Ros,

I agree but feel it would enhance our negotiation strategy if we present a perhaps more onerous alternative for the police and courts to deal with. My suggestion is that if they won’t permit remote attendances then this is the sort of alternative they will need to implement. We really have to stop begging and start negotiating with ACPO/HMCTS!

I honestly don’t know anyone who feels safe in an unclean, unventilated room for hours on end. The last interview room I was in at Holborn PS had used tissues screwed up on the table… I mean really!

I also think that the return to the protocol needs to be implemented by Monday when the new rules come in. Who have we spoken to and what is being done NOW today? Have we had a meeting are the LAA on board – what is happening other than us saying “Please Sir can we go back to the protocol?”

Keima

From: ashley@ashleysmith.org.uk <ashley@ashleysmith.org.uk>
Sent: 10 December 2021 12:04
To: Keima Payton <keima@paytonslaw.co.uk>
Cc: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: RE: The proposed move to protocol 3 in police stations

I am with you most of the way there Keima

But I cannot see the MOJ/HMCTS ever countenancing covid passports or LFT’s for attendees…it will be carnage.

Total get out of jail card for the Defendants to avoid attendance and utter chaos when the trial advocate tests positive on the morning of a trial….if the wheels are to keep turning HMCTS has to avoid hunting down cases of covid.

Ros

Ashley Smith & Co Limited

Registered Office

Romer House

132 Lewisham High Street

SE13 6EE

Tel: 020 8609 6711/6710

CONFIDENTIAL CLAUSE

IMPORTANT - This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the intended receipient. It may contain private and confidential information or material that is privileged. If it has come to you in error you must take no action based on it, nor must you copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.

This Firm is Authorised and Regulated by The Solicitors Regulation Authority No: 654874

Registered at Companies House Cardiff Company No. 11535905

From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk <members@mail.lccsa.org.uk> On Behalf Of Keima Payton
Sent: 10 December 2021 11:15
To: Members <members@mail.lccsa.org.uk>
Subject: RE: The proposed move to protocol 3 in police stations

I don’t think this is at all complicated. We are being advised by the Government (well the scientists who advise them) that covid rates are rising and that the new variant is a threat. I understand that it is less of a threat for those double vaccinated (or better) but whilst in SA 87% of people in hospital with this variant were unvaccinated this tends to suggest that 13% who had been vaccinated were also in hospital. I think we have a right to be concerned and we cannot just ignore it or pretend it isn’t likely to spread the virus if we carry on regardless (I think here of people who are immune compromised or unable to avail themselves of the vaccine more than those who belligerently determine that they are OK and won’t have it!).

I attended at my office throughout the pandemic and did so because many clients communicate with my firm through letters and letters arrived at my office (and being in a multiple occupancy chambers you couldn’t organise that mail be diverted). I travelled but most people didn’t, so I felt safe on public transport.

I also attended at Courts and police stations when in my professional opinion it was necessary to do so. I wasn’t looking for a blanket choice of *attending* or *remote* then, and I am not doing so now.

I am trying not to be part of the problem and I think the best way to protect the majority is to make sacrifices (that you are happy to make) and this can be attending remotely and having the hassle of trying to reach probation (CPS, Court, etc) over the phone. I also think my staff need to be in the office to carry out the work that we do and know that we are fortunate we can socially distance in our large offices (where ventilation is not an issue). We are permitted as key workers to make this choice...

I accept trials and sentences *should* be carried out in person at Court but I also would feel happier at Court if not everyone just turned up for every hearing and brought along a large entourage – why should hearings that can be remote not be remote? – it isn’t a badge of honour to turn up at Court if attendance isn’t necessary, it’s a choice.

What I take from this is that we should revert to the earlier protocol where we can attend remotely and that we should chose if that attendance requires an in person attendance (so I think my argument is that we should revert to an earlier protocol that Protocol 3). If you have good reasons to attend for a particular client, crack on – like I will.

I do think that our Rep bodies should ask each Police Force (and the Courts) to make enquiries of those arrested (a passport scheme if you like) and if people have not been vaccinated (or cannot prove they have been) they should go to a police station (or Court) with all the other unvaccinated people and all these places can be fitted out with the best remote facilities and all these people get dealt with remotely (if they can do it at theatres and cinemas why not at police stations and Courts?)

I also think before attending courts and police station people (all court/ps users and employees) should be prepared to show their negative LF test (these are given out for free so there is no cost implication in making people test). That way I am sure people will feel more comfortable attending those Courts and police stations and if the police wont accede to the request to revert to an earlier protocol they should at least agree to do this!

Solicitors have died, our colleagues have died from this and being blasé is not an option.

Keima

From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk <members@mail.lccsa.org.uk> On Behalf Of Romana Khan
Sent: 10 December 2021 10:22
To: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: RE: The proposed move to protocal 3 in police stations

You seem to have missed the point Penny ‘those that can work from home, should!’ people attended public places to contribute to foot fall in this time is assisting in the spread of the new variant and the virus , ultimately this will lead to a national lockdown. Nobody should be congratulating you for that. What is being suggested is a temporary measure I believe.

Regards

Romana

From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk <members@mail.lccsa.org.uk> On Behalf Of Penny Muir
Sent: 10 December 2021 10:13
To: 'Hannah Sampson' <hannah@sampson-law.co.uk>; Ros Olleson <rolleson@talk21.com>
Cc: Maggie Frame <maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk>; members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: RE: The proposed move to protocal 3 in police stations

I am afraid I am a bit of an outlier on this. Police officers, police station staff, magistrates, judges, cell staff at court etc, don’t generally have the luxury of choosing to work from home and apart from those with underlying health conditions, I really don’t see why we reasonably robust solicitors should necessarily be exempt from attending courts and police stations. in person.

