Lipstick and Law

2012-01-01T09:47:00.000-01:00

Hi Blog-followers,

I haven't posted on this blog for sometime. Mainly, because I had forgotten the login details... but also, because I have been busy finishing my LL.B (Hons) Law Degree. I am please to say this is now all done.... I was awarded at 2:1 just a few weeks ago, having taken my finals in October 2011. Award ceremony in March 2012.

Here's to the BTPC in Sept!

Happy New Year all!

May it please the Court....?

2009-02-27T18:44:00.002-01:00

Wigs and gowns, those hardy perennials of the legal profession, are back in the news, with Lord Worth of Matravers, doesn’t that just trip off the tongue, modelling the latest creation from some fashion icon with only a passing acquaintance of the law, rather like some judges I know. The Good Lord’s outfit is likened to that of Darth Vadar, black from head to toe, with distinctive tabs clinging seductively to the neck, the colour of which determines the seniority and provenance of the wearer.

Inevitably, the ‘pro’ and ‘con’ camps seem to be equally divided, so let’s look at where we are now, before considering where we go from here.

In the Magistrates Courts, otherwise known as courts of inferior jurisdiction, and which include Family Proceedings Courts, robes are conspicuous by their absence, both by advocates and justices alike. The same applies in the County Court hearing Family matters, and it is increasingly becoming the norm not to robe in civil matters for committal proceedings.

That leaves grown up County Courts, Crown Courts and the courts of superior jurisdiction such as the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, soon to be replaced by the Supreme Court. In these courts, barristers still wear wig and gown, wing collar and bands, and the same applies to solicitor advocates, minus wig, to mark them down as interlopers and incompetents. However, Judges ‘robe up’ in various combinations of colours, and also wear the short bottomed wig. The full bottomed wig is reserved for ceremonial occasions and “theatre of the absurd” pictures in the press and media, to reassure Joe Public of the full majesty of the law, and God help those who transgress it.
The group of advocates clinging most tenaciously to the wig seem to be those practising the criminal law. The reasoning behind their tenacity is the belief that wig and gown give them a measure of anonymity, so that when they leave court, clutching their crust for the day, they are less likely to be accosted by a disgruntled defendant uttering that familiar refrain: “Who the f**k are you calling a f**king liar?”..... For my part, I am persuaded, so I am firmly in the ‘Keep the wig and gown’ lobby.

But whatever the preferences of the profession, I feel that the proposed changes for the judiciary are not the answer. It’s simply tinkering at the margins, and change for change’s sake. I venture the opinion that most of the judiciary prefer to robe, and remain the way they are, and I agree. They need something to set them apart from lesser mortals, and to give them gravitas. After all, they carry a grave and weighty responsibility, especially in the criminal courts when passing lengthy sentences of imprisonment, or even community penalties. Those on the receiving end need to have impressed on them the seriousness and solemnity of the occasion, however, if the perception is that condign punishment is being meted out by Darth Vadar or Coco the Clown, the law is potentially devalued and the poorer for it!

Diversity at the Bar -

2007-03-25T20:32:00.001-01:00

I have a tendency to pick up various magazines, put them on my desk and then promptly forget about them as they become buried under piles of work. This morning I thought I'd try and 'clear the decks' a little bit - you know things are bad when your desk is no longer visible! The problem is that I hate clearing my desk so when I stumbled across the January edition of Counsel magazine, that was all the distraction I needed to convince me that there were more entertaining things to be doing than clearing my desk. So I settled myself down with a nice cup of coffee and got reading.
There was an article, Diversity and the Bar written by Derek Wood QC, which captured my attention. The picture under the title is of four young people (no doubt intended to represent the diversity of the modern Bar) - one black (male), one white female, one white male and one east asian (male). This picture, one can only assume, is intended to represent both gender and ethnic diversity. Clearly such an image cannot really hope to demonstrate diversity of background in the socio-economic sense - another 'hot topic' which is currently being scrutinised by various Committees. There is clearly considerable concern that the majority of entrants to the profession are still from a fairly affluent family background, often with a public school education and also quite possibly an Oxbridge graduate.

