Revenge Porn – Is it naivety? Do you have sympathy? Would you do it? Have you done it? Should it be banned?

Statistics provided by campaigners show that there has been significant increase in the uploading of sexual and explicit content of “Ex’s”,  following the breakdown of a relationship in an act of revenge otherwise known as “Revenge Porn”. 

As a result, campaigners are calling for a change in legislation such conduct to be recognised as “the intentional sexual humiliation of ex partners by posting intimate and naked photos/videos on-line”.

Civil law currently provides some by way of the recently amended Stalking and Harassment Act.  However, such law requires victims to show that there has been more than one occasion of conduct before they can rely on the act to obtain an injunction.  Some may argued t that such action is all “a little too late” as once such contact has been leaked it is near impossible to have the content removed unless on grounds of child protection or copyright law.  In some cases the images will find themselves in the results of a simple Google search becoming engrained as part of the victim’s “cyber footprint”.

Whilst initial embarrassment and humilation is a somewhat foreseeable consequence,  Revenge Porn can also have far reaching effects in terms of employment prospects, friendships and relationships.   Therefore a change in the law to ensure that such conduct is also considered a criminal offence may provide a welcomed deterrent to bitter and malicious ex’s than the existing civil law remedies.

It may be argued that those who agree to provide their partners with sexual contact are naïve to think that the content will not be shared, however, would the same view be taken following the breakdown of a loving, committed and trusting long-term relationship of marriage.  Is it clear that this is an issue that is likely to continue rising with the continued development of fingertip internet access.

Law Student, Heather Robertson has launched a campaign for the “Ban of Revenge Porn”.  In order to generate political debate the petition requires 100,000 signatures.  If you wish to support the move towards the ban please see the link below to sign the petition.

So is it naivety? Do you have sympathy? Would you do it? Have you done it? Should the law be changed?

http://www.banrevengeporn.com/   

 

20140410-202639.jpg

UK v EU interpretation? Whole Life Sentences found to be compatable with Human Rights

For the full McLoughin judgment please visit: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2014/188.html

The Court of Appeal gave judgment yesterday on the somewhat controversial issue of the human rights of whole life offenders. 

At the present time 52 offenders are serving whole life tariff in relation to some of the most heinous crimes.  This is a small percentage of people considering that there are around 80,000 offenders in UK prisons.

The debate arose following the human rights case of Vinter in July 2013 in which the UK were found to be in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) which prohibits inhuman treatment or degrading treatment or punishment.  The European Court of Justice (ECJ) held that in order for a life sentence to be compatible with ECHR there must both be a prospects of release and a possibility of review.  It was suggested that such sentence review ought to take place after the offenders had served 25 years.  On review it would be considered whether the offenders had reformed and whether they were no longer a danger to society.   

The UK, however, maintained that the approach in England and Wales was in fact compatible with the ECHR as S30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 provides that “the secretary of state can at any time release and life prisoner on licence if they are satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances and that as a result such whole life sentence is no longer justifiable”.  Therefore whilst there may not be a formal review stage at such those on a whole life sentence do have the possibility of being released. 

Many will argue that imposing whole life sentences on the most dangerous of offenders merely creates further danger both to other inmates and prison employees as the “lifers” no longer have any further to lose and therefore there is no incentive to even attempt to reform.  Other will argue that such offenders should not be given a second chance to reform when their actions have caused such significant harm and potentially there will always be a risk reoffending.

The Court of Appeal, did in fact find yesterday that the UK were not in breach of Article 3 ECHR and concluded that the courts in England and Wales can continue to hand out whole life sentences where appropriate.  This, however, is unlikely to be the end of such debate.

Do you agree?

‘TIL DEATH DO US PART – ON PARTING WE PRE-NUP

For some years there has been a debate over whether pre-marital agreements should have binding force.

Such agreements, commonly known as pre-nuptial agreements, are drawn up by the parties prior to a marriage with a view to setting out the financial settlement that ought to take place in the event of divorce.

Many will think pre-nups are legally binding. However, the traditional approach of the courts in England and Wales has been that they are not.

This approach was challenged in Radmancher v Granatino (2010) in which the court held the parties to their pre-marital agreement raising some question over the enforceability of pre-nups. However, the court also stated that the position was not the starting point but rather a fact that could be taken into account when considering financial settlement along with other considerations such as whether the circumstances of the parties had changed since making the agreement and the length of marriage.

There has been some debate in relation to whether such approach is correct as it prevents parties from choosing how to deal with their assets on the breakdown of marriage.

However, in a position where there has been a marriage of long duration, where the parties have since had children and one parent has left work to provide family care would it be fair to hold the finically weaker party to an agreement made prior to the marriage?

