who stand to benefit most from the government’s “war” on road traffic accident claims, it is perhaps not that surprising that the first summit list of attendees comprised a who’s who of insurance bigwigs:

Attendees at the Downing Street Insurance Summit 14.02.2012:

The Rt Hon David Cameron MP, Prime Minister

The Rt Hon Oliver Letwin, Minister of State, Cabinet office

The Rt Hon Justine Greening, Secretary of State for Transport

Nick Herbert, Minister of State for Justice

Otto Thoresen, Director General, ABI

David Stevens, COO, Admiral

Trevor Matthews, Chief Executive, Aviva UK

Paul Evans, Group CEO, Axa UK and Ireland

David Riches, Director of Ops, British Chamber of Commerce

John Cridland, Director General, CBI

David Neave, Director of General Insurance, Co-operative Insurance

Judith Hackitt, Chair, Health and Safety Executive

Paul Geddes, Chief Executive, RBS Insurance

Ann Robinson, Uswitch

Stephen Lewis, CEO, Zurich UK

The fact that the government is in league with the insurance companies is made very clear by the fact that no representatives of claimant organisations were asked to attend, and all out war was declared on the so called compensation culture by the Prime Minister thereafter. Read more »

The Whitehall ‘Whiplash’ Summit

I am concerned like many people in the legal profession, that attempts to reduce the fraudulent claims will result in genuine victims being unable to claim the compensation they should be entitled to.

This compensation is not only to compensate victims for the pain and suffering they have endured but also to cover the expenses and losses they have occurred. Even a relatively trivial injury can result in 2 or 3 weeks loss of earnings. For many victims and their families this can cause immense financial hardship.

It should be remembered that the vast majority of Claimants are genuine.

Many medical experts believe it is possible to sustain whiplash injuries even at low speed impacts. The severity of the injury can depend of many factors and not just the speed of the collisions. In particular a person is more likely to sustain injury if the impact is unpredicted, some victims are more vulnerable than others, depending on age, pre-existing health. Also the position of the victim immediately prior to the impact can have a bearing.

Therefore it is concerning that the Government is considering preventing genuinely victims of road traffic accidents from bringing a claim based on the speed of the vehicles prior to impact.

It is ironic that the fraudulent claimant who engineers a collision in order to fraudulently claim is the one who is less likely to be injured as a result of the impact because they will have naturally braced themselves for the same. The innocent victim is likely to be taken unawares by the impact and therefore sustain an injury, which under this proposal may be prevented from claiming for.

The changes to the no win no fee rules run the risk of preventing the genuine victims of road traffic accidents from bringing claims. The changes will almost certainly lead to lower compensation for the victims.

If referral fees are banned it is important that the rules implementing the ban are drafted appropriately and in a way which provides clarity to all parties concerned.

Response to Panorama: The Abuse Exposed

It is 2012, as a nation we are living longer, and the chances of needing nursing home care in the future, are highly likely.

The programme was one that you could only watch in complete disbelief, whilst trying to avert your gaze from the terrifying treatment that was being meted out to Maria Worroll.

It is little wonder that she had started to mutter “oh God” every time one of the carers came into her room.

Paula Bridge, Senior Consultant at Ralli has spoken to the press regularly in relation to this kind of problem in nursing homes and at the moment, is assisting several TV production companies in the production of other documentaries.

Since 2006 Ralli has been working on cases of neglect on behalf of families who have experienced relatives suffering some dreadful injuries.

These injuries have been sustained in the very places where they ought to have been safe. They have been abused by so called carers and the enquiries continue to come in at an alarming rate.

So, what of the bodies that are set up to monitor these nursing homes?

What role do they play in this terrible indictment of the way we care for our elderly in Britain?

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) say:

“CQC carries out an unannounced inspection of every care and nursing home in England every year – more often if we believe people may be at risk. This system of regulation can and does identify poor care which CQC then takes action to tackle.”

They go on to say: “It is the responsibility of the people who run and work in care homes to make sure they meet essential standards of care and to deliver good, safe care. CQC’s role is to check this through unannounced inspections and take action where we see poor care.

