Please read my response to Jonathan Cousins,
Now its your turn.
All the best
Margaret Frame ( Partner )
Brooke Lavington Law
17 – 21 George Street
Croydon
Surrey
CR0 1LA
Telephone : 07939 088264
Email : maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk
Secure email : margaret.frame@bll.cjsm.net
The contents of this email and any attachements is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) only. Accesss to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by reply email, or telephone 07939 088264/ 07969 567978 and delete it from your system. Please note that if you are not the intended receipient, you must not copy, distribute or otherwise act on any part of this email or its’ attachments.
Please note that the confidentiality of email communication is not warranted. Although we have taken precautions to ensure that this email and any attachments are free from virues, we would advise you that it is your responsibility to be sure this is the case by running your own checks. Brooke Lavington Law accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses.
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
Solicitors Regulation Authority No 538264
From: Maggie Frame [mailto:maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk]
Sent: 09 December 2021 11:49
To: 'Jonathan Cousins'
Cc: Glen Fell (Glen@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk)
Subject: RE: Remote Police station interviews
Dear Jonathan,
Thanks for that. Will there be an announcement? I agree with you that Plan b is such an exception but this shouldn’t be for each solicitor to argue over each time. It should be announced and the exception should be made for every case until the work from home if possible is removed and plan b is removed.
We both know how rigid the police in custody suites are and people will need help staying safe using this.
Just last night I have had officers stating that for any domestic case must have in person attendance and if an interpreter required they must have in person for solicitor whilst trying to use the exceptions available for remote attendance.
The custody suites are going rogue and making it up as they go along. I successfully argued and dealt remotely but its an absolute hastle and if we can avoid it turning into a battle of wills for plan B it would make life a lot better.
If this cavalier government has seen the possible danger due to Omicron then we need an addendum making it clear that for now remote attendance is the only safe way to deal and not the exception in certain cases.
Oh and can I share your email with the LCCSA members?
Thank You
Margaret Frame ( Partner )
Brooke Lavington Law
17 – 21 George Street
Croydon
Surrey
CR0 1LA
Telephone : 07939 088264
Email : maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk
Secure email : margaret.frame@bll.cjsm.net
The contents of this email and any attachements is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) only. Accesss to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by reply email, or telephone 07939 088264/ 07969 567978 and delete it from your system. Please note that if you are not the intended receipient, you must not copy, distribute or otherwise act on any part of this email or its’ attachments.
Please note that the confidentiality of email communication is not warranted. Although we have taken precautions to ensure that this email and any attachments are free from virues, we would advise you that it is your responsibility to be sure this is the case by running your own checks. Brooke Lavington Law accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses.
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
Solicitors Regulation Authority No 538264
From: Jonathan Cousins [mailto:Jonathan.Cousins@hay-kilner.co.uk]
Sent: 09 December 2021 10:48
To: 'Maggie Frame'
Subject: RE: Remote Police station interviews
Dear Maggie
We raised this ahead of the announcement in anticipation that the plan b would be announced. We have argued that ‘work from home if you can’ means the Home Office and NPCC are under a duty to make the ‘if you can’ bit possible ! Given the tech is now there.
As far as we are concerned, even with the existing protocol exception 3 applies :
“ due to those exceptional reasons it would not be practical, possible, or desirable for an in person attendance by the legal advisor in that individual case to safely take place, having regard to any relevant health or safety issues arising, or likely to arise. ”
Regards
Jonathan Cousins
Solicitor
Hay & Kilner LLP
T: +44 (0)191 262 8231
E: Jonathan.Cousins@hay-kilner.co.uk
16 High Street West, Wallsend
Tyne and Wear NE28 8HU
Proud to be celebrating 75 years supporting all your legal needs.
