Author: officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

7 out of 10 UK law firms affected by cyber crime in 2014?

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ 1 Comment

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has reported that in 2014, nearly 70% of UK law firms reported a cyber security incident.

cyber security guy or hackerRead more: here.

The first half of the article focuses on bogus law firms. The second paragraph under the ad is about how cyber crime affects law firms.

 

Uber Technologies – not a law firm – has billions at its disposal; that allowed it to do some investigating that enabled it to file a John Doe lawsuit after its recently reported hacking incident. Which it discovered about half a year after the fact and then kept silent about for another six months. Give or take a few days.

Data security in the legal profession

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ Leave a comment

ICO, the Information Commissioner’s office, issued a warning last year after several data breaches at law firms.

circuitAccording to the ICO, there were fifteen reported incidents of data breaches in the legal profession within a period of three months.

You can read more about it in this article in the online magazine Computing News and on
this article on the ICO website as well as in this pdf file by ICO.

  • How many legal professionals have ever built a computer from scratch? I have. It worked fine right away, too. (To my own amazement.)
  • How many legal professionals were taught a little bit of computer programming at university? I was.

Which hurdles do litigants in person face?

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ Leave a comment

What are the hurdles litigants in person run into? I have talked about this a few times before.

A review of all the complaints litigants in person made between 1 January 2011 and 31 March 2012 to the Professional Conduct Department of the Bar Standards Board against barristers provides further insights. The number of complaints made by litigants in person takes up 25% of all such complaints.

Most of the litigants in person who made these complaints were involved in civil matters. Almost half of their complaints had to do with County Court proceedings. 11% concerned the High Court and 18% tribunals.

47% of these litigants were claimants and 41% were defendants. (The role of the remaining litigants (12%) was not clear, apparently.) In 25% of these cases, the litigant had obtained some legal advice, while 75% of the complaining litigants had relied on their own research during the litigation.

30% of the complainants indicated that they might have a disability; this number reflects the percentage of litigants in person with disabilities, regardless of whether they file a complaint or not.

Most of the cases concerned property, construction and planning, followed by family law with employment taking third place (excluding work injuries).

57% of the complainants did not appear to understand all aspects of legal proceedings. In general, these complainants did not appear to understand that the barrister for the other side is there to represent the other side’s views and to do their best for that other party.

As a litigant in person, it is your responsibility to present your own viewpoint within the context of the law. You cannot rely on the other party’s barrister to do that for you; it would be naïve to expect otherwise.

32% of all complainants seemed to expect the Bar Standards Board to overrule the courts, or be an alternative to the courts, and make a (new) decision. That is not what the Bar Standards Board does. Only a higher court can look at what a lower court did, and possibly reverse a decision made by a lower court.

In my view, paying close attention to the actions of the barrister working for the other side can actually enhance your own understanding as a litigant in person. They’re the professionals who can teach you a thing or two.

Another mark against Uber

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ Leave a comment

There are many misgivings regarding the app-based taxi company Uber. One of those is a belief that Uber’s databases will get hacked.

Apparently, they already did. Get hacked.

Uber found out four months after the fact and kept quiet about it for months afterward. Last Friday, it finally came clean. In the New York Post, you can read more about Uber getting hacked.

Uber has meanwhile started a lawsuit against the hacker, identifying him or her as John Doe. This is also how you can sometimes take action against anonymous internet trolls as the FindLaw blog explains.

Views on litigants in person (pro se)

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

D. Rosen at London-based Darlington Solicitors just published a post titled Perceptions and Expectations of Litigants in Person (‘LIPS’): A commercial Litigator’s perspective on the firm’s blog.

frustrated person making a phone call

Stressed litigant in person making a phone call

“During my career I have met many wonderful and varied LIPS.”, he or she writes.

“I am frustrated at seeing too many good people waste their lives pursuing their perception of truth and justice, because a Court has not agreed with them.”

I agree.

You have to know when to pursue a matter and when to let it go. A good way to decide can be to ask yourself whether other people – society – might benefit from it if you continue to pursue the matter.

Go read this post – here – because this solicitor makes very good points.

