Tag Archives: International

UK Lawyers: “Don’t put Spotlight on Dubai”

DubaiUK lawyers have warned against putting the spotlight on Dubai as an international centre of arbitration. The comments come ahead of a seminar due to take place next month with the intention of promoting Dubai as a place to settle legal disputes.

The seminar is being developed with the involvement of the British Irish Commercial Bar Association (BICBA), cooperating with the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the University of Dubai. David Casement QC, the chair of the BICBA, is also among the event’s speakers. The goal of the event is to promote Dubai and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a whole as a “world centre in arbitration,” as well as to host discussions and generate proposals on how this position can be strengthened and how the Dubai legal system could develop in the future.

However, a number of legal professionals in the UK, including both solicitors and barristers, have criticised the aim of promoting Dubai as an international centre of justice. They say that there are serious problems with the legal system of the UAE, and that this kind of spotlight should not be shone on the region until they are resolved.

Critics of the seminar and its message point out that the High Court in England and Wales has ruled against allowing individuals to be extradited from the UK to Dubai. The grounding for this decision and for their criticisms, they say, is that the Dubai justice system has a history of problems such as corruption, violations of human rights, and denying access to justice.

Much of the criticism has come from Detained in Dubai, which is based in the UK but specialises in the civil and criminal justice systems of the UAE. The organisation described the seminar as “fuelling propaganda that Dubai has an equivelently competent justice system.” A partner at the organisation, non-practising solicitor David Haigh, said “I have practised law in both the UK and the UAE but unfortunately, I myself have first-hand experience of the legal system in Dubai. I was wrongfully imprisoned, arbitrarily detained.”

Haigh continued: “At present, until the UAE judicial system undergoes significant reform, the DIAC can by no means, be considered a just, independent, safe or modern dispute resolution centre.”

Doughty Street Chambers barrister Ben Cooper was also critical, saying that he “would not recommend” the BICBA help to portray Dubai as a centre of dispute resolution. He went on to say that “The UAE needs to address and remedy judicial failings before it should be considered as a possible legal jurisdiction of choice.”

High Court Denies Disclosure for Thai Death Penalty Case

ConfidentialityA high court judge has ruled that a UK police report should not be made available for a case in Thailand that could result in two Burmese nationals receiving the death penalty. Mr Justice Green described his “very considerable unease” in passing this judgement, but reached the decision on the basis of the UK government’s policy of not assisting overseas authorities with death penalty cases.

The two men on trial are accused of murdering two British tourists, Hannah Witheridge and David Miller, last year. They confessed their alleged involvement in the murders to Thai police, but have since claimed that they only made these confessions as a result of being subjected to torture.

The Metropolitan Police, acting on a request from the Prime Minister, examined the case and produced a report. This report was intended to be used for briefing the families of the victims rather than as an investigatory tool.

Nonetheless, the defendants requested access to the report. They requested that they be provided with information pertaining to themselves under the Data Protection Act, as well as seeking access on the grounds that the report could prove useful to their defence.

The police denied the two men access on the grounds of public interest, and the application made its way to the High Court in the case of Zaw Lin and Wai Phyo v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, where Mr Justice Green passed judgement upholding the police’s refusal to release the report.

One of the conditions under which Thailand cooperated with the report was a strict agreement that the report be kept confidential. Furthermore, the judgement points out that the Metropolitan Police’s involvement with the case was not an investigatory one, but rather limited to “observing and recording the investigation” which was being carried out by their Thai counterparts.

Green described how the case required careful balancing of the interests of both police and claimants, with valid and important considerations on both sides. The claimants submitted that the report could potentially have a real bearing on their defence, and the fact that the case carried a possible death penalty should override many other considerations. The police, meanwhile, claimed that going against confidentiality agreements could have “a very serious adverse effect” upon the way that police forces work together across national borders.

Ultimately the judge ruled that “there is nothing in the personal data which would be of any real value to the claimants,” and that this meant that the interests of the police outweighed those of the claimants in this situation. Nonetheless, he described his unease in reaching the judgement, especially as he was required to work out for himself how the defence might be structured and evidence tendered in order to accurately gauge how useful the document would be. “This has not been a comfortable process,” he said.