From: Maggie Frame <maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk>
Sent: 08 December 2021 18:35
To: Jonathan Cousins <Jonathan.Cousins@hay-kilner.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Remote Police station interviews
Dear Jonathan,
Just thought I would write to ensure you knew that Prime minister has moved to plan B . I think the protocal needs to be amended now to refelect this . Back to work from home if possible.
Let me know.
Kind regards
Margaret Frame ( Partner )
Brooke Lavington Law
17 – 21 George Street
Croydon
Surrey
CR0 1LA
Telephone : 07939 088264
Email : maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk
Secure email : margaret.frame@bll.cjsm.net
The contents of this email and any attachements is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) only. Accesss to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by reply email, or telephone 07939 088264/ 07969 567978 and delete it from your system. Please note that if you are not the intended receipient, you must not copy, distribute or otherwise act on any part of this email or its’ attachments.
Please note that the confidentiality of email communication is not warranted. Although we have taken precautions to ensure that this email and any attachments are free from virues, we would advise you that it is your responsibility to be sure this is the case by running your own checks. Brooke Lavington Law accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses.
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
Solicitors Regulation Authority No 538264
From: Jonathan Cousins [mailto:Jonathan.Cousins@hay-kilner.co.uk]
Sent: 30 September 2021 15:39
To: 'Maggie Frame'
Subject: RE: Remote Police station interviews
Dear Maggie
I hope you are well. I am sorry for the delay in responding to you. I thought as the latest protocol was published today I would email you with a copy.
I anticipate you will not be pleased with its contents. I entirely understand why. The reality is that the alternative to agreeing a protocol was that there would be no protocol at all. The agreed protocol represents a number of concessions by the police. We were faced with the choice of taking those concessions or there being no protocol at all. I also enclose our press release in relation to the protocol setting that out.
I appreciate this is not what anyone would choose. I can assure you that all of your points, and issues regarding current infection rates, were put during meetings.
Please feel free to email me
Jonathan Cousins
Solicitor
Hay & Kilner LLP
T: +44 (0)191 262 8231
E: Jonathan.Cousins@hay-kilner.co.uk
16 High Street West, Wallsend
Tyne and Wear NE28 8HU
Proud to be celebrating 75 years supporting all your legal needs.
From: Maggie Frame <maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk>
Sent: 07 September 2021 14:48
To: Jonathan Cousins <Jonathan.Cousins@hay-kilner.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Remote Police station interviews
Dear Jonathan,
I am writing again about the interview protocal. I apologise upfront but this is just so vital in my opinion.
The LCCSA have stated that there is about to be a decision made that will reduce the number of remote interviews, drastically. How do they know this? Has the decision already been made?
I would like to remotely observe the next meeting with the Police commissioner and representative body and the Law Society. I am aware that others want to observe this also.
It seems to me that the Police are deciding what should happen and that is it. Nothing we say is able to stop them. The rate of infection, hospitalisation and death is being ignored.
When we have spoken to the police they are under the impression that our various bodies are happy with what has been decided and have agreed to it. The representative bodies claim that this is not the case.
This is a complicated matter and the LCCSA seem to believe that the police can just withdraw unilaterally and that the LAA will remove funding.
Frankly any further reduction in cases that can be dealt with remotely will be just that; the police withdrawing from any agreement and so it is pointless agreeing to anything they say and they should be forced to impose this without our agreement.
According to some sources this is not an agreement per se anyway; we are not party to any agreement.
I don’t believe that the LAA are involved in this negotiation as I have spoken to my contract manager who indicated that he would have thought that if we had a medical reason for not attending an inspector would take a view. Clearly he had no idea about this issue.
I had to correct him and explain it’s a blanket policy; no youths or vulnerable adults requiring an AA could be dealt with unless the solicitor attends police station for face to face. He indicated that my conversation would be repeated to his superiors; I hope so.
I understand that you are doing what you can but I feel we should be able to observe what is happening. These negotiations are vitally important to all of us. I appreciate that there might be chaos if we were allowed to participate and so it would be like a link into the Crown court to observe only.
