Rosanna Chopra

Rosanna Chopra has enlightened me as to how little I know about women’s rights around the world. As a life-long feminist (and a proud mother of a teen feminist, who was the one who introduced me to Emma Watson’s He for She campaign) I really thought I knew better.

Meeting in Dubai over an outstandingly delicious meal in Emirates Towers, (the unlikely lamb and pomegranate dish is manna from heaven!) the subject of Dubai’s women in business came up as Rosanna and I discussed our backgrounds. On hearing that she had spent 4 years in Formula One before switching to law, I commented that her history of being a driven woman (excuse the pun) in a man’s world must have been a useful warm-up lap for working in Dubai. She is very quick to put me straight, speaking enthusiastically about how many more opportunities she has working in a Dubai law firm, compared to the UK.

“The story of women in the law is a particularly interesting one over here. Most people back home in the UK are well aware of how the Dubai legal market has exploded over the last decade and particularly since the establishment of the DIFC [Dubai International Financial Centre, where business and financial transactions and litigation are governed by international, rather than Arabic law]. But the story of Dubai’s women in law doesn’t make headlines as often. Many, like you, assume that women are under a disadvantage doing business here, so it could be a risky career decision to move here. But the opposite is true! Look at the experience of the big law firms: international firms operating in the area have realized that gender is generally not an issue, and have tried to attract as many qualified women as they can.  Clifford Chance, which is the longest running international law firm in the Middle East employs nearly 75% expatriate lawyers in Dubai.  More than half of the office is women, including 17% of their partners.  Norton Rose says that the firm’s female to male ratio in the Middle East is similar to its worldwide ratio of about 55:45.  

“Female lawyers are generally well respected in most circumstances throughout the Middle East legal market.  Sure there remain stigmas, and dealing with Arab business men and Arabic lawyers provides a unique set of challenges, not least because of their faith and their forefathers – but a good brain, an ability to express yourself or articulate your argument well and real reliability will see the playing field level; it will level irrespective of other potential pigeon holes the (legal) community often feel comfortable using.  This could mean (rapid) acceleration in your career that matches your potential as much as your post-qualified experience. There are times when clients may not be used to working with a woman, but it usually only takes some time for them to accept their female representation. 

“The situation for female lawyers in the Middle East has of course been helped by a number of successful lawyers who have made a name for themselves especially the local female lawyers who have been making significant strides.  For example Dubai’s first female assistant prosecutors were sworn in November 2012. There is ongoing proof positive that the UAE is progressing, despite the glass ceiling for female lawyers worldwide.  This is demonstrated by the overwhelming number of female Emiratis seen in the courts on a daily basis, the numbers of female lawyers qualifying out of University in the UAE year on year, the UAE now has female public prosecutors and female judges, and progress will continue, of this there is no doubt – it is the nature of the country and the nature of the people who contribute to its ongoing development.”

Rosanna explained to me precisely how equality for women has been entrenched in Dubai life, in ways that could provide some good models for the West. I won’t give away here the detail of how the Dubai authorities have achieved this, as Rosanna’s thoughts on the matter are about to be published in The Lawyer’s opinion pages. I will of course point you in the direction of her piece once it has published. Suffice to say I was embarrassed about the assumptions I myself had made about her experience and challenges in the Middle East.

***

The big surprise of the week was surely former Archbishop Carey stepping in to save Free Speech from the Woolf’s jaws.  Astounding!  In a speech at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf actually said out loud that in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks satirical cartoonists should “exercise self-restraint, particularly in sensitive areas where religion is involved”, so as not to offend Muslims.  The former Archbishop countered that while respect for others was important, “that does not mean we should temper our [satire]”.  And he reminded the Law Lord (astonishing he had to!) that democracy and free speech go to the very heart of our rule of law, and that the freedom to satirise any pillars of authority is, and should remain, vital to that.  

We have Frances Gibb to thank for bringing us the story.  And, surprisingly, Lord Carey to thank as an unlikely defender of Free Speech.  Way to go Arch Bish! 

***

Two of Kysen's three Clares (yes I know we sound like an order of nuns - well that's

Kysen for you!) are planning a rare Day Out in Oxford this week. @ClareTpr is a Pinsent alumni and Partner David Isaac who runs the firm's art committee is Chair of Oxford's Museum of Modern Art. Catching up before Christmas at a Pinsents-hosted exhibition of court artist Isobel Williams, David mentioned the excitingly curated Love Is Enough exhibition at MOMA, juxtaposing William Morris and Andy Warhol to highlight the similarities of these two artists working a century apart. I'm a massive fan of both, but each occupy completely different and unconnected places in my mind map. I can't wait to see the exhibition and look at these two familiars with a new appreciation. Innovative curation is an art in itself, don't you think?

