Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Over the past few decades, there’s been a welcome trend toward safety on our roads. Barring the occasional blip (which usually comes about as a result of changing methods of measurement), we’re all less likely to be injured or killed than we were a decade or so. This progress comes in fits and starts: it took a giant leap forward with the introduction of mandatory seat-belts, and a more gradual one with the cultural move away from drink-driving.
One category of road-user, however, remains at risk: the motorcyclist. Motorcyclists including mopeds and scooters are at an increased risk compared to those in cars. Not enjoying the protection of an enclosure, they’re likely suffer much greater trauma in the event of a crash. Moreover, they’re at greater risk of being involved in a crash in the first place.
According to Brake, the road safety charity, a motorcyclist is killed on British roads roughly every hour. Moreover, motorcyclists are sixty-three times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than car drivers. This risk is especially pressing on rural roads, where the majority of deaths occur. This is owing to a range of factors, including higher speeds and poor visibility.
According to Brake, the road safety charity, a motorcyclist is killed on British roads roughly every hour.
Devitt Insurance commissioned a survey which demonstrated some of the risks faced by motorcyclists.
When asked whether they had been injured while riding, more than half of respondents replied that they had not. But this was only a narrow majority, at 53%. 35% of respondents claimed to have been ‘slightly’ injured, and 10% claimed to have been ‘seriously’ injured.
341 people of the 2,873 surveyed claimed to have been seriously injured once. 82 people had been seriously injured twice, 17 had been seriously injured three times, and just 8 had been seriously injured more often than that.
We find a similar downward trend when it comes to slight injuries, going from 683 respondents being injured once to just 98 being injured four times or more. We should say that many of the people who’d been seriously injured wouldn’t fall into this category, and vice versa. Thus the ‘no injury’ category is slightly more generous than it might otherwise have been.
Another interesting question concerns the types of crash. The most often-cited type of crash involved another vehicle, at 31% of respondents. But there are other instigators: hazards on the road, and adverse weather conditions, weigh in at 16% and 10% respectively; pedestrians and cyclists are even further behind at 2 and 0.6%.
35% of respondents claimed to have been ‘slightly’ injured, and 10% claimed to have been ‘seriously’ injured.
Motorcyclists tend to socialise with other motorcyclists. Therefore, we can glean an impression of the picture by asking about their experience in the motorcycling community. The survey asked respondents to consider the most serious incident they knew of in which the motorcyclist was injured. Around a third responded that the victim died.
Perhaps most interesting, and actionable, among the survey’s findings was the fact that most motorcyclists feel vulnerable when riding on urban roads. 60% of respondents claimed this, compared with just 14% and 13% for rural roads and motorways. Given how dangerous a rural road is, statistically speaking, this is an attitude that bears further scrutiny.
Tom Warsop, Devitt’s head of marketing, said:
“Motorcycling is an enjoyable and sociable activity, which can help alleviate congestion on our roads, but it does come with the associated risk of being a vulnerable road user. Motorcyclists make up the largest proportion of road crash admissions to A&E."
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) recently announced the roll-out of the Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SMCR or SM&CR). This new financial regulatory framework has been designed and is being increasingly implemented to improve compliance and accountability across the UK’s financial sector.
Things are changing in the UK when it comes to compliance in finance and rather than having all responsibility and blame put on the desk of compliance managers, staff (apart from ancillary staff will need to undergo regular and recognised training to comply with SMCR (visit https://www.smcrcompliance.com/ for more information about the Senior Managers and Certification Regime.)
A previously all too common problem within compliance across the financial sector was that there was no clear framework with regards to who is accountable and for what. Previously, should there be any issue with compliance amongst senior management or other staff at a firm, it was the responsibility of a compliance manager.
An issue which has emerged has been that the buck was previously passed and moreover, there was very little personal accountability. It is this accountability and the need to simplify how financial compliance works that has been one of the drivers of the SMCR.