However, what disturbed me slightly was the fact that the four people photographed were all undoubtedly in their very early twenties. What about diversity of age?Anyone who has been following this blog will recall that I have previously alluded to the fact that I am classed as a 'mature entrant' to the profession. That means that I am anywhere from 25 upwards. Those of you who are at university now, or more probably those on the BVC currently, will be aware that there is a fairly large proportion of 'mature students' currently studying with the intention of going to the Bar. Some of these people are undoubtedly in their mid twenties. Many more are in their thirties and forties (and older)! I have yet to read any article which specifically considers the plight of this particular class of entrants to the profession. This is a disappointment and an oversight in my opinion. It is quite possible that the cost of qualifying as a barrister, in the absence of any substantial injection of funding from elsewhere, will possibly mean that people will need to go and earn some money to pay their way through Bar school.
Consequently it is quite likely that the age of entry to the Bar will creep up. Indeed, it has been recognised that many people do work and study at the same time given that there are now a number of part-time BVC courses running at various BVC providers, although the full time courses have a good proportion of 'mature students' anyway. Furthermore, it has got to be a positive thing given that older entrants with more life experience and maturity may well find themselves better equipped to deal with some of the situations they will have to deal with as a barrister.When I go to my Inn it is impossible to ignore the enormous variation in the ages of the BVC students. I have certainly seen the odd one or two who must have been close to sixty and people who are obviously in their thirties and forties are pretty common place.
I know a number of people who fall into this category and some of them firmly believe that their age has hindered their progress this far. It is not surprising that some 'mature entrants' to the profession feel like the 'odd man out' given that all the literature that seems to refer to diversity at the Bar appears to omit age as an issue and the photographs which accompany discussions on the diversity issue in the press seem to focus on visual images concerning ethnicity and gender rather than also highlighting that age is a factor which needs addressing too.
It's high time the Bar woke up to the fact that age is a real issue that they need to tackle. Even if it is satisfied that applicants are not discriminated against on the basis of their age, the Bar, as a profession, ought to more publicly acknowledge and accept that there are many older people coming to the Bar, sometimes as a second career. This is not at all obvious from any of the literature that I see and this omission could quite possibly give mature entrants the impression that they are somehow a less acceptable class of entrant to the profession - this needs to change if the Bar is ever to be regarded as being truly diverse.

Take him down! [Great post!]

2007-02-27T22:28:00.000-01:00

Legal scribbles........
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court declined to consider whether a man who received a 200-year sentence for possessing 20 images of child pornography had been dealt a constitutionally excessive sentence.
The original sentence was calculated on the rather simple basis that, under Arizona law, the “sexual exploitation of a minor” carries with it a minimum sentence of ten years (so 1 image = 10 years x 20 images = 200 years.) There is no possibility of probation or early release. The brief argued, inter alia, that other States, and Federal law, would have imposed a five-year sentence for the same offence.
The case, Berger v. Arizona, No. 06-349, has drawn considerable attention in criminal law circles as providing a possible occasion for the justices to take a fresh look at a subject they have treated only sparingly. While fully engaged in reconsidering the respective roles of judges and juries in criminal sentencing, the court has been extremely reluctant to strike down particular sentences as excessive.
Would our courts consider a 200-year sentence excessive for the possession of 20 indecent images of children? With John Reid leaning over their shoulder, of course they would; this is the government, don’t forget, who seem to advocate releasing convicted sex offenders, guilty of three offences of causing a person under 16 to engage in sexual activity without consent and one of sexual activity with a child under 16, because our prisons are somewhat over crowded! Even when they do eventually find space, 4 years seems to be as much as we can offer.
Who’s got it right? A scintilla of common sense would seem to suggest that the answer lies somewhere in between?!

....May the force be with you!

2007-02-27T19:35:00.000-01:00

Today I was turned down for a mini-pupillage placement by the administrative decision maker type person of the Jedi Counsel, stating "I would actually suggest that you delay an application for mini pupillage until next year at the earliest. I say that because you will not be applying for pupillage until at least 2009 and memories fade!" - Ughh?