Carl Gardner

Carl Gardner believes privacy campaigners are distracting us from the real threats out there. By chance our long-planned meeting takes place the day after the Paris Terror Attacks, as I am trying to fathom the implications of what’s happened. There are so many issues to balance…and in the fulcrum it seems it’s our individual freedoms that are being squeezed every time.

When is it appropriate to rein in our right to free speech? When it’s to avoid heinous offence? When ridicule of one particular group comes too close to racism? Or inches towards incitement to racial hatred? And what is a “proportionate response” to a terror attack? How far should we attempt to curb our personal freedoms to protect national security? Interesting to consider all this against the backdrop of David Cameron’s post-Charlie anti-terror laws, proposals for the blanket collection of “plane data” and revelations just this week of the European Commission’s plans to request no less than 42 items of personal info about air passengers flying in and out of Europe. This balancing act is becoming more impossible, by the day.

Public Law expert Carl is the perfect person to ask about all of this, having spent over a decade advising the British Government before branching out and becoming one of the profession’s most respected bloggers.  

So I put it to him: how do you balance all these competing rights?

 “But I don’t see that there is a “balance” ”, he counters. “These things are not in conflict to my mind. Just because we have more of one, doesn’t mean we have to have less of the other. The aim of all of these so called competing rights is for all of us to have more freedom. Where’s the conflict?

“I have to say, listening to the rhetoric that comes from some civil liberties campaigners, the focus seems to be on a rather abstract idea of freedom and an exaggerated polemic around how the Government is attacking it. A good example is the scaremongering headlines around “GCHQ listening to our conversations.” Having worked inside Government for 15 years or so, I can’t see how this civil service department, as resource–stretched as any other, could even resource this. The reality is, we are far more likely to be attacked by extremists than listened in to by GCHQ. The vast many of us would simply not be of any interest to the Government and so their precious resources would not be wasted on us.

“I don’t know where people have got this idea from… [he reconsiders]…well actually I do: it originates from privacy campaigners who, intentionally or not, are building up a privacy paranoia. Many people honestly believe our privacy is under attack in this country. They think the threat to their privacy is real. But it’s just not.

“I do personally have a bit of an issue with privacy campaigners because there’s a lot of misinformation being put about. It’s important that we do debate these issues, but inaccuracy does not help.

“A good example is the lather around supposed “Government mass surveillance”. The misinformation is that our Government reads our emails. In discussion over the rights and wrongs of Government tracking the meta-data around our communications, the impression is carelessly given that it’s the content of our emails that is being routinely scrutinised. This is misleading and it is simply not the coherent and principled position it appears to be at first blush.

“There’s a paranoia of a new Orwellianism in the UK that is just fantasy. And if people really think the real threat in the aftermath of the Paris attack is what the Government is going to do next, well that’s crazy. It’s about time we ditched this fantasy and started focusing on the real issues.”

I always did like Carl’s plain talking! And I for one would feel much more secure about my freedom if I were convinced the Government was focusing on the real, rather than fictional, threats to it. I’m collecting views on this, so please do share your thoughts.

***

…Just 5 days after the Paris attacks, Sophie and I travel to the Middle East. This was always going to be interesting… But once in Dubai visiting our new friends, we are struck over the course of our four day visit, how well Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and more live and work so harmoniously side by side… whilst elsewhere in the world, an ugly echo of inter-faith unrest ricochets from city to city.

Of course Dubai’s role in the modern world is precisely this: to be an international hub, a meeting place for the world of international commerce to come and do business with the Middle East, which I guess necessitates the open mindset and culture we find there. We loved Dubai for this.

***

And as we fly back home we pick up the news The Sun is to divest itself of its Page 3 staple. A curious story to greet us after hearing views from Dubai locals about “the merits of a controlled press”… i.e. absence of celebrity flim flam, more space for worthy/interesting editorial… and certainly no "topless beauties".

We flew home feeling very proud our free press had freely volunteered to take this positive, if rather overdue, step forward into enlightenment. See, the press doesn’t need to be controlled; the readership itself has provided the necessary pressure for The Sun’s editors to make the right decision.

