Terms and Conditions - Read our terms of business

Website Terms & Conditions

Read Our Latest Terms And Conditions

Libertas Terms of Business

View our terms of business by clicking here

Website Terms

CONNECT WITH US FOR THE LATEST NEWS & UPDATES

Our most recent webinar is now available on YouTube youtu.be/EDm9SrP5SIM. Don't forget to link and subscribe! #slavery #libertaschambers #countylines #law youtu.be/EDm9SrP5SIM

About 9 hours ago from LibertasChambers's Twitter via Publer.io

Sign-up is open for our expert webinar titled 𝗔𝗿𝘁 𝗟𝗮𝘄, 𝗖𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗟𝗼𝘀𝘀, 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲. The Webinar begins at 6pm on Thursday - 27th October. pic.twitter.com/ypYL2Vxl8o

About 4 days ago from LibertasChambers's Twitter via Publer.io

The Webinar is free to attend and begins at 18:00 this evening. Sign up today! #webinar #law #legal #barrister #barristers #event #lecture eventbrite.com/e/terrorism-co… pic.twitter.com/edO37Khio7

About 5 days ago from LibertasChambers's Twitter via Publer.io

It will consider the limitations of the ‘Modern Slavery Defence’ in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 following recent cases of 𝘙 𝘷 𝘉𝘞𝘔, 𝘙 𝘷 𝘈𝘈𝘋 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 and 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘪. pic.twitter.com/V8JU42oQYY

About 5 days ago from LibertasChambers's Twitter via Publer.io

It will focus on the use of the National referral mechanism for victims of human trafficking at risk of prosecution for terrorism offences or where they are alleged to have participated in serious organised crime as part of an alleged ‘County Lines’ network. pic.twitter.com/4JOjZoeLoW

About 5 days ago from LibertasChambers's Twitter via Publer.io

Presented by our members Dr Felicity Gerry QC, Gerard Hillman and Chaynee Hodgetts. pic.twitter.com/YauQ9pYCnR

About 5 days ago from LibertasChambers's Twitter via Publer.io

Final chance to sign-up for tonight's expert webinar. 𝗧𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗺, 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘆 𝗟𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗦𝗹𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆. Sign up before it's too late! eventbrite.com/e/terrorism-co…

About 5 days ago from LibertasChambers's Twitter via Publer.io

LIBERTAS TO PROVIDE PRO BONO CRIMINAL LAW SUPPORT Read more here: libertaschambers.com/media-hu… #libertaschambers #uklaw #barristers libertaschambers.com/media-hu…

About 5 days ago from LibertasChambers's Twitter via Publer.io

It has been exactly a year since our webinar titled Silence, Joint enterprise and the Legal Trap. If you would like to catch up the video can be found here: youtube.com/watch?v=CtTlhK… Remember to like and subscribe! #youtube #barristers #yearago #webinar youtube.com/watch?v=CtTlhK…

Last week from LibertasChambers's Twitter via Publer.io

@BarHumanRights @ABARuleofLaw @LibertasChambe3 Dr Felicity Gerry KC not only contributed to the report, but is part of the launch event - and you can join too. Sign up for the webinar using the Zoom link below. The event takes place on 28th September. us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regis…

About a week ago from LibertasChambers's Twitter via Publer.io

Latest News

Darren Snow Joins Sports Resolution’s Safeguarding Programme Chambers is delighted to announce that Darren Snow has been invited to join Sports Resolutions’ Safeguarding Case Management Programme (SCMP). Sports Resolutions are the leading independent dispute resolution service for sport. Sports Resolutions provides case management assistance to National Governing Bodies for various Sports in relation to safeguarding matters, providing advice and assistance with investigations and hearings. Darren will be working with Sports Resolutions to provide tribunal representation, expert opinion and with assistance with arbitration and mediation across the full range of sport safeguarding work. For further information on this new initiative: National Safeguarding Panel | Sport Resolutions

