Solicitors have long argued against lowering the age of criminal responsibility. Children between the ages of 10 and 14 can be convicted of a criminal offence, providing it can be proved that they knew what they were doing at the time the offence was committed. Any child over the age of 14 is deemed to be fully responsible for his or her actions, and would be treated in the same way as an adult, albeit that the type of sentencing they can receive as a minor is different.

Many young people who commit crime are treated in the first instance outside of the court system, with Anti-Social Behavioural Orders, or Child Safety Orders. The police also use a system of reprimands and warnings which remain on children’s records for several years. For more serious matters, a young person would be tried in a Youth Court, where they would be represented by a solicitor.

Youth Courts are usually housed in the same building as a Magistrates’ Court, and deal with criminal matters concerning offenders under the age of 18. The Youth Courts have the power to order Detention and Training Orders lasting up to 24 months. Getting legal advice from a solicitor is vital for any young person appearing in Youth Court.

For the most serious cases, young people can be referred to a Crown Court. Crown Courts are able to hand down more severe penalties to young offenders. Again, legal representation by a solicitor and experienced barrister is essential. There are a wide range of sentencing options for young people, your solicitor will explain the most important and likely outcomes to you before your case is heard.

Their duties include, but are not limited to:

• Determining whether a defendant is guilty or not and passing the appropriate sentence
• Deciding on requests for remand in custody
• Deciding on applications for bail and committing more serious cases to the Crown Court

They are accompanied in court by a trained legal advisor to give guidance on the law and sentencing options. This does of course beg the question of how important a role they actually play if they have no legal qualifications and are being advised on all matters.

Those in favour of magistrates would argue that local communities often feel distant from judges and that it is important to have magistrates as they can reflect the views and opinions of the communities in which they serve. Furthermore, as any serious matters are dealt with by the Crown Court this allows the administration of justice to pass efficiently in terms of both manpower and cost. For example, if a case is an indictable-only offence, the involvement of the magistrates’ court is brief. A decision will be made on whether to grant bail and other legal issues. The case will then be passed to the Crown Court. This means resources can be better utilised as the magistrates can filter what doesn’t require the input of a judge at a proper trial, saving the tax payer money.

Those opposed to magistrate’s involvement will often state that they play a very small role in the administration of justice as, strictly speaking, they have no independent powers. In terms of punishment they can only impose a sentence of up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to £5,000. Furthermore, they can only deal with summary offences – those which are less serious, such as motoring offences and minor assaults, where the defendant is not entitled to trial by jury. Anything more serious has to be dealt with by a judge and jury at the Crown Courts. In these situations often the magistrate isn’t actually dealing with an issue of justice, but rather simply meting out state penalties. If they are dealing with justice it is very low-level, and when the case requires greater professionalism and knowledge then it is referred to the Crown Court. In this situation those would argue that magistrates are marginal to the administration of justice.

There are however many circumstances where rules must be brought to our attention before they can be imposed. For example, a private firm wishing to clamp unauthorised vehicles parked on their property must first prove that they provided adequate notice that the land was private and that unauthorised parking might result in a clamping and the payment of a release fee.

There are many situations where ignorance of the law is no excuse. A common example occurs every day on our roads, where as drivers we are responsible for driving within the speed limit. It would be no defence if when caught speeding we claimed that we were not sure what the limit was on the particular stretch of road where we were stopped.

The only way to be clear about your rights in any given situation is to consult a solicitor for legal advice. Simple matters such as parking tickets may be entirely valid, but a solicitor will know if the correct process was followed in the issuing of the ticket, and if it was not, may be able to act to have the ticket reversed. The same logic applies to more complex matters, such as speeding fines, and of course more serious criminal and civil matters where a solicitor would be involved as a matter of course. The best advice in any situation where the law is unknown is to tread carefully, and to seek legal advice from a solicitor at the earliest opportunity.

Coroners are independent judicial officers appointed by local authorities, their main profession being that of a barrister, solicitor or doctor. Coroners are only appointed if they have practised their profession for at least five years, and they can continue in that profession simultaneously unless they are one of a small number of full-time coroners. All coroners and their deputies are members of The Coroner’s Society, which aims to protect their rights and interests.

