the bar council law reform essay

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• Clerks & Admin

Practice Areas

Industry Sectors

• Training & Knowledge
• News & Events

Clerks & Admin

• Business Crime & Financial Services
• Civil Litigation
• Criminal Defence
• Criminal Regulatory
• Extradition
• Inquests & Public Inquiries
• Professional Discipline
• Private Prosecution
• Public Prosecution
• Betting & Gaming
• Construction
• Environmental
• Financial Services

Barrister Recruitment

Mini-Pupillage

Staff Vacancies

The Bar Council 2018 Law Reform Essay Competition: Not a Silver Bullet… but a Bullet Nonetheless

Ending the ban on the use of intercept material in criminal proceedings

First Six Pupil Amy Woolfson came second in the Bar Council Law Reform Essay 2018 Competition.

Introduction

On 23 July 2018 the news broke that the Government had supplied evidence to US authorities concerning Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh. The men were accused of being part of a group who murdered journalists and aid workers in Syria and created notorious propaganda videos for the so-called Islamic State.

There is nothing unusual about international evidence sharing – the Government receives over 8,000 mutual legal assistance requests a year. But what made this case extraordinary was that Ministers had shared evidence without first seeking an assurance that the men would not face the death penalty in the US.  Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott criticised the action as undermining the UK’s longstanding opposition to capital punishment, arguing that Ministers cannot be ‘…a little bit in favour of the death penalty. Either we offer consistent opposition, or we do not.’ [1]

Kotey and Elsheikh had strong connections to the UK, having formerly been British citizens. Two of their alleged victims were UK nationals. But Ministers preferred to supply evidence to support a trial in the US rather than domestically. Former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord MacDonald described this as ‘an abdication of sovereignty’. [2]

Why did Ministers not seek a trial in the UK? Lord MacDonald hinted at one possible reason: British-collected intercept material relevant to the case would be admissible in US courts. But it is banned even from being mentioned in UK courts. It is submitted that the ban is illogical and undermines the proper prosecution of serious crime and terrorism in the UK. This essay explains why and how the ban should be ended.

What is interception?

Interception can be described as the act of making the content of a communication available to a person who is neither the sender nor an intended recipient of that communication.

State interception of communications is arguably as old as communications technology itself. The first public reference to the practice can be traced to the Proclamation of May 25th, 1663 which restricted the opening of letters or packets to those authorised by the Principal Secretary of State. [3] In 1984 the European Court of Human Rights noted:

The power to intercept telephone messages has been exercised in England and Wales from time to time since the introduction of the telephone. [4]

Prior to the Interception of Communications Act 1985 (“IOCA”) , there was no statutory basis for the interception of telephone communications in the UK. In fact, the Government had expressly declined to bring forward legislation, arguing it would undermine the secret nature of the techniques used. IOCA was introduced in response to the European Court of Human Right’s judgment in Malone v United Kingdom . [5]

Malone was on trial for handling stolen goods when he learned that a telephone call he had made had been intercepted. The interception had been authorised under warrant from the Home Secretary. But there was no statutory basis for the Home Secretary’s power to issue a warrant. Nor was it claimed to flow from the royal prerogative. Malone challenged this in the domestic courts but the case was dismissed as being non-justiciable. The European Court of Human Rights found that the practice of interception was an unjustified breach of Article 8 ECHR as it was not conducted ‘in accordance with law’.

Whilst IOCA brought the interception of telephone communications into statute law, it also sought to minimise its justiciability. Section 9 of IOCA stated:

• In any proceedings before any court or tribunal no evidence shall be adduced and no question in cross-examination shall be asked which (in either case) tends to suggest—

(a) that an offence under section 1 above has been or is to be committed by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below ; or

(b) that a warrant has been or is to be issued to any of those persons.

IOCA was replaced by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”), which in turn has been replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (“IPA”). Although the law and technology concerning the interception of communications have been transformed since 1985, the ban on the use of intercept material has persisted. It is now contained in section 56 of IPA.

