Approximately 80 lawyers in Devon and Cornwall have become the latest legal professionals to make a stand against the proposals that would see criminal lawyers having to compete for a contract in order to be allowed to take on legal aid cases.

Miss Bentley, a solicitor from Exeter, said this kind of competitive bidding, and the fact that lawyers will have to charge up to 17.5% less for any work they do receive, will lead to local firms suffering financially. She said this will result in access to justice suffering, as criminal lawyers will have less incentive to take on legal aid cases. In addition, the changes could see defendants lose the right to choose their own legal representation.

An online petition set up by Miss Bentley to stop the Ministry of Justice from implementing the reforms has already gained more than 38,000 signatures.

The lawyers in Devon and Cornwall have followed in the footsteps of the Wales and Chester Circuit of Barristers, which last month voted unanimously to refuse to sign up to a new system of regulation.

In addition, barristers from the Northern circuit staged an all-day protest meeting on 22 April 2013 in Manchester. A spokesperson said the Government’s reforms “posed a threat to the future of the profession of criminal barrister.”

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said the proposed reforms will save £2bn a year and that “we cannot close our eyes to the fact legal aid is still costing too much.”

Much of the discussion about the reforms to legal aid has focused on the potentially catastrophic effect they could have on society and the justice system. However, the action taken by the lawyers in Devon, Cornwall, Wales and Manchester shows that the legal profession has much to lose as well. And if the number and quality of legal aid lawyers is reduced, it is ultimately the public who will suffer.

As Miss Bentley said, “people think they will never need a criminal defence lawyer but once this system is dismantled you will never have access to the same rights as you do now.”

A recent example which has been posted by the wife of a barrister about the importance of high quality criminal representation is this story about a father accused of molesting his son.

Now, where’s that petition?

Sources:

BBC

Guardian

The Information Tribunal has rejected an attempt by the Department for Education (DfE) to withhold information, concerning the identity of groups who have proposed to open so-called ‘free schools’ in England, as reported by BBC News.

The Information, including the names, location and religious affiliation of such groups, was requested in an attempt to highlight an alleged lack of transparency inherent in the system of proposing and setting up a free school.

The BBC reports that the requests for information, regarding groups that failed to progress beyond the initial application stage for free schools, came from the Guardian newspaper, the Association of Colleges and the British Humanist Association (BHA).

Although the DfE had argued the information required was exempted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Information Commissioner backed the requests; however, the DfE decided to appeal the case at the first-tier Tribunal (Information Rights).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on Tuesday, and Judge Hughes stated: “The Free School programme involves substantial public funds and significant changes to the way the education service is controlled, managed and delivered. It is a matter of considerable public importance and the transparency of the process and its openness to public debate and consideration are of concern to communities across England.”

The Department for Education is considering the decision, but may submit a further appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

What are ‘Free Schools’?

‘Free school’ is the common term for new state schools that are independent of Local Authorities and funded directly by central Government. These schools can be set up by parents, teachers, charitable organisations, faith groups or businesses.

In addition, free schools can be run by an ‘education provider’, or company brought in by the group setting up the school, but at present they are not allowed to make a profit. Each Free School enters into a contract, or funding agreement, with the Secretary of State for Education.

The legal basis for this change to the state education system was provided for in the Academies Act 2010, which was the first piece of legislation passed by the Coalition Government. Academies are former local authority schools that have applied for and won independent status, and they also receive funds directly by the Government.

By September 2012, there were approximately 79 free schools and 2,300 academies operating in England, which represents around 12 per cent of all state schools. 113 further free schools are due to open in 2013.

Have any problems with free schools been identified?

The Freedom of Information case is evidence of the fact that there has been considerable anxiety about the new free schools system in some quarters, for example:

• teaching unions are concerned that these institutions can set their own rates on pay outside union agreements; neither do they have to adhere strictly to the National Curriculum
• newspapers have expressed concerns about the transparency of business interests in this sector that may be pushing for future profit-making

For example, some companies, such as the education charity Ark Schools, have acquired several academies to manage, and they retain around 5 per cent of the funds received from the DfE to provide central services for all its schools, such as Human resources and procurement. This funding is equivalent to that proportion of Government funds kept back by local authorities to make provision for special needs education in its area.

