Mediation and LIPs

Share |

EXTRACT FROM soundoffforjustice website of 14 July 2011:

Today the Justice Select Committee launched a report on the Operation of the Family Courts. It is a good report well researched and it presents a series of options to help family disputes. It presents the role of mediation but also the limits of mediation in solving civil cases. Sound off for Justice has included mediation as part of the £360 million in savings that we believe we can make from the civil legal aid budget.

We believe that mediation does have a role to play – the problem is where and when.

On launching the Chair of the Justice Select Committee, the Rt. Hon Sir Alan Beith MP said:

“Many family disputes could be better dealt with by mediation than in a court. However, there will still be cases which go to court and there will be significantly more litigants in person following changes to legal aid. Courts are going to have to make adjustments to cope with more people representing themselves in what are often emotionally charged cases.”

The issue of ‘litigants in person’ and individuals representing themselves in court has been raised frequently recently. It needs some serious thought and discussion. This is dangerous territory for Sound Off For Justice and solicitors to get into. The immediate accusation is that we are only protecting the vested interests of lawyers and legal professions. Alan Beith MP made this point very eloquently in his interview on the radio this morning.

We have demonstrated in full that along with not having the most expensive legal system in the world that this vested interest is not one of motivations.

We can confirm this again today by providing the facts. The salary of a fully trained legal aid lawyer who has worked for 15 years is 25k. Only 4% of lawyers practice legal aid, this number has been going down over the last 16 years. Over the same period government figures indicate that the legal aid budget has been reduced.

If we do have a vested interest it is in protecting access to justice for the most vulnerable in society and the idea of Magna Carta. We believe that David Cameron and the government must put the victims at the centre of all the cuts to civil legal aid.

The idea of mediation and self-representation does indeed look good on paper as an area for cost saving from the civil legal aid budget. The reality is very different. We need to think long and hard about the use of mediation and the increase of litigants in person as a way to cut the legal aid bill. It is not the silver bullet to cost cutting. The risk is that it is simply a way of cutting cost in the short term to build up huge costs for the taxpayer and problems for victims in the future.

The issue was raised in detail by MPs sitting on bill committee this week.

Peter Lodder Head of the Bar Council and Linda Lee, President of the Law Society confirmed to MPS that mediation is something that both the bar and the law society invest a lot in training. Speaking on Tuesday Peter Lodder told MPs:

“You may be surprised to hear that, generally speaking, we do not like litigation, and if you have got to court, something has gone wrong. So any attempt to avoid that outcome is taken, and mediation is a particularly useful way of doing it. But, as I said a short while ago in answer to one of your colleagues, mediation helps only those who really want to do it’.

We are all agreed that we can make savings in the legal aid budget. Sound Off For Justice proposals will save more than the government’s target.

The reality unfortunately is different for a few real life reasons. To understand this reality MPs will need to listen more closely to the victims of domestic abuse, clinical negligence or unfair dismissal in employment who have to go and face the perpetrator of the wrongdoing across a court room. There are limits to the role of mediators and the work that they can solutions they can solve.

Deborah Turner, Convenor, Family Mediation Council, made this point very clearly to MPs earlier this week “Family mediators are extremely concerned about these proposals, yes. We can see huge pressures on mediators, not least the expectations of clients who have not had the legal advice that is so vital, as was said earlier. The big risk is that they will come to mediation expecting the mediator to be able to solve all the problems, to tell them what to do, to write it all up. Mediators are not trained to do that, nor should they be”.

This year Carol Sorer and the Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG) have provided testament to MPs of women who have been in physically abusive relationships for ten or fifteen years. It is legal aid that get these women out of these situations not mediation.

These women have spoken openly and honestly how they are terrified to step in the same room as their abuser. Representing themselves is some thing they could simply not do. Sound Off For Justice has countless case studies where one would question if mediation would work. This is the evidence that policymakers must listen to.

If the right thing is to be done it is important that government, policymakers, legal aid lawyers and victims have a joined up discussion. These changes to access to justice are a generational change and will affect every community across the UK. If the wrong decisions are made the cost to the taxpayer will cost more than the cuts will save. The social cost and the impact on communities and the most vulnerable is unaccountable.