Broadly, SMCR applies to the entire FCA regulated and authorised financial sector in the UK, with a few nuances and details to consider. Whilst SMCR replaces the previous Approved Persons Regime (APR), it has no impact on the Approved Persons (AR) regime and it also does not apply to banks, as they are subject to regulations under the Senior Managers Regime (SMR) which is more tailored to the needs and requirements of the banking sector.
SMCR categorises financial firms into three broader categories of firm which are:
[ymal]
Since 9th December 2019, which marked the initial implementation of the SMCR programme across the UK’s financial sector, most financial firms will need to adhere to the regulatory regime and practices under SMCR. Many ‘well-established’ financial firms such as experienced financial advisors, insurance brokers and even mortgage brokers, including those offering specific-purpose mortgages like those for home improvement (find out more) will have been aware and will be compliant.
However, because this regulation applies to companies offering not just financial advice and products in the ‘purest sense,’ but also to those who offer consumer credit, many companies who have been unaware are affected and must comply too. This includes (but is not limited to):
Although there are a few levels to the SMCR programme, more broadly, there are three key pillars:
Senior Managers Regime (SMR) – This covers the most senior people within firms such as Chief Executives, Partners and Non-Executive Directors who all need to be directly authorised by the FCA.
Certification Regime (CR) – For all employees of non-senior level, but who may otherwise potentially cause damage to a firm.
Conduct Rules – These are the rules which govern conduct of all non-senior and senior individuals under the SMCR.
When you have been arrested for driving under the influence, you are sure to be thinking about all of the consequences you will have to face. From fines to jail time to having your license revoked, among other things, a DUI conviction is sure to shake up your life. There are a variety of defenses a lawyer who specialises in DUI cases can argue for in order to reduce your sentence or have your case completely dismissed.
There are a number of exercises that can be administered on the side of the road when you have been pulled over by a police officer for suspicion of being under the influence. Standing on one leg is a test to determine your sense of balance. You may also be asked to walk nine paces, heel to toe, and to turn on one foot before walking back nine paces. Lastly, the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) may be administered. This is to detect your eyes’ ability to follow an object smoothly. During these exercises, the officer is looking for any involuntary jerking of your eyes as you try to smoothly move them from left to right.
As you can imagine, some of those field tests may be difficult for people to do even if they aren’t under the influence of alcohol or prescription drugs. If you do not regularly work out or lack coordination, then walking heel to toe may be difficult for you. Your weight and current health condition may also make it difficult for you to stand on one leg. Conversely, a skilled and athletic person may still be able to seem more sober than they are because they can balance well. So, the field tests are not entirely accurate in determining whether or not a person is under the influence.
[ymal]
Your attorney may advise challenging the field sobriety tests that you were administered when you were arrested. This is one way of developing a defense. If the officer did not demonstrate the test correctly, then that could have altered the results. Sometimes officers can fail to take into account your current state of health. If you had an ear infection during the time of your arrest, for example, it can make you fail a field sobriety test because it can interfere with your balance. The inner ear is responsible for your ability to remain upright and aware of where you are in space, and ailments such as vertigo find their source in the inner ear. It could be very difficult even for a sober person with an ear infection to pass the test.
Another defense is in regards to whether or not the breathalyser was calibrated correctly before being administered. The officer must provide testimony under oath verifying that the breathalyser was calibrated, which is necessary to do between each test. If the officer lacked breathalyser training, then that can also be used to help defend your case. Your attorney may decide to bring in an expert witness such as a police officer who conducts trainings, to explain to the judge how and why your breathalyser assessment was mishandled.
Lastly, if there was an illegal search or insufficient evidence to support suspecting you of driving under the influence, then it may have been legally wrong of the officer to pull you over. Your attorney will be able to assess the legality of your stop and will develop the best defense for your case.