These negotiations should be public, albeit remote as I appreciate the whole meeting is most probably conducted remotely to keep the people attending safe and even if this were not the case there would not be room to accommodate all who might want to see what is being agreed.
There are a lot of issues we are having to sort out at this point for example the lack of cases allocated to duty solicitors when they are on the Sutton police station duty to name just 1.
My great fear is that if the police station interviews that can be conducted remotely are further reduced we will be basically back to attending all police station interviews. Placed at an unacceptable risk in the unventilated rooms.
My view is that with the amounts now being hospitalised daily for Covid 19 what should happen is some reversal of the protocal for youths and adults needing AA for a period long enough to see what will happen when the schools return. At least in relation to our own clients and there should be no further reduction in the adults not requiring an AA.
We have witnessed what has happened in Scotland. I wont take this any further.
If any suspect doesn’t want to be dealt with remotely they can have a solicitor attend face to face even now. Many suspects are happy to deal remotely. My personal view is the advice is actually better; others believe they need to attend that is their choice and it is fine.
The police in my view are using the governments reopening of the hospitality sector; which was what freedom day was all about, to force solicitors back to the police station. I am sure you have used this to try and extend the time that we can deal remotely.
Any extension, though, must have been to observe what would happen and as the rate is constantly rising week upon week, now, how can the number of interviews that can be dealt with remotely be drastically reduced.
Can I and others who are concerned link into the next meeting?
Should we as solicitors and you as our representative bodies be considering getting legal advice as a group to resolve this or to advise us as to legality of the situation or any steps we can take to safeguard ourselves from this.
We are all criminal solicitors and so not experts in what is happening.
An example that may assist. The bus drivers were initially to drive buses and those travelling in buses would not have to wear masks. Immediately their union sorted this out and now masks are worn on buses for everyones safety.
I am not in any way minimising what you are doing. I can see that it is very complicated. I am also aware that some will just go back to police stations; or rather find someone else to do it for them but this will prove to be a very costly way to proceed especially given how difficult it is to make profits in this area of work especially at this time.
I think as a group we should be looking for ways to help the government keep us out of lockdown, break the spread of any infection and we can, very easily work remotely and conduct interviews keeping the wheels of justice moving and hopefully stopping a full lockdown in autumn/ winter. Those that feel they cannot are able to attend police stations. We deserve to have the choice.
Any further lockdown will destroy our economy.
If the police withdraw the protocal or reduce it drastically we will have to take next steps. What would the next steps be ? Who would we have to refer the matter to?
I would say that withdrawal of the protocal would go against what 80 to 90% of criminal solicitors want and so we should and cannot accept it.
We should like the Barristers consider sending an open letter to the police commissioner and others involved in this area saying why it needs to be reinstated. I wonder if, you as our representative body could organise this or something of this nature.
We should not wait until solicitors or accredited representatives end up in hospital, dead or with long Covid. Or until when everything is out of control again we are forced back into a complete lockdown.
Living with Covid should not mean throwing all caution to the wind and sitting in an unventilated room with a stranger with maybe, if you are lucky a small Perspex screen between you for an hour to 2 hours taking instructions.
I am aware that you agree with what I am saying. I am not saying you do not but there may be points raised here that you have not considered or been made aware of.
Please consider where we go from here.
Kind Regards
Margaret Frame ( Partner )
Brooke Lavington Law
17 – 21 George Street
Croydon
Surrey
CR0 1LA
Telephone : 07939 088264
Email : maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk
Secure email : margaret.frame@bll.cjsm.net
The contents of this email and any attachements is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) only. Accesss to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by reply email, or telephone 07939 088264/ 07969 567978 and delete it from your system. Please note that if you are not the intended receipient, you must not copy, distribute or otherwise act on any part of this email or its’ attachments.
Please note that the confidentiality of email communication is not warranted. Although we have taken precautions to ensure that this email and any attachments are free from virues, we would advise you that it is your responsibility to be sure this is the case by running your own checks. Brooke Lavington Law accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses.
