MPs and peers are calling for a new law which will make stalking a serious offence in order to prevent such cases ending in violence and murder.

Scotland made stalking a criminal offence in 2010 and campaigners have said that simply making stalking an offence of harassment is not enough. The British Crime Survey brought annual stalking numbers to light with 120,000 cases occurring each year in England and Wales. However, of this number, only 2% of cases ended in a conviction.

Some stalking cases can result in violence and even murder and Tracey Morgan, who was stalked by the same man for 10 years has described it as being ‘mentally raped’. Ms Morgan, together with other victims, has been lobbying politicians at Westminster to bring in new laws.

Many campaigners believe that stalking is not being taken seriously enough and often use the case of Clare Bernal, 22, who was shot dead by her obsessed ex-boyfriend. Ms Bernal’s boyfriend had been bailed for harassment leaving him free to kill her.

Scotland made stalking into a criminal offence and around 400 alleged stalkers were prosecuted in 2011. David Cameron, along with MPs and peers are fully supporting the proposed new changes to the law. They acknowledge that greater care needs to be given to victims and stalkers are punished properly.

The government has been advised that banning advertisements for personal injury solicitors and claim management companies in NHS hospitals is impractical and not viable.

Simon Burns, health minister, told NHS hospitals that it was ‘not acceptable’ for them to display advertisements for personal injury law firms. This statement came as a result of 29 MPs calling for a complete ban on law firm adverts in hospitals. However, those who do advertise in hospitals have warned them that this not only conflicts with the 2006 Compensation Act but it could also affect the hospitals’ income as claims management companies pay for specialist equipment in return for marketing space on NHS leaflets.

The adverts in such leaflets are mainly for clinical negligence claims and not for making claims against a particular hospital. Six years ago there was an issue with advertising in hospitals as many who did were ‘cowboys’ and now someone can only market their company and business if the hospital agrees. By taking this away, control could be lost again as to who can advertise in NHS hospitals in England.

Currently in England and Wales, the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old. In a think tank set up by Iain Duncan Smith, it has been said today that the age of criminal responsibility should be increased to 12 years old. This increase in age applies to any criminal offence ranging from shoplifting to murder.

This new proposal is likely to come under debate by ministers and the public especially because Robert Thompson and Jon Venables would not have been charged for the murder of toddler James Bulger. This increase in age for criminal responsibility has arisen after experts have claimed that children under the age of 13 do not fully understand the consequences of their actions.

The Centre for Social Justice created these proposals and has already received backing from 33 youth law experts. However, CSJ stated that for serious crimes such as rape and murder, they would not be increasing the age to 12 straight away. The Liberal Democrats and children’s charity Barnado’s will be supporting this new proposal however Justice Minister Crispin Blunt has already said that he opposes it. Barnado’s has said that by entering into the criminal justice system, children who commit low level crimes are more likely to reoffend. They have also stated that other than crimes such as rape, murder, manslaughter and other serious crimes, the age of criminal responsibility should be increased to 12 for all other crimes.

Do you think the age of criminal responsibility should be increased? Have your say.

In a report, ‘Unintended Consequences: the costs of the government’s legal aid reforms’, written by Dr Graham Cookson of King’s College, it has been revealed that the government’s plans to cut Legal Aid in clinical negligence cases could end up costing the NHS greatly.

The government’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill reported that these cuts would save the NHS £10.5million a year, however, Dr Cookson’s report shows that by removing Legal Aid from clinical negligence cases, the NHS will bear costs of almost £28.5million a year, almost three times the proposed saving.

These ‘knock on’ costs totalling an approximate value of £28.5million include costs for telephone triage services, 10% payment for damages if a case is successful and premiums for fees and reports.

In terms of cutting Legal Aid for clinical negligence cases, it has been said that the NHS could face a loss of £18million per year, mainly due to payments that would have to be made through the NHS Litigation Authority.

Lynette White, a prostitute from Cardiff, was found murdered in 1988. A trial into eight police officers has just collapsed after the judge said a fair hearing could not be had. The former police officers were on trial for the wrongful conviction of three men for this murder.

The eight South Wales police men were accused of perverting the course of justice following these wrongful convictions. Three men, Tony Paris, Yusef Abdullahi and Stephen Miller were all given a wrongful life sentence. The police officers involved denied the accusation that they had tried to pervert the course of justice and have now been acquitted. Two civilians were also involved in this case and also denied a charge of perjury and they have now been cleared of this. Our Fida Hussain and Ruth Bingley defended one of these two civilians.

Miss White was found stabbed, 50 times, in a flat in Cardiff. Mr Paris, Mr Abdullahi and Mr Miller were convicted of the murder and later released in 1992. In 2000, due to advances in DNA and new evidence, the case was reopened. An inquiry then began into trying to establish what had gone wrong in the original investigation and year later; the eight police officers were arrested and questioned.

On 28^th November, the judge asked the prosecution to review certain materials. These materials had not been used and brought to light that some copies of certain files had gone missing. The materials in question related to complaints by one defendant and a complaint in regards to the investigation. It was originally thought that this information should not be disclosed however it was reviewed.  It was found that these copies had been destroyed and it was determined that although the information were copies, it is now impossible to tell whether this material was exactly the same as the material that was originally reviewed but not considered discloseable.

Christopher Jeffries was wrongly accused for the murder of Joanna Yeates in 2010. He gave his statement yesterday in the Leveson Inquiry which is being heard at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. He told how the media vilified him and determined that he was guilty of the murder which he did in fact not commit.

Mr Jeffries went on to say that because the media had decided he was guilty, they went on to try and blacken his character and reputation. Last month, Vincent Tabak, a Dutch engineer was found guilty of the murder of Joanna Yeates.