So imagine our disappointment then to find out, just 48 hours later, the news report was false. The paper’s Page 3 “lovelies” are here to stay. For a while longer at least. The only thing that cheered us up on hearing this dismal development was the reaction on Twitter: men up and down the country posting pictures of their own or others’ “man nips” in protest at the anachronistic Page 3’s return. The selection is hilarious. Take a look under #sunmannips and you’ll find a few celebrity entries too, designed to raise a smile… such as Putin’s famous topless poses in combat gear.

Now there’s a He For She campaign if ever we saw one! Thanks boys!!

Matthew Taylor

RSA Chief Exec Matthew Taylor is challenging you to Change The Way You Think in 2015.  He is passionate about our need for a New Year Resolution to improve social integration and his fervour for how we might live differently flies off him in sparks.

The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce is dedicated to ideas and actions for a 21st Century enlightenment.  Prior to his appointment as its CEO almost ten years ago, Matthew was Chief Adviser on Political Strategy to then Prime Minister Tony Blair, so he knows a thing or two about social planning at the highest level.  When he started to talk to me about how he sees the future and how we can best employ technology to re-think and reconfigure modern living, particularly in the context of the various “Smart Cities” initiatives in play, (a subject close to Kysen’s heart just now), I was all ears.

“Smart City Thinking is all about using digital technologies to enhance performance and well-being, to reduce costs and the consumption of resources and promote more effective communication with citizens. The technology is there already to deliver a very different way of living,” he tells me over coffee in his John Adam Street office, near Embankment, “and there are some very interesting ideas in circulation, and still in the pipeline, about how we might best approach this. But to date, our investigation of what  eg smart energy, smart building, smart mobility, smart infrastructure, smart technology, etc can do for us seems to me to be rather limited.  We could be reaching for so much more!  Let me explain what I mean: a simple example that is often used to typify smart city thinking is the development of electronic bus displays, giving passengers real-time information about the arrival of their next bus, enabled by satellite technology and accessed by passengers at bus stops or via phones or internet.  A modest change, but one that has completely changed people’s experience of waiting for buses; ie you no longer have to!  You can now to turn up at a bus stop just as your bus arrives.  A big improvement to your personal experience of travelling by public transport, and a way of smoothing the flow of travel around a city, to everyone’s benefit.”  It’s interesting to think, isn’t it, how our past experience of waiting for buses has become so embedded in our common consciousness, the expression “It’s like buses” being part of British vernacular, (meaning waiting for something for ages then three or more coming at once). If we no longer have to wait for buses at all, it can only be a generation or so, surely, before this idiom loses any meaning and falls out of use. 

“Another much-quoted example of the thinking is how car use has changed in cities; vehicle ownership is no longer always seen as a rite of passage, or a status symbol, as young people living more independently than their parents’ generation perceive it as too expensive, not to mention their concerns about environmental damage. So as new digital and social technologies have enabled car-sharing services such as Zipcar and LiftShare, the market has been there, in turn bringing positive impacts on urban traffic circulation as a result.  Again, a good illustration of how the smart use of new  technologies can bring big changes to people’s lives, individually and collectively. 

“But…. we could be so more ambitious than this!” Matthew asserts.   “What I’d like to see is our cities becoming socially smarter.”  From a man who used to advised a Labour Prime Minister, perhaps this emphasis is not so surprising.  But what does being socially smart entail in practice?  “I believe that a more intelligent city is one with true social integration, not just between different ethnicities, cultures and classes, but different ages too.  Here’s one example: currently most care homes for the elderly tend to be situated on the edges of our towns and cities.  Why is this?  It places these vulnerable people, already on the fringes of our youth-obsessed society, also physically on the outskirts of our communities.  If we were to rethink this and position them more centrally, our elders could be far better integrated into every day society, so not only would they be more inclined to thrive, but everyone else in the community would be the richer for it too.  If we are reconfiguring urban life for the modern age, it’s essential we don’t miss these sorts of opportunities to bring more of us together in new ways, bridge more social gaps and continue reaching for the holy grail of a fully inclusive, integrated society.”

Well, the RSA does promise to make us think differently.  And Matthew is clearly leading by example.  If you’d like to stay tuned in to the RSA’s provocative brand of thought-leadership as the year unfolds, you might like to consider becoming a fellow, which you can do here.  Or simply follow them on Twitter @theRSAorg.