It now seems that clarification on the legal standing of pre-nups is on the horizon. The Law Commission have drafted The ‘Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements’ proposals, which will outline a new law ‘to consider the treatment of pre-nuptial, post-nuptial and separation agreements. The proposals suggest that parties should be held to the arrangements made under a pre-nup prior to their marriage.

Many may see this as a fair approach others may say the safeguard of having pre-nups considered rather than automatically binding is a just approach to dealing with family finances on breakdown.

What do you think? Should pre-nups be worth the paper they’re written on?

CATCH 22 FOR THE NHS?

 A report published by the Commons Public Accounts Committee has criticised the Department of Health once again.  The report has highlighted that a national shortage of midwives is putting mothers and their newborns at risk.  Perhaps, even more shocking, is the finding that neither the Department of Health and NHS England  were clear as to who was responsible for ensuring that the NHS has enough midwives to meet demand.

There is currently a  shortage of around 2300 midwives in the NHS.  Whilst the NHS employed a further 1500 midwives last year, birth rates and staff turnaround have increased wards causing maternity wards to remain understaffed.   

The report also found that rates of still births and deaths within seven days are still the highest in England against statistics for other UK nations and the numbers continue to rise.

 With nearly £5billion being set aside for potential negligence claims, around £700, per birth it seems that the NHS are somewhat in a catch 22.   It could be argued that such funds should be invested to improve the service provided, to ensure the staffing requirements are met and reduce the level of pressure in obstetric wards as this would hopefully reduce the chance of negligent errors taking place in the first instance.  

However, on the other hand with such incidences on the increase and taking into account the long term financial need of children who are injured at birth it is important to ensure that such  “contingency funds” can meet the levels of future financial provision required in terms of compensation.

Unfortunately it seems that there is no quick or easy solution and therefore the NHS are likely to remain in what seems to be a catch 22 situation for some time.

MISTAKES ARE TO BE LEARNT FROM….

A lesson that one London Hospital has learnt this week is that mistakes can sometimes have catastrophic consequences.

On Monday, the High Court approved a settlement for Great Ormond Street Hospital to pay, 13 year old girl  Maisha Najeed, a lump sum payment of £2.8 million together with periodical payments of £383,000 per annum until her 19th birthday, following which such payments will increase to £423,000 for as long as she lives.

Maisha was under the care of Great Ormond Street Hospital receiving embolisation treatment for a rare congenital condition called Arterio-Venous Malformation.

Arterio-Venous Malformation is a condition that involves the tangulation of arteries and veins which could result in a bleed and can be treated by injection of glue to block off the bleeding blood vessels and an injection of dye used to check the flow of blood around the brain and head.

Unfortunately, on the day of one of these treatments, the syringes were mixed up and glue was mistakenly injected into the artery to Maisha’s brain.  As a result Maisha suffered catastrophic and permanent brain injury.

Perhaps what is most tragic about this case, is that the mix up could easily have been avoided if the syringes been marked as to which syringe contained the glue and which contained the dye.  Had this of been the case the error would not have occurred.

Whilst financial settlement can go some way to ensuring that Maisha receives the care she needs it will never compensate for her loss of health.

It is clear that this is one mistake that MUST be learnt from.

 

CHILDREN TO BE TAUGHT TO RECOGNISE RESPECT, CONSENT AND HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN SCHOOLS

As domestic violence within the under 25′s is on the increase, the House of Lords has today been urged to agree the proposed amendment to the Children & Families Bill 2013 that Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) ought to be made compulsory in all state schools.

The Home Office defines domestic violence as including physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse.

For a number of years Physical and Sexual Health Education has merely covered the mechanics of sex education.  The proposals under the Children & Families Bill includes that students ought to be taught how to recognise respect, consent and healthy relationships.

Some may say that placing the responsibility on schools to delve into the depths of relationships is inappropriate.  However, in a day and age where violent and sometimes degrading pornography is at the fingertips of teens and where “sexting” is becoming a reasonable expectation, some may argue that such education is no longer enough and that including such compulsory education will merely reinforce the importance of healthy and enjoyable relationships.

What do you think?

 

 

“QUICK CASH” OR “GENUINE WHIPLASH”?

Whiplash claims have for some time been under scrutiny; they have been referred to as an epidemic, blamed for the rise in insurance premiums as a result of “ambulance chasing lawyers” caught up in the “compensation culture”.   However, the Whiplash Report 2012, published by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers provides evidence to the contrary.