Upon clarification, basically I was being told that no matter how good you are, you will be forgotten about by your supervisor when it comes to application for full pupillage. Ah-huh.

I am slightly confused by the response but grateful for the advice. It seems inconsistent with everything I have heard, read and been advised. It was my [and every other students] understanding that applications for mini-pupillage should be made at this stage in my studies in order for the student to gain some work experience during this period, certainly well prior to completion of the degree. Mini-pupillage has become increasingly more popular, with some chambers receiving in excess of 600 application per year. With competition so high, many students are advised make applications well prior to even enrolling on the BVC and making application for full pupillage, which as [admin person] states, will be around 2009 - and less than 2 years away in reality. If the lead time on m/pupillage is a 2 – 3 months, a period of less than 2 years will fly by [no pun intended :-) ]. Whats more, it seems that more and more chambers are departing from the informal arrangement of work experience and are now assessing mini-pupils as a means of determining the quality of those applying for full pupillage at a later date. The number and variety of m/pupillages undertaken, it has therefore been suggested, are taken in to consideration.

I spoke to Obi-Wan about it. He sorted it aaaallll out, and I am booked in for 7th May!

Yoda and Obi-Wan

2007-02-26T20:35:00.000-01:00

2007-02-25T22:57:00.000-01:00

.........Been researching which Inn of Court to Join........choices, choices.........Middle or Inner.....Hhmm Inner....no, Middle......No, definately Inner.

The supporting advice is..........to anyone even at this stage is to make sure you know what the deadlines are for applications for pupillage, for Inn scholarships, for BVC places etc. Start compiling this information early on in your studies as alot of applications need to be made a long way in advance. Also, consider applying to non-OLPAS chambers for pupillage as well as OLPAS - it's worth the extra effort and even if you don't get an offer, the extra interview experience was always be helpful. There is heavy suggestion of getting lots of non-academic experience too - mooting, marshalling, mini-pupillages etc - you'll be competing with people who have done all of this - it demonstrates genuine commitment to your chosen career. Luckily I'm on the right track here.....

And finally, be prepared for the knock backs! - persistence is a clear 'must have' attribute in this profession it seems!

Update Update Update!!

2007-02-23T23:59:00.000-01:00

Obi-Wan took me for dinner this evening.........oh my god he's so cute...... I do hope I get to do more of this particular learning activity - how to sip fine wine and make sensible conversation with a Jedi Knight!! ggrrr!!

It was not, thankfully, anything like the dating experience of my TV beau....Mr Spader......
'>http://www.youtube.com/v/rbfNdzcrd2U" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

Friday night with wigs and robes...

2007-02-16T22:53:00.000-01:00

........following another delightful evening of fine wine and engaging conversation following an early rise from Court today, I now have 2 separate sets of mini-pupillage lined up with friends and colleagues of M.Yoda.....(one particularly cute colleague I must say - lets call him Obi-Wan)........

.....So I am very excited about the next few months. Mini-pupillage has suddenly become very popular, with some chambers booked up a year in advance! Mini-pupils are not assessed, but you have to formally apply and attend an interview and chambers do like to see you have gained this kind of experience when considering full pupillage applications. Mid-law degree is the time to start getting your face in the door.
So then, I think I will have to squeeze at least one of these arrangements in between my bermuda trip and the antigua.....hhhmmm, no maybe after the Antigua??.......

2007-02-14T08:09:00.000-01:00

Well, when I started this blog, I did intend to maintain it if not daily, semi daily........ **clears throat** ......suffice to say, I have just been far too busy....(Studying, yes; studying for two modules, yes, visiting court, yes; doing virtual PA work in order to eat and feed my 2 long suffering cats, yes; ..........watching Boston Legal, definately; cuddling the cats, of course; getting up late - NO!) ;-)

Suffice to say - I am recommitting to my (absent) readership and dedicating a serious 5 minutes a day to my blog! - Starting today - Valentines Day ! ( **I love you blog**) :-)

By the way - I borrowed that pic from `the law student' - as I didn't have *time* to find my own ;-)