***
Designers at realityhouse have been playing their cards very close to their chests.  I thought MD Mike Fieldhouse was up to something when we caught up before Christmas, but his poker face was giving nothing away. Now I see he has just released a delightfully fun card game designed specifically for the legal profession: Law Trumps.  The game consists of a pack of 52 cards, each depicting a leading law firm and five statistics about it, in categories such as turnover, number of partners, number of UK offices, etc.  (The data is drawn from various sources such as The Lawyer's UK 200, The Legal 500, and law firms’ own websites).  The game works in the same way as traditional Top Trumps, so a player calls a category and compares values with their opponents’ cards.  The player with the highest values wins the round and takes their opponents’ losing cards.  

What a neat trick: a great way to raise awareness of the realityhouse brand, as well as making clear their specialist interest in the legal market … and all at the same time as expressing deck-loads of personality.  Mike and his team have definitely played their cards right this time.

If you know of other law-themed games, do please tell us about them.  We’re planning to compile a compendium.  Watch this space….

***

Words fail me when it comes to the Charlie Hebdo attacks, this news is so horrendous.  Ian Hislop put it well in his public statement, when he responded to the terrorist killing of four of France's most respected satirical cartoonists, and eight others, with the words:  “They paid a very high price for exercising their comic liberty.  Very little seems funny today.”  You can read his full statement here. As others have said, it's just astonishing that cartoons can be considered weapons of war.   

The only positive glimmer in this situation is how the sane world has reacted to it. Standing in Trafalgar Square on that first evening, scrolling the news of similar gatherings taking place across the entire world, I felt quite proud of humankind thinking how fast the mass response had been and how immediately people had poured onto the streets in protest.  And the cartoons! The wonderful satirical images drawn in response to the shootings being the perfect demonstration in action that the pen will not be stilled.  Do take a look here. But in the midst of this maelstrom, are we still as confident asserting that the pen is mightier than the sword? For everyone's sake I hope we will come out of this terrible time being able to answer this question with a resounding "Yes". 

Kate Allen

Amnesty International Director Kate Allen is, for once, getting what she wants for Christmas. For 20 years she and her colleagues have been determinedly campaigning and lobbying for a Global Arms Trade Treaty, which became a reality this April when the UN General Assembly voted to adopt it. By September it had been ratified by over 50 countries, the magic number needed to trigger the 90-day countdown to entry into force. It becomes enshrined in international law today, on Christmas Eve.

The Arms Trade Treaty is an important link in preventing the highly lucrative arms industry from fuelling atrocities around the world. Each state that signs up to it is required to enshrine new principles into its national laws to stop the flow of weapons, munitions and related items to countries where it is known they would be used to commit or facilitate genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or other serious violations of human rights. 

“This campaign is a very good example of how Amnesty works” Kate tells me. “Whilst it’s true that some of our campaigns can have an impact quite quickly, a big proportion of our work is about recognising that big change can take many, many years. This is what I call the Magic of Amnesty. It’s incredible to think that what began as a conversation between colleagues twenty years ago (“Wouldn’t it be nice if there were some kind of control on how arms are exported around the world”) has today become enshrined in international law. It shows how Amnesty will just keep going until it gets a result. With this campaign we were totally relentless! I call it the Magic of Amnesty because it is so important people know that we can make change. Often people who care about the sorts of things we care about can feel quite overwhelmed and helpless. There’s so much injustice around the world and people often feel nothing they could possibly do would ever make a difference. Amnesty provides somewhere for them to go, to take action, knowing our campaigns are well thought through, properly researched and can absolutely make change. You can be confident that Amnesty knows what a particular campaign should look like, where the pressure needs to be placed.”

In the last days running up to its coming into force there was a flurry of countries rushing to sign up / ratify, including Andorra, Israel, Zimbabwe and Lithuania. South Africa is expected to follow suit any day. And Kate insists this is not the end of the story: “Amnesty will continue to monitor progress closely, keeping a watchful eye on individual states to see how they are enforcing these principles, as well as putting pressure on more countries to sign up” she asserts. 

I was keen to know what next for Kate and for Amnesty. “This month sees our Global Write for Rights Campaign. This is a concerted piece of action that runs in December each year. In 2013 activists in this campaign undertook 2.4 million actions in 140 countries and resulting in the release of a number of political prisoners. Again, evidence that Amnesty campaigns, and the collective power they mobilise, make very real change for people. 

