Following this week’s news that Qatar has been cut off from several gulf nations, and all diplomatic ties, travel links and economic markets have been stripped, the UAE Attorney-General has warned that showing any sympathy for Qatar, whether by social media or any other means, is now punishable by law.

Today Dr Hamad Saif Al Shamsi told Arabic press that the UAE is taking a firm stance on relationships with Qatar and its current irresponsible and hostile policies towards UAE and other GCC members.

"The tough decisions were taken in order to protect the UAE's national security, its supreme interests and interests of its people," underlined Al Shamsi according to the Khaleej Times.

"Strict and tough action will be taken against anyone who shows sympathy or any form of favouritism towards Qatar, or against anyone who objects to the position of the UAE, whether through social media, or any other forms of communication."

The Federal Penal Code and the Federal law on Combating Information Technology Crimes in UAE now state that anyone who threatens the interests, national unity and stability of the UAE can face prison for anywhere between three years and 15 years, on top of a monetary fine of exactly Dh500,000, which is just over $136,000 or just under £105,500.

Known also as America’s Dad, Bill Cosby is on trial in the US for sexual assault, with more than 50 women accusing him. Monday saw the first day of the trial in Norristown, Pennsylvania, US, and Kelly Johnson, the first witness, said she held off for years going public about how Bill allegedly drugged and sexually abused her, in fear she would not be taken seriously against one of the biggest and most loved celebrities in the world.

Cosby is not being charged with her assault, but the witnesses statements are being used to represent the pattern in his alleged past actions of drugging and assaulting women. Andrea Constand is one of the women who was assaulted, and her case is the basis of the currently ongoing trial. Constand said the celebrity star sexually assaulted her in his suburban a home in Philadelphia, US, back in 2004.

Yesterday saw testimony from Johnson’s mother, details of which are still to be released at time of publication. Johnson already testified in 1996 that Bill gave her a pill to ‘relax’ when she visited him in LA for career help. She said when she awoke she was part undressed, and that the globally renown comedian made her touch his genitals.

According to Reuters, she said: “I was humiliated and embarrassed…I was very afraid because I had a secret about the biggest celebrity in the world at that time. It was just me and my word against his.”

By now over 50 women have accused Bill Cosby of similar action, dating back to the 1960s. Constand’s case, the one now in trial, is the only case that doesn’t date too far back to prosecute. Other testimonies will serve to answer the question as to whether he will be accused and convicted of previous mentions too.

Pennsylvania prosecutors gathered the charges against Cosby in 2015, just before the statute of limitations hit its mark for prosecution. Cosby denies all allegations and says relations with Constand were consensual. Cosby however, is not expected to testify in this trial, but his testimony words form 2005 will be brought into the currently ongoing trial.

Reuters says Defense attorney Brian McMonagle has welcomed that evidence. “Mr. Cosby has never, ever under oath run from what happened that night,” McMonagle said on Monday. “At no point in time did he ever say anything to anybody that this young woman was incapacitated in any way.”

The Bar Council has recently appointed a new Chief Executive, Malcolm Cree, who will take up the post in August 2017.

The Bar Council's appointment of a new Chief Executive was prompted by the outgoing Chief Executive, Stephen Crowne’s, decision to retire later in the year and comes at a time when the organisation has begun to renew its strategy for the future.

Malcolm joins the Bar Council from Catalyze Ltd, where he is a Principal Consultant specialising in strategy and decision analysis. Prior to his role at Catalyze, Malcolm served in the Royal Navy for 35 years, reaching the rank of Rear Admiral. Aside from his operational appointments his roles included Director of Transformation and Head of Business Planning. He has experience of advising government ministers, senior officials and policymakers.

Andrew Langdon QC, Chair of the Bar, said: “I speak for everyone at the Bar Council when I say we are delighted that Malcolm has agreed to take up the role of Chief Executive. He joins us at a time when we are reviewing the future direction of the organisation and meeting the challenges and opportunities the profession faces. Malcolm brings with him strong leadership skills which will help the Bar Council navigate the diverse and complex environment in which the Bar’s professional body operates. He will be an important addition to the team.”

Malcolm Cree, incoming Chief Executive of the Bar Council, said: “The barristers’ profession is held in high esteem in the UK and internationally and the Bar Council has a strong reputation. I’m delighted to take on the role of Chief Executive and relish the opportunity to work with the profession, the executive team and the officers and members of the Bar Council in achieving their strategic aims. I look forward to playing a key role in shaping the future of the Bar Council.”