• Sections 9 and 10 of the Academies Act state that the Secretary of State must consult, regarding the proposed creation of an additional school, on other schools within the area in which the academy or free school is to be situated. However, this consultation is to be carried out only with ‘such persons as they may think appropriate’. In other words, public consultation is not enforced by legislation
• Organisations that champion a secular view are concerned that faith-group free schools may not be teaching some subjects in a broad-enough manner, as free schools do not have to conform exactly to the National Curriculum

Indeed, in November last year, the Government introduced new rules which state that evolution must be taught in free schools as a ‘comprehensive and coherent scientific theory’, after the Royal Society identified that some schools might be introducing the theory of creationism as scientific fact. If the free schools do not comply, their funding could be withdrawn.

• The Academies Commission, set up by the Pearson Think Tank and the Royal Society for the encouragement of the Arts, recently published its findings on the rapid ‘academisation’ of schools in England. The Commission, chaired by former Ofsted chief inspector, Christine Gilbert, reported that there is evidence some of the new schools attempt to select and exclude pupils on the basis of their behaviour and socio-economic background

The Commission recommended that Education Secretary, Michael Gove, should develop a system for admissions that allows parents “some independent recourse in terms of their relationship with an individual school, or each academy trust, acting as its own admissions authority”.

That is, an independent admission appeals system might allow for greater transparency with regard to the mix of pupils being admitted to free schools and academies, especially as results in exams are still taken as the gold standard by local parents looking for a school for their child.

However, a spokesman for the Department for Education said: “All admissions authorities, be they local councils or self-governing schools, including academies, must comply with our new fair admissions code.

“We specifically changed the law so that anyone who has concerns about how any state-funded school is admitting pupils can formally object to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator.”

The Schools Admissions Code came into force in February 2012. The Schools Adjudicator is appointed by the Secretary of State for Education, and has the legal responsibility to take into account supporting evidence presented by each party regarding admissions; they must also take account of any general guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Conclusion

While the aim of improving our state schools for the benefit of all pupils is a laudable idea, it seems there is still much debate as to whether the academies system, including free schools, is actually achieving this goal, or if the education changes are creating a new two-tier system ‘by stealth’.

That is, many local schools that are not academies, typically less ‘successful’ schools, may be disadvantaged as money earmarked for education is taken out of local authority control.

Currently, the sector might appear somewhat unregulated, as it may be argued that being free from local authority control also means free schools are less accountable to the public they are meant to serve.

There may be interesting legal developments in future, if further glitches in the running of free schools occur and the Government have to respond by tweaking the legislation; legislation that was rushed through Parliament in record time as a flagship development for the new Coalition Government.

Original story:

BBC | 2 | 3

Section 5 states that: “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” could be deemed a criminal offence. The amendment to the Act was proposed last year by the former chief Constable of the West Midlands, Lord Dear, as part of the Crime and Courts Bill.#

Ahead of the Lords vote, the BBC reported that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, wrote: “We are unable to identify a case in which the alleged behaviour leading to conviction could not properly be characterised as ‘abusive’ as well as ‘insulting’.

“I therefore agree that the word ‘insulting’ could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions.”

Mrs May said that, following the DPP’s intervention, ministers would not challenge the Lords amendment.

There has been a vigorous campaign to change the law after suggestions it has been used over-zealously by the authorities.

For example, the Daily Mail reports that in 2008 a teenager was charged for holding a sign outside the London headquarters of the Scientology movement, which labelled it a ‘dangerous cult’. The arrest was justified because Scientologists might find the sentiment expressed insulting.