The effect of section 9 and its successors is that although interception is permitted by legislation, discussing interception in court is banned. A person in Malone’s position today would have no way of confirming whether interception had occurred. If prosecuting counsel were to confirm a defendant’s suspicions that his communications had been intercepted they would risk committing an offence punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment. [6]

Why is intercept material excluded from criminal evidence?

The Attorney General issues guidance [7] which explains the policy behind the ban. It states:

It has been long-standing Government policy that the fact that interception of communications has taken place in any particular case should remain secret and not be disclosed to the subject. This is because of the need to protect the continuing value of interception as a vital means of gathering intelligence about serious crime and activities which threaten national security. The Government judges that if the use of the technique in particular cases were to be confirmed, the value of the technique would be diminished because targets would either know, or could deduce, when their communications might be intercepted and so could take avoiding action by using other, more secure means of communication.

In practice this means that the interception of communications is subject to a policy of neither confirm nor deny. If prosecutors are asked whether interception has occurred in a particular case, they are advised to say:

I am not in a position to answer that, but I am aware of sections 17 and 18 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Attorney General’s Guidelines on the Disclosure of Information in Exceptional Circumstances under section 18. [8]

Problems with the ban

Intercept material can be highly incriminating. This is one reason why it has intelligence value. It may be the crucial evidence that would support a conviction. But section 56 of IPA excludes this material from criminal evidence and denies the prosecutor or the courts any discretion in the matter. We have examined its possible relevance to the case of Kotey and Elsheikh. We will now consider two cases which illustrate directly the value of intercept material in our criminal justice system, and which show why the policy argument set out in the Attorney General’s guidance is undermined by the various exceptions to the ban.

In June 2018, 18 year old Safaa Boular was found guilty of offences contrary to section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006. At her trial, a recording was played of Miss Boular talking to her sister Rizlaine. Using a rudimentary code, they discussed Rizlaine’s plans to commit a terror attack alongside their mother, Mina Dich. Safaa was already in custody when the call took place, and she used the prison telephone to talk to her sister. [9] Prison telephones are not classed as public telephone systems by the IPA, and intercepted prison telephone calls are admissible in court. [10] As the BBC noted:

This conversation was a key part of the evidence against Rizlaine Boular and Mina Dich, leading to their guilty pleas. [11]

Mobile phones abound in prisons in 2018. But if Safaa Boular’s phone call had taken place on a smuggled mobile phone, the content of the call could not have been used as evidence against her or the other defendants. The remaining evidence may not have been sufficient to secure their pleas or their convictions after trial. We will never know what effect the recording of the call had on the jurors who found Safaa guilty, but it seems fair to infer that it had some effect.

Intercept products are admissible in closed material proceedings and some closed tribunals, including in proceedings for Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (“TPIMs”). [12] It may have been possible to use the intercepted phone call to support applications for TPIMs against the Boular sisters and their mother. But TPIMs are a poor substitute for criminal convictions, particularly when there would be sufficient evidence to convict were it not for section 56 of IPA.

TPIMs are only available in cases concerning terrorism-related activity. Malone was not a terror case. And the interception of communications continues to have value well beyond terror cases. In Knaggs [13] communications intercepted by the Dutch authorities formed part of the prosecution evidence in a conspiracy to import cocaine and other drugs into the UK. Knaggs and his associates were convicted and sentenced to a total of over 80 years’ imprisonment.

Intercepted communications were admissible in Knaggs because they had been intercepted in accordance with Dutch law. The Court of Appeal noted that ban on the use of intercept products extends to materials obtained by overseas authorities under mutual assistance warrants, but found that cooperation between UK and Dutch authorities had been more informal in this case. The UK authorities had not procured the interception and it therefore did not fall to be excluded under section 18 of RIPA. [14] Knaggs has been described as an example of how the ban on using intercept products in court encourages ‘international law enforcement arbitrage’. [15] It is certainly difficult to understand the policy justification for excluding evidence obtained under a mutual assistance warrant but admitting evidence obtained overseas by more informal means.

Boular and Knaggs illustrate the utility of intercept products in securing convictions for serious offences. Crucially, in each case, slightly different facts would have engaged the ban on the use of intercept products, eroding or even destroying the basis for convictions that were undoubtedly in the public interest. They show the need to repeal section 56 of IPA.

