The Principle - Issue 5

SPONSORED BY

Principle the

COMMERCIAL INSIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL ADVICE

JANUARY 2016 ISSUE FIVE ALLABOUTLAW.CO.UK

FOR ASPIRING LAWYERS

FIFA: the not-so-beautiful game Exclusive partner interview As more and more arrests are made, and the scandalous revelations pile up higher and higher, FIFA has been outed as a house of corruption that is rotten to its very core. We look at what the recent indictments mean for the organisation and where its future might lie.

Matthew Tobin heads up Slaughter and May’s Debt Capital Markets practice. In an exclusive interview, he tells us about helping to stabilise UK banks during the financial crisis, the firm’s collaborative culture, and the bad old days of fax machines.

The new true crime effect

Continued on page 4

Continued on page 11

Continued on page 12

A new breed of true crime is bringing the drama of law practice to an ever-increasing audience. We explore how this trend could be good for our flawed legal systems and for those wanting to work within them.

A perfect storm: climate change and the UN As a record-breaking number of nations claim to share common climate change goals, Emma Finamore asks what the real impact of last month’s conference will be.

P

aris was the centre of many pivotal global moments in 2015. Not just the atrocities that claimed 130 lives on the city’s streets in November, or the attacks earlier in the year on satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, but also the UN Climate Change Conference.

During the first week of December, representatives from 196 nations gathered together for the first summit of its kind since Copenhagen in 2009, in order to achieve their objective of a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, signed by all nations and implemented by 2020. The key point of debate was how to limit global warming to below 2°C by 2100; so average temperatures do not exceed 2°C above the world’s pre-industrial levels.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

The agreement – it was planned – would become legally binding if accepted by at least 55 countries that together represented at least 55% of global greenhouse emissions.

The stakes for this could not be higher: some nations are already facing very real problems due to climate change. Others are actually beginning to disappear, like Bangladesh, which is already experiencing the extreme impacts of climate change.

“During the recent monsoon season, about 4,000 people per day had be relocated to urban slums, because the coastal belt was so flooded,” Munir Muniruzzaman, the chairman of the Global

Continued on page 2

01

the Principle

A note from the editors

Welcome to the fifth issue of The Principle, the commercial insight and advice newspaper written by the team behind AllAboutLaw.co.uk.

In this fifth installment of The Principle, we’ve set about taking on some of the biggest stories in the legal world - helping you see topical events in a new light and increasing your commercial awareness.

We’ve looked at the UN Climate Change Conference and UK/EU negotiations ahead of the referendum on Europe, as well as the scandal embroiling FIFA and unduly lenient sentencing in the UK. On top of that, we’ve focused our advice content in this issue on the topic of vacation schemes and training contracts; giving you a guide on what to expect and firms you might want to look at applying to, as well as an exclusive interview with a Partner at Slaughter and May. The Principle wouldn’t be anything without our contributors and the support of our sponsor, Freshfields. We want to say a huge thank you to everyone who makes this newspaper possible.

Until next time: good luck and enjoy!

Emma Finamore and Jack J Collins Editors, AllAboutLaw.co.uk

With thanks to our sponsor:

02

UN Climate Change Conference COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Emma Finamore PHOTO Jmdigne, US Secretry of State, US Department of State Continued from page 1

Military Advisory Council on Climate Change told the New Yorker in December 2015. “These are real and present dangers for us.”

Island nations such as the Maldives – where the highest parts rise to no more than eight feet – and Kiribati, most of which is less than three metres above sea level, are at risk of being submerged by rising waters. Last year President Anote Tong of Kiribati and his cabinet endorsed a plan to buy nearly 6,000 acres on Viti Levu, Fiji’s main island, planning to move the entire population there.

“It wouldn’t be for me, personally, but would apply more to a younger generation,” Tong said in March 2015. “For them, moving won’t be a matter of choice. It’s basically going to be a matter of survival.”

So, with matters as basic as mere human survival in the balance, the 196 nations in Paris agreed to keep global temperature increase “well below” 2°C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. They also agreed to peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between sources and sinks (basically, the release and capture) of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, and – perhaps most importantly – to review progress every five years.

The developed, wealthier countries also pledged $100 billion a year in so-called “climate finance” for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future.

Energy and climate change secretary, Amber Rudd, describes the summit’s outcomes as “an important step forward” and the deal between the unprecedented number of countries as “vital for our long-term economic and global security”.

“This long-term goal sends a strong signal to investors, businesses, and policy-makers about the shift to a low carbon economy and provides confidence that will help drive the scale of investment needed,” she says.

“As the costs of low carbon technologies come down, countries will be able to step up their targets on reducing emissions. To reflect this, in 2020, countries will be expected to update their plans to cut emissions by 2030.”

Apparently, from 2025, the 196 countries will also be legally obliged to make new post-2030 commitments to reduce emissions every five years. And for the first time, all countries will be held accountable by independent review for acting according to their pledges.

But the term “legally obliged” is a little ambiguous: while part of the agreement is legally binding within the UN framework – regular reviews of emission targets will be binding, as will the $100bn fund from developed economies – what isn’t legally binding is the emission targets themselves. These will be determined by individual nations; a bottom-up system in which each country sets its own goal (which the agreement calls a “nationally determined contribution”) and then must explain how it plans to reach that objective.

Experts have calculated that all of the targets currently set – if

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Cover Image Flags of participant nations at the Paris Le Bourget Conference Center.

Below U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivers an address at the conference.

Issue Five

Left U.S. envoy Todd Stern reviews the final draft of the multinational agreement.

they’re actually delivered – will only curb warming by 2.7°C. This is well above, not well below, the 2°C threshold that scientists say is the limit of safety, beyond which the effects – droughts, floods, heatwaves and sea level rises – are likely to become catastrophic and irreversible.

This begs the question why the targets themselves are not legally binding under international law, and the answer could lie back in Copenhagen 2009, during which the attempt to impose binding targets on countries has been cited as a key factor in the failure of the talks. In Paris, perhaps fear of a similar fall-out kept targets easier to swallow.

There are other factors working against the 2°C goal: in Paris a number of big emitting emerging economies - including China, India and South Africa - were unwilling to sign up to conditions that they felt could hamper their economic growth and development, conditions which would have kept global temperatures at a safe level. Poorer countries voiced concerns that the money provided to them – the “climate finance” – would not be nearly enough to protect them.

Energy and climate change secretary Rudd says confidently: “All developed countries will collectively mobilise $100 billion per year from both the public and private sector, to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries to protect themselves from the effects of climate change and support low carbon development.”

But Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, disagrees: “It’s outrageous that the deal that’s on the table is being spun as a success when it undermines the rights of the world’s most vulnerable communities and has almost nothing binding to ensure a safe and liveable climate for future generations.

“In fact the deal – as it stands in the context of INDCs that have been submitted – sets us firmly on the path to a devastating 3°C of global warming.”

Dearden accuses the world’s wealthiest nations of ensuring the most important parts of the treaty have been “stripped out of the text entirely, or watered down to the point of meaninglessness”. For him, as for many, critical issues such as binding emissions reductions, legal responsibilities for loss and damage, and the recognition of human rights are all, dangerously, missing from the agreement.

Dearden describes many activists as responding to Paris with a mixture of anger and determination: “Anger that our elected

leaders have yet again put short-term corporate interests ahead of the most urgent crisis that humanity is facing.

“And determination that people and communities will continue to take the lead ahead of politicians on climate action, by taking on the fossil fuel industry, by fighting climate-trashing free trade deals and pushing for a just transition to a low-carbon economy.”

Another point of contention for the agreement’s critics has been the apparent lack of a way to punish nations that don’t do their part; instead, the agreement calls for the creation of a committee of experts to “facilitate implementation” and “promote compliance”. The committee will not have the power to punish violators.

However, Giovanni La Via says parliaments will start working on targets right away. La Via is an Italian member of the EPP group (EPP) – a European political party with member parties in all the EU member states, except the UK. The EPP includes major parties such as the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and The Republicans of France; it has been the largest party in the European Parliament since 1999.

“Now that an agreement has been reached, we are ready to start with new legislation in line with the final deal. We have to do our best to achieve the targets we have proposed for the European Union,” says La Via. “We are ready to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we have to create specific legislation in this field. We have to increase our energy efficiency and to make a bigger effort on renewable energies. One of the main issues we have to discuss in the European Parliament is how to achieve the target of having 30% of total energy production come from renewables.”

La Via says this is the start of a long process: “We, as the European Parliament, have to ratify the agreement, and I hope that a large majority will vote in favour of the final deal, which includes one of the main points Parliament has asked for. This agreement sets out a clear course for climate policy over the next century.”