The coalition against the ‘new intolerance’ included normally dissimilar groups, such as the Christian Institute and National Secular Society as well as Big Brother Watch and The Peter Tatchell Foundation. The campaign was led by the TV comedian, Rowan Atkinson.

The star of the irreverent Blackadder TV series outlined the major argument, saying: “The clear problem of the outlawing of insult is that too many things can be interpreted as such. Criticism, ridicule, sarcasm, merely stating an alternative point of view to the orthodoxy, can be interpreted as insult.”

However, the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, counters that the line between mere insult and illegal discrimination might not be clear-cut; therefore it is important to make sure vulnerable groups can be protected.

Nevertheless, since there are already laws against matters such as defamation, discrimination and abusive language, it may be argued that there should be some leeway for robust ways in which to express an opinion.

Former shadow home secretary, David Davis, points out that in a free society there should be no right not to be insulted; thus, the best tactic may be to rise above insult when it is offered.

Indeed, the Twentieth century Belgian philosopher, Raoul Vaneigem, offered this sage observation: “Daily life is governed by an economic system in which the production and consumption of insults tends to balance out.”

Original story:

The Daily Mail

BBC

For example, according to the Telegraph, Pickles says that it is ‘ludicrous’ fines can be issued for trivial matters such as over-filling wheelie-bins, putting yoghurt pots into the wrong recycling container, and leaving bins out too long after collections.

When the regulations were introduced by Labour in 2000, Pickles complained they would not encourage environmental action, and said the fines were a ‘stealth tax’ that would encourage fly-tipping and a rise in the burning of rubbish in back gardens.

Householders have a legal responsibility or ‘duty of care’ to ensure that their waste is stored securely for collection, and managed in a way that does not adversely affect human health or pollute the environment; this duty is set out in Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Currently, if a householder is negligent in this matter, their local council can serve them with a legal Notice in accordance with Section 46 of the Act.

The Notice will detail penalties that can be imposed for further offences. If a householder ignores the warning, they may receive a Fixed Penalty Notice for up to £80; if criminal proceedings are started, they could have to go to court and face a fine of up to £1,000.

According to the Daily Mail, around 3,200 fines were issued by local authorities in the year 2011-12 for rubbish-related offences, including seemingly trivial matters such as leaving bin lids open.

Pickles wants families to be encouraged to recycle their rubbish, and advocates a reward scheme to achieve this aim.

For example, in Windsor and Maidenhead many householders receive vouchers to spend in local shops or leisure facilities in return for recycling their waste. Households put their recyclable material into special recycling bins, which are micro-chipped, so that refuse trucks can weigh how much waste each home has contributed.

Last year, the Communities Secretary also threatened to cut grants for councils which refused to reinstate weekly bin collections, after nearly 180 local authorities decided rubbish trucks would only collect once a fortnight to save money.

According to the Mail, Pickles said the decrease in rubbish collections was a breach of citizens’ ‘fundamental rights’.

Hard-pressed households could probably do without the threat of fines for something as mundane as failing to sort their rubbish correctly, although councils will continue to be able to issue fines if people allow their waste to become a serious problem.

However, encouraging more households to recycle can only be a good thing for the environment; furthermore, as the old saying goes, “where there’s muck, there’s brass”.

Original story:

The Telegraph

The Daily Mail

The basis for succession law rests on constitutional developments surrounding the abdication of the last Roman Catholic monarch of the British Isles, James II, encouraged by the Protestant Parliament. These events culminated in the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701, so it may be high time for some movement on the issue.

The modernisation will be hurried along, using procedures usually reserved for anti-terror laws, because of the pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge. The Government is concerned the population will protest if the eldest child of William and Kate is a girl, but they later have a boy who will leap-frog his sister for the top title.

In addition, the Prime Minister feels it is unfair that a future monarch is barred from marrying a Roman Catholic.

However, Cameron also made clear that because the monarch must be a full member of the Church of England, in their role as head of the established church, the ban on Roman Catholics ascending the throne will stand.