Revenge porn now a crime in the UK

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

‘Revenge porn’ criminalised: What is it and what are the consequences? was one of yesterday’s headlines in the news.

Revenge porn is commonly used by internet trolls. California was among the first states that made it a crime. Many other forms of trolling are not a crime, or not a crime yet.

If you are a target of internet trolls and they are doing damage to your life, there are all sorts of things that you can do, in spite of how difficult it may seem. I will explain more about that in due course.

 

Revenge evictions coming to an end?

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

This morning, I had an e-mail from Citizens Advice of which the first line said that the House of Lords voted to put a stop to retaliatory evictions yesterday.

homeI was very busy with something else yesterday and this morning’s media had nothing on the topic so I did a web search. On Letting Agent Today, I found that indeed, apparently, the House of Lords essentially wants to make it impossible for landlords to evict a tenant for no reason within six months after a tenant’s improvement or hazard awareness notice.

It concerns amendments to the Deregulation Bill.

On the civil legal aid reforms

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

Last year, the National Audit Office published a report titled ‘Implementing Reforms to Civil Legal Aid’, a report by the Comptroller and Auditor of the General Ministry of Justice and Legal Aid Agency.

Last week, the Bar Council responded to it. Chairman of the Bar Alistair MacDonald QC said:

‘Overall, the report reflects the Bar Council’s concerns that the scale of the cuts made to legal aid, and the way they were introduced, abandoned the most vulnerable, created disorder in our courts, and damaged our legal advice services.’

You can read the rest of the response: here.

Keeping a PC offline keeps it safe, right?

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ Leave a comment

Wrong.

Cyber crime is much sneakier than most people think. It is not limited to someone accessing your hotmail or Facebook account. it can take over your life. And gobble up your business.

There are various ways to access a computer that is offline. A term sometimes used for an offline computer is ‘air-gapped’, but for starters, a true air-gapped computer should never ever have been connected to the internet to minimise the chance that there is any software (code) on it that shouldn’t be on it. It should be brand-new, out of the box.

Unless you put it in a Faraday cage, some of the information on an offline computer can still be accessed although this is usually merely passive. It concerns information displayed on a screen or entered on a keyboard, for example. This can be accessed but not altered.

Here are a few technical articles for those who want some background:

Here is a really nice old video about it:

And this one, in German and much more recent, is quite clear too:

Here is another one:

In addition to the above, I see at least four more or less regular ways to access a computer and tamper with it:
– via cable or telephone line, directly;
– via cable or telephone line, using unused capacity on the line;
– wireless/wifi network;
– powerline networking.

In the case of powerline networking, there may be a need for that computer to have been hacked before it was taken offline. That also seems to be the case for at least one of the air-gap hopping methods.

It may also be possible to access printer memory via powerline networking and acquire information that way.

A computer does not have to be accessed through its operating system such as Windows, as is often thought. Computers can be accessed at a much more basic level as well, but it depends on the hardware and its settings.

Hackers can also purchase or build scanning equipment that can detect your mobile equipment. Phone hacking and spying software is available from regular retailers and its use has ‘reached epidemic proportions‘ (article in the Independent).

Here are four more articles, in The Independent and the Huffington Post:

If you are really intrigued now, read this article in NewScientist about new bugging devices.

Court of Appeal: LIPs must pay attention to Civil Procedure Rules

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

Last month, the Court of Appeal dealt with the case between Nata Lee Ltd and Abid & Another. Nata Lee appealed against an Order made in the Central London County Court in 2013.

court houseNata Lee had appeared in the County Court without legal representation and had failed to apply for permission to include an expert witness in a timely manner (three days late). The County Court judge subsequently refused to admit this witness.

Although other factors played a greater role in this case, in its judgement ([2014] EWCA Civ 1652), the Court of Appeal made clear that, in its view, the fact that a party is acting without legal representation is no reason to allow disregard for rules, orders and directions.

Litigants in person should not be surprised by the consequences of failing to comply with the CPR or by having applications for relief from sanctions turned down when these sanctions were the result of failure to comply with the CPR on the part of the litigant in person.