The report set out to separate the facts from the myths.  In an independent survey of 4,000 people the following was found:-

  1. “Whiplash is an epidemic” (myth) – Claims for whiplash have fallen by almost 24,000 in the past 12 months.  While one in every hundred people suffered a whiplash type injury in the last year 40% of those people have never claimed compensation
  2. “Whiplash claims are driven by lawyers” (myth) – 30% of all claims were encouraged by insurance companies and in fact lawyers accounted for 21%.    It was also found that many insurers do not believe medical evidence is important and will make offers for compensation to victims before they have even seen any medical evidence about the injury.
  3. “Whiplash does not exist” (myth) – Almost 90% of sufferers are diagnosed by a medical professional.  Such injuries can be diagnosed by the close questioning of a patient by a medical professional.  The survey found that 33% of people reported their symptoms accurately; 47% of people said they made their symptoms seem better than they were to the person making the diagnosis.
  4. “Whiplash symptoms will disappear within a few days” (myth) – 24% of sufferers symptoms last a couple of month while 20% would continue to suffer symptoms over a year post accident.

APIL have concluded that “Whiplash is not an epidemic, and the vast majority of people are honest, with a great many even playing down their symptoms.  Whiplash injuries are real and they can be life-changing”.  APIL’s goal is to ensure that genuine victims who suffer an injury at the hands of another are properly compensated.

Personal injury claims are complex and whiplash claims are no exception.  Whilst whiplash injuries vary between individuals this is reflected in the amount of compensation awarded and such sums can vary from hundred to thousands of pounds.  It is therefore important to ensure that the right evidence is obtained and that the value of a claim is properly determined to ensure the correct amount is awarded in each case.

Of course if only pain could be scientifically tested and measured the scepticism about whiplash claims would go away.

So what do you think?  Is it a case of “Quick Cash or “Genuine Whiplash”?

NO PAIN – NO GAIN?

The dangers of weightlifting were highlighted last month following the tragic death of a Sussex man who became trapped underneath the bar he was lifting in his home gym. This is not the first time an accident of this sort has occurred. In 2009 strongman and gym owner Tony Leigh died having spent six days in intensive care following a gym accident in which the bar he had been pressing slipped from his hands and struck him in the face.

In a separate case Virgin Active’s risk assessment procedure was called into question last year when business man James Allen, suffered multiple injuries when the inflatable stability ball he was sitting on to lift bar weights exploded and the bar came crashing down on top of him.

Gyms owe a duty of care to their members. Apart from anything else they should:

  1. Check and maintain gym equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines.
  2. Provide proper inductions for any new member to ensure that they know how to use the equipment safely.
  3. Ensure that members are able to exercise easily and safely.

The health and fitness industry has grown significantly over the last few years. In a society where people want to “live fit” the demand for conveniently located gyms, extended opening hours and competitive membership deals has increased dramatically.

In the last few years the fitness industry has seen the introduction of 24 hour gyms. Although these gyms are open round the clock and monitored with CCTV they are unmanned. Members are provided with a swipe card to gain access so that they can come and go as they please. Whilst this may be popular, enabling people to incorporate physical activity into their extended daily schedule, it does beg the question whether such gyms are meeting their duty of care to members?

GLOVES ON OR GLOVES OFF?

Finally it seems the summer has arrived and with it comes “biker season”. During the summer months many bikers take to the road in force making the most of the good riding conditions.

Whilst the Highway Code advises that bikers should wear protective clothing such as leather clothing, gloves and boots, the only legal requirement is that bikers must wear a helmet. Therefore some decide not to protect themselves any more than legally required.  However, in not wearing substantial protective clothing bikers are leaving themselves open, if they were to have an accident, to a very horrific and painful injury known as degloving.

Degloving occurs when the skin and sometimes even the muscle structure of a limb is torn from its connecting bone and blood supply so flesh and tissue get peeled back off the bone.  It is an awful injury and requires immediate surgery to reattach the tissue but in some cases the damage is so severe surgeons are unable to save the dying tissue.  In some circumstances amputation of the limb is the only option.

Many patients who have suffered a degloving injury will require a number reconstructive surgeries and skin grafts.   Patients are also likely to suffer psychological damage such as post traumatic stress disorder.

An article produced by the European Commission on Motorcycle Road Safety states that “protective clothing can reduce the severity (or prevention) of muscle stripping and degloving injuries, particularly to the lower leg and hands.”  Therefore it seems the best protection from this type of injury is for bikers to wear protective clothing even when riding in the summer months.

Should the government review its regulations and make protective clothing compulsory for bikers or should bikers have the right to choose what they wear when they take to the roads?

Some might say that imposing new requirements would be going too far and it would be an example of “nanny state syndrome”.  Some may think it is a sensible extension of the existing law on helmet use.  What do you think?