Prince Charles, according to the Mail, backs the changes but feels they have not been thought through thoroughly enough; it is reported he raised his concerns in a recent meeting with Richard Heaton, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office.

For example, he thinks a problem could still arise if a future monarch were to marry a Roman Catholic. This is because that church has rules, which state that children of mixed faith marriages should be brought up as Catholics nevertheless.

Prince Charles also raised concerns about the potential impact of new succession rules for other titles in Britain that are passed down through the male line. Pressure might be brought to change peerage law, thereby allowing the eldest female child to inherit. The prince feels this may cause turmoil in some titled families.

However, after the announcement of Cameron’s plans for the monarchy last October, Lord Strathclyde, the leader of the House of Lords, ruled out any change to the rules governing succession to hereditary titles, as these would be: “far more complicated to implement.”

Lord Fellowes, the writer of Downton Abbey, led a campaign to protest about the rules that will prevent his wife, Emma Kitchener, from inheriting the family’s title, the Earldom of Kitchener, from her uncle.

The Telegraph reported that Fellowes commented: “If you’re asking me if I find it ridiculous that in 2011, a perfectly sentient adult woman has no rights of inheritance whatsoever when it comes to a hereditary title, I think it’s outrageous, actually.”

While it is a positive move for gender equality that the heir to the throne can be male or female, whoever is born first, it seems outdated and unfair that the same rule should not apply to daughters of the peerage. It might be said that the retention of such blatant inequality means there is more work to be done on some of Britain’s anachronistic laws.

Original story:

The Daily Mail

The Telegraph

The cap was a key recommendation of the Government-appointed Dilnot Commission, charged with making recommendations on how long-term care for the elderly should be funded in the future. The report, published in July this year, advised that the cap, after which the state would fund care, should be set at between £25,000 and £50,000, with £35,000 as the most reasonable figure.

Currently, an unsatisfactory state of affairs exists, where many elderly people deplete their life-savings or sell their homes to fund a move into a residential care home or nursing home; the latter providing on-site medical services. Care home services usually cost at least £26,000 per year.

Some elderly people can have their residential care fully funded by their local Primary Care Trust, but local criteria will usually limit this to those with substantial medical or social need. For the rest of the UK’s senior population, social care is means-tested by Local Authority Social Services departments and governed by the National Assistance Act (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992.

In the Spending Review undertaken in 2010, the Government set capital limits for residential care charges, provisionally until 2015; but there is no upper limit for expenditure on care by an elderly individual.

Thus, under the current Charging for Residential Care Regulations Guides (CRAG) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, those who want to receive care while remaining in their own homes must pay the full cost if they have savings of more than £23,250. Those who choose residential care must also pay the full cost if they have total assets of more than £23,250, including income, savings, investments and property.

Although a mid-term review of the social care system will be published by ministers within a few days, Lamb does not expect the Government to spell out the level at which any cap on care costs paid by the elderly would be set.

The Minister appears frustrated by this. He told the Mail: “Dilnot must happen. We have just got to get on with it. We have got to announce it is going to happen, set the cap and legislate for it in the Care and Support Bill in the next session.”

Recently, the Care Minister’s predecessor, Paul Burstow, has re-entered the debate by calling for the majority of pensioners to lose their entitlement to winter fuel allowance, in order to fund necessary reforms to the care system, including a cap on residential costs for the elderly. However, he recommended that the cap should be set at £60,000, rather than the Dilnot-recommended £35,000.

According to the Mail, Burstow calculates that if only the poorest members of this section of society get the £200 fuel allowance for pensioner households, or £300 for those over 80, then the country could save £1.5 billion a year.

Burstow argues: “Placing a cap on the amount people have to pay for care would protect people from the catastrophic costs they face now. But to make this vital and long overdue change, we have to find the money from somewhere.”

Nonetheless, David Cameron made a pre-election pledge to protect benefits for the elderly, such as the winter fuel allowance, the free bus passes and free TV licences; therefore he is unlikely to support Burstow’s radical idea.