That last point is telling: despite the agreement forged in Paris 2015, parliaments across the world must now discuss and ratify it before anything can take effect, until at least 55 countries have ratified it, and furthermore, those nations must make up 55% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. It seems for 2016 – and for our planet’s future – 55 is the magic number.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

“There is anger that our elected leaders have yet again put shortterm corporate interests ahead of the most urgent crisis that humanity is facing.”

03

the Principle

The not-so-beautiful game As more and more arrests are made and scandals are revealed, FIFA has been uncovered as a house of corruption that is rotten to its very core.

Jack J Collins looks at what the indictments mean for the organisation and where its future lies.

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Jack J Collins PHOTO Agência Brasil, Senado Federal

04

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

A

s weeks go by, the governing body of world football, FIFA, continues to collapse in on itself, as the house of cards fuelled by internal corruption is brought to light through a series of federal investigations all over the world. FIFA is just the latest giant to fall as across the globe, sport is being purged of those who have dominated it for years for their own personal gain. Just as the International Olympic Committee lost 10 members over the Salt Lake City scandal, and the International Association of Athletics Federations remains in crisis over doping allegations and bribery claims, FIFA’s domination of the ‘world’s game’, and the reign of Sepp Blatter, is crumbling.

Andrew Jennings, BBC journalist, claimed on a recent episode of Panorama that “Blatter’s FIFA ticks all the boxes defining an organized crime syndicate”. Given that, in May 2015, the US indicted 14 FIFA officials on charges of “rampant, systemic, and deep-rooted” corruption, it’s easy to see why. The fact that racketeering charges have been brought against officials in such a well-established organisation, suggests that the investigation plans to clean out FIFA from its very core.

The most dramatic fall from grace belongs to none other than Joseph ‘Sepp’ Blatter, who joined FIFA in 1975 as a technical director, before taking over the presidency of the organisation from Joao Havelange in 1998, in circumstances that took place in a storm of controversy. Upon seeking re-election in 2002, it was alleged by Farah Addo, president of the Somalian FA, that he had been offered $100,000 to vote for Blatter in 1998, and claimed that 18 African voters had accepted such bribes.

The extent of his reign at the very top of the world’s most popular game has been marred by controversy, but nothing seemed able to topple the man at the top of an organisation which looked to be impregnable. Blatter’s position, despite an array of scandal and public outcry on a variety of issues, was reinforced time and time again by

Issue Five

FIFA officials, winning his fifth consecutive election in May 2015 amid the biggest corruption case that had ever been seen in the organisation, which saw seven top officials arrested on racketeering charges. Blatter, it seemed, was sealed within his fortress, and remained untouchable even when his officials were falling away.

But just a week later, the news came through that football fans around the world had waited years to hear: Blatter was stepping down. Even in that moment, however, and with the scandals threatening to overshadow the entire football world, Blatter refused to admit any responsibility or guilt for his misdemeanours, instead suggesting that the reason for his resignation was that his “mandate does not appear to be supported by everybody”.

In September, Blatter was finally made the subject of his own personal criminal investigation by the Swiss police, and he stands accused of criminal mismanagement and misappropriation to do with TV rights deals, connected to the ISL scandal which took place in the 1990s. That scandal was named by Lord Triesman as being a “very straightforward lesson that corruption is systemic within FIFA”.

Blatter has been suspended for 90 days as police probe two counts of felony: one a “disloyal payment” of £1.3million to Michel Platini in 2011, just before Blatter was seeking reelection as FIFA president, for work apparently carried out between 1998 and 2002. The other is to do with a deal with Jack Warner, signed in 2005, where the TV rights to the 2010 World Cup were sold to Warner for a fraction of their true value, allowing Warner to sell them on at a huge personal gain.

The latest revelations, however, have shown that the FBI is investigating Blatter’s role in a bribery scandal worth over $100 million, which is backed up by a letter from Havelange accusing Blatter of having “full knowledge” of a variety of bungs and kickbacks

paid over television and marketing rights during the 1990s. This comes following the court case in which the US authorities charged 16 high-ranking FIFA officials for “racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies”, alongside sustained abuse of their positions of power for personal financial gain.

The executives charged include two FIFA vice-presidents, Alfredo Hawit and Juan Angel Napout, and presidents of six national federations, showing a level of corruption in the game which stretched from the top downwards.

When Andrew Jennings compared FIFA to the Mafia in a US court hearing, he was contradicted by Senator Richard Blumenthal, who stated that comparing the two was “almost insulting to the Mafia, because the Mafia would never have been so blatant, overt and arrogant in their corruption.” Upon the conviction of the latest batch of officials, the US Department of Justice released a statement saying: “These defendants, as alleged, sought to institutionalise their corruption to ensure that it lived on, not for the good of the game but for their own personal aggrandisement and gain.”

What is becoming increasingly apparent from the amount of indictments and suspensions around the Federation, is the idea that FIFA may well be beyond repair, and that its image and reputation could never again be trusted. The calls for a new institution, away from the old image and built around a genuine desire to see the game rebuilt without the corruption of those who run it, are becoming louder.

Blatter has recently written a letter protesting his innocence to the associations, but the overwhelming feeling within the game as a whole is that it would be a farce if he was to be acquitted, and one that might be the final nail in the FIFA coffin. Platini’s presidency campaign appears to be stunted by his involvement in the scandal,

hieve your hieve your hieve your potential

and as Blatter’s ‘natural successor’, the suggestion is that more of the same will not be able to purge FIFA of its rotten core.

While both Platini and Blatter face charges of corruption and non-cooperation, sources who understand the case suggest it is unlikely that courts will be able to prove any charges of corruption, which carry a lifetime ban from the game, but feel that the pair are likely to receive suspensions for at least seven years for a conflict of personal and professional interests.

As more and more indictments are brought against officials and Blatter’s seemingly impregnable fortress crumbles like a house of cards, it is difficult to know who could possibly bring some respect back to an organisation broken and corrupted to its very heart. The only thing that seems to be certain about FIFA now is that the sun is finally setting on Blatter’s corrupt empire.

Opposite Sepp Blatter in 2007 at the announcement of the host nation of the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Opposite below Andrew Jennings with Senators at an investigation of the Brazilian Football Federation.

FREE ONLINE REVISION RESOURCES AVAILABLE AT WWW.OUP.COM/LAWREVISION

Achieve your potential potential potential Revision and study guides Revision study guides from the and No. 1 legal Revision study from the and No. 1 legalguides education publisher, with revision and study guides from from the sense.

No. 1 legal education publisher, it makes the No. 1 legal education publisher publisher, iteducation makes sense. it makes sense.knowledge consolidate consolidate knowledge focus revision consolidate focus revisionknowledge maximise potential consolidate knowledge focus revision maximise potential focus revision maximise potential maximise potential

Great offers available

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

05

the Principle

Renegotiating Europe: what’s the deal?

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Jack J Collins PHOTO Premier

The current Conservative government has promised a referendum on whether the UK stays in the European Union by the end of 2017. David Cameron is in the midst of an attempt to redefine the UK’s relationship with the EU, in order to make staying within the Union a more appealing option.

Jack J Collins examines the legality of what he is trying to achieve in the renegotiations, and the options he has, should his demands be rejected.

I

n early November 2015, David Cameron sent a letter to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, outlining the Conservative government’s case for renegotiating the relationship between the UK and the European Union (EU). The negotiations began a week later in Brussels, with British Ambassador Ivan Rogers leading the team, while David Cameron simultaneously took on a mission of diplomacy in trying to convince the heads of state throughout Europe that the British suggestions should be taken seriously and accepted.

While the intricate details of the demands have been kept more or less out of the public eye, the key areas where the government are looking for concessions are widely known.

They include: extending the single market and reducing regulations on traded deals; protecting the interests of the City outside of the Eurozone; changing the way that the welfare system of the UK regards migrants; and increasing the amount of power given to national parliaments.

While some of these ideas are already in motion, especially regarding the reduction of regulation and national sovereignty, the sticking point has proved to be the reduction of benefits from the UK welfare state to EU migrants, because to do so appears to undermine the idea of free movement within the EU. At an emergency migration summit held in November, Tusk stated that it was going to be “really difficult to find an agreement”, especially given the small time scale between the proposals and

Above President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, delivering an address.

06

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Issue Five

the December summit.