If you are exploring options for bankruptcy, then you may quickly recognize that there are stark differences between a Chapter 7 and a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, since one involves (nearly) complete discharge of your debts, while the other involves a restructuring of your debt payments in order to satisfy your obligations in a sustainable way. While there are many clear differences between these two options, there are also a variety of similarities that you can consider when you are trying to decide on which bankruptcy is best for you.
The most important thing to do when you are contemplating your options for bankruptcy is to work with an experienced bankruptcy attorney who can make sense of all of the information necessary to make this decision. As you may already realize, the outcomes of each type of bankruptcy are starkly different and can result in either the elimination of most debts, or simply pave the way towards a sustainable repayment plan in order to satisfy most, or all, of your creditors.
Read more below to learn about some of the common overlaps between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies, although they are certainly both very different.
[ymal]
While Chapter 7 eliminates your debts while Chapter 13 restructures them, you will be able to enjoy something called an “automatic stay” when you file either. This stay means that your creditors are unable to contact you about recovering existing debts while the order is in place, and can be penalized by the courts if they violate the stay. In addition, this stay will put a halt to any wage garnishing that you have been subject to, meaning that you will be able to retain all of your earnings during this time.
The length of your automatic stay depends on a variety of different factors, including whether or not you have filed for bankruptcy previously, and if so, how many previous bankruptcies that you have filed for.
Filing for bankruptcy isn’t simply like waving a magic wand and all of your existing debts disappear. Chapter 7, or liquidation, bankruptcy, is typically utilized by someone who does not have the financial means to repay their debts, and instead, their assets will be used in order to alleviate at least some of the qualifying debt before waiving the balance. This could include selling off personal property and liquidating assets to repay your creditors.
Chapter 13 is a good option when you are attempting to avoid having your home foreclosed on, a vehicle repossessed, or to protect any other assets from being auctioned in order to repay your creditors.
Filing for bankruptcy isn’t simply like waving a magic wand and all of your existing debts disappear.
Whether you are an individual or you are filing bankruptcy for a business, you will be able to choose between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 (Chapter 11 is additionally available for businesses, but not for individuals). Again, the differences between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 are present whether you are an individual or a business, meaning that you will be making the decision between liquidating your company or restructuring business agreements, or liquidating personal assets or restructuring debt payments in order to retain your property.
Of course, these options have significantly different results depending on whether it is applied to an individual or a business, and you will need to work with your attorney in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of what each filing will entail for you.
Melody joins from DLA Piper and has significant experience advising investment banks and corporations on capital markets and corporate matters in Asia and the United States. She focuses on securities offerings, advising international conglomerates and state-owned enterprises on global offerings and listings on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, SEC registered offerings, secondary offerings, rights issues and share placings. She also has extensive experience in bond offerings, mergers and acquisitions, private equity investments, financing and compliance matters. Melody is a native Mandarin speaker qualified in both the US and Hong Kong.
Asia head of corporate transactions Mark Stanbridge says, "Our corporate team has had a successful year advising on many prominent transactions in the region. Melody has a leading reputation in the market and strong relationships with banks and corporations in the region. We are delighted to welcome her on board to further broaden and deepen our capabilities and develop our brand especially in the North Asian markets.”
Patrick Phua, regional head of Asia, adds, "Melody's appointment is a demonstration of our growth in the region and our commitment to continue the investment in Asia. She is a senior practitioner who has extensive experience in capital markets and corporate transactions. I am confident she will play a very valuable role extending our offering and will provide top-rated service to our clients."
Melody comments, "Ashurst has an excellent platform and great ambitions for its Greater China practice. I am excited to be joining Ashurst to continue to drive its growth and deliver exceptional results to our clients."
Related: Ashurst Advises John Laing on Investment in World’s First Green Hydrogen Steel Facility
Not every legal case requires an attorney. But for situations that involve a compensation claim or legal dispute, it is too risky not to have legal assistance on your side. Below are some examples to illustrate the importance of a solicitor.