It might be argued that a cap, at whichever level it is set, would actually make little difference to most pensioners who enter residential care, as life expectancy is often quite low for this category of elderly person; therefore, they would be unlikely to exceed the limit of the cap. On the other hand, for someone with a progressive disease like dementia, where the need for care could be greater and last longer, a cap may prove financially beneficial.

Notably, if the threshold for state help is not raised significantly, then it would appear many of the less well-off elderly will not be saved from having to sell their homes to meet care costs. The Dilnot report recommended that the means-tested threshold should be increased from £23,250 to £100,000

Lamb also advocates greater community support to prevent residential care being used unnecessarily; an initiative that he believes should be promoted by local councils. According to the BBC, the Minister says: “With the right support and the right community resilience and a rebuilding of the neighbour support that used to be there, more people could stay in their own homes for longer.”

While a considerate and supportive society is an ideal for many, and would probably make the Government’s job far easier, the fact remains that care for the elderly is in crisis, and the steep costs can affect pensioners’ quality of life, as well as the future security they may wish for their families.

The Government must grasp the nettle and work out an equitable method for funding greater state assistance, and bringing in legislation for a cap on the amount the elderly have to spend for care would be a positive first step; but the means-tested threshold should also be raised.

Otherwise, as our population ages, we may face the prospect of advanced years and associated infirmity being the second most expensive item we will ever purchase, after a home; with care costs successively leeching hard-earned wealth away from families.

Original story:

The Daily Mail

BBC

Under the plans, GPs would be allowed to prescribe fitness classes in an aim to cut £5bn from the NHS budget.

A Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) and Westminster Council report suggests that overweight people on benefits could have their payments cut if they don’t exercise following a doctor’s advice.

This would be monitored by smart cards which would log attendance at leisure centres and gyms, giving councils the means to encourage people to attend.

The proposals haven’t been well received from health professionals.

Dr Buckman, British Medical Association committee chairman told the BBC the proposals are “some of the silliest things I’ve heard in a long time”.

However, the acting chief executive of the LGIU, Jonathan Carr-West, believes the proposals are positive for all concerned.

He said the proposals found “innovative ways to both improve people’s lives so they don’t suffer from these conditions, while also saving money for the public purse”.

Phillippa Roe, Westminster council leader, said: “This report contains exactly the sort of bright, forward-thinking and radical ideas that need to be looked at.

“The potential improvements to the nation’s health and to the public purse could be significant.”

It is worth remembering that both Westminster council and the LGIU were responsible for the report.

Encouraging people to lead a healthy lifestyle is definitely a positive thing, but linking that healthy lifestyle to the payment of benefits seems over the top and likely to increase the problem rather than fix it.

Original story:

BBC

Additionally, according to the Telegraph, the Government has suggested the temporary relaxation of Sunday opening regulations, effective around the time of the London Olympics last summer, might be made permanent. Currently, stores larger than 280 square meters in size are allowed to open for a maximum of six hours only, under the Sunday Trading Act 1994.

However, while bishops of the Church of England are objecting to the idea for reasons connected to Sunday worship, not all major retailers have come out in favour of the proposed changes either.

As reported by the Telegraph, Justin King, Sainsbury’s chief executive, wrote: “maintaining Sunday’s special status has great merit for our customers and our colleagues, and relaxing Sunday trading laws is certainly not a magic answer to economic regeneration.”

Shop workers and betting-shop workers have special rights in this matter already, which include opting out of Sunday working even if such work is stipulated in the employment contract, provided the proper notice of three months is given by the employee.

Employers must notify their workers of the right to opt-out within two months of hiring them. The opt-out does not apply if a person has been hired to work Sundays only.

However, other employees must work on Sundays if this is included in their employment contract. Although employers may try to accommodate the preferences of Christians in this matter, the new ruling makes clear that if an organisation has compelling economic reasons, then its Christian staff cannot opt-out of Sunday working.