French digital affairs minister, Axelle Lemaire, added to the generally sceptical mood surrounding the change in EU migrant law, stating that there was “no willingness, at least in the short term” to change the EU treaties and allow the UK to restrict migrant citizens’ access to the welfare state. Despite this – and the Polish prime minister, Beata Szydlo, stating that Poland and the UK did not see “eye to eye” on the issue – Cameron remains insistent that he can reach a deal on benefits before the referendum that is scheduled for 2017.

Szydlo’s main sticking point, alongside various other nations, is that Cameron has called for migrants to wait four years before being able to claim in-work benefits. She said that whilst Poland was in agreement with the UK over various areas of the renegotiation package offered, the proposals regarding migration completely undermined the free movement principle within the EU. At a press conference, she said: “Allowing people the freedom to make decisions on free movement, where they want to live, where they want to work... these are the main pillars of the European Union and the reason why the European Union was established.” As such, December’s summit did not yield any firm solutions - instead promising to float suggestions at the next summit in February - but with alternatives being pushed forward, as well as both Cameron and Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond suggesting they are willing to consider other proposals to reduce levels of migration, there seems to be a sense that a solution is viable.

Hammond, before attending a meeting for all foreign affairs ministers in Brussels, stated that: “We’ve heard a lot of our partners in Europe have concerns about it. So far we haven’t heard any alternative suggestions that will deliver the same effect in a different way. But we have made very clear if people have other ideas that will deliver on this very important agenda for British

“Allowing people the freedom to make decisions on free movement, where they want to live, where they want to work... these are the main pillars of the European Union.”

people we’re absolutely prepared to listen to them and we’re prepared to enter into a dialogue about them.”

There are various alternative options that are being touted as viable to Cameron’s proposals. The first of these would be to target the unemployed, which would stop migrants being able to claim out of work benefits, and also reducing the period where migrants can claim dole money if they were to lose their job. Currently, EU citizens trying to find work in the UK are given both Jobseekers Allowance and housing benefit for six months, but there is a

consideration already in place in Brussels that this should be cut in half. This is a much more acceptable option, especially to the eastern European nations that have raised issues with Cameron’s proposals, but the prime minister could be accused of breaking one of his manifesto commitments by refusing to tackle the issue of in-work benefits for migrants.

A second option is to make the restrictions broader in terms of applying them to British expatriates returning from abroad after a set number of years. This levels the playing field a little bit, meaning that other countries will not feel that Britain is unfairly targeting their citizens, and has been positively responded to within the European Commission. However, Cameron risks being accused of unfairly targeting his own citizens by those within his party, as well as undoubtedly being seen as conceding too much ground within the negotiation process.

Another important legal factor in the negotiations lies within the legislation of any changes that the UK succeeds in getting.

The prime minister has been warned by some MPs that to achieve the reforms he is looking for, changes he described as “legally binding” and “irreversible”, he will need to get the changes written into the treaty, and that there is simply not enough time to get these treaty changes passed through Brussels before the referendum, even if the EU agreed to them in principle.

Whilst No 10 accepts that treaty changes are needed, they do not see the delay in this as a problem, suggesting that they would be able to tie down a legally binding contract with the EU which would be then be written into the treaty should the UK opt to stay in the EU come the referendum, which must be held in 2017 at the very latest. Whatever happens in February’s summit, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no easy solution to the UK/EU renegotiation package, and that it’s going to take time, concessions on both sides and a healthy debate to come up with a solution before the referendum takes place.

#BeLikeMe

Love your career BLM is the leading insurance and risk law specialist in the UK and Ireland and we aim to be recognised as one globally by 2020.

We have 13 offices across the UK and Ireland, including London and Manchester.

CURRENT VACANCIES 2016 Vacation Scheme Applications close 18 January 2016 2016 Training Contract Applications close 4 April 2016 2017 Training Contract Applications close 4 April 2016 2018 Training Contract Applications close 30 June 2016 Applications open for all vacancies on 12 November 2015

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

07

the Principle

When UK justice goes public: the Unduly Lenient Sentences initiative COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Emma Finamore PHOTO Kommunikáció

I

t’s a case that sounds more like a thriller novel than reality: on Valentines Day 2013, a paralympian hero – the “Blade Runner”, Oscar Pistorius – shot and killed his girlfriend, model Reeva Steenkamp, through the closed bathroom door of his South African home. In a high profile and controversial court case, he was finally found guilty of culpable homicide; manslaughter, not murder. He served just one year in prison.

Then, in December 2015, South Africa’s supreme court of appeal accepted prosecution arguments and ruled that the lower court had not correctly applied the concept of “dolus eventualis” - whether Pistorius knew that a death would be a likely result of his actions. He was found guilty of murder.

Many people had been concerned by the original acquittal on murder charges. Women’s rights groups argued that Pistorius should have been found guilty of murder as a deterrent against a national problem: on average, three women are killed by their partners every day in South Africa.

The critics ultimately got what they wanted, and Pistorius’s sentencing hearing is expected around April 2016. Now that he has been found guilty of murder he can expect a far longer jail sentence: under South African law, the minimum sentence for murder is 15 years in prison, unless extenuating circumstances can be proved.

But what’s the situation here in the UK, when people believe someone has been given excessively moderate sentences?

“Anyone can ask for someone’s Crown Court sentence to be reviewed if they think it’s too low,” says Sophie Willet, head of communications at the attorney general’s office. “However, only certain types of case can be reviewed.”

She’s talking about the UK’s Unduly Lenient Sentences initiative (ULS), a service through which members of the public can appeal against sentences. It’s not quite the same as having a conviction changed – as in Pistorius’s case – but the potential for longer sentences, and the principle that the public can raise concerns with court outcomes and influence them, make it an interesting parallel.

“Only one person needs to ask for a sentence to be reviewed,” says Willet. “They must contact the attorney general’s office as soon as possible after the sentence is passed, with name of the person who was sentenced, the date the sentence was given, the court where the case was held and the crime committed.”

08

Last year, the world watched while Oscar Pistorius had his culpable homicide conviction increased to murder, and with it the amount of jail time he’ll be given. Emma Finamore explores what happens here in the UK when the public wants to see a criminal punished more harshly.

Below Oscar Pistorius had his jail sentence significantly increased after being found guilty of murder.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Issue Five

Number of offenders whose sentences were referred to the Court of Appeal as potentially unduly lenient.

Number of offenders whose sentences were increased.

The time limit for making a complaint is 28 days after sentencing, and the ULS will only look at certain cases: including murder, rape, and robbery; some child sex crimes and child cruelty; some serious fraud; some serious drug crimes; and crimes committed because of the victim’s race or religion.

“The attorney or solicitor general personally reviews every case and makes a decision about whether to refer the case to the court of appeal or not,” says Willet. “Then, the court of appeal may decide that the sentence should stay the same, is unreasonably low – called ‘unduly lenient’ – and may increase it, or refuse to hear the case.”

Willet says that a sentence is unduly lenient “where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate”. The court of appeal can then increase the sentence if it is considered to be ‘unduly lenient’.

The Evening Standard reported in September 2015 that the ULS had resulted in an extra two centuries of jail time being handed to London criminals. Murderers, rapists and violent robbers were among 74 convicts handed extra prison time since 2010, following complaints that their original terms were too short. Almost 100 years of the extra jail time was given to convicts in 2014 alone.

Solicitor general, Robert Buckland, told the Evening Standard: “Criminals operating in London have had an extra 215 years added to their sentences since 2010 because of this scheme. It’s absolutely right that people can challenge extremely low crown court sentences and we are going to expand the scheme so even more crimes can be considered.”

In 2014, more than 300 requests for sentences to be changed came from ordinary members of the public.

Among the reviewed cases was that of Philip Spence, who was given a minimum 18-year term following a brutal hammer attack on three women at a London hotel. The minimum term on his sentence was increased to 27 years following an appeal under the scheme.

Lukasz Marzeda and Patryk Szukala, involved in a rape and robbery in Tottenham, had their terms increased from three years to eight years and six months, and from eight years to 15 years and six months, respectively.

Since 2010, 13 offenders who had originally been given non-custodial punishments have been immediately taken to prison after their sentences were reviewed.

Former BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall’s 15-month sentence – for a series of indecent assaults against girls aged from just nine to 17 – was doubled in 2013, following a series of complaints.

Increasing the jail term from 15 to 30 months, the judge said the original term had been “unduly lenient” given the impact on

Hall’s victims. Some of those victims had written to the court to express their disappointment in the original sentence.

In 2011, Cherie Blair – crown court judge and wife of the UK’s ex-prime minister, Tony Blair – imposed a 12-month suspended sentence on a drug dealer after she was told he was a long-term alcohol abuser who suffered from cirrhosis of the liver and had suffered a stroke while on remand in prison. This was despite him being caught with a kilogram of cocaine worth £145,600.