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
Solicitors Regulation Authority No 538264
From: Maggie Frame [mailto:maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk]
Sent: 10 August 2021 09:20
To: 'Jonathan Cousins'
Subject: RE: Remote Police station interviews
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for your reply and for your continued support.
Some time has past now and we continue to have large numbers contracting the delta variant and requiring hospitalisation. There is an indication that this will get worse once the children go back to school in a few weeks time and because Covid is a seasonal disease; worse in winter months.
The government has removed all restrictions and left it to us to remain careful; there is some requirement to wear masks on buses but as far as I am aware in police stations they still do not check who has Covid with an actual test kit and so have no idea who has the condition and have made no efforts to make consultation rooms safe for the suspect and solicitor to use. Now that restrictions are removed, they don’t have to.
At the present time it is still all those who require an AA who must have physical face to face advice; although there is nothing in PACE which states that it must be physical face to face advice just that it should be face to face if required.
I want to point out the issues this is causing especially in relation to own client’s. You may already be aware of this.
I have a youth in custody at the police station , today, for example and I cannot represent him personally, even though I have been representing him over the last 2 years, and am in the best position to understand his needs and level of understanding because I have been pinged and must self isolate.
I am in the process of finding someone to attend on my behalf. I am being told by various firms that they are not doing face to face attendances at the moment. I have after much searching found someone who may be able to assist. I say may be able to assist as they can only help if the client is dealt with after 12noon.
I know that you support the reimposition of the original protocal but it is not happening.
I am aware that you are attending meetings or someone from your organisation is attending meetings and that these issues are being discussed. I believe the law society and LCCSA are also attending.
The protocal must be reintroduced as it was as it is going to become impossible to deal with this situation if they don’t. The solution is to make the app ping less people. Im not sure that is the proper solution but that is not something we can control.
We as solicitors should have the choice at this time until the virus is much more under control. It appears to me that the Law Society is causing the problem as they seem to have agreed to the change in protocal.
I feel that as we are self-employed no one is looking out for us in the way that the unions are protecting the bus drivers.
I am not saying you are not supporting the reintroduction of the protocol but you don’t have the power that the union representing bus drivers has. We would never have the publicity that they have and no one cares if solicitors, who represent criminals end up very sick or die.
Can you assist me with who I as a duty solicitor/solicitor can complain to about this situation. I did complain to the law society but was simpley told that the decision was made before the issues with delta variant arose. At that stage it was felt that they would wait and see how the disease progressed. It got worse and then got a little better but it is still causing a large number of people to become unwell enough to have to be hospitalised. I will try that avenue again as I think they should be representing our interests and if they did not support the removal of the protocal perhaps the situation would be improved.
If there was anyone who you thought it would be worth me complaining/making aware of the issues please let me know. I know that other solicitors are also unhappy but I am not sure what they are doing about it.
The problem is these meetings are closed meetings and most solicitors only know what is concluded from the meetings when it is announced. I tried to write to members of the committee of criminal lawyers who were set up to consider this and I am aware that they don’t support remote working but I could not obtain an email and despite leaving contact details I was basically ignored; have heard nothing back.
This was disappointing as I believe a committee like this should hear the views of the people they are affecting and not just advance their own agenda.
When is anyone going to ask the duty solicitors/criminal solicitors what they as a group believe should happen.
This is in contrast to the reaction to the proposals to hear court cases up to 6.00pm where we are told that 400 solicitors and barristers have signed an open letter refusing to do such work. I am not sure who the solicitors were but I personally believe that remote working to clear backlog would work.
I do not believe it would really make any difference to solicitors who already have no idea what a work home life balance should look like.
I am concerned that the protocal will just be removed altogether when it should be returned to its original form and we should be allowed to choose how we represent our clients until either the police make consultation rooms safe or the delta variant is well controlled. The police are dictating how we represent our clients and provide legal advice to them; a decision that would actually be much better made by the solicitor who has been trained to provide legal advice in the police station.