Celestina Mba, 57, worked at the Brightwell Children’s Home in Morden, London, for three years. She says that at first her need to have Sundays free was accommodated by her employer, Merton Council.

Nevertheless, several months later Mba was frequently allocated Sunday shifts and threatened with disciplinary measures unless she agreed to compromise regarding her religious commitments. Mba resigned and took her case for constructive dismissal to the Croydon Employment Tribunal in February.

The Tribunal found that the council had no viable alternative to requiring Mba to work on Sundays. The BBC reported that Merton Council director of children schools and families, Yvette Stanley, commented: “As a local authority, we have a duty to ensure our children with disabilities who need weekend care are supported by carers who are familiar with their specific needs.”

The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld this decision. Senior judge, Mr Justice Langstaff, said that declining to work on Sundays was not a ‘core belief’ of Christianity. He added there is evidence that many Christians work on Sundays, and this is relevant in assessing the impact of an employer requiring staff to work on that day.

The Telegraph reports that campaigners, such as Christian Concern, have criticised this decision, saying the judiciary are deciding what constitutes Christian belief, which interferes with their right to practise their religion.

It appears that some citizens may consider state-sponsored secularism as an attack on their Christian faith. It remains to be seen how the legal arguments in this area will develop in the coming New Year.
Original story:

The Telegraph | 2

BBC

These were all interesting (and often shocking) stories, however there were plenty of other interesting and quirky stories we covered this year.

Here are a few of our favourites.

Sausage-wielding man charged

A man who fed a sausage roll to a police horse is set to appear in court next year for behaving in a “threatening or abusive manner” when he was told to put down the sausage roll.

Turkey lover seeks British dreamgirl

A Turkish man who made a seven month sailing trip from his home country to England in pursuit of unrequited love was detained off the coast of Plymouth in November because he wasn’t eligible to enter the UK.

The man was chasing a woman he met in 2005 who had clearly told him she wasn’t interested, but it appears the message didn’t get through.

Buttock-enhancement goes bad

In what is a tragic and slightly ridiculous story, a Florida woman was charged with manslaughter after injecting a woman’s buttocks with a bizarre cocktail of super glue and cotton balls.

Oneal Morris was attempting to ‘enhance’ Shatarka Nuby’s buttocks in an illegal unlicensed procedure, which is reportedly rather common.

Hospital patient given 10 parking tickets

In a story of a rather gung-ho car-park warden, a woman who was taken in for emergency surgery after a medical appointment was given ten parking tickets.

The car was parked in a disabled bay at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff.

The tickets were surprising because the car had a disabled badge and a note explaining the situation.

The tickets were revoked after a public out-cry.

Juror goes AWOL (on holiday)

In one of the more bizarre stories of the year, a woman was jailed for 56 days when she went on holiday instead of attending the fourth week of the trial she was a juror in.

Janet Chapman was found guilty of contempt of court.

These are some of the more quirky stories we covered this year, did you see anything we missed?

From all of us here at the Contact Law offices, we’d like to wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy new year and look forward to writing to you in 2013.

This development comes after the Telegraph reported last Friday that the Government had decided against anti-pornography filters for the internet, because such a system “could create a false sense of security”, meaning that parents might stop invigilating their children’s internet usage.

However, the Prime Minister has made clear his personal views in a statement to the Daily Mail. It seems he has taken notice of the fact that there are many reputable groups in favour of greater child protection from pornography on the internet; for example, the Mothers’ Union, the charity Childline and the NSPCC.

Additionally, Claire Perry, the Conservative MP for Devizes, handed a petition of 115,000 names into Downing Street in September. The petition demanded an automatic block on adult material for all internet users; the so-called ‘opt-in’ system.

The new proposals from Cameron do not go this far; instead he has appointed Perry to be in charge of implementing a new web filter system, which will require internet providers to check the age of the person setting controls.

The Mail reports that internet providers will be required to produce plans by February 2013, detailing how they will ensure all parents are given the option of imposing filters on their home computers.