(Source: The Bar Council)

The snap election is fast-approaching, and many are speculating about the changes to Employment Law that each of the main two parties are committing to. Both have made bold claims with regards to their proposed changes, and should either Labour or Conservative win – each policy could mean that the legislative changes we saw in 2015 could be overwritten. Experts at Taylor Rose give Lawyer monthly the run down.

The Labour Party’s manifesto includes a 20-point plan that the party trust will be end of the ‘rigged economy’. Under the plan, employment tribunal fees will be abolished, providing all employees with equal rights, regardless of the number of working hours that they are contracted to. The £950 fees were introduced in 2013, and ever since unions have called for them to be scrapped, claiming that they had altered the way that workplace disputes were handled, and that low-paid women that were bearing the brunt of the changes.

Labour also plan to ban zero-hour contracts, which rose by 600% after the 2008 financial crisis. This increase, along with the parallel growth of the gig economy drastically changed the face of the modern workforce. It’s no surprise that labour want to ban these contracts, along with unpaid internships; the media has been rife with stories of lazy employers using them to exploit employees, and recent legal judgements support this view. The Liberal Democrat manifesto echoes this sentiment, indicating that they too, plan to end these pieces of employment legislation.

Increases in the living wage has also been promised under a Labour Government; they have yet to commit to a figure but currently the increase stands at “at least” £10 per hour by 2020. This wage would be extended to employees aged 18 and over. They also pledge to end the 1% pay cap on public-sector pay with the addition of making sure that workers receive bonuses that are in line with rising inflation. The current cap is in place until 2020 under Conservative plans – by this time it would’ve been in place for eight years. This has dealt a devastating blow to the NHS as staff leave the sector and workloads increase – a situation that is threatening patient safety.

Organisations within the public sector, and private sector businesses carrying out public sector work, will also find themselves having to comply with the maximum pay ratio of 20:1. Meaning that those in executive positions will not earn more than twenty times the wage of the lowest paid employee.

With regards to pay, under Labour legislation we can also expect to see the introduction of an ‘excessive pay levy’ on annual salaries above £330,000. Firms paying staff more than this figure will be obliged to pay a 2.5% surcharge, that increases to 5% for salaries of £500,000 and over.

The current redundancy model could be reformed under Labour who are offering a review of existing arrangements that are often found to be unclear by around 50% of employers. They are also looking to increase statutory redundancy pay.

With regards to parental leave and wellbeing there are some interesting changes proposed; both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are pushing for an extended period of paid paternity leave, to encourage shared parental responsibilities and perhaps be a positive step towards closing the gender wage gap. There would also be a consultation on the introduction of a statutory bereavement leave period.

But how would Employment Law fair under a Conservative landscape? First off, let’s address wages. The Conservative party has too, vowed to make changes to the national living wage, increasing the figure in line with average earnings by 2022. They are standing by their previous commitment of increasing the rate to 60% of median hourly earnings by 2020, a figure less than the seemingly vague one promised by Labour at £8.75.

Conservative leader Theresa May has claimed that under her party, we will see the biggest expansion of workers’ rights than any of her Conservative Government predecessors. The expansion includes the protection of workers’ pensions from the ‘irresponsible behaviour” that has been previously witnessed. She has also guaranteed that throughout the Brexit negotiations, workers’ rights will remain unaffected, by enacting the Great Repeal Bill, converting EU law into UK law. Whereas Jeremy Corbyn has declared that Labour would replace the Bill with a new EU Rights and Protections Bill, safeguarding employee rights handed over from EU law.

May also stands by her budget pledge with regards to the representation of employees on the boards of listed companies. However, companies will not be required to appoint a specific member of staff to the board, but instead appoint a non-executive director to monitor any concerns from employees.

When it comes to skills and immigration, the Tories have vowed to double the immigration skills charge to £2,000 for companies employing migrant workers, a policy that is perfectly aligned with David Cameron’s previous pledge to cut net migration to tens of thousands. However, a policy that is almost guaranteed de-incentivise firms from employing foreign talent.

When it comes to employee wellbeing, the Conservatives are looking to remove the current requirement that states employees to have suffered from a mental health condition for twelve months before they are protected by the Equality Act. They also want to allow workers the right to a period of a year’s unpaid leave to care for a relative, as well as working to increase the uptake of flexible working environments and shared parental leave as the UK still lags behind the EU in this area.