My Mini-Pupillage Opportunities

2007-01-09T20:17:00.000-01:00

Well..... Since new year, I have been cementing my future direction on the muddled paths of the legal profession. Without doubt I want to continue to the BVC and become a barrister rather than take the solicitor route.....but this route does seem tough. I have considered the number of pupillages offered against the number of applications made in the last 12 mths (598 offered to 1600+ applicants!). Makes for a few sleepless nights to say the least. I decided there were no half measures to be taken. As I said, I have sourced a potential unofficial Master of the experience, and through some very careful and diligent planning - (well an email and phone call actually), ended one particular day with a bottle of champagne with him..............
Suffice to say - I am feeling quite smug, and, I must say, quite taken by his unexpected charm....tho this I will no doubt learn is a short lived professional guise! Anyhow, in the meantime I have been offered a mishmash of mini pupillage opportunities, much support and the prospect of more champagne at a later date. Happy neeew year!

Obviously I can't tell YOU who he is, but for the purposes of this blog, lets just call him Master Yoda - oldest and wisest of the Jedi Counsel.....hhmmm, or was that short, rotund and green? Lets not debate description, neither are truely accurate ;-)

Happy New Year!

2006-12-31T12:45:00.000-01:00

Happy New year!

I hope you had a great xmas and are looking forward to the coming year as much as I am.

I have been working on the first of three assessments for my current module - Employment Law & Practice. That out of the way, I am now working in assessment 2. I have also received my next module - Rules, Rights & Justice. Studying 2 modules at once......am I mad?

Anyhow I shall post next the schedule of cases being heard at the Bailey next week as soon as they start sitting again. Case of Omar Khyam + Others does not re-sit until 8th January so I hope to be able to get some more work done in the meantime.

Since achieving promotion at work (thats the airline bit), I have been on a promotional course for 7 days, and trying to sort out my roster for January and February. Hoping to get some nice Barbados/Bermuda trips for Feb roster! mmmm sun!

I have also emailed a particular barrister defending on the Khyam case. I want his help basically - and why not? He had to start somewhere too.... Altho, I doubt mini-pupils existed in his day. It seems that competition is so high for training and placements for pupillage, this pseudo pupil role has emerged. I guess they think that enough will be put off by that experience that it leaves the full time [real] pupillage opportunities to those serious enough to propel themselves in to debt and exam overload. I kinda figure that this business is as much about who you know as it is about qualification..... that in mind, I picked an interesting character... ;-)

Will sign off now. I hope you enjoy your evenings celebrations - be safe.

Best Wishes!

Apologies

2006-12-19T14:11:00.000-01:00

Sorry for the long silence on this blog - I have been thru promotion at work and then moved house!
Updates will start to appear again regularly now!
Anna

Blake and Carty

2006-11-03T12:25:00.000-01:00

This morning the jury were told that Blake confested to a prison guard that he was present at the time of the robbery of Thomas Ap Ryce Price and that Carty did indeed stab Mr Ryce Price. The prison guard gave evidence to that effect and the trial continues.