The Prime Minister claims that, once these controls are up and running, Great Britain will have the most robust protection for children against on-line pornography in the world.

The Mail points out, however, that concern remains about how the Government plans to address children accessing porn via smartphones.

While most people would agree it is desirable that children should be protected from pornography on the internet, should there be an ‘opt-in’ system also for adults who wish to view explicit material in their homes?

As it happens, there is no legal definition of ‘pornography’, even with material in which sexual acts depicted are real rather than simulated. However, under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA) pornography is considered to be legally obscene if it has a tendency to ‘deprave and corrupt’ its audience.

The OPA is intended for use against publishers of extreme pornography, rather than against consumers. Nevertheless, much of this material is distributed from foreign websites, which may be out of reach for the British justice system.

The OPA is famous as the law under which the Lady Chatterly’s Lover book trial took place in 1960, but it has since been amended to deal with electronically stored data or the transmission of such data. Notably, the issue of whether the material in question is obscene or not is generally decided by a jury.

However, there are changing attitudes to pornographic images, particularly since depictions of sado-masochism and bondage have entered mainstream popular culture, and this has meant that few cases are brought regarding obscene publications.

For example, in January 2012, the BBC reported that Michael Peacock, 53, was found not guilty by a jury at Southwark Crown Court, of six counts under the OPA. He had been accused of publishing DVDs for gay clients depicting ‘hard core’ sexual acts, some involving urination. However, the jury found that the people seeking out such material were not likely to become ‘depraved or corrupt’ after viewing it.

In contrast, Sections 63 to 67 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 concern the possession of extreme sexual images by internet users. The Act makes it an offence to possess pornographic images that depict acts which threaten a person’s life, acts which result in or are likely to result in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals; as well as bestiality or necrophilia. The maximum sentence upon conviction is three years imprisonment.

This law was brought in after a particularly shocking case, in which one Graham Coutts was accused of strangling and raping a schoolteacher, Jane Longhurst, in 2003. Coutts was also accused of storing her body for nefarious purposes before setting it alight several weeks after her death. The trial heard that Coutts had an addiction to extreme internet pornography sites, which dwelt on subjects such as strangulation, rape and necrophilia.

The new law came into effect in 2009; but again, few cases have been prosecuted as the police do not actively seek out members of the public who view such material. This is in contrast to the way police investigate the possession of child sexual abuse images, with Child Exploitation and Online Protection officers in London monitoring file-sharing websites to search for individuals accessing such illegal material.

Reliable statistics regarding whether extreme pornography is a contributing factor to violent sexual crime are hard to come by, and academic studies on the matter appear to have widely varying conclusions.

There are those concerned with civil freedoms who argue that there should be no censorship on what adults choose to view in private; in contrast, there are many feminist and family-centred groups who argue that pornography of any type is a contributing factor to male aggression against women, as well as a significant factor in relationship breakdowns.

It would be interesting to see the reaction of public opinion if the Government mooted a change in the law that put in place an ‘opt-in’ system for all internet users regarding pornography. This would be tantamount to expecting an adult to signal to their internet provider that they wish to watch explicit material at home, and this might be considered an invasion of privacy.

On the other hand the Government’s proposed Data Communications Bill, which aims to allow the authorities access to a year’s record of every citizen’s internet use on request, could accomplish a monitoring of pornography viewing habits.

However, this Bill has been widely labelled as a ‘snooper’s charter’ and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the draft Bill, as well as internet service providers, have said the plans are unwieldy, as reported by the Telegraph.

It seems that adult Britons will continue to self-police their internet use with regard to pornography, unless further shocking cases of sexual violence change public opinion. In the meantime, the Internet Watch Foundation, a self-regulatory body set up by internet providers, provides a hotline for the public to confidentially report criminal online content that they may come across inadvertently.

Original story:

The Daily Mail

The Telegraph | 2

Related story:

Inquiry calls for new measures to protect children from online pornography