Lord Justice Briggs continued:

“There may be cases in which the fact that a party is a litigant in person has some consequence in the determination of applications for relief from sanctions, but this is likely to operate at the margins.”

Homelessness, housing duty and vulnerability

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

Today is the third of three days at the Supreme Court that focus on homelessness, housing duty and vulnerability (or rather, priority).

courthouseThe three cases are:
– Hotak (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent)
– Johnson (Appellant) v Solihull MBC (Respondent)
– Kanu (AP) (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent)

(Interveners in all three cases:
Equality and Human Rights Commission, Shelter, Crisis and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.)

What is it all about? Predominantly 189(1)(c) in the Housing Act 1996:

189 Priority need for accommodation.

(1) The following have a priority need for accommodation—

(a) a pregnant woman or a person with whom she resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;

(b) a person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside;

(c) a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason, or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;

(d )a person who is homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of an emergency such as flood, fire or other disaster.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) specify further descriptions of persons as having a priority need for accommodation, and

(b) amend or repeal any part of subsection (1).

(3) Before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult such associations representing relevant authorities, and such other persons, as he considers appropriate.

(4) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

Hotak is a pretty straightforward case, at first sight; the two other cases are less clear. Hotak concerns two brothers, one of which (Sifatullah) would certainly be considered vulnerable if the other one (Ezatullah) had not said that he would look after his brother. The brothers were living in a friend’s flat in Southwark, but told to leave because of overcrowding. Ezatullah’s immigration status at the time, however, made him ineligible for housing assistance.

Southwark did give the brothers temporary housing while it made its mind up. It decided that Sifatullah was unintentionally homeless, and eligible for assistance, yet did not consider him vulnerable in terms of in priority need of housing because his brother was looking after him. This is where the case went off the rails.

If Sifatullah were a pregnant woman, unintentionally homeless (as it is called), and eligible for assistance, whether the person with whom she resides or might reasonably be expected to reside supports her or not makes no difference, as one of the lawyers highlighted on Monday.

Another one pointed out that the law does not contain an element of comparison. A person’s own condition makes him or her relatively vulnerable when on the street, and the law had the intention of preventing and eliminating all homelessness. This would mean that a) there is no such thing as “an ordinary street-homeless person” (used by Southwark to compare Sifatullah against) and b) one could say that being homeless in itself already points toward a person being less able to fend for himself or herself, as homelessness is not the norm in this country.

It looks like the practice of the application of this legislation – carried out by the decision-making housing officer – has been moving toward comparing a blind applicant with street-homeless blind applicants, deaf applicants with street-homeless deaf applicants, mentally ill applicants with street-homeless mentally ill applicants, applicants with substance abuse with homeless people with substance abuse.

More specifically, practice seems to be more and more relying on the premise that all homeless persons are, almost by definition, street-homeless mentally ill and/or substance abusers and/or physically ill, deserving no special protection (in Johnson, for instance). The law was not intended that way. The law does not even say anything like this.

The pregnant woman, however, is never compared with other pregnant women to determine her vulnerability. The same applies to any persons who have lost their home in a flood.

“Ideas about vulnerability are perhaps most often applied by those in more powerful positions to define those in less powerful ones.” (Kate Brown)

Housing matters at the Supreme Court – 5

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

Today in Court 2:
Aster Communities Limited (formerly Flourish Homes Limited) (Respondent) v Akerman-Livingstone (AP) (Appellant)

courthouseNot broadcast live.

A clear case of a causal relationship between someone’s disability and the reason for issuing proceedings, in my view. Someone unable to comply with what is expected from him. (One could see it as maladministration, perhaps.)

Will the Supreme Court see a violation of the Equality Act and let this weigh heavier or will other interests overrule?

Not an easy case.

Update: still went live later.

PS
See also my earlier post about this case.