How would law reform work?

Having demonstrated the increasing undesirability of the ban on the use of intercept material as criminal evidence, this essay proposes a simple solution. That is, to repeal section 56 of IPA along with section 3(7), 7A(9) and 8(6) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (“CPIA”). Repealing section 56 of IPA would enable interception to be discussed during criminal proceedings. Repealing the aforementioned provisions of the CPIA would enable the prosecution to use interception material as part of their case against the accused. It would also require the prosecution to disclose unused intercept material to the defence where the test for disclosure is also met.

Law reform would not lead to a flood of intercept material coming before the criminal courts or disclosed to defendants. Prosecutors would need to decide whether any available intercept material was necessary for them to put their case. Many cases where interception takes place would doubtless continue to be prosecuted without such material. Prosecutors would not be required to make disclosures where the CPIA test was not also met. As Lord Bingham stated in R v H :

If material does not weaken the prosecution case or strengthen that of the defendant, there is no requirement to disclose it. […] Neutral material or material damaging to the defendant need not be disclosed. [16]

Even where intercept material does meet the test for disclosure, it would be open to the prosecution to seek a ruling that disclosure would not be in the public interest. [17] This would exclude the evidence from the case entirely.

Furthermore, a range of statutory and common law measures can be deployed to minimise the risks associated with handling sensitive evidence in the criminal courts. The common law permits parts – or even all – of a trial to be held in camera where strictly necessary to enable justice to be done. [18] Reporting restrictions can be imposed. And whilst there is no restriction on jurors discussing evidence presented in open court, it is an offence to disclose information about their deliberations. [19] So the precise effect of intercept material on a jury’s verdict would not become known.

Interception is not solely undertaken by our intelligence agencies. Nor is it solely deployed for national security purposes. 3007 new interception warrants were issued in 2016, across nine interception agencies. [20] Of those 3007 warrants, 65% were for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime. [21] Where a warrant is issued for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime there should be a presumption that the fruits of that warrant are admissible as criminal evidence.

Benefits of law reform

Ending the statutory ban on the use of intercept products in court could increase public confidence in the authorities’ ability to disrupt crime and bring offenders to justice. The contribution of intercept material to public confidence in the justice system was noted as far back as 1923. In the trial of Irish nationalist Art O’Brien and others for seditious conspiracy, Mr Justice Swift stated:

…it was no doubt a matter of surprise to the jury to learn of the mass of correspondence passing between London and Dublin and of relief to know that the authorities in this country were not so blind or stupid as they were sometimes thought to be and that they knew a little more of what was going on than those who did these things either suspected or imagined…. It is well for this country that there is an organisation – when it is suspected that a crime is about to be perpetrated – which has a means of watching the suspected persons. [22]

Post-1985 it would be a criminal offence for a judge to make such a statement before a jury.

In December 2017 the Bar Council’s Law Reform committee argued that intercept evidence should be admissible in court with the leave of the judge. [23] This essay goes further – arguing that intercept evidence should be admissible on the same basis as other relevant evidence. It should not require the leave of the judge. This approach has previously been supported by NGOs including Liberty [24] and JUSTICE [25] . In what amounts to the most comprehensive independent report on intercept evidence, JUSTICE stated that:

Intercept evidence may not be a silver bullet but it is a bullet nonetheless. The time has come for the UK to join the ranks of common law countries that allow such ammunition in the fight against terrorism.

The common law countries JUSTICE refers to are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States. Other democracies use intercept evidence in criminal proceedings too, notably the Netherlands.

In 2010, the Coalition programme for government stated that Ministers would “seek to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court” [26] . Given the number and range of authoritative voices in favour of such a move, it is submitted that this was a laudable aim. This was followed up with a command paper, published in December 2014. This summarised previous reviews of the policy, and conducted a cost-benefit analysis of potential law reform. The paper concluded that ending the ban on the use of intercept material in court could be technically difficult and that law reform should not take place “at this time”. [27]

It is submitted that the outcome of the review was essentially a foregone conclusion, as it drew exclusively upon earlier studies that also supported a continued ban. The time has come for the Government to justify the ban from a point of principle, or to bring it to an end.