The police who routinely interview young people and those requiring appropriate adults in the middle of the night; when they eventually get round to dealing with them.
How long do the Law Society want to wait? If they wait long enough, ignoring the solicitors they represent, the delta variant may be eradicated but at what cost to us.
If I am going to complain it would be best I do so effectively so any suggestions would be welcomed.
Could you provide details for the person within the Law Society who is responsible for this and or attends these meetings. If you cannot assist I will try to get some proper information as to who it is from the Law Society but as I am sure you are aware they are not forthcoming with such information.
Please keep doing all that you can to help this situation.
Kind Regards
Margaret Frame ( Partner )
Brooke Lavington Law
17 – 21 George Street
Croydon
Surrey
CR0 1LA
Telephone : 07939 088264
Email : maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk
Secure email : margaret.frame@bll.cjsm.net
The contents of this email and any attachements is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) only. Accesss to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by reply email, or telephone 07939 088264/ 07969 567978 and delete it from your system. Please note that if you are not the intended receipient, you must not copy, distribute or otherwise act on any part of this email or its’ attachments.
Please note that the confidentiality of email communication is not warranted. Although we have taken precautions to ensure that this email and any attachments are free from virues, we would advise you that it is your responsibility to be sure this is the case by running your own checks. Brooke Lavington Law accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses.
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
Solicitors Regulation Authority No 538264
From: Jonathan Cousins [mailto:Jonathan.Cousins@hay-kilner.co.uk]
Sent: 09 July 2021 14:45
To: 'maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk'
Cc: clsa admin; dmb@clarkekiernan.com
Subject: FW: Remote Police station interviews
Dear Ms Frame
Thank you for your email. I am the vice chair of the CLSA.
We share your concerns. For all the reasons you set out, we requested a move back to the previous version of the protocol to allow solicitors to attend remotely when they choose. Unfortunately, that request has not found favour, but we have continued to maintain that the protocol should remain in place until September at the very least. Any decisions regarding the protocol are being postponed until the government sets out its exact proposals for re-opening and when it will take place.
You are pushing at an open door with us with the points you make. We have made, and will continue to make, those points in relation to the protocol.
Regards
Jonathan Cousins
Solicitor
Hay & Kilner LLP
T: +44 (0)191 262 8231
E: Jonathan.Cousins@hay-kilner.co.uk
16 High Street West, Wallsend
Tyne and Wear NE28 8HU
Proud to be celebrating 75 years supporting all your legal needs.
From: CLSA Admin <admin@clsa.co.uk>
Sent: 09 July 2021 07:34
To: Daniel Bonich <dmb@clarkekiernan.com>; Jonathan Cousins <Jonathan.Cousins@hay-kilner.co.uk>
Subject: Fwd: Remote Police station interviews
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Maggie Frame <maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 02:09
Subject: Remote Police station interviews
To: <admin@clsa.co.uk>
Cc: LCCSA <admin@lccsa.org.uk>
Dear All,
I am writing to make you all aware of an issue that is occuring due to the new protocal for youths and those requiring an AA in the police stations in relation to police interviews.
As we are all aware it is not part of the protocal for such individuals to be interviewed with their solicitor attending remotely.
If a client requests the duty scheme this may cause delays if the solicitor on duty cannot attend the police station to assist the client. Many firms are small and if the interview is very late representatives may not want to attend; understandably. If the solicitor is self isolating they should be able to deal with client’s remotely.
I believe this needs to be reconsidered as it cannot be a blanket policy and imposed without exception. If it continues solicitors will be forced to attend placing everyone at risk or potentially go out of business when they are forced to self isolate.
If the solicitor on duty has been exposed to Covid they should not attend the police station and should self isolate. This is the requirement and I believe this requirement will remain post covid; after the 19th July 2021. I hope this will remain the rule or the variant will really take hold and lead to further excess deaths.