Appeal court judges expressed astonishment at what was described as a “deficient” sentence. The appeal court was asked to review the sentence by then attorney general Dominic Grieve, who said it was “unduly lenient” and a “startling result”. The judges replaced the sentence with a three-and-a-half-year jail term.

In 2015, the ULS scheme came under fire when it said it could not look into a high-profile case, that of teacher and vice-principle Stuart Kerner, then 44, who had sex with a 16-year-old girl at school and at her home.

Kerner was given a suspended 18-month sentence by Joanna Greenberg QC, who said it was clear that his victim was obsessed with him. The attorney general’s office (which processes ULS complaints) received complaints about this and considered whether to refer it to a court of under the unduly lenient sentences scheme, but concluded that Kerner’s crimes were not included in the scheme.

A spokesperson for the attorney general said at the time: “After a number of complaints, we carefully considered whether Stuart Kerner’s sentence could be referred to the court of Grieve for being too low as part of the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

Mr Kerner’s crimes are not included in this scheme, meaning the law officers are unable to refer this.

“However, it’s important that the public can challenge what they believe to be exceptionally low sentences. We have been looking at whether the scope of the current scheme is right.”

Pressure groups, such as Families Fighting For Justice, are also keen for changes to be implemented, especially the strict 28 day rule, which they see as too early for a grieving family to be able to deal with. In November 2015, Jean Taylor, a spokesperson for the group told the Liverpool Echo: “The 28 day rule is one of the key discussion points for us. Our members tell us that just under a month to challenge unduly lenient is nowhere near enough. Families are still getting over the shock and ordeal of the courtroom experience to start immediately thinking of appeals and speaking to lawyers again. We want the time window tripling to give relatives more time to consider their options.

“The Ministry of Justice should realise families need time

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

“Criminals operating in London have had an extra 215 years added to their sentences since 2010 because of this scheme.” to process the sentence, deal with so many emotions, all while still grieving a loved one.”

The Conservative manifesto for the 2015 general election contained a commitment to widen the scope of the power to refer, so that sentences for other offences could also be referred to the appeal court where the attorney general believed them to be unduly lenient: “To tackle those cases where judges get it wrong, we will extend the scope of the ULS, so a wider range of sentences can be challenged.”

In a debate on the unduly lenient sentences scheme in June 2015, the solicitor general said that the government would set out its plans as soon as possible: “It is clear that at present there are inconsistencies and anomalies in the scheme, which the extension will seek to address. Both the attorney general and I are very clear on that point, and we understand the concerns where offences often serious offences – do not appear in the scheme, seemingly without a clear legal, or indeed logical, explanation.”

Giving evidence to the Justice Committee in September 2015, the attorney general, Jeremy Wright, explained the difficulties he saw with the current provisions: “What I think is potentially problematic is that the scheme has grown up somewhat organically. At the moment, it covers all indictableonly offences, but it does not cover all either-way offences. That leaves us with some strange anomalies, in my view.

He said that he was in favour of extending the scheme and was looking at the issue: “We need to think carefully about the logic of the scheme, and if there is a case to be made for extension, so that it is easier to understand and more accessible for the public, I think those suggestions bear careful consideration.

There are inevitably, as there always are, costs, benefits and resource implications to any changes that we make, but I am very much in favour of looking at an extension of the scheme.”

With so much at risk – justice, and public confidence in the judicial system – there is no doubt how high the stakes are.

09

the Principle

Issue Five

Talking secondments COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Julian Ried

Julian Ried of Slaughter and May talks to us about the benefits of secondments, opportunities abroad and the selection process for trainees.

HOW DO INTERNATIONAL SECONDMENTS WORK AT SLAUGHTER AND MAY, AND WHERE CAN A SECONDEE EXPECT TO GO? All trainees can apply to go on an international secondment in the second year of their training contract. Secondments are for six months and trainees can go to range of places - Sydney, New York, Tokyo and Stockholm to name but a few. These vary slightly every six months, but there are always exciting destinations on offer.

In locations where we don’t have an office, secondees are hosted by one of our relationship law firms which will be a leading law firm in that jurisdication.

In addition to the six-month international secondment, trainees can spend three months in our Brussels office as part of a seat in our Competition department.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS TO UNDERTAKING AN INTERNATIONAL SECONDMENT? There are many benefits to undertaking an international secondment. Firstly, the secondee gets a unique insight into what it is like to work in an overseas jurisdiction. Also, secondments are great opportunities to learn a new language, to live and work in a different culture and to travel.

Slaughter and May puts a lot of emphasis on building close ties with the leading law firms in jurisdictions where we do not have an office. International secondments are key to this strategy with trainees playing an important role in developing the relationship with the host partner law firm.

IS SECONDMENT SELECTION VERY COMPETITIVE? IF SO, WHAT CAN TRAINEES DO TO STAND OUT? Yes, it is competitive to get an international secondment, but the majority of trainees who want to go abroad usually get the chance to do so. Trainees can stand out by having a clear rationale for choosing a specific destination (e.g. wanting to experience a particular type of work done in that jurisdiction) rather than simply wanting to go abroad.

MOVING ABROAD TO A NEW WORKPLACE IS A BIG JUMP – DOES SLAUGHTER AND MAY OFFER A SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR SECONDEES? Slaughter and May has a great support system for secondees. The firm takes care of all the logistics, including accommodation,

flights and work permits. HR and Learning & Development are always available for support if you need any advice even when you’re abroad – they check in from time to time to make sure everything is going smoothly as well. Not only that, but each secondee is assigned a supervising partner who will monitor your progress when you are away from the London office.

HOW DOES THE WORK DURING A SECONDMENT DIFFER FROM WORK BEFORE A SECONDMENT? While on secondment, trainees often face exciting challenges and can be given more responsibility. Thankfully, the responsibility given to you in your first year with Slaughter and May prepares you for the challenges you might face. Generally speaking, trainees work in a Corporate or Financing department when they are abroad.

There are also opportunities for secondments to high-profile clients - these are a great way to develop client relationships and gain an inside perspective on how the business operates.

WHAT IS YOUR MAIN PIECE OF ADVICE FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONSIDERING AN INTERNATIONAL SECONDMENT? My main piece of advice would be to just apply! I am always surprised by how few trainees want to go on secondment by the time they are in the second year of their training contract – by then, many have mortgages, long-term relationships and qualification on their mind. But then, opportunities to live in a foreign country, and getting paid for doing so, do not come around every day!

How many lawyers do you see?

At Slaughter and May we train each of our lawyers to be a multi‑specialist, equipped to advise on a broad range of legal matters that at other firms would be handled by a number of different lawyers.

We don’t pigeonhole our people – we think that the broader the training and experience, the better the lawyer.

Michael, a lawyer in one of our Corporate groups

10

Our lawyers have a varied and interesting workload and ample opportunities to develop close relationships with clients and become their trusted advisers.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

We have built a reputation for delivering innovative solutions to difficult problems.

This has been earned because each of our lawyers advises on broad legal areas, combining experience gained on one type of transaction to solve problems in another.

We welcome applicants from all academic disciplines who achieve strong 2:1 results or the equivalent.

To find out more, you can apply for one of our Open Days, Work Experience Schemes or Workshops. For more information about a legal career with a difference, visit slaughterandmay/joinus

In conversation: Matthew Tobin, Partner at Slaughter and May

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Matthew Tobin PHOTO Slaughter and May

Matthew Tobin heads up Slaughter and May’s Debt Capital Markets practice. He discusses helping to stabilise UK banks during the financial crisis, the firm’s collaborative culture, and the bad old days of fax machines.

Although I specialise in Debt Capital Markets, I also specialise in a number of other areas too, such as acquisition finance and banking work.

Debt Capital Markets is just part of what I do, and that’s illustrative of our multi-specialist approach as a firm. When I joined the firm, I did seats in a Corporate group, a Financing group, the Competition group – including some time in Brussels – and also in the Dispute Resolution group. In my Financing seat, I sat with a partner who did a lot of Debt Capital Markets work, and he was very much a mentor to me. I think that’s part of why I ended up doing a lot of work in that later. But there was never a moment where I just decided I would definitely specialise in that area.

The most memorable piece of work I’ve undertaken was for HM Treasury, on their support measures around the financial crisis.