Of course, once either party is elected, we are yet to see these changes come to fruition quickly, if at all.

After months of negotiation, RBS has finally reached a £200 million settlement with investors, who say they were originally duped into providing £12 billion during the financial crisis.

The share offer accepted by the RBS Shareholders Action Group concluded at 82p, compared with the 200-230p price that investors paid in 2008, when RBS mis-sold its financial health during the funding.

This finalises the dispute, meaning the parties will not take this to court, and Fred Goodwin, CEO of RBS between 2001 and 2009, will not appear either.

According to the BBC, a spokesman for the RBS Shareholder Action Group said: "The directors met last night to consider the legal advice and took the decision that this matter will not now go to court." He also declined to comment on whether the consensus to settle was unanimous.

In 2008 RBS was bailed out of its crisis by the taxpayer, at £45 billion. The state still owns over 70% of the bank, while on the other hand selling its last stake in Lloyds bank, which took over HBOS at the time of the crisis after taking £20 billion from the state.

Since the 9/11 attacks in the US, there has been a lot of research and many theses written about the economic cost of terrorism, but with recent events, not only in London, Manchester, and close to home, but across the globe, Lawyer Monthly asks again, what is the cost of terrorism?

Below Lawyer Monthly has from very reputable experts who have provided some inciteful analysis.

Jonathan Watson, Chief Market Analyst, Foreign Currency Direct:

Terrorism and the economy are two very closely interlinked subjects. Terrorism can have a huge effect on an economy in various ways stemming from the fear and lack of confidence it creates. Financial markets are largely driven by these two phenomena; confidence that something will happen and fear that it might not, and vice versa. Ultimately what drives an economy is the behaviour of individuals, and terrorism can have a very direct impact on the behaviours of individuals and businesses.

Looking at the currency markets, terrorism is one of the elements that can influence exchange rates; the other factors being economic news, political uncertainty and acts of god. Together these are the four elements that move currency markets. Exchange rates will generally follow some fairly predictable behaviours on news of a terror attack, safe haven currencies will strengthen and a currency directly affected by the attack may weaken. As a result of the tragic terror attack in Manchester, the Pound fell however the value of the US Dollar, the Japanese Yen and gold all rose as investors moved funds into these safer havens.

Terrorism acts as a disruption but does not in itself halt the economy in the same way a recession would, for example. It is usually a short-term blip, in fact and whilst it is painful to say markets have become more resilient to terrorism, and the impact on the currency market is now less pronounced than it was previously, such as when 9/11 happened, which caused far greater havoc on financial markets.

The Voice of America reports:

Worldwide terrorism is at an all-time high, and violence cost the global economy $14.3 trillion last year, with a $2.5 trillion impact in the United States alone.

These new figures from the latest Global Peace Index, a report on conflict and security, indicate that world peace has been deteriorating for the past decade, largely driven by terrorism and conflicts in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

The study says the decline interrupts long-term improvements the world had been making since the end of World War II.

According to the report, the annual number of terrorism incidents has almost tripled since 2011.

Deaths from terrorism have risen more than 900% since 2007 in the 35 countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Of those members, 23 nations experienced terrorism related deaths over the past year.

Those countries include Denmark, Sweden, France and Turkey.

easyMarkets.com:

There are direct costs from the destruction of life and property, emergency services, medical providers and the restoration of systems and infrastructure. Then there are the indirect costs which often have larger implications and include reduced productivity, higher insurance costs and a limit to consumer and investor confidence.

As a case in point, the 9/11 attacks had an immediate $55 billion cost to physical damage with overall economic impact coming in at $123 billion. This was then intensified by the costs to Homeland Security ($589 bn), war funding ($1,649 bn) and future war and veterans care costs ($867 bn). Immediate market effects were the drop of equities – the S&P 500 lost up to 13%, while the safe haven, gold, jumped from $215.50 to $287 an ounce. By the end of the year the S&P 500 was back up 5% and gold leaned back to $276.50.

This is just a brief snapshot of how resilient to terror attacks advanced markets are in the long-term. Globalization means that an attack in London or Paris can and does affect the global markets. However, it is also globalization that allows the impact of these attacks to be absorbed with minimal macro effects.