Libertas Chambers

Simon Csoka QC Secures Acquittal Of Solicitor In SFO Prosecution Simon Csoka QC and Michael Lavery (Exchange Chambers) secure acquittals on all counts for their client at Southwark Crown Court. He was the only defendant acquitted. The trial, prosecuted by the SFO with two QCs, a junior and over 30 disclosure juniors, ran for five months at Southwark. The case concerned a Cayman Islands based investment fund which provided litigation funding for no-win no-fee cases in the UK. The fund collapsed in 2012 with losses of over £100 million to pension investors internationally. There was an extensive offshore group of companies in Cayman, Switzerland, Panama, the Marshall Islands and the Isle of Man. Richard Emmett was the senior partner of a substantial firm of solicitors which received the largest share of the funding. He was charged with fraudulent trading and money laundering. Mr Csoka QC was instructed by Mr Paul Schofield of Farleys solicitors. Simon and Michael would like to thank him and his team in the Financial Crime department for their thorough and proactive preparation of Mr Emmett’s defence. Links: The Times Financial Times Daily Mail

Libertas Chambers

Adam Kane QC Secures Acquittal on Murder Charges Adam Kane QC secured the acquittal on all counts of the oldest of 3 brothers charged with murder, attempted murder and wounding offences in Bradford. After a 6-week trial the jury acquitted Aizaz Khan over his involvement in a revenge machete attack following an earlier brawl in the City centre. In evidence, Mr Khan denied deliberately rounding up his siblings and others and driving them, armed, to and from the attacks. Mr Kane QC was instructed by Kingsman Solicitors, and thanks the instructing partner Jabran Hussain and his junior Imran Khan for supporting his observance of the Bar’s days of action throughout the trial.