“Of course just at the moment we are also busy with our campaign to get to the bottom of the British Government's role following the recent report on the CIA’s use of torture and rendition in the past decade or more.  A truly independent judicial inquiry is essential.

“And we are currently working on a great piece of work developing at EU level really practical guidelines for human rights defenders in Afghanistan, so that these brave people are able to access support and assistance from EU missions once the international forces have departed. 

“And an ongoing project is about making Amnesty a truly global organisation,” she continues. Amnesty has its roots firmly in the UK: it was founded in 1961 by a British lawyer, Peter Benenson, whose initial focus was the plight of two Portuguese students imprisoned for their political beliefs. His well-placed Guardian article calling for “something to be done” launched a worldwide campaign that secured their freedom … and the idea of Amnesty was born. (It is this, Amnesty’s dual emphasis on enforcing the rule of law combined with clever use of media, that speaks so directly to Kysen’s heart.) “Like any organisation born in the global north, over time we’ve become far less UK- and London-centric. We’re becoming a global organisation, with new action centres in the Americas, Africa, Asia as well as Europe. As membership has grown to significant numbers, there’s real progress in the work we are able to do from those bases. It makes people in those regions feel so much more connected. And our International Secretariat, originally London-based, is now dispersed across offices in Nairobi, Dakar, Johannesburg and others. We recently opened in Hong Kong and we are about to open in Mexico City. Today we have seven million members, supporters and activists in 160 countries (500,000 of which are in the UK). 

“There’s so much more to do!” she says. This could be Kate’s mantra. It’s been a stellar year for Amnesty this year, the Arms Trade Treaty coming into force on Christmas Eve most definitely being the best present Kate could have wished for. I for one hope that Amnesty gets everything it is wishing for in 2015. The world would be so much better place for it, that’s for sure. 

Click here to find out more about Amnesty's campaigns or how to get involved. 
***
Who'd have known it's such a hazardous time of year! There are legal pitfalls everywhere! We all know the employment law minefield that is the modern day work Christmas party.  But have you thought about the personal injury risks over the festivities?  Not to mention the risks of falling foul of copyright.  And I haven't even started on the seasonal perils for retailers.  

Yes, you've guessed it: we've been having fun teasing out Yule-tide topics for our lawyer friends to comment on.  The Evening Standard did us proud this year, running a series of three.  The first have appeared already: a warning not to ignore copyright laws in even the most amateur of pantomime shows (Legal action waits in the wings for panto teams that catch frozen fever); and another on who's responsible when online Christmas shoppers are cyber-hacked.  You'll have to buy your Standard on Friday to see the next one. We do love this time of year... but be careful!
***
Join us in playing a Christmas quiz game today!  Well, it is the last day of term. The partnership lawyers at Aaron & Partners have created a Christmas Competition by re-writing 10 well known marketing slogans in legalese and challenging contestants to decipher them. You need to articulate the original straplines and name companies for a chance to win a prize. We love it!  Here's your starter for 10:

"We are given to understand that all such amounts however small as are in the contemplation of the parties at the date of this advertisement or other similar promotional message may but are not guaranteed to be of use to the customer."

Can you guess? There's more here. You need to submit your answers to Aaron & Partners by 5 January 2015 to be in the game.  We'll be tweeting our progress today (but no spoilers!). Good luck everybody! Merry Christmas!

Bianca Jagger

Bianca Jagger made an unforgettable impression at the launch reception for Amnesty's Circle of Conscience. And surprisingly, not because of her star-studded jet-setting past as a 70s actress & model, former Studio 54 regular (counting Andy Warhol and Truman Capote among her many A-list friends).  Nor for being Mick Jagger's first wife. Not even because as a great-grandmother (her daughter Jade became a grandmother this May) this award-winning social and human rights activist is still a stunningly beautiful woman. No. What demanded everybody's attention far more at this launch event in Kensington's Bulgari Hotel... what in fact brought an entire room full of Amnesty supporters to a humbled silence ... was Bianca's explanation of where her campaigning heart comes from, in her speech as the Circle's new Patron:  "My passion for activism didn't come from books, or reading about the wrongs of the world, but from my own personal experience"