 A Coroner’s jurisdiction covers a particular area of the country and they are allocated depending on the location of the body. Initially, Coroners enquire into deaths reported to them by hospitals, doctors, the police or the Registrar, by means of a post-mortem. They seek to establish medical cause if the death was violent, unnatural or sudden. They also investigate deaths that occur in prison, during an operation, or as the result of an industrial disease.

What is an inquest?

This further investigation is ordered by the Coroner, if the pathologist’s post-mortem cannot establish a natural cause of death. An inquest is non-adversarial examination of the case held in the Coroner’s court. Sometimes a jury will be required; for example, if the death occurred in police custody. If someone has been charged with causing the death, the inquest will be adjourned until the trial is concluded.

What happens at the Coroner’s court?

Coroners will hear evidence collected by their officials from the family or other witnesses, such as medical staff. The Coroner can compel witnesses to attend and they will be questioned under oath. The deceased’s family can have legal representation present and can question the witnesses. The Coroner will give their verdict, which will be recorded by the Registrar, although it is not the Coroner’s job to cast blame.

Is there a right to appeal the Coroner’s decision?

The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 introduced major reforms to the coronial system in England and Wales, including new rights of appeal for bereaved families through a new post of Chief Coroner. However, the Act has not been fully implemented. Currently there is no right of appeal, so a Coroner’s decision may be challenged only through:

• The judicial review process
• Application to the Divisional Court under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988
• Application to the High Court under the Human Rights Act

Nonetheless, parliamentary privilege means that members cannot be sued for defamation, regarding their statements on any subject, during proceedings in parliament; although this immunity does not extend to members’ statements outside of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. However, parliament does self-regulate by means of the sub judice rules and therefore matters awaiting adjudication in a court of law should not be discussed in the House by MPs.

Parliamentary privilege has enabled members of parliament to raise questions concerning controversial court rulings. For example, asking whether ‘super-injunctions’, obtained by the rich and famous to prevent publication of certain details of their private lives, are damaging to the ideal of democracy. As this matter has been raised in Parliament, certain members have been able to name individuals who were granted privacy injunctions, thereby circumventing the inherent reporting restrictions.

In turn, the knowledge that such injunctions exist then enters the public domain. This is because, if journalists faithfully report even defamatory statements made during parliamentary proceedings, those reporters will not be prosecuted either. It does not matter whether the statement by the MP in question was factually true or untrue, so long as the reporting was accurate and contemporaneous (in the next newspaper edition or news bulletin).

By this method parliamentary privilege may be said to provide a challenge to the justice system under certain circumstances, as an MP can break a court injunction with relative impunity and open the matter to wider public scrutiny.

Before 1998, claims for a breach of human rights would be made directly to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This court was set up to preside over cases related to the Convention and for many years was the sole court for all human rights matters. In 1998, the UK government created the Human Rights Act which enshrined Convention rights into UK law. The Act made it easier for UK citizens to bring a case by making the law accessible through domestic courts.

Since 1998, it has been possible to bring a case in any UK court where you feel your human rights have been infringed by either a state body or another individual. The Human Rights Act provides a wide ranging set of rights and freedoms as follows:

• The right to life
• Freedom from torture and degrading treatment
• Freedom from slavery
• The right to liberty and security
• The right to a fair trial
• The right not to be punished retrospectively
• The right to privacy and respect for your family life
• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• Freedom of expression
• Freedom of association
• The right to marry
• The right not to be discriminated against
• The right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
• The right to an education
• The right to participate in free and fair elections
• The right not to be subjected to the death penalty

These have given rise to many domestic cases. Privacy cases are brought against newspapers, and newspapers have brought cases to protect their right to freedom of expression. Challenges have been made against the justice system and people have brought cases against perceived discrimination.

The Act is the main source of human rights in the UK, although it also provides that UK courts must interpret all UK law in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, which remains as the highest source of human rights law across the whole of Europe.

As a last resort you are entitled to appeal the decision, but you must do so within six months, or in some cases twelve weeks, from the date of the application decision letter. You can appeal your decision online and you can have the appeal decided by written representations, or you can have an appeal hearing. When completing your appeal form you must set out your grounds for appealing the decision, directly responding to the local authority’s refusal letter. If the form is not properly completed then the planning authority may ask for additional information, but if this is submitted outside relevant time limits then it may not be considered.