Libertas Chambers

Latest Insights

Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Bill or ‘Joint Enterprise’ Bill On 22 September the Times Law section published an article by our Dr Felicity Gerry KC on the Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Bill or ‘Joint Enterprise’ Bill under the title “A glimmer of hope for hundreds wrongfully convicted of crimes”. You can read the article (paywall) here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/ – some of it is reproduced below. A Private Members’ Bill currently before Parliament identifies the miscarriage of justice in ‘joint enterprise’ cases and passed its first reading in the House of Commons on 6 September 2022. The Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Bill or ‘Joint Enterprise’ Bill, seeks to amend the test which prevents those affected by an error of law from appealing their conviction unless they can prove they ‘would not have been convicted’ (the test articulated in R v Johnson and others [2016] EWCA Crim 1613). As is well known, hundreds, if not thousands, of people, often young, black and/ or with a disability were convicted of crimes they did not commit and have thus far been refused leave to appeal. In murder trials they were alleged to be accessories merely because they ‘foresaw’ a friend might commit a crime. In R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 (Jogee), now 6 years ago, the UK Supreme Court decided there had been an error of law which had been wrongly adopted for 30 years and only those who intended to assist or encourage a crime should be convicted as accessories. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal set the bar for appeal so high that only one case has passed the threshold. That person went on to be one of the London Bridge heroes who tackled the terrorist attacker. Others who have been prevented from appealing are Alex Henry who lives with autism and did not touch the victim. Asher Johnson, a young black youth who withdrew before a knife was produced and T’Shai Ennis, a black youth with a cognitive disability whose application for leave to appeal was refused last month, who also did not touch the victim. Dr Gerry KC currently represents all three of these young men. Henry and Johnson’s cases are current at the Criminal Cases Review Commission after filing petitions for mercy. Following the refusal of leave in Ennis’ case [2022] EWCA Crim 1088, the UK Supreme Court is ‘functus’ so it cannot consider the race and disability issues raised both in relation to evidence of bad character and knowledge of the essential facts for the purposes of complicity. The Ennis decision at paragraphs 38 and 39 reads as follows: Dr Gerry QC contended that the substantial injustice hurdle sets far too high a threshold, which has proved impossible to surmount in practice. It amounts to a lack of access to justice and involves the surreptitious return of the proviso previously set out in section 2(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 which was repealed on 1 January 1996. Further, it is discriminatory. Dr Hulley and Dr Young’s work illustrates the over-representation of black and ethnic minority men in cohorts of people convicted under joint enterprise principles. She argued that the test also raises particular issues relating to the convictions of those with disabilities which may have complicated the approach to foresight. However, the substantial injustice test is well established. It flows directly from the Supreme Court’s observations as to the rationale for it in Jogee. The approach to cases of this nature was clearly set out by this Court in Johnson. We do not consider that there is any basis for us to depart from it. It follows that to the extent that the applicant relies on the change of law since Jogee, in order to justify an exceptional grant of leave to appeal his conviction, he must show substantial injustice. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal has cemented its view that the substantial injustice test will apply in a very broad range of factual circumstances. This will not be a case-by-case approach. Priority is given to finality before the court and the opinion of the court on guilt. It seems remarkable that, whilst the UK Supreme Court was brave enough to admit an error, there is no movement to correct the consequences. At present the solution seems to be a matter for the Executive. There is a current review by the Law Commission into the functioning of the Court of Appeal, so the Bill is timely. It can only be hoped that Parliament will have the political will to support those families affected who have seen their children and other loved ones incarcerated because of a miscarriage of law. It is notable that the famous appeal by Derek Bentley was successful decades after he was hanged when it was accepted that his jury were wrongly directed. There is therefore a conflict between court of appeal authorities – now wrongful judicial directions are not sufficient to overturn a conviction. In Ennis, submissions on incorrect directions were specifically rejected. Justice is always slow but, as these prisoners grapple with a sentence that research by Cambridge University has shown lacks legitimacy, the pressure is on to bring some trust back to the appellate system. The story does not end there: Since 2016, cases have been before the courts using the ‘intention’ test, but the law has developed to allow people to be convicted on little or no contribution to the crime. In one recent trial which Dr Gerry KC defended, where CCTV literally showed the defendant did not join in, the fact that he got out of a car was said to be enough to convict him of murder. Fortunately, the jury saw sense and he was acquitted. It is at least arguable that the law on complicity has lost sight of the element of causation. It is not entirely clear why there is any appetite to convict people who make no contribution to a crime but in murder this puts people’s children and family members at risk of a mandatory life sentence with a minimum term of 25 to 35 years for a killing they did not do. It is a crisis in criminal justice that needs to be rectified and the Bill is a first step in that direction.