Bianca shared with us how she grew up under a corrupt and oppressive regime in Nicaragua in the 1960s.  She left in 1970 with a scholarship to study political science at the Paris Institute of Political Studies.  But in 1972 she returned, to look for her parents after the devastating earthquake which destroyed the capital Managua, claimed 10,000 lives and rendered many more numbers homeless. In 1979 she returned again, this time with the International Red Cross, and was shocked to see how the country had devolved in the intervening years.  "I was horrified to see how the corrupt Somoza regime had taken advantage of the natural disaster and exploited the people of Nicaragua instead of helping them, profiting obscenely from the tragedy.  It inspired me to fight for those suffering from discrimination, injustice and violence.  In the years that have followed, I have visited individuals and communities across the world, from central America, across Europe to South Asia, visiting refugee camps, war zones, remote rainforests, and prisoners on death row.  By witnessing injustice and the denial of human rights first hand, I have become even more determined to use my knowledge, skills, influence and time to become a force for change and a voice for the most vulnerable."

In public Bianca has spoken often about her personal epiphany: in 1981 she was stationed at a UN refugee camp in Honduras, part of a visiting US congressional delegation. At one point in the official visit she and her colleagues witnessed 40 captured refugees being marched off at gunpoint by a death squad. Horrified, Bianca and her co-workers followed the group to see where they were being taken, realising summary executions were about to take place. Armed only with cameras (so at least they could document the raid) Bianca and her team took brave action: once within earshot of the death squad they shouted "You will have to kill us all!"  This stopped the squad in its tracks and forced a reappraisal of the situation: the prisoners were released. In many interviews since, Bianca has pinpointed this as a turning point in her life as she realised positive action can absolutely make a difference.

In private, at the Amnesty Circle of Conscience reception the Kysen team attended, Bianca let us in on another turning point in her life: "after campaigning tirelessly for one particular death row prisoner we came to a very harrowing end of the road when we realised there would be no reprieve and all appeals routes had been exhausted. On a very emotional day we were finally informed of the date for his execution. Not long after, I was stunned to receive a request from the prisoner that I personally attend the execution. I wasn't expecting that. But of course I had to go. I will spare you the details of what it was like, seeing a man you believe to be innocent being put to death by the authorities, right in front of your eyes. You can imagine for yourselves the profound effect it had on me." So when she says her heart for social and human rights action comes from experience rather than books, you can absolutely trust what she says.

"I have always believed in the power of ordinary people to change the world if they work together and I am so proud to be part of the global movement of more than 7 million people brought together by Amnesty International who are actively campaigning for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all...  but we need to do more!  With greater help and support, from more people, we can focus on increasing the impact that Amnesty can make helping people to fight for their human rights and live in dignity." 

Well, that's a Call to Action if ever I heard one!

You will find links here about Amnesty's new Circle of Conscience and other aspects of the charity's work. You can click here for information on the Bianca Jagger Foundation.  Do you feel inspired to get more involved? I know I do!
***
We always look forward to reading Edward Fennell's diary column in Times Law and last week's was particularly classic: I just loved the story of UKIP's Christmas card catastrophe, using a cartoonist's work without their permission. Pilsbury's Paul Harris observes drily in the column that "clearly, the IP in UKIP does not stand for intellectual property". Quite. He continues: "Now it's just a matter of destroying the cards. Pulp fiction, perhaps?" When it comes to UKIP (and please do excuse me, I usually try to avoid party politics) I couldn't agree more!

***
Take advantage of this Friday's Christmas Jumper Day to clothe yourself in the Christmas Spirit. It's time we all got into the the festive mood. On 12 December Save the Children is encouraging us all to "make the world better with a sweater" (love it!) wearing our woollies to work and donating £2 to the charity.

And if you're worried a Christmas sweater could cause offence in the workplace considering we are all of so many different cultural and religious persuasions, here's the solution: the mixed-faith pullover "for those wanting to celebrate the festive season as the multicultural nation we are." As the Independent on Sunday put it: Oh come all ye multi-faithful! Perfect!!

Glyn Maddocks

Glyn Maddocks doesn't understand why we're all not a whole lot angrier about the Criminal Justice System. I was speaking to the defence lawyer and founder of the Centre for Criminal Appeals at the launch of Jon Robins' book about the 43 year legal fight to clear the name of Tony Stock, imprisoned for an armed robbery Glyn is concerned he didn’t commit. Glyn has spent more than 20 years advising Tony Stock in three appeals.