The law is complicated! If you do not have a strong understanding of legal matters, then you won’t stand a chance under certain legal instances. Sometimes it even becomes difficult for a lawyer to vigorously represent their client’s interest in the court of law. Therefore, if you are aiming to make a compensation claim, you need to consult a reliable compensation solicitor who can help you understand complicated legal matters and guide you better. A trained attorney will build a solid case so that you can get the most out of your compensation claims.
Understandably, compensation lawyers possess extensive field knowledge. They are capable enough to help you recover the compensation you deserve. Experienced attorneys will offer a common-sense approach to law. Not only do they have a comprehensive knowledge of the field, but they also have a background in legal studies. So when you consult a lawyer to assist you with your case, they can offer valuable suggestions. Perhaps they will have already solved cases just like yours in the past. Thus, they can apply tried-and-tested techniques which can speed up your claim and increase the success rate of your case.
Filing a lawsuit is no easy thing. There are many stages where filing the wrong document, following an incorrect legal procedure, or lacking solid evidence can ruin your case for a compensation claim. If you aim to receive monetary compensation for your loss, you need to consult a professional lawyer who can help you to accurately file all the paperwork. Without any legal help, you will likely struggle with deadlines, legal protocols, and proper submission of the legal documents.
[ymal]
Lastly, when making a compensation claim, you must have an expert solicitor on your side who can challenge the evidence, has access to the witnesses, makes your case strongly, can fix complicated issues, and has legal representation. This way, you are in a superior position to gain what you deserve. Your lawyer will know precisely how to negotiate settlements and plea bargains. They will have seen similar cases, so they can help you obtain due compensation. They also understand how to quickly settle a trial. Without a compensation solicitor, it will be difficult for you to negotiate a fair settlement with an opposing party.
Although you will hopefully receive monetary compensation for your claim, you can also save some money during the legal proceedings. An experienced attorney has the right knowledge, legal skills, and expertise to carry your case and ensure you receive your fair dues. They are capable enough to negotiate on your behalf. This way, you can focus on your physical and mental recovery after your potential loss while your lawyer is fighting in the court of law to obtain a better deal for you. Under some circumstances, they can also help you claim legal fees in addition to a fair trial. It means you won’t have to pay anything at the end of the day.
It is a known fact that most citizens are ignorant of their state-provided rights. The chances of a claimant making an error are high when they do not know the correct processes or procedures. They can easily be misguided and mistreated. Fortunately, lawyers can protect the rights of such citizens and help them fight better in the court. Thus, hiring an attorney is the best way to serve your legal needs and avoid difficulties. It is sensible on your end to have legal support by your side while filing a claim, especially for monetary compensation.
Citing the challenge posed by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, courts across the US announced that they would be postponing proceedings for the immediate future.
As of Monday, the New York state court system put all nonessential proceedings on hold, though it announced that ongoing trials and arraignments would continue.
New Jersey also announced a two-week suspension of new trials and municipal courts. California’s Contra Costa and Samoa Counties declared a similar two-week closure of most courts.
Perhaps most notably, for the first time in 102 years, the US Supreme Court has also postponed its hearings for two weeks – a period in which it was scheduled to hear a number of high-profile cases, including a legal challenge to obtain President Trump’s tax records and another to determine the extent to which religious employers can claim to be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
Late on Monday, the Social Security Administration also announced that it would be suspending in-person interviews, including hearings, following calls from judges to prioritise the health of the potentially vulnerable participants.
Despite these significant closures, immigration courts have continued to conduct in-person hearings, drawing condemnation from ICE union workers and the National Association of Immigration Judges.
Hunters Law explores what this unique case could mean for judicial precedent.
Whilst reporting in criminal cases has always been a central tenet of our free press, until recently the opposite was true in our family courts. This is particularly so where sensitive children related issues, such as those raised in the Sheikh’s case, were under consideration. However, there is an increasing move towards transparency to facilitate a broader public understanding of how the family courts operate. In some cases, such as this, publicising elements of the case will also be considered to be in the children's interests.