Harassment & Bullying - another layer of liability

2006-11-02T11:03:00.000-01:00

Employers be warned - You could be sued for being a bully!
Bullying can take on many different forms, and as some are all too aware, bullying does not necessarily end when your school days are over…
The Health and Safety Executive estimates that bullying costs employers 80 million working days and up to £2 billion in lost revenue every year. Stress and ill-health can become part of the daily life of those being bullied, which can in turn mean higher levels of absence, lower motivational levels, reduced work output and ultimately a loss of resources when individuals whom employers have spent time and money recruiting and training, leave their Company.
Employers who fail to tackle bullying may not only pay a high price in terms of business productivity, performance and profitability, but could also face legal claims as well. This has been highlighted this week by the House of Lords decision to dismiss the appeal in Majrowski v Guys and St. Thomas NHS Trust. The Lords agreed with the Court of Appeal that an employer can be vicariously liable in damages for its employees breach of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ("the Act"). The Marjowski decision is a potential nightmare for employers as it means that there is another potential liability under employment law, and they will face a further risk if they do not have a good anti-harassment policy in place, and a proactive approach to prevention of harassment.
Employers have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees. If they do not do this they are breaching an individual’s contract of employment. A failure to tackle bullying may also amount to a breach of sexual harassment and racial discrimination legislation as well as the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Now, under the Marjowski decision an employer can be vicariously liable for a breach of the Act if an employee can establish a sufficiently clear link between the work and the harassment. So employers will be forced to pay up even when they are not in the wrong but their employees are.
This decision is likely to lead to an increase in the numbers of claims of harassment against employers. Up until now, employees who are victims of workplace harassment have experienced difficulty in finding a harassment specific claim to bring against their employers. They have either had to bring such a claim as part of a constructive dismissal action or for stress amounting to personal injury. Alternatively, they could bring a claim for harassment under the fairly new harassment rights under discrimination laws, but these require a discriminatory context before they can be brought.
Whereas now, under the Act:
there is no statutory defence available to employers under the Act as there is under discrimination legislation.
it is not necessary for the victim of harassment to prove that they have suffered physical or psychiatric injury or that their suffering was reasonably foreseeable; both factors would need to be proved in a personal injury claim.
the employee only has to demonstrate there was a course of conduct, consisting of two or more instances that caused him/her anxiety or distress, and that the perpetrator must have known or objectively have known that the conduct amounted to harassment.
the claim now needs no discriminatory element.
A further advantage to the employee is that the Act provides individuals with six years in which to bring a claim compared to just three months under anti-discrimination laws. However, because bringing a claim under the Act is dealt with in a County or High Court rather than an employment tribunal, the cost to the claimant of bringing the claim is likely to be higher; the unsuccessful party will generally bear both parties’ costs. This cost implication may act as a deterrent to an employee thinking about bringing a claim.
It is important to remember that although this article refers to the potential claimants as being employees, the Act offers protection to the public at large, meaning that so long as the harassing behaviour is carried out in the course of an employee’s employment the employer will potentially be vicariously liable for their employees’ conduct.
Furthermore, as the Act creates both a criminal offence and civil entitlement to a civil remedy, employers may find themselves facing fines, compensation and possibly a jail sentence.
The best way for employers to limit such liability is to have an effective anti-harassment policy. This means that employers must address any behaviour that could be seen as harassing and, where possible, action must be taken to prevent employee behaviour that could cause others distress and anxiety. Also employers should check that their employer’s liability insurance will cover any claims brought under the Act.

In the news today - Iran ex-leader urges muslims to `Obey UK law'

2006-11-02T09:13:00.000-01:00

Mr Khatami called for greater understanding between religionsUK Muslims should obey British law as well as accepting the obligations of citizenship, the former president of Iran has urged.
Mohammad Khatami, during a three-day visit to Britain, told BBC News the UK was right to fear radicalism.
But it had added to the problem by getting involved in Iraq, he said.
Mr Khatami, the most senior Iranian to visit the UK since the 1979 Islamic revolution, said his mission was to remove barriers between East and West.
His attempts at moderation and reform in Iran were ended by the election of the hard line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last year.
But, in an interview with BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he said he was still working to tackle extremism wherever it existed.
'Extremist' Bush
Mr Khatami condemned "insurgent terrorism" in Iraq.
And he also criticised the "extremist" Bush administration.
The former president said his mission was to break down barriers between the great religions and civilisations of East and West.
To that end, Mr Khatami said that, while British Muslims should recognise they had no religious obligation to wear a veil, they also had the right to wear one.
If someone does not share their religion with me, they are definitely respectable and entitled to receive compassion as human beings
Mohammad Khatami
"You are British first," he said - before calling for the Muslim faith to be fully respected in a Christian country.

Court 1 - 2pm

2006-11-01T08:37:00.000-01:00

Today starts the trial of Mizanur Rahman for soliciting to murder and inciting to racial hatred. He is the first of four british muslim cartoon protestors to face trial. A mass protest is expected out side the Old Bailey today.