Under the current proposals there is a serious risk that the courts could grind to a standstill as hundreds of thousands of people represent themselves in legal cases, senior judges have warned.

The Judiciary made their voices heard in an unprecedented criticism of government plans to reduce the legal aid budget by £350m. They have said that removing funding from whole areas of law including divorce cases, social welfare, debt and housing would lead to an “inevitable” decline in the quality of justice in courts in England and Wales.

Lord Judge, the Chair of the judges council, made it clear that he ‘anticipates a ‘huge increase’ in the number of unrepresented litigants in courts. In a scathing attack on proposals to slash legal aid, they have warned that a massive increase in “litigants in person” – ordinary people appearing in court without a lawyer – will slow down the court system and may cost more money down the line.

“The proposals would lead to a huge increase in the incidence of unrepresented litigants, with serious implications for the quality of justice… at a time when courts are having to cope in any event with closures, budgetary cut-backs and reductions in staff numbers,” the judges’ council, chaired by head of the judiciary, Lord Igor Judge, has said.

“There is a real question whether the cost savings arising from the proposed cutbacks in the scope of civil and family legal aid would be offset by the additional costs imposed on the system by dealing with the increase in litigants in person.”

Lady Hale in her speech at the Law Society in June added her concerns to the cuts in legal aid. The government has yet to respond to the criticism made by the Judges and magistrates who make the decisions in the cases.

In parliament yesterday, David Cameron said it was important the estimated 12,000 victims of the phone hacking are kept at the centre of the inquiries. We would agree with him and hope that he will support us in keeping the 725,000 victims of the civil cases at the centre of the current debate on legal aid.

Support the campaign and Sound Off For Justice

 

The truth about legal aid

Share |
http://soundoffforjustice.org/
COPY EXTRACT FROM SOUNDOFFFORJUSTICE WEBSITE
This week has seen the first sessions of the Justice Bill Committee, where MPs are listening to evidence and submissions from groups and organisations concerned about the government’s proposed Legal Aid, Sentencing & Punishment of Offenders Bill.

One line of questioning from the committee this week has focussed on the claim that the UK’s legal aid system is more expensive than other countries, with New Zealand being cited as an example of a country where financial eligibility is more difficult than this country.

This is another instance of the MPs concerned with this bill getting their calculations wrong as figures from New Zealand’s Legal Services Regulations 2011 tell the true story.

In the UK, the maximum gross income for the applicant and up to 4 dependants to be eligible for legal aid is £31,884 per year. However, In New Zealand the amount for the same size family unit is $64, 678 NZD per year – which is equivalent to£34,041 per year when working with the current exchange rate of £1 =  $1.9 NZD.

So in this instance, the financial eligibility rules in New Zealand are slightly more generous, and it could be argued the gap is actually wider in real terms if you consider the cost of living in New Zealand is lower than the UK.

Sound Off For Justice hope the Justice Bill Committee and government take heed of these accurate calculations, along with our alternative cost-saving proposals for UK legal aid, to ensure the public are being told the truth about the cost and qualifying criteria for legal aid– but more importantly – that vulnerable people who rely on it can still benefit from the good it does.




    

Where there's a will there's a rogue

Share | Will writing is an art as well as a science. The terminology is these days a lot more "plain English" but the science of law applies. What does a person mean by what they say? Is what is written unequivocal and clear? Can it be challenged?

What if you ahve made a will and the law changes. Would you not want someone who is looking after your will to advise you that the law has changed?
The Legal Services Board is to look at will writing.

Too many people pay lip service to will writing but some take it seriously.

We all know we should write a will, but it’s one of those things that many of us never seem to get round to. In fact, it’s estimated that 60% of people die without ever having made a will.

At Emmersons Solicitors Helen Taylor is a member of Solicitors for the Elderly. She takes will writing seriously. She takes tax planning seriously. There are professionals who have been trained and gained qualifications in tax advice and estate planning.

If you are tempted by an advert that suggests that you can get a proper will for only a few pounds ask yourself: why? how?