What perhaps has wider implications are the effects of terror on smaller or emerging markets. If we look at Pakistan around the same time as the 2001 attacks in the US, a more chilling picture of terrorism on economies arises. In 2001-2002, along with the immeasurable loss of life, the economic cost of terrorism to Pakistan was estimated at $35-40 billion. There are many economic casualties in the ongoing war against terrorism. Exports shrink due to drops in production, we see a shift from tradable to non-tradable sectors due to an undermining of banks, consumption and domestic savings fall and foreign borrowing and aid increases.

By 2009 Pakistan’s economic growth almost ground to a halt thanks to the costs of war on terrorism and the rehabilitation of three million displaced people. Foreign Direct Investment fell to $463 million vs $1.116 billion during the same period of the previous year, a decline of 58.5%. Government capital formation and private investments dropped due to budget restrictions and increased uncertainty. Higher government spending allocated towards military meant less was available for social and economic expenditure. The human cost is also huge – increased infant mortality, deteriorating nutrition, health and educational standards, war-induced famines. With halting economic growth coupled with a widening fiscal deficit, it’s not difficult to see where the seeds of future terrorism are being sown.

We would also love to hear more of Your Thoughts on this, so feel free to comment below and tell us what you think!

Data Privacy is a cross-cutting matter applicable to all sectors, including IP. IP practitioners are daily confronted with the collection and handling of personal data – not always sure to handle them properly.

In addition, European practitioners will be soon subject to the new provisions of the Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR) entering into force next year. This workshop aims to provide an overview of the relevant aspects of Data Protection for IP practitioners.

Anna Forestan is In-House Legal Counsel at Dennemeyer Group since 2014. After her admission to the bar in Italy she gained first experiences in law firms in Italy and Germany with focus on international contract law. As In-House Legal Counsel she specialized in contractual law applied to IP-related field and collaborated to Data Protection Project at Dennemeyer.

Family law practices showed a growth of 47 % growth in vacancies to the end of April 2017 in the UK regions, with an increase in probate lawyer vacancies of 56% over the 12-month period according to data from the Association of Professional Staffing Companies (APSCo).

While Real Estate continues to be the largest practice area in terms of vacancies across the UK, it also had the largest percentage fall in new openings to April 2017, down by 27%, year on year. Within the specialist practice area, the figures showed a 23% increase, with 14 out of 20 sector practices showing a growth in demand.

Vacancies within both private practice (11%) and non-legal practice (16.6%) fell in the 12-month period ending 30 April 2016, despite a slight recovery in the sector figures during Q1 of 2017.  The figures also found that during April, there were 27% fewer private practice vacancies compared to March, which was 19% fewer than in April 2016.

Ann Swain, chief executive of APSCo, commented on the report saying: “Overall, these figures show that there is mixed fortunes within the legal and non-legal practice sector. It’s really interesting to note the high growth in probate lawyers during the year; this may have been linked to the proposed changes to probate fees which have now been rescinded by the government, ahead of the general election.

“Elsewhere, the figures are showing a dip across both legal and non-legal practices and this is also reflected within Greater London (down 32%) and Scotland (down 34%) both experiencing a decline, with lawyers hit particularly hard. However, there is a welcome bright spot to be found in the north east of England where there was a 31% increase in the number of vacancies, which equated to 32 new jobs, within private practice.”

(Source: APSCo)

Here John Burgar, Head of Investigations at RGL Forensics, talks to Lawyer Monthly about the current work of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in the UK, and the current government agendas for confronting fraud crimes across the nation.

The Conservative Party’s election manifesto unveiled their plans, if successful on 8^th June, to incorporate the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into the National Crime Agency (NCA). The stated aim is to ‘strengthen Britain’s response to white collar crime’ and ‘bolster the investigation of serious fraud, money laundering and financial crime’. Other than citing an improvement in intelligence sharing, no additional perceived benefits are evident.

So is this a good idea? The Conservative Party thinks so. The Prime Minister has form of course: in 2011, when she was Home Secretary, she tried to dismantle the SFO, but was thwarted by her cabinet colleagues, most notably Ken Clarke, who was the then Justice Secretary – and reportedly tried to revive the plan in 2014. If she is re-elected to the top job this summer, with a manifesto commitment, the SFO as it stands will be history.

I will readily admit that the SFO is not perfect. It certainly has a public image problem with its fair share of well-publicised failures. It reached rock bottom in 2014, when its ill-starred pursuit of the Tchenguiz brothers resulted in an embarrassing failure followed by the need to pay £3m in compensation (plus a further £3m in costs) to make it go away. It was at this low point that the SFO seemed to deserve the ‘Serious Farce Office’ moniker by which Private Eye affectionately referred to it. To put the SFO out of its misery then would have looked like an act of kindness.