After Northern Rock had been taken into state ownership, throughout 2008 there were lots of rumours that other financial institutions were in difficulty, but the collapse of Lehman Brothers was a sort of trigger for an unprecedented period of uncertainty and activity to stabilise the UK financial system. During September and October we worked over a series of weekends involving the nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley, the Icelandic banks, and recapitalising the UK banks, and providing further support to RBS and Lloyds. I remember a one-off partners’ meeting which took place on a Sunday, where more and more people had to get up and leave the room because so many of us were working for the Treasury. It was just completely different to day-to-day transactional work, incredibly high profile and, of course, really important.

It was very much bespoke; you weren’t working from a precedent, it was totally unchartered territory. There was also huge time pressure; you didn’t have time to reflect on how important it all was.

Because our groups work across so many different areas, there’s an awful lot of collaborative working, both within and between groups. Recently I’ve done quite a lot of acquisition financing, where, typically, our Corporate group will be involved on the mergers and acquisitions side, and our Competition group will be working on the antitrust side, and there will be involvement from others too.

That’s a part of my work that I really enjoy: there tends to be a new team for each transaction, so there’s the opportunity to work with lots of different colleagues.

The quality of the lawyers within our building is

something that makes us stand out and when you watch someone else operating on a deal – even now – you always learn a lot through it.

Financing work is very international. A lot of the time, the only connection with the UK will be that both parties have chosen English law to govern their relationship. As a result of that, quite a lot of my clients aren’t UK-based, so we often work with law firms in other jurisdictions – our model is to work with the best independent law firm in any given jurisdiction. Recently, I’ve worked with a Swiss client, on transactions in Nigeria, with Spanish clients, and have done a lot of work in Australia. So that’s interesting too: working with other lawyers who are at the top of the tree in whichever jurisdiction they’re in.

We give trainees a lot of client contact, which I think is helpful in terms of understanding what the job is all about, and developing client skills.

They will be involved in drafting documents too – the level of responsibility increases throughout the trainee’s seat. That way, when they qualify, there isn’t too much of a step up; because they have been given steadily increasing responsibility over the course of time.

To be successful in financing work, trainees need strong academic and analytical skills – that’s the starting point – but interpersonal skills and a genuine interest in the client’s business is fundamental. You need the ability to empathise with clients, and showing an enthusiasm in their business is very important. Students don’t necessarily need to have spent their university days reading the Financial Times, but it is important once you start that you find the subject matter, and what the clients are doing, interesting. Interest in law and academics is important, but you need to find the transactions stimulating in themselves.

Technology has totally changed training contracts – there’s much less photocopying now.

And much less time spent researching in the library.

We used to spend a lot of time running to the fax room too – the firm sent thousands every day – we don’t do that anymore, thankfully. But you still learn a lot by observing people, that part hasn’t changed. All of our trainees still sit in a room with a senior lawyer, still learning through observation – the best trainees are those who ask lots of questions.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

One Bunhill Row, London, EC1Y 8YY www.slaughterandmay.com

Key statistics: Training contract places: Approx 80 No of seats abroad: Approx 30 Required degree grade: Strong 2:1 First year salary: £41,000 Second year salary: £46,000 Post-qualification salary: £70,000 Overseas offices: Brussels, Beijing and Hong Kong, plus ‘Best Friend’ firms in all the major jurisdictions First year opportunities: 2 x one day first year open days on 30 March and 7 April 2016

Key deadlines: Training contract deadline: 29 July 2016 First year opportunities application deadline: 29 January 2016

11

the Principle

True crime: making law accessible to us all A new breed of gripping true crime – in the form of downloadable podcasts, Netflix series, and mainstream TV – is giving audiences a glimpse behind the scenes of the criminal justice system. Emma Finamore looks at how this is opening up the legal profession.

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Emma Finamore PHOTO Kenneth C Zirkel, Casey Fielsler, Peabody

A

new breed of true crime has been taking the world by storm over the past few years, but it’s less concerned with a traditional ‘whodunit’ narrative and more concerned with the intricacies of flawed legal systems; bringing the drama and detail of law to an ever-increasing audience.

Although the trend for detailed, humanising documentation of accused criminals started in 1965 with Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, for many people the fascination began far later – October 2014 in fact – with smash hit podcast, Serial. Over 12 episodes, journalist Sarah Koenig and her team re-investigate a Baltimore murder case from the late 1990s; a case that put teenager Adnan Syed in prison for life.

Since then a deluge of true crime focusing on flawed legal systems and the intricacies of police investigation, has hit both the airwaves and our screens: multiple Serial spin-off podcasts, investigating the case further; the Netflix series, Making a Murderer; HBO’s The Jinx; and here in the UK, Channel 4’s The Murder Detectives.

Over the course of Serial, Koenig rediscovered a key alibi witness that could help overturn Syed’s conviction, and uncovered what appear to be glaring errors – or intentional ones – on the part of both the state prosecution and Syed’s own legal team. It has been downloaded over 60 million times, making it the most popular podcast in the world, but also raising questions about the US legal system – specifically in Baltimore and its state, Maryland – with people who had never before considered them.

After Serial – which arguably raised more questions about the Syed case than it answered – a follow-up podcast was started by three US lawyers: Rabia Chaudry (a family friend of the Syeds who brought the case to Sarah Koenig in the first place), Susan Simpson and Colin Miller.

“We are not journalists or podcasters,” began Undisclosed, when it first aired in April 2015. “We are three lawyers who are interested in the minute details of the case of the State vs Adnan Syed.” And detailed they meant: over the course of 30 episodes (with more to come) Chaudry, Simpson and Miller have dissected each and every aspect of the case for their listeners, from tapes showing the state prosecution and police ‘coaching’ their key witness; the impossible and ever-changing timeline of the day of the murder (presented by the state to the jury); and the major failings of Syed’s defence lawyer, Cristina Gutierrez.

Undisclosed showed listeners how Gutierrez, who died in 2004, made a series of blunders while defending Syed, despite being one of the most tenacious attorneys in Baltimore, representing many individuals with hopeless cases. Aside from failing to highlight flawed evidence and the changing timeline of the prosecution’s alleged witness to the murder, she failed to contact many people

Right American journalist Sarah Koenig, who led Serial’s investigation into Adnan Syed’s case.

Opposite The Serial team have won countless awards for their first season.

Below True crime has seen a spike in popularity of late: Serial season one has been downloaded over 60 million times.

12

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Issue Five

who claimed they saw Syed at the night of the murder, and a key alibi: a school friend who said she was with Syed at the library at the exact time the state claimed he was killing the victim.

Another major failing of Gutierrez seems to have been her unusual courtroom style: using long-winded, often nonsensical, speech, a shrill, high-pitched tone of voice, and failing to clearly show the jury holes in the state’s case to the jury.

Evidence presented during Serial and Undisclosed showing that Syed may not have been given a fair trial, has struck a chord with the public. The Adnan Syed Legal Trust has raised nearly $94,000, and in November 2015 a Maryland judge ordered Syed’s case reopened, after considering his petition to include the testimony and evidence left out of his original trials, originally unearthed by podcasters.

Advocates for criminal justice say the podcasts have been a welcome reminder of the problems with the US legal system. “I think the true crime craze that has developed is an exciting time for the legal profession,” says Brittany Deskins, a civil attorney in Kentucky, USA, who blogs at theladylawyerbrittany.com and has written about true crime shows. She says that the genre is opening up the legal system to those who’ve never considered it before, and also showing them the work that goes on behind the scenes in criminal cases: “I have had family and friends that are not in the legal profession engage in conversation about legal issues from watching shows or listening to Serial and other podcasts. They had no idea all the legal work that goes into a case and have gained respect for the work.

“This is a great opportunity for people who don’t know much about law to learn.

Undisclosed is like a mini law school people can listen to it and understand what goes on in the criminal justice system.”

“Most of the public thinks a case begins and ends with what’s in the courtroom because they do not see the countless hours of other work. It’s refreshing for the legal community to be respected and appreciated.”

As well as helping the public appreciate the legal community, true crime is helping them question it, or at least those parts shown to be corrupt. Netflix’s series, Making a Murderer, released a week before Christmas 2015, does just that. Following the case of Wisconsin blue-collar worker, Steven Avery, as he is convicted in a murder case involving the local Sheriff’s Department, the documentary makers show how evidence against him might have been planted.

As with Undisclosed, Making a Murderer uses real-life courtroom footage, presents the audience with evidence, and poses questions about potential corruption. It also shows the inner-workings of the criminal justice system, at least in small-town Wisconsin.

Laura Ricciardi, one of the two film-makers behind Making a Murderer told CBC News in January 2015 that this was exactly their aim: “Our main hope, really, is that people will have a new view of the American criminal justice system,” she said. “That there will be a newfound appreciation for the complexity of these matters and that people will be more tolerant of the ambiguity of these matters.”