There is a feeling that anyone can do anything if they read the correct guide and follow a few easy steps and "avoid the pit falls" without having to pay any money. Unregulated will writers offer a cheap service and then may introduce add-ons so as to make the cost of your "cheap" will rise. Will writers are no better than door-to-door salesmen.

The Government is keen to ensure that there is competition in the market place-absolutely fine. What it won't do is ensure that all those trading in the market place have the same or similar qualifications, have insurance against negligence claims, are regulated, are honest and efficient and skilled.

Just because someone calls themselves a "lawyer" does not mean they are a Solicitor or barrister or legal executive or licensed conveyancer or patent attorney. They could be an academic. They could be a former double-glazing salesman who has answered an advert for will writers and attended a day course on how to sell wills to people in their homes.

If price is all you care about then that is a matter for you. If you want to create a legacy that will work-then rest assured we can help you realise that aim.
http://www.emmersons-solicitors.co.uk/

Further information from LSC about the secret meetings

Share |
The LSC has released further documents on its website about the recent secret meetings with those providers who earn large sums from legal aid.

All I have been given are the names of firms not the names of attendees.

http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/aboutus/ati/information_released.asp

What we have not been told is what was discussed. We have not been told what questions were asked nor what answers were given.

It has not been explained why those firms who earn over £2 million need to be spoken to separately from the rest of legal aid providers. The suspicion must be that those firms have a special place and perhaps the LSC listens more to their concerns than the concerns of smaller providers. The LSC has made it clear it believes there is "oversupply" and expects firms to merge. They believe that bigger firms can deliver greater efficiencies ie do more work for less money. The larger firms, to deliver the LSC's dream, need to capture a greater share of teh market and are frsutrated in so doing by smaller firms. The desire of bigger firms to gain market dominance is encouraged by the LSC because the bigger firms promise greater quality, training of future legal aid lawyers, greater control and supervision and greater accuracy in billing and legal advice as well as being involved in consultations.

There is no evidence bigger firms are better or offer greater quality of service. If there was evidence they would dominate the market. If they were already more efficient than smaller firms then that too would be reflected in their ability to do work better.

The truth is that they have raised concerns and worries and quality issues about smaller firms simply to encourage the LSC to work with them to develop a system of delivery of legal aid advice and representation that suits the larger firms and earns them a manipulated extra share of the market.

Smaller firms have coped better with the downturn in work and will cope better with legal aid reform. The LSC needs to wake up to this reality and let the market decide who delivers legal aid advice and representation best of all.

Apart from all that, I understand that the list of attendees at the Sheffield meeting might be inaccurate.

Solicitors have secret meetings with Legal Services Commission

Share |

Dear Mr Robinson,

Re: Your Freedom of Information Act request

Thank you for your email of 26 May 2011.

In your request you have asked for the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

“Could you ask those who deal with FOI Act requests to provide a list to me of those firms who attended these recent meetings (as reported in today's Law Society Gazette) and to indicate who organised the event and how attendees were chosen for invitation?”

I write to acknowledge that we are dealing with your request under the terms of the Act and will provide a response as soon as possible and no later than 24 June 2011.

Please note the above reference and log number which should be quoted in any further communication with the Commission relating to this request.

If you have any queries about this request, please do not hesitate to contact the FOI e-mail address: FOI.STAFF.CF@legalservices.gsi.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely,

Governance Team

Chief Executive’s Office

Legal Services Commission

 

