Don’t Do(cument) As I Do: Documents Without Appeal

Singapore lawyers still smarting from fairly recent criticisms of their choice of documents included in their bundle of documents may find some small solace in keeping company with at least one UK firm of lawyers.

The firm of Davies & Partners was roundly criticised both in the court of first instance and by the Court of Appeal (see Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland v Henry Butcher & Co & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 67) for the ‘sloppy and casual’ way it prepared bundles for a commercial dispute, with the judges slating the way documents were presented as ‘verging on the scandalous’.

Mr Justice Munby complained that the firm had presented the court with seven arch-lever files that were largely full of ‘superfluous and inappropriate’ information, but conversely omitted all or parts of many key documents, which had to be supplied by the other party.

In the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Chadwick said the Court expected solicitors — in particular, those instructed by ‘substantial’ clients in commercial disputes — to observe and comply with requirements in relation to the evidence to be used at an appeal.

Davies & Partners’ partner, Geoffrey Hand, could only comment: ‘It is much to be regretted when these problems cause the Court such difficulties, for which I presented formal apologies as, whatever the background, responsibility rests ultimately with the appellants’ solicitors.’

However, at least one Lord Justice Aldous in the Court of Appeal expressed his appreciation to counsel instructed by Davies & Partners in the appeal ‘who in the best tradition of the Bar appeared pro bono and was not responsible for the bundles’.

A case of taking the chaff with the wheat — and we don’t just mean the documents!

As for Singapore lawyers, we do have a comparison abroad, but it may be only the lonely.

A Circus of Life?

How’s this for a legal conundrum — time: Friday morning 9am, place: Registrar’s Chambers, Supreme Court, action: an average of 30 persons made bankrupt by credit card companies for defaulting on their payments. Time: Saturday afternoon, the next day, place: shopping malls around Singapore, action: credit card companies holding road-shows encouraging shoppers to sign up for their pre-approved credit card.

And so goes on the circle (or circus) of life ...

 

When the Poop Hits the Fan

Or in this case, the shoes.

Philip Stroud, convicted last July of 10 felony charges including first degree murder, first denied any involvement with the crime, a residential burglary in rural Indiana that turned into a gruesome triple homicide. He subsequently admitted to being in on the September 2000 burglary, but claimed that he never went near the barn, where three construction workers, who had been building a loft, were tied up and murdered execution-style, each with a bullet to the back of the head.

Unfortunately for Stroud, the couple who owned the home also owned two German shorthaired pointers that freely roamed the area around the barn. And traces of dog faeces found on one of Stroud’s shoes had the same animal DNA as droppings that had been stepped on near the barn doors.

In fact, lab officials placed the odds that the traces found on Stroud’s shoe and the droppings found outside the barn came from two different dogs at about one in 10bn. And there are only about 60m dogs in the United States, they told the jury.

A case of a dog’s poop being worse than its bite!

In the Public Interest

If a new broadcasting initiative in the UK takes off, hearings in camera will soon take on a whole new meaning.

While Singapore lawyers have been somewhat busy preening themselves and getting used to seeing their faces on the TV screen thanks to new video-conferencing technology, UK lawyers may be going one step further for their television debut.

Apparently, a dozen broadcasting companies met officials from the Lord Chancellor’s Department recently to draw up rules for a pilot project to film cases which come before the Court of Appeal. The proposals are intended to be placed before the Lord Chief Justice and senior judges, as well as the Law Society and the Bar, for approval.

Interestingly enough, TV cameras have been permitted in Scottish courts since 1992, but the strictness of the guidelines is such that no trials have been televised.

However, Lord Irvine of Lairg (who delivered the Singapore Academy of Law Annual Lecture in 1999 on ‘The Modern Development of Public Law in Britain’), has warned against any televisensation a la the OJ Simpson trial.

The purpose of the present experiment — which if successful, may lead to legislation to lift the existing statutory camera ban under the Criminal Justice Act 1925 — is to help public understanding of the judicial system.