The case related to the 8 and 12 year old children of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, the Ruler of the Emirate of Dubai and his former wife, Princess Haya Bint al-Hussein. The mother had brought the children to the UK in April 2019 and the father had subsequently commenced proceedings seeking their return to Dubai.
Cases to determine arrangements for children are heard in private, but accredited media representatives are generally permitted to attend. However, the media is only permitted to report very limited information in respect of these cases, and in particular may not identify the child directly or indirectly, unless they successfully apply to lift the restrictions, which is what happened in this case.
There is an increasing move towards transparency to facilitate a broader public understanding of how the family courts operate.
The press asked the court to make public the judgments setting out the court's findings, in respect of the background facts to the case. This included findings about the Sheikh's past unlawful abductions of two of his older children. The Sheikh opposed the application. The application was, however, supported by the children's mother, and by the guardian appointed to represent the children's interests.
In deciding whether to lift reporting restrictions, a judge must balance the family's right to a private family life, and the journalists’ right to freedom of expression, including their ability to report on family law cases in the public interest. Whilst the children's best interests are a primary consideration, they are not, in contrast to decisions made in respect of arrangements for children, the court's paramount consideration.
In this case, the media argued that the right to freedom of expression should prevail, as there was a public interest in publicising the court's findings about the Sheikh's conduct towards his two older daughters, and also in promoting public understanding about the court's role in determining the future of the two younger children.
The parents, unsurprisingly, focused their arguments around what would be best for their children.
In Sheikh Mohammed’s case, Lord Pannick QC and Desmond Brown QC argued on his behalf that publishing the judgments would be contrary to the interests of the children, both as it would create media frenzy which would impact on them, and because it would undermine the prospects of restoring his contact with them.
[ymal]
Whilst making information about children public will often be harmful to them, Princess Haya Bint al-Hussein and the children’s guardian successfully argued that in this case publication would be in the children’s interests, as it would put the record straight about the Sheikh's behaviour. The children's guardian had noted that the Sheikh's dissemination of a "distorted narrative" of events was causing the mother "clear and stark psychological, social and emotional pressure", which was in turn having a direct impact on the welfare of the children, and that they would benefit from an established narrative of their family history.
In approving the decision to make the judgments public, the Court of Appeal made clear how unusual this case was. There was already significant information about the family in the public arena, and the mother and guardian agreed that publication would benefit the children.
Whilst this particular case was strongly influenced by the children's interests, it nevertheless comes at an interesting time for the family justice system, which has come under increasing pressure over its "secret" nature. In an effort to address this, since beginning of his tenure as President of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir Andrew McFarlane has announced a Transparency Review and issued two pieces of guidance on the subject in an attempt to reduce mistrust in the family justice system, due to a lack of transparency. Whilst cases concerning financial arrangements on divorce are increasingly being made public, this does however remain unusual for cases relating to children. Parents should not fear that personal family matters will routinely be made public where the court has been asked to resolve arrangements for children.
The legal consequences of drug crimes vary from state to state, but there are also federal criminal charges that can be levied against offenders. Many drugs originate in other countries and are placed in the stream of interstate commerce. Consequently, charges are often adjudicated at the federal level. Some examples of federal drug charges include possession, manufacturing, selling, possession with the intent to distribute, and drug trafficking. Federal law 21 U.S. Code § 841, the Controlled Substances Act (the “CSA”), enumerates and proscribes federal drug crime charges. Individual states, however, have their own statutes punishing drug crimes and their own sentencing guidelines to determine punishment. The severity of punishment increases where there are drug-related deaths. The CSA places drugs into five different categories, which range from Schedule I to Schedule V drugs. Schedule I includes only illegal drugs — drugs that have no medical use — while Schedules II-V include prescription drugs that are required to be used in a regulated manner.