Furthermore, ending the ban on the use of intercept evidence would support the overriding objective of the criminal justice system: to deal with cases justly and, in particular, to acquit the innocent and convict the guilty. [28] As the cases of Boular and Knaggs show, intercept evidence can help to secure convictions in some of the most serious crimes against our society.

The ban on the use of intercept material in criminal proceedings undermines our ability to prosecute the most serious crimes. As can be demonstrated by its absence in numerous other democracies, it is not necessary to protect the public interest in maintaining secrecy around intelligence gathering. Repeal would boost public confidence in the administration of justice. It would be relatively simple and would not lead to a flood of sensitive material becoming disclosable. For these reasons, this law reform is practical, desirable and useful.

Amy Woolfson

[1] HC Deb 23 July 2018, vol 645, col 726

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/24/uk-may-face-legal-challenge-over-us-extradition-of-isis-pair

[3] Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors appointed to inquire into the interception of communications (Cmnd 283) (1957), para. 9. Available at https://www.fipr.org/rip/Birkett.htm

[4] Malone v United Kingdom (1985) 7 E.H.R.R. 14 at [28]

[6] Section 59 Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Alternatively, they may have committed an offence under section 4 of the Official Secrets Act 1989.

[7] Attorney General’s Guidelines for Prosecutors: Section 18 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (England and Wales). Presumably an updated version, taking into account the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 will be published soon.

[8] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/16324/Intercept_Guidelines_-_reformatted.pdf

[9] https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/teenager-convicted-uk-terror-plot

[10] Investigatory Powers Act 2016, Schedule 3, paragraph 2

[11] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44359958

[12] Investigatory Powers Act 2016, Schedule 3, paragraphs 4 – 17

[13] R v Knaggs and others [2018] EWCA Crim 1863

[14] The law in force at the time, which is essentially replicated by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

[15] https://crimeline.co.uk/uk-ban-on-eavesdropping-encourages-a-culture-of-international-law-enforcement-arbitrage/

[16] R v H [2004] 2 A.C. 134

[17] See section 3(6) CPIA

[18] See In re Guardian News and Media Ltd and others [2016] EWCA Crim 11

[19] Juries Act 1974, section 20D

[20] IOCCO annual report 2016, p38

[21] Defined by section 81(3) of RIPA and now section 263 of IPA as a crime for which an adult first-time offender could reasonably expect a sentence of three years’ custody or more, or which involves the use of violence, substantial financial gain or conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose

[22] Birkett report, para 149

[23] Bar Council response to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: revised codes of practice, December 2017, para 23

[24] https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/blog/5-reasons-why-we-need-intercept-evidence-court

[25] Intercept evidence: Lifting the Ban , JUSTICE, 2006

[26] The Coalition, our programme for government, p.24, May 2010, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-coalition-documentation