Perhaps it’s my advanced age (which I suppose is my underlying health condition!) but I don’t usually find remote attendances as satisfactory as in person attendances I do attend the magistrates court and recently the chairman of the Bench at Thames congratulated me for being there in person (as of course he was.)!

Being in court in person enables you to speak not just to the client but also his/her family if in attendance too, not to mention to the prosecutor (normally present) and probation if necessary. I’m not sure that defence solicitors refusing to attend reflects well on the profession but I was glad to see that there were several othe colleagues there as well

Penny Muir

Penny Muir - Partner
Lewis Nedas Law
24 Camden High Street
London
NW1 0JH
Tel: +44 (0) 207 387 2032
Fax: +44 (0) 207 388 6575
Web: http://lewisnedas.co.uk/

Lewis Nedas Law is the trading name of Lewis Nedas Law Limited, A company authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority No. 567461 and registered in England and Wales (registered number 07958260) at 24 Camden High Street London NW1 0JH. Directors: Jeffrey Lewis, Miles Herman, Richard McConnell and Ian Coupland. We use the term Partner to refer to senior solicitors with equivalent standing and qualifications. Partners are not directors, unless named as such.

This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Messages sent to and from us may be monitored.

Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.

PLEASE BE AWARE OF CYBER CRIME

Lewis Nedas Law only uses the @lewisnedas.co.uk email domain for correspondence. If you receive an email from any different email domain IT IS NOT FROM LEWIS NEDAS.

Lewis Nedas Law WILL NOT notify you of changes to its bank account details by email. If you receive any communications suggesting that Lewis Nedas Law’s bank account details have changed, you should contact Lewis Nedas Law using the number on its website or its headed notepaper immediately to confirm the details before making payment. Please be aware that a phishing email may contain a fraudulent phone number for Lewis Nedas Law so never call the number indicated in such an email. Lewis Nedas Law will not take responsibility if you transfer money to a wrong account.

If you wish to notify us of a change to your bank details to those originally provided we will not accept these by email without additional documentation and confirmation being provided.

From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk [mailto:members@mail.lccsa.org.uk] On Behalf Of Hannah Sampson
Sent: 09 December 2021 23:36
To: Ros Olleson <rolleson@talk21.com>
Cc: Maggie Frame <maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk>; members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: Re: The proposed move to protocal 3 in police stations

I couldn’t agree more Ros.

Maggie does deserve our support and you couldn’t have put it better

Sent from my iPhone

On 9 Dec 2021, at 23:28, Ros Olleson (via members list) <members@mail.lccsa.org.uk> wrote:

I think Maggie should have some support here and applause from us all for carrying this flag. Many of us shielded for 16 months or more due to underlying health issues and would have been out of business but for the ability to work remotely. The exceptionally difficult working requirements of the job and inadequate arrangements leave us particularly vulnerable, particularly given our clientele. Many of my clients refuse to wear masks on spurious grounds they are exempt and several have told me they are conspiracy theorists about Covid and anti vaccers. There were very few clients I dealt with who objected or whom I thought could not cope with remote attendance. I likewise will not go back to police stations yet as I also have underlying health issues and quite frankly have absolutely no confidence in the measures in place to ensure my safety. I have heard some dreadful anecdotal tales. At least at court we have some degree of control although in my court measures are perfunctory. I have been asking all week for sanitiser in the courts as they have all run out.

Whilst we all appreciate the tireless efforts made on entirely voluntary basis by our reps from LCCSA and CLSA we clearly are not being listened to.

Regards

Ros

Ros Olleson solicitor

07951 242 693

On 9 Dec 2021, at 20:13, Maggie Frame <maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk> wrote:

Sorry I said protocal 3 but it was not actually dealt with until protocal 4.

From: Maggie Frame [mailto:maggie@brookelavingtonlaw.co.uk]
Sent: 09 December 2021 19:58
To: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: The proposed move to protocal 3 in police stations

Dear all,

Now is your opportunity to tell the LCCSA that the proposed move to protocal 3 is not sufficient and not in line with the governments introduction of plan b. It is simpley a move back to in person attendance for anyone who needs an AA. Thats a large number of our clients and those we deal with on duty.

We need plan B to be an exception under exception 3 as the governments states we should work from home. The other representative bodies has made a suggestion that plan b allows us to work remotely under this exception without the need to mopve to plan b see next email where I will forward what I received.

In my view we need to resume remote interviews for all clients as we did prior to protocal 3 as the government has moved back to working from home where possible to try and slow the spread of the new variant and to save christemas.

Please don’t just leave it as if you do it will be protocal 3 and in person attendance for most client as many need AA and in addition no exception for solictors self isolating as that was not dealt with until protocal 3.

This has to be sorted out immediately and urgently so please get writing and express your views to the LCCSA .

Noone else can sort this out for you so don’t leave it to your colleagues and then complain when nothing gets done for us.

My view is new protocal 5 incorporating the temporary measures introduced by government and allowing all interviews to be remote until the government moves away from plan b and to follow the advice of government as to when it is safe to resume protocal 4.

Please read the suggestion of other representative bodies which I will forward to all of you.

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

To unsubscribe from the LCCSA Members eGroup click here.

To take a break from receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click here.

To resume receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click here.

To unsubscribe from the LCCSA Members eGroup click here.

To take a break from receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click here.

To resume receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click here.

Click here to report this email as spam.

To unsubscribe from the LCCSA Members eGroup click here.

To take a break from receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click here.

To resume receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click here.

This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com