31st October 2003 - Court 10

2006-10-31T17:13:00.000-01:00

This was also going on today - Murdered City lawyer trial to start - Tom ap Rhys Pryce
The trial of two teenagers accused of murdering City lawyer Tom ap Rhys Pryce will begin at the Old Bailey today.
The 18 and 19-year-olds, who cannot be namedon this blog for legal reasons, deny murder.
Mr Ap Rhys Pryce, a Cambridge graduate who worked at Linklaters, the "magic circle" firm, was stabbed to death near his home near Kensal Green Underground station, north London, in January this year.

31st October - Court 8

2006-10-31T10:52:00.000-01:00

Here is a flavour of the trial currently happening Court 8. I'm not typing all this up every day so make the most of this one:

A terror suspect today told a jury the 'facts' proved he had nothing to do with a plot to build a deadly fertiliser bomb.
Suspects Omar Khyam, Nabeel Hussain, and Anthony Garcia have already admitted buying or storing fertiliser which was purchased from Bodle Brothers Agricultural Merchants.
Today Akbar was asked how an estimate document from Big Yellow Storage and piece of paper with the number of Bodle Brothers came to be at his Crawley home.
Prosecuting Mark Heywood said: 'How did the estimate come to be in your bedroom?'
Akbar said: 'I don't know.'
Mr Heywood added: 'Is there anyhting you can say that would help the jury to undersand how this document innocently came to be in your possession?'
'Not from my knowlege. I can't remember.' said Akbar
Mr Heywood said: 'So it is just a coincidence that documents relating to the storage of fertilsier and items relating to the purchase of fertiliser are found at your home?'
But Akbar claimed a conversation picked up by MI5 bugs on March 18 2004, proved he never knew about the fertiliser.
He said: 'You are avoiding the fact that when I am speaking to Nabeel Hussain on March 18 I ask him when and where he stored it.
'I ask him where did you store this and when did you do this so I didn't know where or when it was stored so that is a fact that is not in dispute.
'Just because you don't remember something doesn't mean something else must have happened.
'Alot of inferences are being made but these are dates that were not important to me at the time so I can't remember.
'But the facts show I didn't know about the fertiliser.'
But Judge Michael Astill said: 'That is for the jury to decide what the facts are. It is not for you to lecture.
'I understand you want to get your point across but you have been given every opportunity. That is your view and the prosecuting have another.
'It is up to the jury to decide.'
Akbar, who was born in Pakistan, moved to the UK with his mother, two brothers and one sister in 1992.
The prosecution say he was working alongside Khyam, Garcia, Hussain, Shujah-ud-din Mahmood,19, Waheed Manhood, 35 and Salahuddin Amin, 31.
Members of the group, including Akbar, had allegedly undergone explosives training in Pakistan and had brought their deadly knowledge back to England for a terror strike.
While giving evidence Garcia admitted he and Khyam had bought and stored the fertiliser but claimed it was to be shipped to Pakistan to help freedom fighters in occupied Kashmir.
Akbar denied any knowledge of the plot but he was picked up on a probe suggesting an attack on the Ministry of Sound nightclub in central London.
He and Khyam were also heard discussing the possibility of recruiting suicide bombers to hi-jack and blow-up aircraft.
Garcia, Khyam, Shujah-Ud-Din Mahmood, Waheed Mahmood, Akbar are all from Crawley, West Sussex; Garcia, is from Ilford, Essex; Hussain, is from Horley, Surrey. Amin, is of Luton, Beds;
Khyam also lived in Slough, Berkshire; Garcia also stayed at his girlfriend's home in Colindale, north London; Hussain, 20, was a student at Brunel University who lived in halls in Uxbridge; and Akbar also lived in Uxbridge.
All seven deny conspiracy with others including 27-year-old Momin Khawaja - a former software developer for the Canadian government who is awaiting trial - to cause an explosion likely to endanger life or injure property between January 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004.
Hussain, Garcia and Khyam also deny possessing the 600kg of fertiliser for the purposes of terrorism between November 11, 2003 and March 31, 2004.
Khyam and Shujah Mahmood further deny possessing aluminium powder for purposes connected with terrorism between October 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004.

