I'm not, of course, talking about cases where a serious crime or a possible custodial sentence or both are involved. But where an accused charged with a relatively minor offence is pleading guilty, and the penalty is to be a modest fine or, say, a conditional or absolute discharge, what purpose is served by making the defendant come to court, lawyer in tow, and having the magistrate or judge go tediously through the motions of passing sentence? A letter would be just as adequate (as already happens with many motoring offences) or, as in last week's case, a phone call.
I can see the argument that this offends against the principle of open justice. But these are not the kind of cases that are ever reported anyway, and the convictions and sentences would still be a matter of public record.
· Our courts seem finally to be knocking some common sense into one of the more absurd aspects of the law of libel. Last week, the court of appeal refused to allow a claim alleging a libel on the internet to proceed. There had been only five hits, including one by the claimant's lawyer and two by his business associates. The other two were by people who had never heard of the claimant (a wealthy Saudi Arabian), who didn't remember that they had read his name, and thus whose opinion of him could not have been lowered.
But even if the judges were, in this case, sensible in ruling that the claim was not substantial enough to be allowed to continue, the basic flaw in our law of libel remains. It is not necessary for a claimant to prove that he suffered any loss, either of reputation or financially. All that has to be shown is that the allegedly libellous words tended to lower the claimant's reputation - not that they actually did so. It's then assumed that he is entitled to compensation.
This law has resulted, over the years, in many claimants trousering large damages when their reputations have not suffered at all. The court's decision does not, of itself, change that law, but it may be an important step towards a more rational approach - that no one should be entitled to compensation without having suffered some loss.
· Eight top university law schools recently united to devise a new exam to help them choose the best candidates for their law degrees. Too many applicants were obtaining the required A-levels; some other test was needed to narrow down the field.
The results of the first year of operation of the scheme have just been published. Most striking was the fact that 61% of the candidates were women. The past few years had seen women entrants into both the barristers' and solicitors' professions exceed the 50% mark, but six out of 10, admittedly only at the student stage, is a new high.
There was one depressing finding: "Many candidates were unable to contribute reasoned arguments of sufficient quality." These were students with very good A-levels, aspiring to become lawyers, yet who couldn't string together coherent arguments.
· You know, or perhaps not, that many lawyers don't like being spotted in public, on the tube or a park bench or wherever, reading a legal tome. They are worried that people, realising their calling, will approach them for legal advice; or perhaps they just fear being caught out swotting. So the ruse is to disguise the law-book by hiding it inside a magazine, so that onlookers will think they are reading Cosmopolitan, GQ, or the Beano and won't twig that they are lawyers.
An eminent appeal court judge has now devised a scheme to make the subterfuge unnecessary. Lord Justice Jacob and two barristers have written a book whose cover consists mainly of two Arsenal crests - past and present - in full colour. Only on closer inspection is it revealed to be A Guidebook to Intellectual Property (published by Sweet & Maxwell), a rather readable work aimed at a wider audience than lawyers. But is it really safer to be seen reading, in public, a book about Arsenal than one about the law?