The Town and Country Planning Act provides some of the law on appeals and this should be considered before appealing a decision. If you want to use an expert then you will have to bear the expense of doing so; you will also probably need solicitors to assist with the appeal. The solicitor will look at the application, the reasons given for its refusal and will prepare the necessary paperwork. The solicitor will also represent you at hearings when necessary. The cost of appealing a decision can be significant and can take a long time to be processed; because of this it is worth attempting to get the planning authority to agree with you before you appeal.

Hint: If you looking for a divorce advice or/and grounds for divorce we recommend to use contactlaw.co.uk.

If you are looking for commercial lawyers or repossession solicitors please visit contactlaw.co.uk

The law on data protection contained within the Data Protection Act 1998 allows you to see the personal information held about you, regardless of whether the relevant organisation is a public or a private organisation. If you want to know what information the NHS, for example, holds on you, then you can make a request under the Data Protection Act. The Freedom of Information Act gives the right to see official information held by public authorities including hospitals, local councils and the police.

The Data Protection Act requires an organisation to use your data fairly, keep it secure and ensure accuracy. How different Government organisations use information will vary from organisation to organisation, but no organisation should keep irrelevant information. It is fairly easy to get a copy of all the information that an organisation holds on you: you can make a subject access request. In the case of the UK Borders Agency, a subject access request will mean that the department will send a copy of the entire file to the relevant person. In some circumstances the department will not be required to send certain pieces of information, usually because to do so would breach someone else’s right to have their data protected, or because it may be a breach of national security. An organisation has a limited amount of time to produce information when it is requested and will usually have 40 calendar days to give you the information requested. You should be aware that a public authority has the right to charge for the information given to cover their costs.

If you would like to know more about divorce law or you looking for a family law solicitors please visit contactlaw.co.uk

The rights to freedom of thought, belief and religion are protected by Article 9: this includes the freedom to change religion or belief and ‘freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance’. Article 9 is a right which a state can derogate from in certain circumstances including in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The right to freedom of thought, belief and religion can be linked to other rights, such as the right to freedom of association or the right to freedom of expression, both contained within the Human Rights Act.

A recent Court of Appeal case, Ghai v Newcastle City, considered Article 9 ECHR in respect of a Hindu who wanted to have an open air cremation as required by his religion; the council had refused to allow such a cremation as it was not in accordance with the Cremation Act 1902. The defendant argued that the law amounted to an impermissible interference with his right to manifest his religion or belief. The result was that the Court of Appeal concluded that the open air funeral pyre was a matter of tradition not of religious belief, and that a ‘significant number of people would find cremation on open air pyres a matter of offence’. As a result the request was denied and his human right was derogated from.

Looking for no win no fee employment law? We recommend contactlaw.co.uk

The Constitutional Reform Act changed the role of the Lord Chancellor so that they no longer head the judiciary, and gave the role of selecting judges to the Judicial Appointments Commission. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is an independent public body in charge of selecting candidates for public office and does so in a fair and open manner with a wide range of candidates, something which previously did not happen.

The JAC has specific duties which have been prescribed by the Constitutional Reform Act. The duties are to select candidates solely on merit, to select people with good character and to bear in mind the need for diversity within the people available for judicial selection. In order to select candidates solely on merit, the JAC must consider the applicants’ intellectual capacity, their personal qualities, including their ability to act objectively and their ability to develop professionally. The JAC will also consider the ability of prospective judges to understand and deal fairly, to be authoritative, to have good communication skills and to be efficient. In the interests of the process being fair and open, the requirements of judicial positions are published on the JAC website and are available for all to see.

The JAC advertises positions, takes applications and shortlists applicants. The candidates that are shortlisted are done so by tests, or by looking through and appraising the applications. When candidates are shortlisted they are invited to a selection day where they will be interviewed by a panel and may have to undertake a role play. The panel will then prepare a report selecting the best candidates. The JAC must then consult with the Lord Chief Justice and consider who to appoint. The final appointment is still made by the Lord Chancellor, though there are calls to remove this role from their remit.