The book launch was held in Portcullis House, with a number of legal and political heavyweights present (The Times' esteemed legal editor  Frances Gibb, and MP Barry Sheerman to name just two) as well as Tony Stock’s family, which brought home to me that the flaws in our Justice System are not just academic points to be discussed and debated in well-written articles in the popular and specialist press, but have a real and tragic impact on people’s lives. Tony himself sadly died in 2012 but his family, friends, and the professionals who campaigned for his release throughout his life, continue to lobby hard to clear his name. 

"Stock’s case is particularly galling because the Appeal system has failed him even though someone else has confessed to the armed robbery and confirmed that Tony wasn’t even there," Glyn tells me.  "The system just doesn’t cope with Appeals very well. They are almost impossible to get through, even where the evidence is compelling – like for example when someone else actually admits they did the crime and not your client! The system is just not set up to accept that mistakes happen. And of course the individuals in charge of the system are incredibly powerful." Just look what happened in the Huhne Pryce fiasco. Remember the hoo-ha about the jury that was so inept that the judge disbanded it and called in another, prompting debate about whether IQ tests should be brought in for jurors? (For a reminder of the 10 unbelievably dim questions the jurors asked, click here​.) “But what was really interesting in this saga was how as soon as the jury system itself was criticised, the establishment brought out its big guns  to impress on anyone that this was an “aberration”, the “exception that proved the rule”, that juries are still the way to go. Even a former Lord Chief Justice and an ex-DPP.  But I tell you, I’ve sat with many a client in front of juries and I’m not sure just how unusual the situation in the Huhne Pryce case is. I have to say, If I had to put you in front of a jury tomorrow, I’d worry for you, so random are the odds whether you get a good jury or an awful one. In part it’s just human nature: as soon as the jury sees a defendant brought into court by a policeman/woman, the assumption is that they must have done something wrong to get to this point. And God help any defendant who isn’t a complete saint: many juries have no qualms of convicting an individual where the evidence on the crime in question is almost non-existent, if they believe he’s "probably guilty" of some other crime.

"Don’t get me wrong: juries can be discerning, rational, logical, fair – and at its best the system of involving the common man or woman in our justice is theoretically a good one. They trouble is though, that often the system simply isn’t at its best. And once that original conviction is secured, it’s almost impossible to reverse the decision.”

But what’s the alternative? Does Glyn have the answer? “No I don’t. But I do think it’s something we should be investing in and researching as a society. There are different models throughout Europe we could explore for a start. But at the moment virtually no public funds are being directed into this area. Public funds are under pressure from all sides. But the financial costs of keeping someone in prison runs to thousands of pounds every week. So it makes no sense to argue we don't have the budget."

And that's before you even start counting the human cost of course...

To help support the work of the Centre for Criminal Appeals, click here.

***

We enjoyed not one, but two very special Awards events this Tuesday: not only were we hosting a party of clients and friends at Amnesty International's 23rd Media Awards, but the talents of our very own Sophie Bowkett were being celebrated in a separate ceremony on the same evening, where she was shortlisted for a "Young Communicator" Award. (As she put it, this was her last chance considering she's just turned 30!). So we kicked the evening off all together at Compagnie des Vins, and then went separate ways for our two events, tweeting and texting updates to each other throughout the evening. 

The Amnesty Media Awards is always an inspiring event and, as I always say, a good reminder of the heroic element in journalism: many of the individuals short-listed risk life and limb, quite literally, to bring us the truth about what's really going on in the darkest and most dangerous corners of the world.  

At the PRCA awards Sophie was robbed of a win, but we all thought she was a heroine nonetheless just for making the shortlist. Legal PR is such a peculiar niche that the rest of the PR world usually just shrugs its shoulders and turns away whenever we talk excitedly about our work. But Sophie's stand-out promotional achievements on one very high profile court case, a legal first in fact in the Commercial Court, caught the PRCA's attention and made them realise the value of the very special skill-set she is able to wield. Well done Sophie!

***

We were kept on tenterhooks right up to the last minute, to know whether Amal Clooney would  be joining our party at the Amnesty Awards along with Doughty Street's Maurice MacSweeney who was one of our guests. We know she has a heart for Amnesty and its work, but her busy schedule and the rather over-intense media interest in everything she does, always meant it was unlikely she would come. Then Amnesty emailed to say Andrew Greste brother of one of the al-Jazeera journalists imprisoned in Egypt, was flying in from Cairo for the event and was keen to meet her. Amal is representing some of the other journalists. So all of a sudden the "will-she, won't-she" was back on again. She couldn't make it in the end, (and our conversation amongst our guests was sparkling enough anyway) but how nice to be with people who are interested in her because of the amazing human rights work she does, rather than for her celebrity persona.

