Baron Grey Solicitors

Main navigation

Baron Grey Limited

By

The problem with young people and “sexting”

Everyone these days has a mobile phone which is capable of taking high-quality pictures and videos. Most children at secondary school are given one by their parents for the best of reasons.

However, the increased prevalence of mobile phone usage by children has seen a huge increase in the number of children unwittingly falling foul of the law by entering into what is commonly known as “sexting” with their peers.

“Sexting” is defined as “when someone shares sexual, naked or semi-naked images or videos of themselves or others, or sends sexually explicit messages.”

Of itself, with consent, save for certain exceptions, it is not unlawful for persons over the age of 18 to engage in “sexting”. The problem lies when children under the age of 18 sharing videos of themselves.

Children at secondary school will be taught that the age of consent for having sex is 16. However, the vast majority of children will not know that they have to be 18 in order to share sexually explicit images of themselves. If, for example, two 17 years in a relationship decide to send each other naked photos of themselves with consent, they are unwittingly committing a criminal offence.

Schools, for safeguarding reasons, are obliged to report any such incidents of “sexting” to the police for investigation. This can lead to a formal police interview under caution at a police station, and can lead potentially to prosecution in the criminal courts.

Even if a young person is not prosecuted, it can still lead to them receiving a police caution which would appear on an enhanced criminal records check which could affect their future chances of obtaining certain jobs or entering certain professions. As can be seen, the consequences for what children may see as harmless fun or flirting, can be profound.

What is needed is greater education in schools to make children aware of the consequences of their actions. Social media giants should have a role to play in this too, as most images are sent via social media accounts.

At Baron Grey Solicitors, we are highly experienced in dealing with such cases in a discreet, sensitive and professional manner. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can assist you.

By

Divorce: It’s no-one’s fault.

Ocean County NJ No Fault Divorce and Fault Divorce Attorney

 

Following on from the Supreme Court ruling in the Owens case and a consultation last Autumn the government have announced on 9 April 2019 that they will introduce legislation so that divorcing couples will no longer have to prove fault.

Where we are now

Currently under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 the divorcing party has to evidence at least one of five ‘facts’:
• Adultery
• Unreasonable behaviour
• Desertion
• Two years’ separation (if the other spouse consents to the divorce), or
• Five years’ separation (if the other spouse disagrees).

Where we will be

The new proposal provides that irretrievable breakdown of a marriage will be retained as the sole ground for divorce. The requirement to provide evidence of a ‘fact’ will be replaced with a requirement to provide a statement of irretrievable breakdown.

The two-stage process of Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute will be retained. A minimum timeframe of six months will be introduced, from petition stage to final divorce.

This much needed decision will help to cut some of the conflict from what can be a highly stressful experience and especially will allow separating parents to focus on the needs of their children instead of proving a fault-based fact against their former partner.
The announcement states that the legislation will be introduced ‘as soon as parliamentary time allows’ so it could still be some time yet as we all know that Brexit is taking up a lot of time at the moment.

By

The Pitfalls Of Buying At Auction

The Pitfalls Of Buying At Auction

Whilst the property seen in an auction catalogue may seem a bargain, there is highly likely to be a reason for this.

In auction sales, the properties are generally in need of substantial repair and/or modernisation. If you do not possess any experience in auction purchase, it can prove risky.

It is therefore recommended that before making a bid at auction, you ensure that your financing have been put into place in readiness at short notice. This is because the timescale imposed is extremely tight, namely if your bid is accepted at auction, then you sign the contract there and then and you pay a 10% deposit. You will then have approximately 28 days in which to complete the transaction. If you fail to meet these deadlines then you will incur financial penalties.

When considering auction purchases, it is advisable to obtain a copy of the auctioneers’ catalogue. If you find a property that takes your interest, it is advisable to obtain the legal pack which is generally available from the auctioneers’ website. You can then instruct a solicitor to inspect the title documentation to check whether the title contains any awkward covenants or restrictions. The solicitor will also check the auctioneers contract to ascertain whether the conditions of sale prior to any bidding. The solicitor is likely to make a charge for this service although should be successful at auction, the same solicitors can deal with completion of the matter on your behalf and the fee charged for investigating the title documents is likely to be deducted from the cost of the conveyancing bill. Prior to making a bid it is strongly recommended that you arrange a survey to be carried out.

Whilst you will incur the costs of the above and your bid may not prove successful, such advice and survey is likely to save you money in the long term as you may end up with the property which has restrictions that are not suitable for your purposes and the property may have many structural defects.

Written By: Minnie Waite & Clive Whitern

By

Court Closures – Local Justice for Local People?

Since 2011, the Ministry of Justice has closed 200 courts and tribunals across England and Wales. The Ministry is currently consulting on whether to close a further eight across five regions in the coming months.

Save within the Treasury, there is little appetite for this latest round of culls, with MPs from all sides and a legal profession united for once standing opposed to this further erosion of the principle that justice should be dispensed locally.

There are now vast swathes of the country where people have to travel long distances in order to get to court, and what if you don’t have a car and have to rely on public transport? It will be the rural communities that will be hardest hit. As an MP in Derbyshire has observed, since the closure of Buxton Magistrates Court, people now have to travel 40 miles in order to get to Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court on the other side of the Pennines, a journey that can take 90 minutes on a good day.

How can this be right? Just think about this common scenario. A person arrested and charged with an offence is remanded into custody overnight to go to their nearest court the next day. They have to be taken there. Since the transportation of prisoners has been outsourced, the transport van used to pick the prisoner up has to travel from its home base, usually some distance away, to several police stations in the locality in order to pick up prisoners to transport them to several different courts. Our unfortunate chap will be lucky to arrive at court in the morning.

In the meantime, the victim may want to attend the hearing, as might the families of the defendant. They might be youths, elderly or disabled. They might not drive. They might have valuable information that they wish to pass on to the advocates at court in order to assist with the court proceedings. How will they get to a court which could be in an area they don’t know and have no idea how to get to at short notice? What about the magistrates (who are volunteers and are the clearest example of local justice being meted out by local people) who will now be expected to travel to areas that they have no inherent knowledge of in order to dispense justice?

The government justifies its position on the basis of statistics – that courts are working well under capacity, so therefore close courts and make the remaining ones work harder. This logic is deeply flawed as there are complex reasons as to why a court room may not necessarily be sitting for its full allocation of hours in a day (one of them being that everyone is waiting for the prison vans to arrive!).

When I started out on my legal career in South West London in the early 2000s, we had magistrates’ courts in Kingston, Richmond, Wimbledon, Acton, Ealing and Hammersmith. Of these six, Kingston, Richmond and Acton have closed, and Ealing and Hammersmith are earmarked for closure. Only Wimbledon remains.

Above everything else, court closures deny the one thing that the system should be based on above everything else – justice for the people who use it.