here

Quick update…we have moved from blogger to  WordPress and are sorting out the translation opportunities, meanwhile our site has had a facelift and is now available in many languages including WELSH

Now trialling some translation links in the sidebar>>>>>>>>>>>

Two stories in the news this week that highlight a particular concern for Private Investigators:   

Glenn Baker, 47, of Bowthorpe, Norwich, who worked for Norfolk Police, admitted the offence at Norwich Crown Court.

Baker accessed the national police computer to find information about his mother’s neighbour.

Baker, who the court was told would lose his job over the conviction, was ordered to pay £780 prosecution costs.

‘Absolute stupidity’

Patrick Gowen, representing Baker, said his client had been married for 18 years and there had been a breakdown in the relationship.

He said Baker would lose his job and could also lose his mortgaged home.

“This was absolute stupidity,” said Mr Gowen.

“The heaviest penalty will be the loss of his employment.”

Judge Peter Jacobs told Baker: “There was a serious aspect here.

“You were a law officer with access to the police national computer.

“There are daily concerns about information being stored about us. Police officers cannot start putting this into the public domain.”

BBC NEWS

A police community support officer has been fined £220 and is set to lose his job after disclosing personal data from the force national computer.

Laws should be tightened to give judges the option to jail people found guilty of serious abuses of personal data, the UK’s Information Commissioner has said.
Christopher Graham said penalties under the Data Protection Act were “pathetic” and urged tougher laws by next April.
His comments came after a judge said it was “ridiculous” he could only fine a former British National Party activist for leaking its membership list online.
Mr Graham is preparing a dossier to present his case to ministers.
‘Jury nobbling’
He told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: “I think for the most blatant and reckless examples of people playing fast and loose with private information, a custodial sentence is certainly appropriate.
“The DPA is supposed to safeguard confidential personal information, but the penalties in the Act are simply inappropriate for the activities going on today.

 
Private investigators can offset fines against expenses, Mr Graham says
“There is a very lively trade in confidential personal data and if the only thing you are going to get as a private investigator is a pathetic fine in the magistrates’ court and even the judge is embarrassed to impose it, it is simply not enough.”
He said the worst cases included trying to find out about partners’ assets for divorce proceedings, jury intimidation and jury nobbling.
Others find out where people live by getting hold of ex-directory numbers and friends and family numbers, checking the police national computer or car licensing database, he said.
Mr Graham, who took up his post in June this year, also told the BBC private investigators who were given small fines could set the penalty off against expenses.
Former BNP member Matthew Single, 37, of Brinsley, Notts, was fined by Nottingham magistrates after admitting publishing contact details of 10,000 members.
The leak led to complaints of harassment and threats.
In court, judge John Stobart said: “It came as a surprise to me, as it will to many members of the party, that to do something as foolish and as criminally dangerous as you did will only incur a financial penalty.”

On 20 August 2009 The Ministry of Justice set out proposals to rebalance the legal aid budget to ensure that the £2 billion currently spent every year goes as far as possible in favour of civil help for those who need it most.

The proposals will help to sustain the legal aid budget over the next spending review period, ensure that we focus criminal legal aid spending effectively and protect the civil fund as far as possible from any rise in criminal spend in the short to medium term.
The proposals intend to make better use of the criminal legal aid budget, reform and rationalise payment structures and sustain legal aid for the next 60 years have today been outlined in a consultation paper issued to stakeholders across the legal sector.

The funding reforms outlined in the consultation paper include:
Rationalising the rate of pay for barristers in Crown Court cases. On average, barristers acting for the prosecution receive 23% less pay than if they were acting for the defence, which could be creating an incentive for barristers to favour defence work over prosecution work.
Stabilising the cost of legal aid representation at police stations. Costs have been driven up by an oversubscription of duty schemes in some areas of the country, mostly in areas with too many firms competing for business. In order to contain these costs and discourage inefficiency, we are proposing a reduction in police station fees in the most expensive and oversubscribed areas.
Ending the current duplication of fees which remunerates litigators for preparation for committal hearing but which also remunerates the same litigators for consideration of the Committals Bundle in preparation for trial in the Crown Court. The change will see all working on Committals combined into one fixed fee which will be paid out of the Litigator Graduate Fee Scheme.
Ending the anomaly by which practitioners in criminal cases receive a fee for file reviews which does not apply in civil cases. This would see an end to payments for criminal file reviews.
In addition, the Legal Services Commission will be asked to consider changes to payments made to experts in both criminal and civil cases.

Currently, the legal aid budget pays different amounts for the same work by different experts and across categories of law. The change would see payments standardised to ensure better value for money.

The Legal Services Commission has also been asked to find an additional 5% saving from its administrative budget this year, and 10% next year.
Legal Aid Minister, Willy Bach said:

‘The UK has one of the best funded legal aid systems in the world and it is a vital service for many people, particularly during the current economic downturn. More and more homeowners, employees and those facing financial hardship are vulnerable to civil law problems at this time. We need to do all we can to ensure that legal aid is prioritised effectively so that more people are able to access it to and resolve their legal problems.
‘Legal aid practitioners provide a fantastic service and should be paid accordingly; and that means rebalancing some fee structures so that there is greater fairness across the board. Today’s consultation paper sets out proposals to make better use of the legal aid budget and ensure access for as many people as possible.’

The consultation on the proposed legal aid funding reforms will run from 20 August 2009 to 12 November 2009.