Revenge evictions – part 2

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

A little while ago, I posted about the upcoming vote on the Tenancies (Reform) Bill. Its intention is to put a stop to revenge evictions.

arrowpointingright

First, I received an update from Crisis (the national charity for single homeless people), informing me that “despite hundreds of Crisis campaigners like you emailing their MP, the Bill to tackle revenge evictions has failed.”

arrowpointingrightA few days later, I received a letter from the MP for Portsmouth South, Mike Hancock. He explained in detail that two Conservative MPs “intentionally used up the rest of the allotted time to prevent the Bill from being voted on“.

arrowpointingright

At around the same time, I also received Lime Legal’s newsletter (edited by housing champion Jan Luba QC), which included an item on the same topic:

“On 28 November 2014 a private members bill designed to address retaliatory evictions … was talked-out in Parliament and, despite having had UK Government support, is unlikely to make further progress.”

arrowpointingrightAlso interesting is what the Residential Landlord’s Association had to say about what actually happened. Among other things, it wrote:

“The Bill ran out of time, after only 60 MPs voted on a procedural motion to put the Bill to a vote.  100 MPs are required for such a motion to succeed.  It now drops to the bottom of the order for Private Members’ Bills and has no chance of proceeding.”

If you clicked on that last link, you’ll have seen that someone called the Bill “badly drafted“.

Together, these four views give a better picture than either one of them individually, particularly when combined with the official account of what went on that day.

More information:

home

The second reading debate is expected to continue on 23 January 2015. Initially, that appears to have been scheduled for 5 December 2014 (tomorrow), a day on which there would likely have been no time to discuss the Bill in Parliament as there would be 8 bills ahead of it, so I understood from Mr Hancock’s explanation. It is even less likely to be read on 23 January, as 11 bills will be ahead of it on that day, and everyone agrees that is it dead in the water.

If you want to follow what happens to the bill, click on this link to its page on the Parliament’s web site.

UPDATE 10 December from Lime Legal:

“After the talking-out of the Tenancies Reform Bill, there is to be an attempt to introduce the same provisions controlling retaliatory eviction as part of the Deregulation Bill which is currently going through the House of Lords”

Policing matters at the Supreme Court

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

You can follow the current proceedings online: here.lady justice

There has been a “massive bonfire” (words of counsel) in the National Domestic Extremism Database recently, partly or perhaps mainly because of the HMIC’s assessment that there was massive overinclusion of data.

The existence of this database was revealed by the media (The Guardian, I believe) in 2009. It may have been in existence since 1999 and have widened its scope later.

The other side of policing

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

Being a police officer can’t be easy these days. My previous post may have sounded pretty harsh to some, but I have had this present post in the works for some time too. Obviously, police officers get to see a lot of bad stuff that most humans could happily do without, but that’s only the beginning.

investigatedWhen I look at police, I always have in my mind the distant memory of when the hotshots of Dutch police got together during several weekends, taking a good look at what was going on in their forces. ( I seem to remember that they did that in their spare time, unpaid.) Then they started to do away with a lot of crazy stuff that was handed down to them by the Ministry without there being any basis in reality for it.

What follows is not an in-depth analysis of what is going on in England & Wales, but a low-resolution snapshot taken from some distance, a bird’s eye perspective. It reveals an interesting landscape. Continue reading →

Policing matters at the Supreme Court

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

Today brings the start of three days of policing matters at the Supreme Court:
courthouse

  • R (on the application of Catt) (Respondent) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and another (Appellants)
  • R (on the application of T) (Respondent) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Appellant)

Both cases concern the right to the protection of citizens’ privacy, notably regarding the length of the time certain matters remain part of police records.

The first case looks at whether the retention by police of data relating to an individual’s involvement in one or more protests was lawful in terms of art.8 ECHR.

The second case is a judicial review on whether the retention by police of information relating to a letter issued to the respondent following an allegation of harassment was lawful in terms of art.8 ECHR.

Continue reading →

Disabled woman stole food from Asda after benefits stopped

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

Police and CPS like soft targets. (I call it sandwich justice, but sometimes, it goes a lot further than mere sandwich justice.) Thankfully, she was not jailed for 12 months.

samedifference1's avatarSame Difference

Readers, howmany more similar stories am I going to have to cover?