Again, what has been broadcast in the virtual world has yielded real-life results. Hundreds of thousands of people on both sides of the Atlantic watched Making a Murderer over the Christmas break, and in just a few weeks online petitions demanding the pardon of

Avery received nearly 90,000: a Whitehouse.gov petition gathered almost 11,500 signatures, in addition to 71,000 signatures on a Change.org petition. Anonymous – the international network of activists/hacktivists, known for publicity stunts and attacks on government, religious, and corporate websites – claims to have evidence that will prove Avery is innocent.

The district attorney involved with the case, and the local county sheriff ’s department, have been forced to make public statements defending their actions due to global attention.

Perhaps even more so than with Serial and Undisclosed, the response to Making a Murderer has focused on the legal professionals who failed to – as the public sees it – uphold a citizen’s right to a fair trial. Kentucky attorney Brittany Deskins thinks this is a vital part of the new true crime genre: “I think it’s extremely important in real life and to the general public. Most people never get involved in the legal system until something tragic happens to them or their family. This lack of understanding makes them susceptible to being taken advantage of.

“It’s also important because the public hearing the stories and learning the lessons will carry that knowledge with them as voters, citizens, potential jurors and more. I think building a sense of empathy for victims, the falsely accused, and other individuals in the criminal justice system only helps improve the system.”

The popularity of these, as well as HBO’s The Jinx, Channel 4’s The Murder Detectives, and countless other true crime series, could also help those wanting to move into that system professionally, and even those who are already there. They demonstrate the immense attention to detail required of lawyers – cross referencing, reviewing information, being able to draw out key information from paperwork – and take audiences through those tasks. Last year, one US lawyer actually billed her clients for watching true crime as part of trial research.

“I find myself more interested in the strategy behind the case,” says Deskins. “Procedural elements, and even client relations. I think those training to work in the legal profession can mostly benefit from learning from others’ mistakes. Most of the true crime stories that become popular do so because someone in the process has made mistakes.”

During the latest Undisclosed episode, Miller – who is also a lecturer in law as well as a lawyer – described the podcast as “an extension of the classroom”, saying it has increased awareness of legal issues in the public at large: “This is a great opportunity for people who don’t know much about the law to learn about it.

A key to the jury system being a logical way to decide guilt and innocence is the public being educated about the law, what goes on, how things work and don’t work. Undisclosed is like a mini law school – people can listen to it and understand what goes on in the criminal justice system.”

The genre helps audiences be more aware of dangerous prejudice around class, gender, ethnicity, and the pitfalls of confirmation bias. As the dubiously-convicted Steven Avery says during an episode of Making a Murderer: “Poor people lose.” With the general public currently hooked on true crime, maybe we can look forward to a more level playing field in the future, at least in the courtroom.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Goldsmith vs Khan T

WORDS Jay Collins PHOTO Policy Exchange

ensions boiled over in the London mayoral race early in December, with Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith branding Labour’s Sadiq Khan a “divisive and radical” politician in his widely distributed election leaflets.

The phrase was part of a six point barrage against Khan, which also accused the Labour MP of being a politician who “blindly” followed the party line; being two-faced about Heathrow expansion; and of gaining most of his support from the unions, meaning that he would not stand up for Londoners against strike action.

Khan’s team were swift to respond, suggesting that the use of the words “divisive and radical” were part of a “coded racist attack” against the Muslim MP, adding that they were not surprised to see Goldsmith “revert to type”, and that Londoners could expect “another divisive and dog-whistling campaign from the Tories”.

In a London that has seen a rising number of anti-Muslim hate crimes since the Paris atrocities, the suggestion that Goldsmith’s campaign is going to be based around portraying a negative image of his Muslim rival is an uneasy one; and comments posted on the Conservative’s latest campaign video suggest that many people are using Goldsmith’s platform to take racial shots at Khan. Comments calling him a “dishonest Muslim” and claiming

Goldsmith’s leaflets were the basis of an uneasy moment for the Richmond MP, with his campaign team being called out for racial profiling and a “coded racist attack”.

that under him London would “become a caliphate under Emam [sic] Sadiq Khan” had, at the time of writing, not been removed.

Ultimately, Khan’s position in the Labour party is not particularly radical at all, and his political persuasions lie more in a Blairite court than a Corbynite one. What is worrying is that Goldsmith has allowed his campaign to use terms that have been used in the past to project extremist sympathies onto Muslims, and allows for the idea that there is a sinister and racial undertone to Goldsmith’s smear.

It is not too far a stretch to think he may be offering an olive branch to UKIP voters who made up 10% of London’s electorate at the general election.

Intentional or not, there is the potential for the election to be fought on ethnicity or faith, rather than two candidates being assessed on their political values and what they can offer London. Goldsmith is probably not attempting to use racial slurs, especially considering that Khan has been one of the preeminent figures in integrating his fellow Muslims into British society and battling against extremism.

But when the fight gets toughest, he must be careful not to let his desire to win overcome his desire to fight a clean fight; to refrain from racial profiling or using the politics of ethnicity. If he’s not careful, it will be London that pays the price.

13

the Principle

Why are Northern Ireland’s abortion laws different to the rest of the UK?

Women in Northern Ireland do not share the abortion rights of their peers elsewhere in the UK. In fact, they face years in prison for having the procedure. Emma Finamore asks why.

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Emma Finamore PHOTO Ardfern

“Northern Ireland’s abortion laws must be brought into the 21st century and into line with international law as a matter of urgency.”

14

E

very year, thousands of women flock from Northern Ireland to England, not for business or pleasure, but for abortion: an act currently punishable by imprisonment in their home country.

You might think this sounds inhumane, and many would agree with you: in December 2015 the UK’s High Court ruled that the current law in Northern Ireland is “incompatible” with human rights law, placing an ethical obligation on its politicians to come up with new abortion legislation.

Something considered a basic human right – the choice to have a child or not, autonomy over one’s own body – in many developed parts of the world, including the rest of the UK, is prohibited in all but the most extreme circumstances in Northern Ireland.

Currently, women and girls who are the victims of rape and incest, as well those suffering from fatal foetal abnormalities, are not permitted to have terminations in Northern Irish hospitals.

Only when the mother’s life is deemed to be in danger, or a doctor decides there is a risk of “permanent and serious” damage to her mental health, can one take place. Anyone who performs an illegal abortion could be jailed for life.

Women who want to end a pregnancy in Northern Ireland are faced with two options: travel abroad for a termination, or order abortion pills by post. These are widely available from online pharmacists, but they are expensive, and it is hard to know whether the online provider is genuine.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

As the pills are illegal in Northern Ireland, suspicious-looking parcels are routinely checked. A mother is currently being prosecuted for obtaining abortion pills for her pregnant teenage daughter, charged with procuring “poison or other noxious substance” in the knowledge that they were to be used to cause a miscarriage. If found guilty, she faces a five-year sentence.

In 2013, Sarah Ewart shared her personal story with local broadcasters: at 20 weeks pregnant she was told her baby was not developing properly, its skull was not fully formed, and it would die on delivery. Even in this extreme case, Ewart’s only option in her home country was to carry the foetus for nine months and endure a traumatic labour, after which the baby definitely would not live. Under abortion law, as her health was not at risk she would have to carry the baby full term.

At the time, Ewart told local radio: “Before this happened to me, I didn’t agree with abortion but this is medical - this is a dead body I’m being forced to carry in Northern Ireland because of this silly law.” She did not gain permission to have the procedure in her home country, so went to England.

In response to the story, Northern Ireland’s health minister, Edwin Poots, said the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, and any potential change, was a matter for the Department of Justice, the Executive and the Assembly. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission asked the High Court

Issue Five

to investigate, and in December 2015 it deemed the current legislation incompatible with human rights law.

Ewart told the BBC after the hearing: “I just want to thank the judge today for making this judgement. I didn’t want to go through what I had to go through back in 2013, nor do I want any other woman to have to go through what I went through.

“I just urge all politicians to help us have the families we want, and give us the medical procedures that we need in our hospitals where we live.”

Les Allamby, of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, told the BBC at the time: “The politicians understand the role of the courts and I expect them to act accordingly.

“That’s what Westminster has done whenever the High Court has ruled that legislation is incompatible, that’s what the Scottish Parliament has done in similar circumstances, I see no reason why the Northern Ireland Assembly cant do the same.”

But there is no legal obligation on the Northern Ireland Assembly to act on the ruling, and deep divisions on this issue mean consensus will be difficult to reach.