The First Letter: Dear Michael,
R.E. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Thank you for your email of 26 May, which was forwarded to us by Deborah Challis for a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). For clarity I will address each of your questions in turn.
“a list those firms who attended these recent meetings (as reported in today's Law Society Gazette)”
Attendees were asked to document their attendance by the organisers and we would like to consult with them about whether to disclose this information to you.
As context please note that there was a request by the LSC that verbatim reporting of discussions was not shared – in other words Chatham House rules applied and this was requested in order to allow for free and frank discussion and exchange of views.
We therefore consider that section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOI Act applies to this attendee list. This section gives provision for information to be withheld where its disclosure “would, or would be likely to inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation”.
Under section 10(3) of the FOI Act public authorities are permitted to extend the deadline for response in specific circumstances where certain exemptions are considered to apply and where these exemptions require a balancing exercise to be carried out between the interests of the parties affected by disclosure and the wider public interest.
As this is a qualified exemption it is necessary to balance your legitimate interest in seeking this information against the individuals’ legitimate interests in maintaining confidentiality.
Therefore, I would like to inform you that we are currently considering this part of your request and that we hope to be able to provide a final response to this part of your request by Wednesday 6 July.
“who organised the event and how attendees were chosen for invitation?”
The LSC has attended two conferences, in Sheffield on Friday 20 May and London on Wednesday 25 May. The meeting in Sheffield was organised by Howells Solicitors and is one to which the Commission has been invited for a number of years. We suggested that a similar meeting in the south might be appropriate and David Emmerson of Edwards Duthie agreed to arrange this. We suggested to both organisers that an objective criteria to send invitations would be to any provider that took £2M a year or more from legal aid funds excluding payments to barristers. The suggested threshold of £2M was arrived at solely to make the meetings manageable in that around 70 providers meet this criteria. However, it was for the meeting organisers rather than the LSC to decide who to invite, and they did in fact invite some providers which did not take over £2M a year.
You may wish to note that David Emmerson said in his introduction that the way forward for these meetings must be on a business basis and involve representatives from small, medium and specialist firms.
Other information
Outside of the scope of the FOI Act, you may also wish to note the following background information.
The policy for legal aid resides with the Ministry of Justice and we are currently waiting for the response to consultation before we are in a position to publish our commissioning strategy. We have also received input from the Law Society and others on the family retender and intend to publish our proposals for comment as soon as practicable after the consultation response. In the circumstances there is no possibility of a “competitive advantage” being given at these meetings.
In addition, there is currently no preferred or minimum volume requirement for the award of contracts.
Right to review
As part of our obligations under the FOI Act, the Commission has an independent review process. If you are dissatisfied with the handling of the FOIA aspects of your request, you have the right to ask for internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to: Legal Director, Legal Department, Legal Services Commission, 4 Abbey Orchard Street, London SW1P 2BS.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have a further right of external appeal which can be made to the Information Commissioner who can be contacted at the following address: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact us at the above address. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future correspondence.
Yours sincerely

JOHN SIRODCAR 

Second Letter:
Dear Mr Robinson,
R.E. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
Further to my letter to you of 24 June, I am now able to provide a final response to the question below from your email of 26 May.
“a list those firms who attended these recent meetings (as reported in today's Law Society Gazette)”
Attendees were asked to document their attendance by the organisers and I have provided at Annex 1 the lists of those that did so at the two meetings.
Thank you for your patience in relation to this final part of your request. As mentioned in my earlier response, we needed time to consider the public interest in disclosure having already concluded that - because the meeting took place under Chatham House rules to allow for free and frank discussion and exchange of views - section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOI Act applies to this attendee list.
As this is a qualified exemption it was necessary to balance your legitimate interest in seeking this information against the individuals’ legitimate interests in maintaining confidentiality. In reaching the conclusion to disclose this information to you I considered the fact that this issue has received some press attention of late and caused some concern among the provider base, which the LSC believes to be unjustified; the fact that the individual attendees have been consulted and have not objected to disclosure; as well as the fact that the names of individuals who attended and the views that they may have expressed have not been disclosed, as is consistent with Chatham House rules.
Right to review
As part of our obligations under the FOI Act, the Commission has an independent review process. If you are dissatisfied with the handling of the FOIA aspects of request, you have the right to ask for internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to: Legal Director, Legal Department, Legal Services Commission, 4 Abbey Orchard Street, London SW1P 2BS.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have a further right of external appeal which can be made to the Information Commissioner who can be contacted at the following address: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.
If you have any queries about this letter, please contact us at the above address. Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future correspondence.
Yours sincerely
JOHN SIRODCAR
Head of Contract Management

 

List of attendees
20 May, Novotel, Sheffield
BenHoareBell
Beswicks
Bhatia Best
Burton Copeland
Cartwright King
Cobleys
David Gray
EAGA
Forbes
Grayson Willis Bennett
Henry Hyams
Howells
Irwin Mitchell
Jackson & Canter
Jordans
Kyles Legal Practice
Legal Services Commission
Parker Bird Gardner
Smith Partnership
Stephensons Solicitors
Stevens Solicitors
Switalskis
The Johnson Partnership
Tuckers
Watson Wodehouse
Williamsons