But of late, the SFO has been on a roll. It has been enjoying some notable successes and pulling in some serious fines; Rolls Royce (£500m) and Tesco (£129m). It finally seems to be getting into its stride and showing what it is capable of. To put it down now, when its star is in the ascendency, makes no sense.

The SFO undertakes some large and complex cases and they are getting more so, requiring skilled and well-trained investigators, sharp accountants and keen, intelligent lawyers. It also needs strong management who are independent of the government. Yet, because of the way the SFO is funded (a mixture of ‘core’ and ‘blockbuster’ funding), many SFO staff are temporary, brought in for a particular case and laid off when the case is over. This makes it very difficult to attract and retain the high calibre, committed staff required to work on these long, difficult cases.

I work in the private sector and have been investigating fraud for some 20 years, much of it overseas. I have seen first-hand how fraud and corruption can flourish unchecked in the absence of well-funded, properly trained and independent law enforcement to bring wrongdoers before the courts. You can have the best laws in the world but they are worthless without an effective means to enforce them. We are fortunate in the UK that we have good laws and an excellent legal system that is the envy of many countries. Our independent judiciary is respected internationally for their impartiality, skill and experience in dealing with complex cases. We should capitalise on this by ensuring that our flagship anti-fraud agency is equally well respected, both here and abroad.

Does anyone else think incorporating the SFO into the NCA is a good idea? Not many it would seem - since the manifesto was launched, there has been almost universal condemnation among the legal cognoscenti who think that the move would be a retrograde step. There is nothing in the manifesto about how the SFO or its successor department within the NCA will be managed or funded. In the absence of this essential detail, there is suspicion that this can only be a cost saving measure.

At present, the NCA’s focus appears to be on tackling paedophilia and organised crime, the eradication of which will always play better to voters than locking up a few businessmen suspected of having their fingers in the till. Therefore the role of the SFO will be diminished within the enlarged NCA and the ability to take on complex white collar crime could be damaged for years.

It will not be forever, though. Inevitably, at some point in the future, the government of the day will decide to reorganise the NCA and it will go the same way of its predecessors (SOCA, NCS and Regional Crime Squads). This will probably be triggered by a collapse in public confidence after a massive failure in a particularly newsworthy case and then someone will have a bright idea: ‘Let’s have a dedicated, well-resourced agency that specialises in combatting serious fraud. Now, what shall we call it?

Following news last weekend that a small village in Switzerland announced a ban on tourist photography because their village was “too pretty for Instagram,” tourists have begun to flock in by the hundreds, and the ban has been lifted. But was it even a lawful ban, and could tourists actually be fined for taking photos?

According to comments spoken to The Local, the commune of Bergün/Bravuogn, north of alpine resort town St Moritz in the country’s east, voted in consensus to bring in the new law in its municipal assembly on Monday last week.

Residents all agreed their town was too beautiful to post photos of it on social media, as it may have left others around the world depressed because they were not there.

“It is scientifically proven that beautiful holiday photos on social media make the viewer unhappy because they cannot be there themselves,” said the village tourist office in a statement, according to The Local. The tourist office even removed its own photos form its social media pages and website.

On the back of the vote, the ban would have seen offending tourists facing fines of 5 Swiss Francs (USD6.95), and the proceeds would have all gone to village landscaping.

Media law consultant Cleland Thom, Principal of the College of Media and Publishing, told Lawyer monthly: ‘This law sounds as cuckoo as a Swiss cuckoo clock. The Municipal Assembly has probably exceeded its powers by passing it.

"Cantons can only pass legislation that fits in with federal law. And Swiss law only restricts photographing people, and certain places like museums and military bases. It does not prevent people taking photographs of the scenery in public places.

"The Swiss are also proud of their laws that guarantee the freedom to roam. It’s difficult to see why people are free to roam, but not to take photos."

Now that the ban has been lifted, following a huge influx of tourism, which clearly projects the implication it was all a publicity stunt (which has also been admitted), village mayor Peter Nicolay, says in a video message: “The beauty of our village has become world-famous thanks to our friendly photography ban. Millions of people around the world have shown interest in Bergun over the past two days. That makes us very proud.”

“Now you can snap away,” Nicolay says, whilst warning visitors “to think carefully” before they share the pictures on social media so that “nobody will be unhappy because they can’t be here right now.”