Libertas Chambers

The Use of Rap Lyrics in Criminal Trials As the New York State Senate debates Senate Bill S7527, to limit the admissibility of evidence of a defendant’s creative or artistic expression against such defendant in a criminal proceeding, this article sets out some of the issues we discussed in our Libertas Lecture / Webinar. We raise concerns about the way rap lyrics are used in criminal trials in a way that does not appear to arise in relation to other genres. The issues outlined below are explored in more detail in A Owusu-Bempah, ‘The Irrelevance of Rap’ [2022] Criminal Law Review 130. For decades, rap has been one of the most popular and profitable genres of music worldwide. While some subgenres of rap, such as ‘drill’, are characterised by first-person accounts of criminality, this should not be taken at face value. Rap relies heavily on hyperbole, figurative language and dark humour. It can operate as a form of social commentary, but much of the content is fictional and driven by commercial interests, as violence sells. For many, rapping is seen as a route to financial security, but it can also be cathartic, and generate a sense of belonging, particularly beneficial for those who come from marginalised communities. As well as being a vibrant part of youth culture, rap music has become a target for police and prosecutors, with lyrics and music videos seemingly offering a means of linking suspects and defendants to crime. However, when rap is presented as evidence in court, the artistic conventions and social influences of the genre are often overlooked, and the use of (often irrelevant and unreliable) rap as evidence at criminal trials risks unduly prejudicing jurors against defendants. This is evident from the case law. An analysis of over 30 reported judgments in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Criminal Division) in which rap lyrics or rap videos were used as evidence at a criminal trial or treated as an aggravating factor at sentencing shows that rap music is used almost exclusively as evidence against young Black men and boys (usually teenagers) who are accused of serious offences (namely weapons offences and violent offences, including homicide) in London and other urban areas. Often these are cases of ‘joint enterprise’ or alleged secondary liability, where rap is used to link defendants to each other and the crime, and often, or at the same time, as evidence of gang involvement, to place an offence in a gang context and to highlight association through music as a question of character, not culture. It is an extra burden for defence counsel to deal with such tropes, especially in highly charged murder or conspiracy to murder trials where some accused persons are associating on the periphery of a group through music. This profile of cases, properly analysed, is concerning: Prosecutors may benefit from themes and aesthetics within rap music, by erroneously taking rap literally and using it to help build a case in which Black boys and men represent, or fit into, stereotypes of what a criminal looks or behaves like, including by branding them as ‘gang members’. The term ‘gang’ is vague and has been disproportionately applied to Black young people, including many who are not involved in crime, and in a way that does not correlate to the commission of serious youth violence.[1] This disproportionate application equips the term ‘gang’ with the ability to evoke images of Black criminality. Rap music can be used to amplify those images and further link Black men and boys to crime. It is also concerning that, in their capacity as ‘gang experts’, police officers are often relied on to interpret and contextualise rap lyrics and videos. Being an expert on gangs does not, without more, make one an expert on rap. Unless the officer has studied the history, culture and conventions of the genre, has kept up to date with ever-changing slang, and/or is actively involved or immersed in rap culture, it would be more appropriate for the court to hear from musicians, industry insiders and social scientists, particularly scholars of hip-hop, rap and popular culture. We must also question the extent to which police can act impartially in this role. The organisation JUSTICE, has gone as far as to say that, in the context of explaining drill music, ‘the use of police officers as experts amounts to no more than the prosecution calling itself to give evidence.’[2] In one homicide trial, in which Dr Felicity Gerry QC defended, one lyric relied on by the prosecution to impute bad character appeared in a search on Lyrics.com in 74,283 lyrics by 46 artists, and in 48 albums. Spelt another way, it appeared in 1,836 lyrics by 100 artists, and in 3 albums. These searches were undertaken by the defence, not the police officer who gave evidence. In that case, some music evidence was excluded by the trial judge but evidence of ‘nicknames’, hand signals and postcodes were admitted – suggesting at least the ‘ghettoization’ of young people in certain locations, even though Felicity’s client lived elsewhere. Her client and another were acquitted. A co-defendant, an emerging rap artist, was convicted. Perhaps of most significance to criminal lawyers is the seemingly relaxed approach that the courts have taken to assessing the relevance and prejudicial effect of rap music as evidence of a crime. While lyrics that are directly connected to the crime charged could be relevant, in that they make it more likely that