Why are the laws in Northern Ireland so different to the rest of the UK in the first place? The answer lies far back in legislative

history: the Bourne Judgement of 1938, in fact. In England, Dr Alex Bourne performed an abortion on a 14-year-old who had been raped. He deliberately challenged the existing law, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, under which anyone carrying out an abortion except under some extremely limited circumstances can be jailed for life. In the subsequent trial, he brought evidence that if the young woman had been forced to continue with the pregnancy, she would have become a “mental and physical wreck”.

Bourne was acquitted and the judgement passed into English case law, extending the grounds for a lawful abortion to include risk to the physical and mental wellbeing of the mother. There were no further changes to the law until the 1967 Abortion Act was introduced in England, Wales and Scotland, legalising abortions by registered practitioners, and regulating the free provision of such medical practices through the NHS. The 1967 Abortion Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.

When it comes to abortion, today’s Northern Irish women are effectively still subject to laws and attitudes from the 1930s.

In England, Scotland and Wales, in 98% of cases doctors agree that continuing a pregnancy would hold a greater risk to the woman’s physical and mental health than a termination would.

This decision is very rare in Northern Ireland, where only 23 lawful terminations took place in Northern Ireland in 2013-14.

Grainne Teggart, Campaign Manager for Amnesty’s My Body My Rights campaign, says: “It’s shameful that the Courts have had to step in because politicians have repeatedly failed Northern Ireland’s women.

“Northern Ireland’s abortion laws must be brought into the 21st century and into line with international law as a matter of urgency.” Given that Northern Ireland has resisted such reforms since the 1930s, and the ruling of the High Court is not legally binding, it’s unlikely campaigners – and the women of Northern Ireland – will see urgency from their politicians, if they see any changes at all.

Opposite Many women in Northern Ireland have protested against the abortion laws in their country.

Choose a firm where your curiosity, ideas and hard work will be rewarded. Where you can experience everything that a career in commercial law has to offer, through a distinctively flexible training contract and beyond. A firm whose international outlook and world-class reputation open up a multitude of opportunities.

See the whole story at freshfields.com/ukgraduates

42227_FBD_Graduate_Campaign_Ad_187.5x240.indd 1

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP

A career in law is demanding, so choose somewhere that makes it all worthwhile.

22/10/2015 16:55

15

the Principle

What to expect from vacation scheme assessment centres ADVICE WORDS Emma Finamore PHOTO Benjamin Childs

We asked our inside contacts at top law firms what you can expect from their vacation scheme assessment centres, so you can get on with the really important stuff: preparing.

I

n the last issue of The Principle we turned to our expert industry contacts to help you prepare for vacation scheme assessment centres; this time around we’ve asked them what you should expect on the day, so there should be no nasty surprises – just positive experiences.

All firms will have a slightly different approach to assessment centres, but they usually involve a series of tests, exercises and interviews designed to measure your competency for a trainee position or indeed a vacation scheme.

Usually lasting one or two days, assessment centres are pretty popular among the bigger law firms and the large organisations that employ barristers (e.g. HM Revenue & Customs, 2 Temple Gardens, CPS). As they are expensive to run, they are typically the final or penultimate stage of a recruitment process, so you shouldn’t worry too much when invited to one; it means you’ve already done pretty well in your application.

“Our assessment day consists of a presentation, interview and written exercises”, says Linda Luong, graduate recruitment advisor at DLA Piper. “We use a range of assessment methods throughout our recruitment process. These can include Skype or telephone interviews, partner interviews, group exercises, presentations and written exercises.” Basically, you have to be prepared for a lot of eventualities, so don’t be phased by them - and make sure you have a good internet connection or phone line if you’re being assessed remotely.

Kate Ace, graduate recruitment and development coordinator at Mayer Brown, says her firm has an equally varied approach, allowing candidates to impress assessors with different skills, as well as giving them the chance to interact with current trainees.

“The assessment centre includes a group exercise, a written exercise, a fact finding exercise and a formal interview,” says Ace. “The candidates also have a tour of the office and a networking lunch with current trainees.

“We use online tests – verbal reasoning and situational judgment tests – and formal exercises to assess our candidates.

All our exercises are designed to assess the key skills we have identified as essential for success at Mayer Brown, both as a trainee and a qualified lawyer. We ask all our candidates to complete the same tests to ensure consistency and fairness across the process.”

So, make sure your reasoning skills are up to scratch before heading to an assessment centre, as well as preparing for interviews and perfecting your written skills. There are books for improving reason and logic, but an app could be the best solution – that way you can prepare on the go via your phone, or at home on a laptop, as well as receive feedback that a book can’t give you.

The days are designed to ensure fairness and rigour in testing, but also to make sure firms find the people they’re looking for – so make sure you portray yourself in the best light. Check out the company’s vision or mission statement before attending an

16

assessment (these can be found easily on their websites) to make sure you know what to demonstrate to show that you fit the bill.

“We’re looking for highly talented people who can demonstrate an affinity with our values to help us achieve our vision of becoming the leading global business law firm,” says Luong of DLA Piper. “We want our trainee cohort to be a diverse group of talented individuals who demonstrate consistently strong academic performance, formidable commercial acumen, are articulate, ambitious, driven with sharp minds, enthusiasm and intellectual curiosity.”

Mayer Brown has also designed its day carefully to ensure the firm finds the most suitable people: “We look for candidates to display attention to detail, team work, commercial awareness, and a genuine interest in law and Mayer Brown,” says Ace. Katie Makey, graduate recruitment adviser at Shearman & Sterling, has some further insightful advice: “We’re always looking for individuals; people who can bring different strengths and competencies.

“We also believe it’s important that people feel comfortable being themselves at work, so we want to really see who you are during the interview.” In other words, you are expected to show off the very best version of yourself, which is true of any assessment centre.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

“We ask all our candidates to complete the same tests to ensure consistency and fairness across the process.”

Above Perform well at an assessment centre and get one step closer to the boardroom.

Issue Five

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Catherine Dunmore PHOTO Oxfam Lawyers Against Poverty

Following her recent visit to Tajikistan with Oxfam Lawyers Against Poverty, Catherine Dunmore gives us an insight into life as a lawyer there.

L

aunched in 2015, Oxfam Lawyers Against Poverty is a collective of hundreds of lawyers who identify crucial legal projects that will aid the poorest and most vulnerable people.

These lawyers pool their combined skills and funding to give individuals greater knowledge of their rights, and provide the access to justice that will help them break free from poverty.

Oxfam Lawyers Against Poverty focuses on the economic and legal empowerment of rural women in Tajikistan – which borders Afghanistan – because these communities are some of the poorest and most disenfranchised in the central Asian region.

The Tajikistan male population regularly migrates to Russia for work, leaving women behind to manage and provide for the households. Literacy rates are dropping in rural communities and greater assistance is needed to support the country’s legal profession, including through education.

In Tajik law schools around 30% of the students are women. But entry exams for legal studies are in Russian, presenting a problem for applicants as the standard of Russian language teaching has dropped dramatically since the fall of the Soviet Union. It is also becoming harder for women especially, particularly from rural communities, to access further education in the country.

To combat this, the Tajikistan government recently created a programme to encourage women to pursue university studies, providing bursaries to allow access to several universities in Dushanbe.

I’m an international arbitration lawyer in Paris, but I

How Oxfam Lawyers Against Poverty helps women on the ground recently visited Tajikistan with Oxfam Lawyers Against Poverty, where I met Zanjira Avliyoeva, whose work demonstrates the impact of Oxfam’s support in the country.

Avliyoeva completed her law studies at the Tajikistan University of Technology in Dushanbe. The main legal subjects in Tajikistan include criminal law, constitutional law, international law, forensic science, court procedures, finance law, transport law, human rights law and comparative law.

After having obtained her diploma, Avliyoeva worked for eight years as a lawyer. Today, she works in the region of Vaksh in the south of Tajikistan. She works alone, operating a mobile legal clinic to offer advice to the villagers in Vaksh. During these visits, Avliyoeva advises around three or four clients a day, the majority of whom are women. Sometimes, she even gives advice while the women work in the fields.

With the support of Oxfam Lawyers Against Poverty – which provides her with resources – Avliyoeva also organises workshops on matrimonial rights and access to justice, in order to educate women in these communities on their rights. Most of the cases in the legal clinic concern land or family disputes; Avliyoeva represents her clients on these issues before the Tajik courts as well as during mediation proceedings.

One client she’s represented is Najbiddinova Bibiniso, a woman who is not only the head of the community, but also head of a group of 18 female rural producers supported by Oxfam, as well as an assistant nurse at the local hospital.