Also giving evidence was Ian Hurst an ex-Army intelligence officer who told the Leveson Inquiry how his emails had been illegally hacked by a News of the World private investigator. His computer had been hacked in 2007 but this was not revealed to him until 2011.

Paul Staines, a political blogger has been summoned by Lord Justice Leveson to give evidence before the inquiry. Mr Staines has been accused of publishing confidential information online including papers Alastair Campbell submitted to lawyers.

The Leveson Inquiry was set up in July by Prime Minister David Cameron after it came to light that the News of the World had hacked into murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler’s mobile phone.

Yesterday, the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, announced that the government thinks there “should be a cost to starting a tribunal case”. I disagree.

Firstly, access to justice is a fundamental principle. It’s at risk here because people who’ve just lost their jobs are unlikely to be able to pay anything up front. So, even if they think they’ll get it back later, they won’t be able to bring their claim, no matter how strong it is or how carefully they’ve thought about it.

Secondly, any system is likely to be bureaucratic, complicated and, therefore, time- consuming. People only have 3 months to bring their claims. The last thing we want is to waste any of that short period on the application process or arguing about fees. What’ll end up happening is that people will lodge their claims within the 3 months thinking no fee is due, for whatever reason, and then, after the deadline has expired they’ll get a letter saying the claim has been rejected because a fee was payable.

Thirdly, “there is no money” to pay the bureaucrats to operate the system. I know that, firstly because that’s precisely what Liam Byrne, Labour’s Chief Secretary, put in his famous note for his successor and secondly because it’s what the Conservative/ Liberal Democrat coalition, of which Mr Cable is a leading member, keep telling us.

If the system is already “very unwieldy, expensive and delay- ridden”, as Mr Cable rightly says, the answer is not to introduce further complication, expense and delay. That’ll just make it worse.

Jeremy Moore was recently interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 programme ‘Unreliable Evidence’ entitled ‘The Lawyer’s Dilemma: Defending the Guilty, Suing the Innocent’.

The programme investigated the dilemmas a solicitor will face when defending a client accused of a serious crime including rape and murder. It also gained insight into how a lawyer deals with a client if they come to believe they are guilty of the crime.

During the trial of the murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler, many did not agree with the cross-examination of her parents. Jeremy Moore who worked together with the defence Barrister, gives his views on the situation and defends the cross-examination in this case. Putting these questions to Millie Dowler’s father was an “agonising decision” however had the judge deemed this line of questioning offensive, he would have intervened but he did not.

Listen to the interview in full here bbc.in/t05xKs

A leaked Downing Street report states that employers should have the right to sack unproductive employees without any explanation. Employment law in the UK was described by Downing Street as ‘terrible’ and this report is one of the new changes they wish to put in place in order to improve, in their eyes, a system that currently undermines economic growth.

Currently an employee could make a claim for unfair dismissal if they are sacked from their position after a year without any explanation. One of the recommendations being made in the report, commissioned by David Cameron is to ban employees from bringing an unfair dismissal claim against their employer, if they wish to find a more capable replacement.

This report is likely to cause a lot of conflict especially with trade unions.Downing Streethave said that they are concerned about the current economic crisis and this is one of the ways, although controversial, to try and encourage growth.

The report states that the most major issue for British companies is “the terrible impact of the current unfair dismissal rules on the efficiency and hence competitiveness of our businesses, and on the effectiveness and cost of our public services.”

If the proposals in the report come in, unfair dismissal claims will still be open to employees if the dismissal is on the basis of gender, sexuality or race. To replace sacking someone due to unproductiveness, a Compensated No Fault Dismissal is to be put in place. This gives the employer the right to sack an employee based on a reason of not being productive and the employee will receive basic redundancy pay and notice.

However, the report is based on a misunderstanding. The law already allows employers to dismiss unproductive employees without a redundancy payment. The Employment Rights Act says very clearly that incapability is one of the potentially fair reasons for dismissing an employee. Currently, an employer has to behave reasonably, that’s all. And, in any event, only an employee with a year’s service can claim unfair dismissal.

Compensated No Fault Dismissals will just lead to employers paying out more compensation. And anyway, if you want to compensate your employee or ex- employee without admitting what lawyers call “liability”, you just get them to sign a  properly- worded Compromise Agreement. If the employee has signed a Compromise Agreement that satisfies the conditions already established in statute, they can’t sue the employer for anything, not unfair dismissal, not discrimination, not whistle- blowing, not equal pay, nothing, nada, nix, nil, niente.

The wheel is there. Don’t reinvent it. Use it. Employers just need to talk to an employment lawyer who knows how to use it to run their business.

This report was not due to be released so soon but as it has been leaked, it is due to be published later this year. It is completely unnecessary. We just need to use the tools we already have. Employers just need to take sensible, cost- effective, legal advice from someone who is familiar with the tools of the trade.

Currently, the law states that a person can only defend themselves, if an intruder is in their home, if they genuinely fear for their life or the life of their family. This law also puts the duty of retreating from an intruder on the homeowner and this is to be scrapped as well. In a change to the law, spearheaded by Kenneth Clarke, homeowners will, for the first time, be backed by the law if they fight to defend their property and family.

This change in self defence law means that a person who uses reasonable force to defend their home will be protected by the law. Currently if a homeowner does instinctively act to defend their home, they can be arrested by the police for doing so. This issue is currently being discussed and if it is scrapped it could mean that the police will not arrest someone who has attacked an intruder, if they have acted in self defence.

The changes to the law have come as a result of a number of cases that have occurred in recent years that have caused public outcry such as the well known case of Tony Martin who shot an intruder on his Norfolk property.

The amendments have been made to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill and will be voted on next week. If these amendments are agreed, changes to self defence law could come into force before Christmas.