Kent Law Society – Criminal Law Sub-Committee

09 July 2015 at 1730 hours at the Ashford Suite, Mercure Hotel, Hollingbourne, Maidstone.

Minutes of the Fourth meeting of the Kent Law Society – Criminal Law Sub-Committee.

Persons Present

Richard Atkinson, Chair

Toby Burrough

Mark Haskell

Dennis Clark

Scott Neilson

Vicki Holland

Apologies for Absence

Keith Betts

Wayne Crowhurst

1) Minutes of the Last Meeting – 13 May 2015

The minutes of the previous meeting have yet to be finalised. Unfortunately WC’s computer has broken which has the minutes on them. Agreed that VH will attempt to draft some minutes from her notes taken.

2) Matters Arising

N/A

3) Current Response of the Profession to the Latest Cuts

There was a general discussion regarding this. All were in agreement that on Tuesday the bar will vote and this is going to make a big difference. The House of Lords situation was noted and we await whether or not they intend to have their say about this.

4) Seven day Remand Court Update

RA confirming a response to the proposal has now been submitted. Current position is that there is to be three elements to the pilot namely a central county virtual court on Saturdays, and extended central county virtual court on Sunday and regional court to include South East London. RA said that there is extra money being provided to fund the pilot for all of the CJS agencies save the defence 60% is coming from the police fund and 40% coming from the Kent Police Crime Commissioner.

RA will continue to keep the sub-committee updated with any further updates in due course.

There was a discussion concerning the issues regarding funding as defence practitioners will now require additional staff to not only cover the weeks work but also to cover the weekend and evening work. The suggestion is that this is going to come into force in September however it is unlikely that this will happen given that there are so many issues regarding the funding of this and therefore it may be that this will not become effective until October.

5) Report of the Meeting RE use of Video with Lord Justice Fulford

RA was invited to a meeting together with the main criminal justice agencies with Fulford LJ at Medway Court. There are now suggestions that in future TV screens will be fitted into police cells so that hearings can be dealt with from there thus cutting money in that the police force will no longer require DDO’s to be present in order to facilitate the virtual court. Issues were raised that the solicitors would have to be in the cells too and the clear dangers to us.

RA explained what Fulford LJ’sviews were regarding the use of video links and he was informed that it was a Kent Police initiative and they are pushing for October.

6) Report of Kent TSJ Meeting held on the 7th July 2015

The minutes were circulated from this meeting prior to the meeting of today. RA and MH missed most of this meeting along with another, arriving very late as the change of location did not reach them.

7) KCJB Meeting

Discussions were had regarding the virtual court pilot and the TSJ update effectively restorative justice is being underused and this now needs to be improved and looked at more closely.

There were discussions about the new victim care centre at Compass House in Ashford together with a tour of the new facility.

8) Committee Profile/Communication

RA confirmed that the webpage is in the process of being completed he has spoken to John Pitt regarding the update in this and he is waiting to hear from him.

VH then conducted the discussion about this topic and how we can improve the profile of the committee as it would appear that many of the younger professionals are not aware of its existence at this stage. There was a discussion as to whether or not the social media is an aspect to get the profile of the committee out there but the general consensus was that this was not a brilliant idea.

There was a discussion about whether or not a google group could be set up however VH indicating that from discussions that had been had with members of the younger professions this is negative response and they feel that the google group which is used for the CLSA stuff has become more of a discussion base airing their personal views and getting into debates with one another.

General consensus of the group was to have the website through the Kent Law Society and we can upload the relevant information with links with short descriptions.

It was agreed that VH would coordinate this with the assistance of John Pitt.

There was also a suggestion to invite court user meetings to put the minutes of those meetings up so that each committee could effectively have a drop down list so that anyone looking at the website would be able to look at the various minutes of the meetings to get updates as to what is going on.

All were in agreement that the main thing to do is to encourage all colleagues to pass on information and to come to one of us if they have any concerns that they wish the committee to bring forward on their behalf. It was agreed that we will all get feedback from our colleagues in advance of the next meeting and a description of how we can encourage engagement in the committee’s activities with our colleagues.

DC advised that so far as the google group is concerned he could limit its use so that it is not open for discussion but those that wish to be subscribed to it can get simply updates without the ability to post. Also the way in which people get their emails on the KentCLSA Google group can be changed so that if required a person will receive a single composite email each day so that they are never inundated with emails. That might make a Google group more manageable and attractive to users.

RA confirmed that he will now draft a paragraph regarding the committee that can then be sent out on the google group to publicise our committee.

DC is to draft ways of how to use google group in a better way.

SN and VH agreed to work together with WC to increase the profile.

9) Any other Business

a)Police Cautions

Mark Haskell raised the issue of police cautions. He has been informed that there has been a police briefing where guidance has been given that cautions are now able to be given to defendants even if they are not eligible as it is not in the “public interest criteria” to prosecute. No one had any further information about this but it was agreed that RA would write to Supt Lisseman concerning this.

b)Summary only adjournments for S9 trials where defendants fail to attend the first hearing.

SN raised the issue as to whether this is inconsistent with TSJ as the paperwork is not always consistent and in place to prove the trial S9. Discussions as to whether or not this is simply a way to obtain convictions and move the case on but there are concerns that in fact because the paperwork is not being drafted properly S9 trials are in fact not being proved in absence and therefore not providing convictions.

c)Guests to committee meetings.

RA raising the issue whether or not we should be inviting guests to our meetings so that they can raise issues that can then be put forward by the committee. He feels this would then give our committee a purpose. One suggestion was that the Kent Policehead of custody, Supt Ann Lisseman could be invited to attend. RA thought that this would be a valuable process but only if the guests that are being asked to attend have something to answer and have a purpose for being there. He can see no reason in inviting people if there is no real reason for them to attend and therefore we will publicise this in due course.

10) Next Meeting

All in agreement that the next meeting will take place on Tuesday 15 September at 17:30 at the same location.