the author of the lyrics has some knowledge of (or connection to) the offence, rap was usually not presented in this way. Most often, generic and common-place lyrics about weapons and violence were used to help prove: state of mind (e.g. R v Soloman [2019] EWCA Crim 1356); criminal association and presence at the scene of a crime (e.g. R v Lewis [2014] EWCA Crim 48); propensity for violence or familiarity with firearms (e.g. R v O [2010] EWCA Crim 2985); and motive (e.g. R v Sode [2017] EWCA Crim 705). In Sode, a two-year-old music video in which the appellant was said to make gestures and remarks consistent with support for a gang (created when he was 14-years-old), was used as evidence of gang membership, which then went to the motive for an apparent gang rival attack. Likewise, it has been reported that at a first instance ‘joint enterprise’ trial, a rap video made as part of a community project was used as evidence against the young people who made it, which seems a remarkable approach by the prosecution. Importantly, the same approach is not taken when groups of rugby fans emulate Sir Tom Jones singing about killing Delilah. The research by Dr Owusu-Bempah thus far shows that gang membership cannot be as easily inferred from rap music as the case law suggests. Assuming lyrics or videos are interpreted correctly, references to gangs is common in some rap subgenres, and non-gang affiliated young people participate in gang-themed music for a variety of reasons, including for fun, to appear more authentic, boost popularity, or as a ‘nod to’ their local audience. Also, Amnesty International found that identifying with a gang is ‘porous, fluid and often “for show”’,[3] making it difficult to draw a reliable inference of current affiliation from past indicators of support for a gang. That the age of the video in Sode was said not to ‘reduce its impact or diminish its relevance’ also demonstrates a lack of scrutiny of factors surrounding the creation of rap which affect relevance and probative value. As for prejudicial effect, several empirical studies in the U.S. have found bias against rap music, rooted in racial stereotypes. For example, a 2018 study by Dunbar and Kubrin gave participants identical lyrics, with some being told it was rock, some country and some rap. The participants were ‘more likely to assume that a rapper is in a gang, has a criminal record, and is involved in criminal activity than are artists from other music genres, and this is based merely on the genre of the lyrics.’[4] These studies reveal the risk of rap music reinforcing biases, as well as the risk of rap being taken too literally. Yet, the racialised nature of rap evidence was not mentioned or addressed in any of the cases analysed, and the judgments tend to only go as far as acknowledging the potential for prejudicial effect, taking the view that admission was not ‘unduly prejudicial’, with little explanation as to why (e.g. R v Awoyemi [2016] EWCA Crim 668). Moreover, while directions to the jury are important (R v Rashid [2019] EWCA Crim 2018), they need not include information that will assist jurors to make sense of rap, such as the broader cultural context, artistic conventions, or the social influences within the rap music genre. This lack of context increases the risk of both improper reasoning and moral prejudice. In other words, discriminatory inferences from musical interests do not help juries to reach safe verdicts. Fortunately, the increased use of rap as evidence has been accompanied by increasing pushback from academics, lawyers and NGOs, arguing for a far more rigorous approach to the admissibility and use of rap evidence. While the CPS is drafting new guidance on the use of drill music as evidence,[5] it is instructive to look to the proposed Bill in New York.[6] Under the proposal, evidence of a defendant’s creative or artistic expression would be inadmissible unless it is proven with clear and convincing evidence that it: is literal rather than figurative or fictional; has a strong factual nexus indicating that it refers to the specific facts of the crime alleged; is relevant to a fact in issue; and has distinct probative value not provided for by other admissible evidence. Importantly, any criteria for admission must not become a tick-box exercise to justify the admission of rap as evidence. Rather, we should strive to understand how approaches to ‘character’ ignore culture and to keep irrelevant, unreliable and/or highly prejudicial evidence out of the courtroom by not using rap lyrics in criminal trials. [1] Amnesty International, Trapped in the Matrix (London: Amnesty International, 2018); See also P. Williams and B. Clarke, Dangerous Associations: Joint Enterprise, Gangs and Racism (London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2016). [2] JUSTICE, ‘Tackling Racial Injustice: Children and the Youth Justice System’ (London: JUSTICE, 2021), para. 2.51. [3] Amnesty International, Trapped in the Matrix (2018) p.9. [4] A. Dunbar and C.E. Kubrin, ‘Imagining Violent Criminals: An Experimental Investigation of Music Stereotypes and Character Judgments’ (2018) 14(4) Journal of Experimental Criminology 507, 521. [5] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-60070345 [6] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/s7527 Download Article now To stay up to date with insight articles, webinars and chamber news why not subscribe to Libertas Lens (our periodic newsletter) – Click here to register