[27] HM Government, 2014 , Inter cept as Evidence (Cm 8989). HMSO

[28] Criminal Procedure Rules, rule 1.1

• Newsletters
• Google plus

Privacy Overview

• Our approach to staff pay
• Right to Work Evidence
• Projects & Publications
• Homerton College: A Timeline
• Archive Chronicles
• Homerton Gardens
• Sustainability at Homerton
• Art at Homerton
• What's on at Homerton
• Policies and Documents
• Subjects and Courses
• Submitted Written Work
• International students
• Mature students
• Prospective Applicants
• Current Offer Holders
• Why apply to Homerton
• Why choose Homerton?
• Facilities, Events & Support
• Fees & Funding
• Applying for full-time study
• Applying for part-time study
• Applying for PGCE courses
• Visits to schools
• Visits to Homerton
• Schools and Colleges Liaison Officer
• Open days, events and visits
• The location
• Food and drink
• Social Life
• Performance
• The Charter Choir - Who’s who
• Homerton College Music Society
• The Homerton Singers
• Homerton Jazz
• The Jacqueline Bardsley Poet-in-Residence
• Homerton College Boat Club (HCBC)
• Homerton Netball
• Ultimate Frisbee
• The Kate Pretty Lectures
• New Developments at Homerton
• Undergraduate Tutors
• Postgraduate Tutors
• Directors of Studies
• College Research Associate
• Junior Research Fellows
• Retired Senior Members Association
• College Calendar
• Radical economic change
• Getting started
• Getting help
• Finding things
• Borrowing, returning and using your Library account
• Special collections
• Study skills
• Using study space
• IT & printing
• Homerton Freshers
• Postgraduates
• Undergraduate and Foundation Year Freshers
• Student Status Letter/College transcripts
• New University Card Request
• Academic Skills and Personal Development
• Tutorial Information and FAQs
• Extra nights
• Floor Plans
• Student Accommodation Information and FAQs
• Guide to Living Out
• Register to vote
• Time management & organisation
• Academic Writing
• Maths & Statistics
• Exam preparation and revision
• Referencing
• Dissertations & research projects
• Critical reading
• Literature searching
• Presentations
• Digital wellbeing
• Reflective practice
• Disciplinary matters
• Student volunteer opportunities
• Complaints, grievances and harassment
• Student feedback form
• Coping with Covid: Daily Prompts
• Prizes and Scholarships
• Finances FAQ
• Application forms & Grants for financial support
• Disability Support and Access
• Counselling
• College Tutors
• Finance Tutor
• Pastoral Team - Porters, Tutorial & Tutors
• Support from the University
• College Discrimination and Harassment Contacts
• Top 10 tips for wellbeing
• Reporting Complaints/Giving Feedback
• Student Ambassadors
• Mentoring Scheme
• Virtual Residential
• What does Changemakers offer me?
• Homerton Changemakers Stories
• Homerton Changemakers Autumn Residential 24-29 Sep 2023 - Programme
• Tuesday Conversations
• Homerton Changemakers Resources
• Make a Donation
• Enabling Agility
• Supporting Students
• Enhancing the Student Experience
• Supporting Homerton Changemakers
• Leaving a legacy to Homerton
• Alumni benefits
• Keep in Touch
• Request a transcript
• Data Protection
• Alumni Events
• Volunteering and mentoring
• Publications
• Alumni Profiles
• Alison Shrubsole Room
• Bamford Room
• Boulind Suite
• Fellows' Auditorium
• Paston Brown Room
• Skillcorn Room
• Skillcorn and Bamford Room
• College Gardens
• Combination Room
• Drawing Room
• Fellows' Dining Room
• Formal Dining and Reception
• Griffin Bar
• Lunch and Buffet
• New Dining Hall
• Guest Information
• Outdoor events
• Parking and Transport
• Meet the team
• Contact the events team
• Alumni Stories
• Homerton Changemakers
• Postgraduate Student Stories
• Research at Homerton
• Student Stories
• Global Leadership and Cultural Understanding in English
• Professional Development Programme
• How to Find Us
• Porters' Lodge
• Reporting an Accident
• Fire safety

Law Reform Essay Competition by The Bar Council

Resource details.

The Bar Council's Law Reform Essay Competition is aimed at developing and fostering an interest in law reform. The competition invites entrants to submit a 3,000 word essay making the case for a reform to English, Welsh or European law. Prizes are generously sponsored by the City Law School, University of London

Future Lawyer Blog

Kick off the year by entering an essay competition.

Tags: bar council , essay competition , law reform , prize .

Now open for 2023, the Bar Council’s Law Reform Essay Competition is aimed at developing and fostering an interest in law reform. Students and pupils are invited to submit essays making the case to reform English, Welsh and European law.

The competition is offering a top prize of £4,000 (wow!), plus prizes for runners-up and highly commended essays. Here are the details:

• The winner: £4,000, and their essay published on Counsel magazine’s website
• Runner-up: £2,500 
• Best GDL entry: £1,500
• Runner-up GDL entry: £1,000
• Highly commended award: 2 x £500

In addition, all prize winners will be invited to meet members of the Law Reform Committee at a small reception held at a set of chambers.