Representing Clients from Out of the Country- 3 Common Situations

Let’s say you are practicing law in Australia. As you know, there are more people who are not from Australia than those who were born there. Being a large and beautiful nation/continent, with diverse flora and fauna, not to mention cultural attractions, places like this have a tremendous number of tourists showing up on their shores. Tourists are notoriously unaware of local laws and customs, at least that’s what the stereotype would have us believe. As such, they frequently work themselves into pickles with the law, meaning that you might one day find yourself representing the legal interests of someone who lives overseas.

So, if you get contacted after a worried tourist finds your contact information after Googling “criminal lawyers in Sydney”, don’t be shocked. It happens everyday, but representing someone from out the country presents its own unique challenges. Being in touch with multiple lawyers and studying this phenomenon as a hobby of my own, here are three of the most common issues I see.

  • Time. Because many of these individuals do not reside in the nation where they are standing trial, they need to get away to take care of things back home. This can present a challenge. Depending on the severity of the charge, they may be restricted in their movement across the country, as flight risk is a serious concern. Depending on the severity of the infraction, this may not be a consideration, but the defendant’s responsibilities back home certainly are. As such, the process may be permitted to be expedited. In fact, this is what I would recommend for anyone representing such a client. Get it over with as fast as possible, try to reduce it to a fine, do what you can to get the client’s life back to normal as soon as possible.
  • Money. International exchange of currency may present a difficulty when representing a foreign client. In general, I try to recommend my clients the cheapest possible currency transfer services, but sometimes there simply isn’t money to spare. In situations like this, there may be remuneration on the part of the state, or a situation which allows your client to more or less go free, pending specific action.
  • Language Barrier. In addition to ignorance of local law and custom, your client may not speak the local language. This may present a difficulty, but it may help your client to be able to get home without too much trouble also. If it can be argued to your judge that a client and the wronged party would be better served to let the client return home, then this is a desirable outcome. If the case must be brought to trial, then necessary translation services must be obtained, and the defendant made aware of his or her rights and the details of the case.

Travelers get in trouble overseas all the time, but this doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be well-represented. Acquaint yourself with the details of their situation, and you and they should be able to move beyond the present trial without too much trouble.

British Courts Give Most Generous Payouts for Divorces

A new report has revealed that courts in England and Wales award the most generous maintenance payouts in divorce cases when compared to other jurisdictions around the world. As a rule, British courts award larger payments which are sustained for a longer period of time when compared to other countries.

London has been nicknamed “the divorce capital of the world,” partly due to the generosity of maintenance payouts. This has not gone unnoticed by the world at large, and some couples from other jurisdictions have chosen to conduct divorce proceedings with the UK for this reason.

1This practice has divided opinions. Those who take a more negative viewpoint suggest it gives some spouses greater opportunity to secure higher payouts than they should really be entitled to. However, many also maintain that it makes for a fairer system, and gives greater protection to spouses who may be left financially vulnerable following a divorce.

The international law firm who compiled the report supported the latter view. The conclusion of the report stated that “England has an international reputation as an attractive divorce forum for the financially weaker spouse, and we should be proud of the courts’ efforts to reach a fair result in each and every case.”

According to the report, one of the key reasons for the generosity of settlements made in British courts is that UK judges are given a greater freedom regarding these details. Overall, the report looked at 15 countries including New Zealand, the US, South Africa, and a number of mainland European countries. It determined that the degree of “judicial discretion” given to British judges was greater than that given to their counterparts in any of the other countries studied.

Another key factor was the concept of fault, which is treated very differently in different countries. In some countries, this is considered a key factor in the case, and factors like adultery and abandonment can seriously affect one spouse’s financial entitlements. In other countries, fault is more of a discretionary point and not a key aspect of the case. The UK places considerable emphasis on the concept of blame, meaning that spouse’s may receive higher payments if the blame is deemd to lie with the other party.

The Law Commission is currently set to review all areas of family law, including the issues surrounding divorce settlements. This review is part of an ongoing effort to ensure fair practice. The report notes that it will be interesting to see whether this will have an effect on the generosity of maintenance payouts.