Akbar denied he had doctored his defence case after a technical expect revealed utility maps had been accessed from his computer.
Suspect Waheed Mahmood, who worked as a gas sub-contractor, had allegedly stolen CDs from Transco and passed them to Akbar for safe-keeping.
The discs contained detailed maps of high pressure gas pipelines and underground electricity cables.
The prosecution claims the group of British Muslims were considering targeting the utilities to bring havoc to homes and businesses.
Akbar has told jurors how he ended up with the CDs after mistakenly picking them up from the back of Mahmood's van.
But today (Tues) Mark Heywood prosecuting said Akbar had concocted the story just a few months before the beginning of the trial.
Mr Heywood said: 'After your arrest, on April 5 2003, you were asked if there was innocent explanation for the CDs.
'And you didn't answer anything about it.
'At the end of your interview you did make a prepared statement. And do you admit again there is no reference to the Transco CDs.'
Akbar said: 'Yes.'
Mr Heywood answered: And it wasn't until a long time after you were charged with this offence, that you first talk about the Transco discs.'
'Yes,' said Akbar.
The court heard how Akbar had released a statement on September 28 2005 admitting to having the discs but for an 'innocent' purpose.
He now claims he had been asked to look after some discs for Mahmood as a 'Jihadi favour' but picked up the wrong set from the back of work van.
Mr Heywood said: 'It was not until five days before Mr Waters opened this case you filed a second defence case statement with this new version.'
The prosecution say Akbar had planned to pretend he had never viewed the discs.
But he changed his case again after a computer expert proved the discs had been viewed on his computer halfway through the trial, it is claimed.
Mr Heywood said: 'This is a classic example of you getting caught out in your lies.
'You will tailor your case to fit the high water mark of the evidence.'
But Akbar said: 'I disagree with that assertion.
'The only bits I remember clearly are what I have heard from the audio and surveillance and then I can get a clear picture in my mind about events.
'I tried to give the best answer I could at the time.'
Mr Heywood said: 'The case originally advances was that you had never seen the discs before.'
But Akbar said: 'Everything I have said has been backed up by the audios.
'It is clear from what I say in the surveillance I had looked at the maps.
The trial continues.

The Case

2006-10-29T15:32:00.000-01:00

The following posts are in relation to a case I am currently following at the CCC (Old Bailey).

The Chemical Bomb plot - March 2004 arrests. Surveillance from Feb 2004. Trial started March 2006.

Accused:
Omar Khyam 24
Shujah Mahmood 19
Waheed Mahmood 34
Jawad Akbar 23
Salahuddin Amin 31
Nabeel Hussain 21
Anthony Garcia 24

Charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 & Explosive Substances Act 1883 S3 - Conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life AND Possession of article of terrorism.

Plot to blow up targets in UK: Ministry of Sound, Bluewater and the Utilities Gas network.

Witnesses:
Mohammed Junaid Babar (Currently awaiting trial in USA)
Mohammed Momin Khawaja (Currently awaiting trial in Canada)
Ahmed Ali Khan (Cousin of Omar Khyam)
Gulzar

Judge presiding: Judge Sir Michael Astill

Prosecuting:
David Waters QC, Matthew Banham QC, Mark Heywood QC.

Defending:
Michel Massih QC, James Wood QC, Michael Mansfield QC, Joel Bennathan QC, Baronness Kennedy QC, Matthew Ryder, Patrick O'Conner QC - altho lets face it, we all know its the [senior] juniors that do all the work!

Welcome!

2006-10-28T19:58:00.000-01:00

Welcome to my blog spot. This site is quite unique in that, not only and I studying law, but also, I fly for one of the biggest global airlines - operating both long and short haul destinations and visiting some of the worlds most amazing and beautiful cities. I fly part time and so I find time to study and visit the CCC (Old Bailey) on a regular basis. I shall be reporting on some of the most recent cases thoughout this blog - so stay tuned for the lastest updates. Please feel free to comment or ask questions - I am always happy to participate in healthy and thought provoking dialogue.
I will also be listing some of the resources I use, mainly for fellow students. Again, if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks for joining me. x