Best of the blogs
Weekly round-up of the top legal blogosphere posts
Our legal system is broken. Who will fix it? [The Guardian]
What public interest was there in prosecuting Supt Robyn Williams for possessing a video she never wanted? [Barrister Blogger]
10 lesser-known election laws you need to know about [Legal Cheek]
Tory manifesto: Boris’s clampdown on ‘soft justice’ [Justice Gap]
Justice for Grace Millane: a new Commonwealth contempt framework? [Inforrm’s Blog]
All you need to know about sentencing [Russell Webster Blog]
Why failing a summary judgment application can be expensive: (£1,015,722 — expensive) [Civil Litigation Brief]
When I grow up I want to be a lawyer [Above The Law]
Solicitors let off the leash as SRA lifts the curfew [Law Society Gazette]
Constitutional statutes: a brief overview [Legal Cheek Journal]
“I had a video interview with Eversheds for a TC. There were several questions and I had a minute to answer each. I was answering them quite well. My top half was in a suit, and my bottom half butt naked. It was during my last question that I realised I had f***** the interview when I could see my fat butt cheeks squished against the chair in the mirror behind me and to my left. I didn’t get to the assessment centre stage.” [Legal Cheek comments]
How to make it as a barrister [Legal Cheek Events]
Jobs, jobs, jobs! [Legal Cheek Noticeboard]
6 Comments
Anonymous
There was no public interest in the Robyn Williams case. This would also be the case if she was male.
A
Of course there was a public interest. She protected someone involved in distributing child porn. She did not make a complaint against the woman. That it was her sister matters not one jot.
Anonymous
If you actually read the article there was no public interest. She was sent the attachment, which she didn’t even view, by her sister who sent it in order to report it, and it’s doubtful she broke any laws. There was never any suggestion that she should have been treated differently because it was her sister. The response at 2.45pm is a good indication of why this wasnt in the public interest as it shows how some people will misinterpret what happened. I hope this decision is successfully appealed and believe it will be. Would be good if LC keep us updated on the appeals process.
Archibald Pomp O'City
” Would be good if LC keep us updated on the appeals process.”
Do you really rely on Legal Cheek to keep you up to date with high-profile legal cases that are already in the crosshairs of the mainstream media?
Anonymous
Yes (because the appeals process is unlikely to be covered by mainstream media). I’m hoping LC will let us know when and if an appeal has been filed. Next question.
Anonymous
Whenever a party applies for strike out or summary judgement and loses, that party should be liable for the reasonable costs incurred, regardless of the final outcome of the claim. There should never be a ‘costs in case’ type outcome, save for exceptional circumstances. The real problem here is that the ‘costs’ are not reasonable or proportionate.