This is also causing delay to the client who is vulnerable as a new duty solicitor will be required to attend.
The problem is much worse if the client is an own client. Here the client has lost the right to appoint the solicitor of their choise; a solicitor who has a better understanding of their vulnerabilities and how best to assist them, if that solicitor has to self isolate and therefore cannot attend physically but otherwise would be the best person to advise this client.
Many client’s who are youths or are vulnerable want a particular solicitor and must be allowed to have their solicitor even if they are self isolating and therefore must represent them and advice them remotely.
The prime minister has indicated that whatever is decided people have to take personal responsibility and can choose whether to use masks but it will not be mandatory. Hopefully this time the government will see the recklessness of their proposals and not remove all of the existing protections.
Unfortunately as this protocal now stands there is no choise. If solicitors want to continue in this field they must attend for youths and those needing an AA and it would seem for all client’s once the final restrictions have been removed.
The choice is effectively removed and solicitors; especially those in smaller firms are once again placed at an extreme disadvantage.
This must be looked at as it is ridiculous.
I would also like to make you all aware, if you are not already aware, that even the government expects what they are proposing to lead to further hospitalisations and deaths. The estimate is that by the 19th July 2021 there will be approximately 100,000 new cases per day and just 1 day after the football attendance at Wembley there is 2000 people in hospital due to Covid. This is before there has been any time for anyone to die or be hospitalised following the football at Wembley.
My view is that attendance at police station to deal in small consultation rooms(unventilated rooms) for over 35mins should not be forced on solicitors and if it is it cannot be imposed in the way it is. There must be allowance for all the self isolation that is now likely to be required.
Why is there no allowance for this. The police appear to have been given no discretion to cover this and the AA if they are from the various agencies are able to insist a solicitor is present before they attend.
This is not acceptable.
I am currently trying to resolve such a case for a client of mine who is a youth in custody. I have been dealing with this for hours now and arranged for a representative to cover but they are now dealing with someone else, ironically remotely.
My client wants me to assist but now that I cannot get cover I do not know if this matter will be put off until morning so that my representative can assist or the inspector will be able to allow me to represent client remotely due to fact I am self isolating or if my client will be forced to have a duty solicitor, who he does not know and who has no knowledge of him.
I have been dealing with this particular matter for approximately 8 hours now and I have certainly done more than just a telephone advice but could be paid nothing, depending on how matter proceeds.
This is really wrong and cannot be right if this protocal is being adopted to ensure the legal rights of youths and vulnerable client’s are protected.
It also places solicitors in a very difficult position and this problem will extend to adult client’s if after the 19th July 2021 we cannot deal with them remotely.
If the delta variant carries on and infections rise, followed by much increased hospitilisations and deaths and we cannot self isolate and carry on representing client’s I believe it will not take long for solicitors to suffer very serious health consequences or even death.
The government seems to have lost its senses and reverted to their cavalier attitude towards the easing of lockdown and this is a great shame. The delta variant cases are rising, today it was reported that we are back to 2000 cases in hospital. Please be aware that anyone who ends up in hospital is seriously unwell; even if they do not die.
These people are both the vaccinated and unvaccinated so no group is really safe.
I appreciate that you are busy people but it is important that solicitors in crime at least have an opportunity to make those deciding how we must do our job whilst the pandemic is still very much with us and a danger to us are aware of the problems this blanket policy will cause.
They have not arranged for the rooms we must see client’s in to be properly ventilated and they have not started to use lateral flow tests. This coupled with these blanket policies are placing lives at serious risk.
When these matters are being further considered please make the decision makers aware of these issues.
It is my belief that disaster is looming. The government no longer supports a responsible attitude to precautions and so it is very likely that saftey will just be ignored.
At the very least there must be some discretion to vary this rule in certain circumstances, outlined above.