How long have you got to craft your masterpiece? The deadline: 23rd October 5pm

If you need further inspiration, watch the video below to hear from past winners. Or read the essays from previous years (dating back to 2018).

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Essay competition

The Bar Council Scholarship Trust is sponsoring the Law Reform Essay Competition 2009, which is open to law students and pupils. The competition invites entrants to submit an essay of no more than 3,000 words, which identifies and makes the case for a law reform that is desirable, practical and useful.  More information is available on the Bar Standards Board website. 

The Bar Council Scholarship Trust is sponsoring the Law Reform Essay Competition 2009, which is open to law students and pupils. The competition invites entrants to submit an essay of no more than 3,000 words, which identifies and makes the case for a law reform that is desirable, practical and useful.  More information is available on the Bar Standards Board website.

Chair’s Column

Investment in justice.

The Bar Council will press for investment in justice at party conferences, the Chancellor’s Budget and Spending Review

Job of the Week

Standing Counsel to the Competition and Market Authority

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is the United Kingdom’s primary competition and consumer authority with responsibility for carrying out investigations into mergers and markets, regulatory appeals and enforcing competition and consumer law.

Evess and Tailor de Jure barrister attire

Equip yourself for your new career at the Bar

As a member of the Young Bar, are you taking the right financial steps?

Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth explores some key steps to take when starting out as a barrister in order to secure your financial future

A woman walks into a Bar…

Millicent Wild of 5 Essex Chambers describes her pupillage experience

Juno Women’s Aid receives £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs Giving Back campaign

Drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Juno Women’s Aid in Nottingham as part of its Giving Back campaign  

Transform your practice with a unified document strategy

Casedo explains how to hit the ground running on your next case with a four-step plan to transform the way you work

Most Viewed

Pupillage special: everything you need to know about the bsb ethics exam.

If you are in/about to start pupillage, you will soon be facing the pupillage stage assessment in professional ethics. Jane Hutton and Patrick Ryan outline exam format and tactics

Arrest warrants in the Israel-Palestine situation (1)

In a two-part opinion series, James Onalaja considers the International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s requests for arrest warrants in the controversial Israel-Palestine situation

The future of race equality at the Bar

To mark the fifth anniversary of the Bar Standards Board’s Race Equality Taskforce, Dee Sekar reflects on key milestones, the role of regulation in race equality, and calls for views on the upcoming equality rules consultation

Operation Mincemeat; Two Strangers (Carry a Cake Across New York); Fawlty Towers; Cabaret

Daniel Barnett serves up a host of summer shows

Violent disorder or outright terrorism?

Britain needs to get over its shameful denial of racism, call it what it is and start to effectively deal with the problem, says Vithyah Chelvam

Latest Cases

Sponsored by

• Solicitors hub Everything you need to know about becoming a solicitor
• Search training contracts Search for a training contract at nearly 1,000 organisations
• Training contract deadlines A comprehensive list of training contract deadlines
• Vacation scheme deadlines A comprehensive list of law firms' vacation scheme deadlines
• Meet the Lawyer Read how today's lawyers went from student to qualified lawyer
• Meet the Recruiter Advice from recruiters on acing your applications and more
• Vacation Scheme Insiders Get a sense of what firms' vacation schemes are really like
• Brochures Your essential first step in identifying the firm for you
• Practice Area Profiles Hear from solicitors working in specific practice areas
• Solicitors Qualifying Exam
• Types of law firm
• Researching firms
• Training contracts
• Vacation schemes
• Qualifying work experience
• What do solicitors do?
• Career path
• Key skills for lawyers
• In-house lawyers
• Alternative careers
• Barristers hub Everything you need to know about becoming a barrister
• Search pupillages Search for a pupillage at nearly 200 barristers' chambers
• Pupillage deadlines A comprehensive list of pupillage deadlines
• Meet the Lawyer Read how today's barristers went from student to qualified barrister at the Bar
• Practice Area Profiles Hear from barristers working in specific practice areas
• Types of chambers Find out more about the different types of chambers
• Bar courses
• Mini-pupillages
• What do barristers do?
• Inns of Court scholarships