Care staff, homes, councils, police and other stakeholders all have a part to play in the prevention of elder abuse. CQC also relies heavily on information from people who receive care and their families and friends. Anyone who sees evidence of abuse should call our whistleblower hotline.”

After seeing Maria Worroll’s treatment, that will give little comfort to the families of victims of abuse or indeed the victims themselves.

Interesting that at the same time as the BBC are making documentaries as powerful as this, we see comedians like Ricky Gervais making a comedy programme based in a nursing home.

Would Mr. Gervais have centered the programme around a children’s home?

No, probably not.  It seems the elderly and vulnerable are fair game and I wonder if we really are a nation of people who have forgotten that our elderly exist.

Government Proposes Compulsory Dog Microchips

As a dog owner myself I take care to ensure my dog is well behaved and restrain him in public places just in case.  My dog is hardly a dangerous breed-a cavalier king charles spaniel-but you can never be too careful in my opinion and  I ensure any ‘mess’ he makes is cleaned up but others simply do not.

Various attempts have been made over the years to curb irresponsible ownership.  In my local area we have a dog warden who is supposed to monitor lone dogs and those allowing their dogs to create a mess.  Nonetheless it still happens and I therefore have to question whether simply micro-chipping a dog will, in all reality, make any real difference in reducing the numbers of people attacked.

Unless a dangerous dog is detained at the scene and thereafter it’s owners are traced from the chip it may prove fruitless.  Those who keep and breed dangerous dogs are also, in my opinion, likely to flount the law and simply refuse to pay the fee for micro-chipping.  The heart of the issue in most cases is the attitude of the dog owner in ensuring it is raised properly and kept under control where possible.  Of course dogs can be volatile and even the most placid dog can turn if provoked but if dog owners and society as a whole adopted a proactive as opposed to reactive approach matters could improve.

Whilst it is encouraging to see this area of the law back on the agenda it simply does not go far enough.  This step coupled with compulsory insurance and an overhaul of the law to place responsibility on the owner/person in control of the dog whether on private or public land, together with increased powers of enforcement and monitoring for local authorities may go someway to address the issue.  For too long now I feel the bark of the law has been worse than the bite.

No Will? No Way!

Without a valid will, the intestacy rules dictate how your estate is to be divided and for many, the rules do not deal with the division of the estate in an adequate way. Married couples and those in civil partnerships will inherit under the rules, but unmarried and divorced couples lose out. Children will inherit if there is no surviving married partner but if there is, children will only inherit something from the estate if it is worth more than £250,000.

The inheritance of other close relatives under the intestacy rules such as grandchildren, parents, brothers and sisters depends on the circumstances including whether there is a surviving married/civil partner and the value of the estate. Many groups are ignored under the rules, including unmarried partners, relatives by marriage and close friends.

The moral of this story is to make sure your estate is not left vulnerable to the dreaded intestacy rules. The only way of ensuring your estate is left to the people you want to have it is to make a valid will.

Should you wish to discuss making a will, please contact me, Eimear McCartan on 0161 615 0691.

In The Spotlight: Career Ending Insurance

Every player knows each game they play could be their last. It sounds pessimistic, but players have to be aware that each game played is a calculated risk. A career can quickly be ended, as the experiences of Marco van Basten, David Buust and Dean Ashton will testify.

When a player begins earning a decent wage and becomes accustomed to a certain lifestyle, having the correct insurance is an absolute must. Younger players in particular need to ensure they have the correct guidance and advice so they’re covered appropriately.

Although commonly known in the Sports World as a Career Threatening Injury Insurance, the accurate insurance term is Personal Accident & Sickness Insurance. This is because the policy covers players 24 hours a day, across every country and when they’re away on international duty. The policy covers players on the pitch – and it also covers them off the pitch.

Career-threatening injury has always been a risk for footballers, but there are other hazards for modern players, as demonstrated by well publicised burglaries at the homes of players. We appreciate insurance isn’t a hot topic of discussion in dressing rooms, but players must ensure they take steps to cover all eventualities. If the issue’s ignored and corners are cut with cover, the player – and their families – could suffer.

Insurance may not be the most glamorous aspect of a player’s life, but it’s certainly one of the most important.