Better would be a decision to allow solicitors to use their judgement as to when it is imperative that someone attends in person and allow us to use our experience to ensure that our client’s are properly represented.
When the protocal was changed the situation was that rates were very low, as was hospitilisations but even in this very short time it has changed rates are way up and doubling every 6 days now and as of today 2000 people were in hospital.
Our situation is different from police and AA as they do not sit in unventilated consultation rooms. They only sit in a room behind Perspex screens. Consultation rooms do not even have perspex screens.
I urge that the protocal is readdressed and that even if the government wants to drop everything on the 19th July 2021 we do not allow solicitors health to be jeapordised.
The governments plans are most likely to lead to yet another lockdown when people start dieing or being very sick in hospital and putting pressure on the NHS.
Surely it is sensible for defence solicitors to be afforded the opportunity to remain safe until we see exactly what happens following the governments abandonement of all safety precautions if that is what happens on the 19th July 2021.
As our represntatives I would ask that you do not support the removal of the Covid 19 protocal as it relates to police stations and if possible reinstate solicitors right to advice their client’s as they feel necessary to protect themselves whilst ensuring client’s legal rights are protected.
Kind Regards
Margaret Frame ( Partner )
Brooke Lavington Law
Surrey
CR0 1LA
Telephone : 07939 088264
Email : maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk
Secure email : margaret.frame@bll.cjsm.net
The contents of this email and any attachements is strictly confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) only. Accesss to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you received this email in error please notify the sender immediately by reply email, or telephone 07939 088264/ 07969 567978 and delete it from your system. Please note that if you are not the intended receipient, you must not copy, distribute or otherwise act on any part of this email or its’ attachments.
Please note that the confidentiality of email communication is not warranted. Although we have taken precautions to ensure that this email and any attachments are free from virues, we would advise you that it is your responsibility to be sure this is the case by running your own checks. Brooke Lavington Law accepts no liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses.
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
Solicitors Regulation Authority No 538264
--
Sue Johnson
CLSA Administrator
Suite 2 Level 6
New England House
Brighton, BN1 4GH
DX 2740 Brighton
|
Hay & Kilner are proud to be supporting and raising money for If You Care Share throughout 2021
|
|
This e-mail is sent on behalf of Hay & Kilner LLP. Please note that ‘Hay & Kilner’ and ‘Hay & Kilner Law Firm’ are both trading names of Hay & Kilner LLP.
About us: Hay & Kilner LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales with registered number OC418767 and VAT registration number 176 4069 45. Our registered office is at Merchant House, 30 Cloth Market, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1EE and we are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (Authorisation number 643191). We are accredited with both the Law Society’s Lexcel Legal Practice Quality Mark and the ISO 9001 quality standard. We use the word "partner" to refer to a member of Hay & Kilner LLP. A list of members is available at our registered office.
Confidentiality: This e-mail message is intended for the addressee only. It may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If you have received this message in error please contact the sender by e-mail or telephone +44 (0)191 232 8345 as soon as possible. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print, distribute or otherwise rely on this e-mail.
Disclaimer: Any views expressed by the sender do not necessarily represent those of Hay & Kilner LLP. Please note we do not accept legal responsibility for any insecurity of internet communications, nor do we accept service of documents by e-mail. It is the recipient’s responsibility to check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Hay & Kilner LLP accepts no liability for any damage caused by any viruses transmitted by this e-mail, and no responsibility is accepted for e-mails unconnected with our business.
Undertakings: Any undertaking given by or on behalf of Hay & Kilner LLP, whether in this e-mail or any other correspondence, is given by Hay & Kilner LLP, and no member, partner, employee or consultant of Hay & Kilner LLP assumes any personal responsibility for any such undertaking.
Cyber security: Please note that our bank account details will not change during the course of a transaction or matter and we never notify a change to our bank account details via e-mail or by telephone. Please be careful to check bank account details with us in person if in any doubt. For payments to you, we will not accept any change to your bank account details without additional documentation and confirmation being provided by letter or in person.