A federal drug crime is an offense that is punishable under federal law and includes incidents that occur within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Most drug crimes are punishable at both the federal and state levels but only the more serious incidents of drug manufacturing or possession of large amounts of drugs are prosecuted on the federal level. Federal drug charges are punishable by federal law under the sentencing code developed by the United States Sentencing Commission. The following depicts the punishment zones with increasing penalties as they clime from Zone A to Zone D, to wit:
There are 43 levels of offense, with more serious drug charges resulting in higher-level offenses. For example, manufacturing, importing, exporting, or possession with intent to engage in conspiracy result in base offense levels of 21, 26, 30, 38 or 43 respectively. Federal law punishment for the possession, manufacture, or distribution of 100 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin is not less than five years to not more than 40 years. Whereas it would take 100 kilograms of marijuana to wind up in the same sentencing range of not less than five years to not more than 40 years. If you are charged with a federal drug crime, you should contact a qualified federal criminal defense attorney immediately.
As was previously mentioned, every state has their own drug statutes and sentencing guidelines. For instance, in California, state drug crime is regulated by the California Health and Safety Code Division 10, Chapter 6 (the “Uniform Controlled Substances Act”). The Uniform Controlled Substances Act punishes possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana by incarceration up to six months and up to $500 or both. Penalties for possession and sale of cocaine range from two to four years. Penalties for possession of heroin range from two to four years. Qualifying prior convictions may add up to three years per conviction to the term provided for in the original conviction.
Whether you have been charged at the state or federal level, if you’ve been arrested for a drug crime, you need to contact a qualified criminal defense lawyer immediately.
As coronavirus quickly develops from a local to a global threat, there are also increasing commercial concerns in relation to the ability of parties to perform contracts. In particular, the coronavirus outbreak is an illustration of the legal principles of force majeure and frustration which can, in the correct circumstances, excuse a party’s non-performance and/or lead to the early termination of a contract. Accordingly, does the coronavirus constitute force majeure or a frustrating event which will protect the affected party from a claim for damages?
John Warchus, Partner at Moore Blatch Solicitors, explains the circumstances in which an affected party may not be held legally liable for an unperformed contract.
This defence can only arise if there is an express force majeure clause in place. If the force majeure clause refers expressly to “epidemics” or “diseases””, there is a reasonable chance that the virus will be seen as a qualifying force majeure event. Even if such wording is not present, many force majeure clauses refer to any circumstances beyond a party’s reasonable control and so it may also be possible to show that coronavirus should be seen as a force majeure event. Some commentators have suggested that given the outbreak of SARS a few years ago, it is arguable that the current coronavirus outbreak could be seen as foreseeable and therefore not a force majeure event, unless epidemic or disease is expressly mentioned.
In order for a party to rely on force majeure, it will need to show that:
If there is no force majeure clause, then the only way an affected party can avoid legal liability is through the legal concept of frustration. This requires a party to show that it is either physically or commercially impossible to perform a contract due to a supervening event that has occurred since the contract was concluded through no fault of the affected party.
The concept of frustration needs to be distinguished from force majeure:
Unfortunately, the case law on frustration is not as clear-cut as it could be. For example, although some cases refer to “commercial impossibility” of performing a contract as being sufficient to show that frustration has occurred, other case law makes it very clear that simply because obligations become more expensive (and even uneconomic) to perform, this is not sufficient for frustration. The courts in recent years have suggested that obligations need to become “radically different” after the relevant supervening effect for frustration to apply and so there is still room for debate as to exactly when performance moves from being more onerous to “radically different” or impossible.
[ymal]
In determining whether or not frustration has taken place, the court often has to undertake a complex assessment of all relevant circumstances, including:
Before a party asserts that it is entitled to claim force majeure or frustration, it needs to have a detailed understanding of all the background facts and details of the contract. Otherwise, an assertion of force majeure or frustration could be wrong with the result that the party making the claim is itself in breach of the contract, entitling the other party to terminate and claim damages arising as a result of that breach.