Sean Jones QC

Sean Jones QC is all about the fun, he tells me.  This may seem surprising coming from one of London’s most feared court advocates (he takes no prisoners when it comes to cross-examination, in his eyes the essence of the exercise is "to expose foolishness and dishonesty”).  But having seen him take to the comedy stage at the #LawSmash charity stand-up night and reduce his audience to helpless puddles of laughter with the driest of delivery, I know it to be true.  At one point a Kysen colleague had to remove his glasses to wipe away the tears blurring down his face.  I think it was hearing Sean describe a core skill of the accomplished advocate being “to convert, incredibly efficiently, money  into  self-importance” that tipped him over the edge.

Sean wasn’t the only star turn of the night, (the standard was incredibly high, easily as good as the usual Comedy Store fare).  But he was a favourite of all the people I spoke to.  I was curious to know whether his advocacy training had been good preparation for stand-up.  And equally, whether he has learned anything from the comedy stage that he might bring to his work in court.

“There is an irreducible overlap of course, both involving standing in front of an audience, talking out loud, being confident and using the spoken word to encourage people to see the world your way.  But there is a major difference: comedy works by surprising people.  It’s all about the unexpected twist.  You begin a trail of characteristics for example, to set up an expectation with your audience as to where you are going, which your punchline then shatters.” Here’s an example from the comedy textbooks: the line “As a lawyer I meet some really bitter, angry, sick people” sets an audience up to assume you are talking about clients, then you deliver the punchline: “And that’s just the other lawyers!”  Boom boom.  “But advocacy is the opposite”, says Sean.  “The job is to persuade a judge that your line of argument is the only logical one to follow.  You set out a well-defined, brightly lit path for the court to follow, to lead them to the one conclusion you want them to reach.  And you need to make anything odd or exceptional that your client has done seem completely ordinary.  So by definition, in your advocacy there should be no unexpected  twists, turns or branches off the path.”

And what has Sean learned from the comedy stage that he might take forward?  “That it is great fun and I’d like to do more.”  Well that’s very good news for the rest of us!

You don’t have to wait for the next LawSmash event to enjoy Sean’s humour.  His Twitter followers were recently treated to this comedy store of tips for George Clooney as he prepared for his marriage to top Doughty Street barrister Amal Alamuddin under the hashtag #MarriedtotheBar.  Take a look here to see why it went viral… and follow Sean @seanjones11KBW 

***

I did some uncomfortable learning this week about the rise of DIY Justice.  Working on a topic about the rise of private criminal prosecutions, I was brought up to speed on the shocking reality that more and more businesses and individuals are bringing private criminal prosecutions where they feel the authorities just don't have the resources to seek justice on their behalf.  

The oft-quoted corporate example is Virgin Media's 2011 suit against fraudsters selling top-boxes giving unlawful free access to channels, since which there's been something of an explosion in private criminal cases. A sound option for businesses needing quick solutions to prevent market disadvantage.  But for individuals?  Are we really to commoditise people's access to justice this way? The latest private case in the headlines concerns a student who was being harassed, who resorted to hiding cameras inside his sunglasses to capture the evidence he needed because the police were too stretched to help him.  As justice champion Glyn Maddocks put it to me when we discussed the phenomenon this week, "forget the threat of Tesco Law: the real worry for our legal system is this rise in B&Q Law".

***

Looking forward to spending Sunday evening with Brad Pitt.  Yes, you heard that right:  Brad Pitt!!  He is in town to promote his latest WW2 blockbuster Fury and is expected to attend the red carpet premiere IN PERSON as part of the  BFI London Film Festival.  And we have tickets!  Here's a big, formal Thank You to client and friend Julie Gingell for ever suggesting we join the BFI.  Feeling very pleased with the value we get from our membership just now :)

I'll tweet some photos if I possibly can.  And just for you, I'm even prepared to Iet Pitt the Handsome photobomb some of the pictures...  I'll also let you know what I think of director David Ayer's curious observation that "there's something maternal about the tank in Fury" once I've seen the film and consulted my husband's copy of Freud's Interpretation of Dreams...