Interested in a future career as a lawyer? Use The Beginner’s Guide to a Career in Law to get started

Find out about the various legal apprenticeships on offer and browse vacancies with The Law Apprenticeships Guide

Information on qualifying through the Solicitors Qualifying Exam, including preparation courses, study resources, QWE and more

Discover everything you need to know about developing your knowledge of the business world and its impact on the law

The latest news and updates on the actions being taken to improve diversity and inclusion in the legal profession

Discover advice to help you prepare for and ace your vacation scheme, training contract and pupillage applications

Your first-year guide to a career in law – find out how to kickstart your legal career at this early stage

Your non-law guide to a career in law – everything you need to know about converting to law

• Education hub This hub covers all aspects of legal education and training
• Search law courses Search law-related courses across the UK
• Law school prospectuses Identify the right law school for you with these prospectuses
• Finances Find out about sources of funding at each stage of the qualification process
• Undergraduate degree Find out what an undergraduate degree is
• Law conversion courses – PGDL Find out about what you learn and where to study
• Legal practice course – LPC Find out what the LPC involves and whether you're eligible
• Bar courses – BPTC/BPC Find out about the course required to qualify as a barrister
• SQE preparation courses Find out about the brand-new SQE preparation courses
• Apprenticeship
• First-year law
• Second year
• Qualified lawyers transfer scheme
• Training in Northern Ireland
• Training in Scotland
• Student law societies
• Diversity access schemes
• Pro bono initiatives
• Commercial Question Articles from law firms designed to get you thinking commercially
• Features These are designed to increase your knowledge of the profession
• LCN Says Insights from LCN and contributors from the world of law
• The Oracle Advice on issues from funding your studies to getting experience
• LCN Weekly Newsletter Kickstart your legal career with the latest content in our newsletter
• News Discover key stories from the legal world
• Videos Our videos feature interviews and webinars on careers in law
• Podcast Hear from the experts via The LawCareers.Net Podcast
• Blogs Hear from your peers about their journey into the profession
• LawCareersNetLIVE
• Masterclasses

Pupil wins Bar Council Law Reform essay competition

updated on 28 November 2016

Samuel Linehan, a criminal law pupil, has won £4,000 in the Bar Council’s Law Reform essay competition with his submission, “ Putting the wheels back on: a better approach to compensation for miscarriages of justice ”.

Linehan’s essay deals with the current compensation landscape for miscarriages of justice and makes various proposals for reform. He said: “I became aware of this issue as a result of recent coverage of some high-profile compensation cases. Victims of miscarriages of justice are, in a sense, indirect victims of crime. Fair compensation would help them to deal with the consequences of their experience, and increase the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.”

Fergus Randolph QC, chairman of the Bar Council's Law Reform Committee, said: “Samuel’s essay is a great example of why law reform is vital to civil society. The [committee] is proud to support those at the beginning of their careers at the Bar in taking an active interest in law reform. Compensation for miscarriages of justice, like many areas of law which do not command the attention of the media, often escape the scrutiny they deserve.”

The competition is aimed at developing and fostering an interest in law reform in pupils, and law, GDL and BPTC students. Details of the 2017 competition will be available soon.

Quebec Province of Quebec

Montreal river province of ontario, trois rivieres province of quebec, ottawa province of ontario, tomsk weather.

• 7 - 14 Days
• Trending news
• Weather Radar

Weather Forecast for Tomsk Today

Air quality in Tomsk today

• Little health risk.
• Sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or intense outdoor activities if they experience symptoms.

Weather graphs

The Bar Council's Law Reform Committee contributes to law reform in the public interest. The committee:

• Considers and develops proposals for law reform and submits views to the Government and others where appropriate; and
• Organises events and activities designed to demonstrate the importance of, and foster an interest in law reform amongst the Bar and those training for a career at the Bar.

In considering proposals for law reform, the Law Reform Committee responds to law reform consultations issued by various government departments and the Law Commission.  

The Bar Council's Law Reform Committee also organises the annual Law Reform Essay Competition and annual  Law Reform Lecture .