In her recently published annual report, the Scottish Commissioner for Children and Young People has called for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to be formally incorporated into Scots Law. This move, says Kathleen Marshall, would make the Scottish Parliament’s “undoubted commitment to the rights of children more powerful”.
Hear, hear!
Former Guantanamo prisoner Moazzam Begg will be visiting Edinburgh on Friday. He will be taking part in a public meeting entitled entitled Look Behind the Wire, being held on June 20 from 6pm at St John’s Church on Princes Street. The meeting is part of the Edinburgh World Justice Festival, a two-week long programme of events marking the anniversary of the massive Make Poverty History demonstration held in Edinburgh in early July 2005 at the time of the G8 Summit at Gleneagles.
Moazzam Begg will be in conversation with campaigning lawyer Aamer Anwar, who is currently facing contempt of court charges over statements he made last year on behalf of a client who had been convicted of offences under terrorist legislation. The audience will be encouraged to put their own questions and views to the pair. The meeting is open to everyone and admission is free.
The case of Londoner Binyam Mohamed (a refugee from Ethiopia) is expected to receive particular attention at the meeting. Binyam Mohamed is still being held at Guantanamo Bay. He faces trial by a “military commission” – if convicted he could face the death penalty.
News that in the same month the Public Health etc. (Scotland) Bill was passed, the Creative Scotland Bill bit the dust (although a sequel is promised).
The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) has delayed reporting on its current phase of the rolling review of charitable status. OSCR intends to provide more detailed guidance and then announce its decisions on 30 charities in October rather than May, as originally intended, in order "to allow further time for the examination of complex issues”.
The current group of 30 charities under review was selected to provide a representative sample of priority charities to be assessed under the charity test specified in the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005. The group includes a number of independent schools as well as Scotland’s only mainstream grant-aided school, Jordanhill School.
The report on the review in October 2008 will coincide with the publication of OSCR’s fully revised guidance on Meeting the Charity Test.
Evidence that independent schools are part of the reason for the delay includes OSCR’s statement that issues include “levels of fees and other possible restrictions on access”; “the provision of charitable benefit for people that are not members” and “ongoing research into affordability of charges”.
Disturbing news from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) – as an Edinburgh man’s gift to his son is challenged by the estate of C.S. Lewis, author of the Narnia Chronicles.
A certain Mr. Saville-Smith purchased the domain www.narnia.mobi for his child so he could have “one of the coolest e-mail addresses in the world.” Now, he accuses the estate of C.S. Lewis of being mean and says that the famous author must be “spinning in his grave”.
Okay, but I have a few problems with this story – only some of which point to Mr. Saville-Smith being a cyber-squatter. First, whoever@narnia.mobi is, plainly, not the coolest e-mail address in the world – and will probably get your child serious spam mail and cyber-bullying in no time at all.
Second, why did you also buy TheQueen.mobi and USPresident.mobi – unless you were also planning prezzies for Liz and George?
Third, if that’s the only reason you bought the domain, then why are you currently hosting ads on it? And, why, if this is a gift for a 10 year old child is one of the paid ads on the site a link to “The Ruin” website (tagline: terror has evolved) with its restricted content? Just a thought.
The Fife Rights Forum today launched its plans to set up a new law centre in the Fife area. The law centre will aim to provide community legal services to the people in Fife by a variety of means and in conjunction with an existing network of advice agencies.
The launch event was attended by Professor Alan Paterson of the University of Strathclyde, a long-time supporter of law centres.
The group hopes to secure sufficient funding to allow the new service to begin in the spring of next year.
17 April 2008 The City of Edinburgh Council collected thousands of pounds of parking fines from cars parked outside the Ukrainian Consulate in Edinburgh over an eighteen month period from August 2006 to February 2008. The legal authority to collect fines stemmed from a temporary traffic order which expired on 19 August 2006.
Over that period many motorists were fined or even towed away so that diplomats from the former Soviet republic could park their vehicles with (ahem!) diplomatic impunity. However, there was no legal authority for them to do so. One disgruntled motorist is claiming others to contact the Council to demand a refund, while the City of Edinburgh argue that if you paid the fine at the time you obviously knew you were in the wrong even though, technically, you weren’t.
This prime parking place in Windsor Street, Edinburgh has now been bagged by the Scottish Government
Image via Wikipedia
One for the dog lovers among you. This matter came before Lord Malcolm at the Court of Session recently.
While out walking her own dog, Cava, the Pursuer, Mrs. Welsh tripped over / was knocked over by the Defender’s dog, Ebony. Having sustained serious injury to her knee, Mrs. Welsh sued Ebony’s owner for £160,000.
As well as claiming liability on the grounds of common law negligence, Mrs. Welsh claimed that Ebony’s owner was under the strict liability imposed by the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987. Specifically, she claimed that the natural attribute or habits of black Labradors (i.e. they are are “biddable, people confident, easy to train, exuberant and lively sporting dogs, who are full of energy”) meant that they were likely to kill or seriously injure people if not controlled or restrained.
In the words of Lord Malcolm:
“I suspect that for the general population this proposition would cause much incredulity.”
Quite so.
The judge concluded that the collision had been a pure accident, but in concluding had some words of warning for dog owners:
“For the avoidance of doubt it should be understood that this decision does not give all dog owners free rein to let their dogs off the lead, whatever the circumstances, so long as there has been no previous evidence of vicious or dangerous behaviour. My decision relates to the particular circumstances of the present case. Thus, for example, to allow a black Labrador to run around in a public place close to young children may well be very different.”
Harry Potter fan art by Hakumo (http://hakumo.deviantart.com/)
10th February 2008
The House of Lords was recently (in the case of Majorstake Limited v. Curtis [2008] UKHL 10) called upon to consider the legal definition of the term “premises”. Demonstrating that the judiciary has come a long way since the
infamous “who are the Beatles?” days, their Lordships took the time to ponder the question of whether a cupboard under the stairs could be “premises”.
In the words of Lord Scott of Foscote: “Harry Potter, we are told, received letters addressed to him at “The Cupboard under the Stairs, 4 Privet Drive, Little Winging”. “The Cupboard under the Stairs” might have constituted “premises” for the purpose of letters from Hogwarts but for the purposes of construction of the 1993 Act a normal use of the English language must be assumed.”
It is interesting that their Lordships evidently consider Hogwarts to be under some sort of separate jurisdiction subject to different rules of interpretation. It is not known whether Hogwarts are considering the introduction of an Ordinary Wizarding Level examination in Muggle law so that their junior witches and wizards can avoid a (ahem) spell in jail.
Sheridan and witnesses charged with perjury18 February 2008 Aamer Anwar faces possible imprisonment for contempt of court because, in the words of Lord Carloway “He impugns the verdict of the jury”. At the same time, Tommy Sheridan, Rosemary Byrne, Jock Penman and Graham McIver have now been charged with perjury in relation to their evidence in Mr. Sheridan’s defamation case.
Can we therefore expect David Strang, Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police to be hauled before the Court of Session accused of contempt of court for “impugning” the verdict of the jury which found against News International?
Absolvitor: Scots Law Online 