25 May 2011, Friends House, London
Blackfords LLP
CLSA
Duncan Lewis
Edwards Duthie
Faradays Solicitors
Fisher Meredith
FMW Law
Hine Solicitors
Hodge Jones & Allen
IBB Law
JD Spcier & Co
Kangs Solicitors
Karen Todner LTD
Lansbury Worthington
Lawrence & Co
Lawrence Lupin
Legal Services Commission
Lewis Nedas & Co
Immigration Advisory Service
Makin Dixon
McCormacks
Rodney Warren & Co/Law Society
Shelter
Sternberg Reed
Swain & Co
TV Edwards LLP

To bail or not to bail-that was NOT the question

Share |

Below are some extracts from Hookway v GMP which is getting the Police and the Home Secretary and commentators in a complete tizz.
Personally I do not see what the problem is. There is nothing in this to say that the Police cannot bail and re-bail as they do now. What it does say is that if the suspect upon answering bail is to be re-interviewed outside the shorter custody limits or the maximum 96 hours if a warrant of further detention is granted then that can only be done IF there is new evidence to allow a suspect to be re-arrested.
I see no problem with this at all.
This case was about detention  upon answering bail not about bail and re-bail per se.
Too often the Police arrest people lock them up and then investigate the case. That is relevant for serious offences-which is why the custody clock can be extended through a statutory framework but does it really apply to shop theft or minor public order cases or minor assault. Remember the Police can hold for up to 24 hours.
So what happens is a suspect is arrested upon a complaint before any investigation at all is undertaken. They are locked up and the Police make enquiries- take statements, find cctv footage etc etc. They do it very slowly. During that time there is an initial 6 hour review and then reviews every 8 hours. The idea is that an Inspector is supposed to decide if detention is still authorised. Mostly this is a rubber stamp job because the Police, in theory, are making enquiries. Maybe though they are not. The suspect, after 12 hours say, is interviewed and asked for his "agenda". This means the Police have no evidence at all. He is bailed and returns only to be further detained so now he can be questioned more thoroughly as the Police have (finally) made some enquiries. Memories have faded. Evidence is not fresh.
What about internet child porn cases? Currently the Police will search a person’s house, seise equipment and interview a person for his agenda based upon a report from the FBI or CIA or CEOPS or Interpol that a person has been accessing a site where child pornography is located. The suspect will be bailed and interviewed after the computer and associated equipment has been forensically examined. He may be bailed again and re-interviewed pending a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service who may request the Police for certain further questions to be put before finally considering whether or not to charge. The suspect is re-bailed. This process will take months before a decison is reached and the suspect released NFA (No Further Action) or charged.
Police bail drags on for months and months. Evidence becomes stale.
The way that PACE, the Codes of Practice Code C and the custody clock have been abused by the Police and the CPS (as a mechanism to duisguise inefficiencies) is a disgrace and an excuse for inefficient, lock-em-up-ask-questions-later Policing.
Maybe now the Police will focus on their job and gather evidence before an arrest is made.
In serious cases this will not be a problem as, currently, a lot more effort is put into these cases to investigate quickly.

In any event a suspect can be re-arrested if new evidence comes to light. If further offences come to light the custody clock starts all over again.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
ADMINSTRATIVE COURT

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 1578 (Admin)
Case No: CO / 3649 / 2011

B e f o r e :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE McCOMBE

____________________

Between:

	THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE)	Claimant
	- and -
	SALFORD MAGISTRATES' COURT and PAUL HOOKWAY	Defendant Interested Party

18. There can be no doubt that police practice in this case has been conducted on the basis that, while any authorised period of detention remains unexpired, the suspect may be released on bail and that his detention can be reauthorised so that he can be reinterviewed at any time during the theoretically "unused" period of authorised detention. Indeed in the case of serious offences where extensive investigations have to be conducted, as in this case, it is common for there to be a series of bail dates leading up to a final charging decision with or without further interview.
19. However, on reflection it seems to me that in many such cases a suspect is bailed and only re-interviewed on a re-arrest when new evidence has come to light, see for example sections 41(9), 42(11) and 43(19) of the Act. It is only in cases like the present, where there is a desire to re-interview a suspect without fresh evidence having come to light, that any problem arises. I do not consider therefore that rejection of the claimant's submissions would be as damaging to police practice as Ms Whyte was perhaps inclined to submit.