A woman whose benefits had been stopped stole food from a supermarket.

Wendy Rogers, 51, of Garstang Road East, Poulton, pleaded guilty to two offences of theft.

Chrissie Hunt, prosecuting, said Rogers took a shoulder of pork from Asda on September 28, and the following day returned to the store and took a packet of cream cheese.

Trevor Colebourne, defending, said his client, who had no previous convictions, was severely disabled and had had numerous operations.

At the time of the theft she had problems over her benefits and was penniless.

Rogers was given a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered to pay £15 victims’ surcharge by Blackpool magistrates.

View original post

Revenge evictions

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

On 28 November, MPs can vote to outlaw revenge evictions, evictions that happen just because a tenant asks to have the heating fixed or a mould and moisture problem dealt with. The law currently still allows that. Find out if your MP is standing up for renters. Mine is (but I don’t know yet if he will also attend the debate in Parliament that day).

Here are examples of other MPs who are voting to end revenge evictions:

Andrew Smith
Oxford East

Bob Blackman
Harrow East

Nicola Blackwood
Oxford West and Abingdon

Peter Bottomley
Worthing West

homePhilip Hollobone
Kettering

Sarah Teather
Brent Central

Stephen Williams
Bristol West

Tessa Munt
Wells

Andrew Slaughter
Hammersmith

Annette Brooke
Mid Dorset and North Poole

Caroline Lucas
Brighton Pavilion

David Lammy
Tottenham

Diane Abbott
Hackney North and Stoke Newington

Don Foster
Bath

Heidi Alexander
Lewisham East

Jeremy Corbyn
Islington North

Jim Fitzpatrick
Poplar and Limehouse

Julian Huppert
Cambridge

Karen Buck
Westminster North

Kate Hoey
Vauxhall

Keith Vaz
Leicester East

Lynne Featherstone
Hornsey and Wood Green

Simon Danczuk
Rochdale

Stephen Pound
Ealing North

Teresa Pearce
Erith and Thamesmead

Brian Donohoe
Central Ayrshire

How to turn ‘no’ into ‘yes’

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

Once upon a time, there was a woman who got really ticked off because her disabled brother was unable to get a job. Employers told him ‘no’. So she started a business herself and offered him a job.

The year was 1999. The startup location was in Amsterdam, right around the corner from where I was living back then. Today that business has 17 branches all over the country. Two years ago, in 2012, it was acquired by a larger enterprise, but the business philosophy remains the same.

Valid Express only employs couriers who are physically disabled or chronically ill.
Continue reading →

More support for litigants in person in the future

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

Last month, Minister of State for Justice Simon Hughes announced that £2 million has been set aside towards a package of support for LIPs, with the apparent primary aim of resolving disputes without the involvement of the courts, but also supporting LiPs if their disputes do make it to the courts. That’s what various legal publications published. The Guardian, however, spoke of 1.4 million per year.

case filesThe funding is intended for the following:

  • Expansion of the Personal Support Unit (currently only present at a few locations in the UK);
  • The RCJ Advice Bureau (which helps claimants and defendants at the High Court or Court of Appeal at the Royal Court of Justice & County Courts across England and Wales, the family court at the Principal Registry of the Family Division or any other family court, and
    the bankruptcy court at the Royal Court of Justice);
  • LawWorks (he country’s leading legal pro bono charity for solicitors, in-house counsel, mediators and students); and
  • Law for Life, a public legal education charity.

This initiative is the result of the November 2011 report “Access to Justice for Litigants in Person (or self-represented litigants)“.

Sources:

The ideas that laws are based on

officially ᗩᑎGEᒪIᑎᗩ

If you are going to court on your own, or are thinking about it, and have never done anything like that before, watching some episodes of this Justice course on YouTube will give you a better perspective.

It will give you some insight into the reasoning behind laws, and is bound to reveal ideas you had not thought of yet. It shows you that you may feel you are right, but that it can be merely a matter of perspective.

The person you think has wronged you may feel just as strongly that he or she is right and that you are the one who went wrong. It helps to understand that because it can mean that you won’t need to go to court after all.