Her husband – as with an eighth of Tajikistan’s population –

was a migrant worker in Russia. Sadly he was killed there, seven years ago. As their marriage was never registered, Bibiniso does not have the right to access important documents such as his death certificate. As a result, she was caught up in a legal battle with her brother-in-law regarding the inheritance of her husband’s property.

Now, she and her children risk finding themselves homeless.

Unregistered marriages are common in Tajikistan and after a divorce, or the death of a husband, women often have no official legal status. This leaves them without property rights, alimony and even custody of their children.

Oxfam Lawyers Against Poverty is working with the League of Women Lawyers of Tajikistan to set up a twinning project, linking female Tajik lawyers with lawyers in Europe, in order to exchange ideas and find solutions together. They aim to strengthen the skill set of Tajikistan’s lawyers by sharing best practices and supporting legal education development. This twinning project between lawyers around the globe will be the first of its kind. Pro bono work has recently become obligatory for all lawyers in Tajikistan, which could result in even more assistance for women like Bibiniso.

Students can contribute to these projects and support Oxfam’s work ensuring access to justice and putting an end to poverty. By joining Lawyers Against Poverty, students have the opportunity to vote for legal projects, help steer the strategic direction of Lawyers Against Poverty, volunteer with them, join a working group on specific legal areas, carry out research and attend events.

Left Catherine Dunmore recently visited Tajikistan with Oxfam Lawyers Against Poverty.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

17

the Principle

Cadbury, British business and the tax loophole In the face of the latest revelations about Cadbury not paying any UK corporation tax, Jack J Collins looks at the businesses exploiting the loopholes in current tax legislation and how the EU is beginning to challenge those trying to gain an unfair advantage.

COMMERCIAL INSIGHT WORDS Jack J Collins

CADBURY (2015)

FACEBOOK (2015)

STARBUCKS (2012)

STARBUCKS (2015)

GLOBAL REVENUE ($)

$149 MILLION

$8.2 BILLION

$14.9 BILLION

$19.8 BILLION

UK REVENUE ($)

£96.5 MILLION

£105 MILLION

£398 MILLION

£405 MILLION

UK TAX PAID (£)

£0

£4,372

£0

£8.1 MILLION

I

n June of 2013, it emerged that one of Britain’s most treasured brands, the confectionary giant Cadbury, had been running aggressive tax avoidance schemes for the best part of a decade, and had only been paying £6.4 million in tax per year despite making annual profits of over £100 million.

At the time, a former executive of the company was quoted as saying that it “goes against what you would think about the reputation of the company from its philanthropic background”. Having been sold to Mondelez (previously Kraft) in 2010, the company stated at the time that the tax avoidance had been carried out before their takeover and that they had therefore committed no ill.

However, it has now been revealed that Mondelez did not pay any corporation tax last year, despite the fact that Cadbury UK made a profit of £96.5 million over the course of 2014. They managed to avoid this by wiping out Cadbury’s bills as interest payments on a bond in the Channel Islands, offsetting the ‘loss’ made paying interest against other gains in the company to make it appear that profits were low enough to be tax-free.

While this is technically legal within the constraints of UK law, it adds further pressure to a company which has been already called up on its aggressive tax avoidance, and turns up the heat once again on a Conservative government accused of allowing tax loopholes to be exploited within industry.

The union representing the workers, Unite, has expressed its anger over the Cadbury affair. “Nifty footwork by clever accountants meant that the Treasury was denied millions of pounds in corporation tax,” says the union’s regional officer, Joe Clarke. “That could have been spent on the NHS and other much-needed public services.

“Once again, George Osborne is turning a blind eye to the accounting machinations of big powerful multi-nationals, but turning the screw on those that those struggling financially in the form of welfare cuts that may have been postponed in the recent comprehensive spending review, but will be coming down the track eventually. While the exchequer is denied its due from Mondelez, shareholders are feasting on dividend payments of £1.3 billion.”

His sentiments have been echoed by Margaret Hodge, chair

18

of the Commons all-party group on responsible tax, who said in an interview with the Sunday Times: “Multinationals like this are deliberately exporting their profits with artificial company structures to avoid tax. The founders of Cadbury who set it up as an ethical company will be turning in their graves.”

Mondelez has been quick to defend itself, a spokesperson stating that the company complies with all applicable tax legislation in the UK. There was no direct response to the UK tax avoidance scandal, however, instead simply the claim that “on a global basis we pay hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate income tax annually”.

The spokesperson went on to suggest that the company’s investments into the UK manufacturing sector were worth over £200 billion since 2010, and that they were worth over £1 billion to the UK economy, and concluded that “as a contributor to the UK economy, we are committed to investing in the UK as a strategic hub for our people and our business for the future”.

Since the 2010 takeover, Mondelez has managed to upset the Cadbury employees on a semi-regular basis, closing a plant in Somerdale, Bristol (despite a pre-takeover pledge that it would remain open) as well as cutting 200 jobs at the spiritual home of Cadbury, in Bourneville. It has also upset customers, by decreasing the size of Dairy Milk bars, changing the famous Crème Egg recipe, and changing the raisins to sultanas in its Fruit & Nut bars.

Mondelez is simply the latest of a whole host of firms that have been drawing controversy over tax affairs. Recently, Facebook was criticised for paying just over £4,000 in UK corporation tax in 2014, despite its staff in the UK being paid an average salary of over £200,000 per annum.

To add to this, the European Union ruled in October 2015 that selective tax advantages in particular countries, such as Starbucks in the Netherlands, are illegal under the EU constitution. Starbucks has been ordered to pay back a total of €30 million in unpaid tax.

On the back of that ruling, further investigations have been launched. Luxembourg’s treatment of McDonald’s, where the fast food giant has not paid any corporation tax since 2009, is being examined. Amazon’s dealings in Luxembourg, and Apple’s in Ireland, are also under scrutiny, as well as the “excess profit” tax ruling that governs much of the corporation tax in Belgium.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

Above An overview of the revenues and tax rates of some of those accused of exploiting UK tax loopholes.

“Once again, George Osborne is turning a blind eye to the accounting machinations of big, powerful multi-nationals.”

Issue Five

Training contracts: How many are available at each firm?

Bristows: 10 Dechert : 12 Farrer & Co: 10 Fieldfisher: 14 Olswang: 12 Orrick: 4 Skadden Arps: 10 Withers: 11

Allen & Overy: 90 Clifford Chance: 100 CMS: 80 DLA Piper: 80 Freshfields: 80 Herbert Smith Freehills: 70 Hogan Lovells: 60 Slaughter and May: 80

Addleshaw Goddard: 44 Ashurst: 40 Berwin Leighton Paisner: 45 DWF: 50 Irwin Mitchell: 50 Norton Rose Fulbright: 50 Simmons & Simmons: 38

raining contracts are exceptionally highly sought after at the UK’s top law firms, and each firm offers a different amount of vacancies depending on their size and need. This means that it can be tricky to know what you’re applying for and what the numbers involved are. Here at AllAboutLaw, we think that you need to be informed, so we’ve categorised the top players by combining the number of training contracts available at each firm for the incoming application period, to make your life a bit easier, help you understand exactly the type of firm you’re applying for, and know how many others will be learning alongside you at the firms you’re interested in.

Dentons: 20 HFW: 15 Mayer Brown: 15 Mills & Reeve: 17 Shearman & Sterling: 17 Shoosmiths: 20 Weil: 15

WORDS Jack J Collins

T

Baker & McKenzie: 30 BLM: 28 Bond Dickinson: 25 Nabarro: 25 Reed Smith: 24 RPC: 24 Taylor Wessing: 24

ADVICE

>50

36-50

21-35

15-20

>15 Right These figures represent the number of training contracts available with firms for the 2016 application process.

AllAboutLaw.co.uk

19

Smriti, a lawyer in our Dispute Resolution group

How many lawyers do you see?

At Slaughter and May we train each of our lawyers to be a multi-specialist, equipped to advise on a broad range of legal matters that at other firms would be handled by a number of different lawyers.

We don’t pigeonhole our people – we think that the broader the training and experience, the better the lawyer.

Our lawyers have a varied and interesting workload and ample opportunities to develop close relationships with clients and become their trusted advisers.

We have built a reputation for delivering innovative solutions to difficult problems. This has been earned because each of our lawyers advises on broad legal areas, combining experience gained on one type of transaction to solve problems in another.

We welcome applicants from all academic disciplines who achieve strong 2:1 results or the equivalent.

To find out more, you can apply for one of our Open Days, Work Experience Schemes or Workshops.

For more information about a legal career with a difference, visit slaughterandmay/joinus