22. ………In my judgment moreover the question in this case is not whether a release on bail before the expiry of the warrant extinguishes an unexpired period of authorised detention. The questions are the logically anterior ones, namely, what was the period of extension granted on 7 November 2010; has it expired, and, whether expired or not, can it be extended under section 44. Section 43 has already been quoted. It provides that a warrant for further detention can be granted before the expiry of 36 hours after the relevant time, I repeat, 12.40 on 7 November 2010. If further detention is justified within the meaning of section 43(4) of the Act, the court can grant a warrant of further detention. It is provided by section 43(10) that the warrant is to state the time of issue and authorise the detention for the period stated in it. The period is not to be longer than 36 hours. In this case the authorisation was for 36 hours "from the time of issue of the warrant", ie 36 hours from 18:22 on 8 November 2010. On any ordinary reading of that language as Ms Whyte's skeleton argument expressly acknowledges (in the grid set out in paragraph 6) this time expired on 10 November at 06:22 hours. That is what the warrant provided for and, therefore, subject to any further statutory saving, the period expired on 10 November 2010. It was not running on the occasions when Mr Hookway attended at the police station thereafter. As a matter of simple language none of those dates was within 36 hours "from the time of the issue of this warrant".

23. The next question however is whether section 44 would permit an extension of time notwithstanding the expiry of the time granted under warrant itself. I have already quoted section 44, which does not identify any time limit for the making of an application for an extension of a WFD; however it does provide that a warrant may be extended for such period as the court thinks fit but with limits. The limits are those set out in Section 44(3). As already stated, that provides:

"(3) The period shall not—

(a) be longer than 36 hours; or

(b) end later than 96 hours after the relevant time."

24. Accordingly again in accordance with ordinary language, the court could not grant any extension for a period which ended later than 96 hours after 12.40 on 7 November 2010, ie 12.40 on 10 November. Again subject to further statutory provisions I do not see how the Magistrates' Court on 5 April could have granted an extension to a date later than 96 hours after 12.40 on 7 November. That time had long since passed; the court was powerless. Subsection 44(3) provided a statutory buffer to any period of extension and that buffer had long since been reached. It was no longer possible for the court to extend the warrant for a period ending before that time. It seems to me therefore that that is an end of the matter.

25. It remains for me to consider whether, as suggested, section 47(6) provides a solution. I have referred to that section briefly already. It is in the following terms:

"Where a person who has been granted bail and either has attended at the police station in accordance with the grant of bail or has been arrested under section 46A above is detained at a police station, any time during which he was in police detention prior to being granted bail shall be included as part of any period which falls to be calculated under this Part of this Act."

26. I am afraid that I am unable to see how that subsection can operate to push back the date laid down expressly as the end date for any period of extension or warrant of further detention that has been set out in Section 44(3). It simply provides that if a suspect has been released on bail the time in detention must be counted in any period which "falls to be calculated under this part of this Act". If a period has expired it no longer falls to be calculated at all. If the suspect has been released on bail before the expiry of the statutory period which has not expired and is bailed to return within that period his earlier detention must be counted. However, that does not affect the limit of the court's powers expressly stated in section 44(3). If time in fact remains it can be used up. However, section 47(6) cannot alter the express limits on the court's powers set out in Section 44(3). I do not see that Professor Zander QC is saying any more than this in the fifth edition of his celebrated work on the Act, in paragraphs 4.85 and 4.86 at page 180 of the book. He is saying nothing about the limit or extent of the court's powers to grant extensions to warrants as laid down in section 44.

27. It seems to me however, for reasons identified, the consequences are not as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases. This is simply because in the usual case a suspect returning on bail will either be released because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a charge or he will be re-arrested under statutory powers because new evidence has come to light. However, for the reasons that I have endeavoured to explain, the present application must be dismissed.