GeekLawyer’s Blog

Ruthie regularly listens to the Today programme on Radio 4. Not because she is a particular fan, but the hectoring style of interviewing is guaranteed to irritate Ruthie out of her torpor at 06.30 in a way that Chris Moyles never could. Occasionally the programme is also entertaining and informative

The programme is running an online poll “the Christmas repeal“, where listeners are invited to propose the law that they would most like to see repealed. A shortlist has been created and the winner will be announced tomorrow.

The long and short lists reflect, unsurprisingly, the particular profile of the average radio 4 listener, rather than being a reflection of the law that might best be repealed in the interests of the general populace. Thus the Hunting Act, The Act of Union, the Human Rights Act and the Act of Union all made it to the long list. Unfortunately Ruthie therefore feel that a worthy exercise will produce a meaningless result.

Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was interviewed to give his opinion on the law that ought to be repealled. He complained about the additional burden of work placed on police officers as a consequence of the requirement to produce disclosure schedules of unused material in minor cases. Thus he stated the “the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) ought to be repealed.” Whoops..the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act governs the use of surveillance evidence and not the preparation of disclosure schedules, which are in fact governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

Ruthie in any event strongly disagrees with his views. Whilst the preparation of schedules might take more time for officers initially, they save time in the long run. Prior to the CPIA, in theory all relevant material was disclosable to the defence, assuming the defence knew of its existence to ask, and without a list of relevant material a time consuming guessing game ensued, with fishing expeditions on the part of the defence. Whilst the new regime is not perfect, it is reasonably transparent. Everyone knows what material is available, and disclosure of specific items is only given to the defence if a requirement can be established (thus avoiding days wasted -for both sides- trawling through boxes of material).

Ruthie is too canny a lawyer to complain about the content of the legislation she has to work with, but for practical reasons she will complain about its form. The Criminal Justice Act 2003, must be the most complex and badly drafted piece of legislation that Ruthie is forced to grapple with on a daily basis (deals with the admission of character and hearsay in criminal trials). Ruthie also thinks that a review of the Offences against the Person Act is way overdue..how can it be that GBH is section 18, but ABH is section 47? Wouldn’t it make far more sense to have a hierarchy of assaults starting at number 1? And for ease of reference why not roll sexual offences in there as well, rather than in a separate act?

Still drafting legislation can hardly be an exciting job. Ruthie saw a number of advertisements about a year ago for the role of legislative draftsperson. It was quite well paid (it needs to be since Ruthie would personally rather stick her head in a bucket of cold vomit than spend her day postulating on the possible judicial interpretations of intent, placed in the first, rather than the second, clause of a sentence.)