Hay & Kilner are proud to be supporting and raising money for If You Care Share throughout 2021
|
|
This e-mail is sent on behalf of Hay & Kilner LLP. Please note that ‘Hay & Kilner’ and ‘Hay & Kilner Law Firm’ are both trading names of Hay & Kilner LLP.
About us: Hay & Kilner LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales with registered number OC418767 and VAT registration number 176 4069 45. Our registered office is at Merchant House, 30 Cloth Market, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1EE and we are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (Authorisation number 643191). We are accredited with both the Law Society’s Lexcel Legal Practice Quality Mark and the ISO 9001 quality standard. We use the word "partner" to refer to a member of Hay & Kilner LLP. A list of members is available at our registered office.
Confidentiality: This e-mail message is intended for the addressee only. It may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If you have received this message in error please contact the sender by e-mail or telephone +44 (0)191 232 8345 as soon as possible. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print, distribute or otherwise rely on this e-mail.
Disclaimer: Any views expressed by the sender do not necessarily represent those of Hay & Kilner LLP. Please note we do not accept legal responsibility for any insecurity of internet communications, nor do we accept service of documents by e-mail. It is the recipient’s responsibility to check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Hay & Kilner LLP accepts no liability for any damage caused by any viruses transmitted by this e-mail, and no responsibility is accepted for e-mails unconnected with our business.
Undertakings: Any undertaking given by or on behalf of Hay & Kilner LLP, whether in this e-mail or any other correspondence, is given by Hay & Kilner LLP, and no member, partner, employee or consultant of Hay & Kilner LLP assumes any personal responsibility for any such undertaking.
Cyber security: Please note that our bank account details will not change during the course of a transaction or matter and we never notify a change to our bank account details via e-mail or by telephone. Please be careful to check bank account details with us in person if in any doubt. For payments to you, we will not accept any change to your bank account details without additional documentation and confirmation being provided by letter or in person.
Hay & Kilner are proud to be supporting and raising money for If You Care Share throughout 2021
|
|
This e-mail is sent on behalf of Hay & Kilner LLP. Please note that ‘Hay & Kilner’ and ‘Hay & Kilner Law Firm’ are both trading names of Hay & Kilner LLP.
About us: Hay & Kilner LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales with registered number OC418767 and VAT registration number 176 4069 45. Our registered office is at Merchant House, 30 Cloth Market, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1EE and we are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (Authorisation number 643191). We are accredited with both the Law Society’s Lexcel Legal Practice Quality Mark and the ISO 9001 quality standard. We use the word "partner" to refer to a member of Hay & Kilner LLP. A list of members is available at our registered office.
Confidentiality: This e-mail message is intended for the addressee only. It may contain information which is privileged and confidential. If you have received this message in error please contact the sender by e-mail or telephone +44 (0)191 232 8345 as soon as possible. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy, print, distribute or otherwise rely on this e-mail.
Disclaimer: Any views expressed by the sender do not necessarily represent those of Hay & Kilner LLP. Please note we do not accept legal responsibility for any insecurity of internet communications, nor do we accept service of documents by e-mail. It is the recipient’s responsibility to check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Hay & Kilner LLP accepts no liability for any damage caused by any viruses transmitted by this e-mail, and no responsibility is accepted for e-mails unconnected with our business.
Undertakings: Any undertaking given by or on behalf of Hay & Kilner LLP, whether in this e-mail or any other correspondence, is given by Hay & Kilner LLP, and no member, partner, employee or consultant of Hay & Kilner LLP assumes any personal responsibility for any such undertaking.
Cyber security: Please note that our bank account details will not change during the course of a transaction or matter and we never notify a change to our bank account details via e-mail or by telephone. Please be careful to check bank account details with us in person if in any doubt. For payments to you, we will not accept any change to your bank account details without additional documentation and confirmation being provided by letter or in person.