It is part of a public consultation on the National Information Infrastructure (NII), a new initiative for improving government data.

The government is currently identifying which datasets should be included. For the MoJ, these include case management systems, language services information, custodial data and much more [listed below]. So far there is next to no feedback on these.

If you think these would be valuable open data sets, you need to create a data.gov.uk profile if you don’t already have one, and ‘add feedback’ under the dataset you’re interested in. You’ll be asked how opening the data will be beneficial to society/ the economy/public services etc. and to give some [public] comments.

That would probably also be the place to raise any concerns or suggestions about the way in which the data should be released.

Thanks to Max Froumentin at the MoJ for alerting me to this.

The unpublished datasets (listed alphabetically)

• CHASE: Database for tracking and monitoring ministerial correspondence
• CREST Case management system for Crown Court cases
• CasPER The Official Solicitor and Public Trustee Case Management System
• Care Monitoring System Case progression tool for monitoring care and supervision applications in family courts
• CaseMan Case management system for county court cases
• Client and cost management system (CCMS) Database holding details of Legal Aid work relating to: Civil Representation Means & Merits, Civil Representation Case Management including The Statutory Charge, Cash receipting, Client & Provider payments, Billing
• Controlled Work & Administration (CWA) Database holding details of Legal Aid work relating to: Contract & Schedule Maintenance, Provider Reference Data, Civil advice (non court) claims, Police Station advice claims, Magistrates Court claims
• Corporate Information Systems (CIS) Database holding details of Legal Aid work relating to: Civil Representation Means & Merits, Civil Representation Case Management including The Statutory Charge, Cash receipting, Client & Provider payments, Billing (Civil Rep, Mediation, Magistrates Court Non Standard Fees, High Cost Cases)
• Court Funds Office  records Current and historical details of client funds held in court
• Crown Court Remuneration (CCR) and Crown Court Litigator Fee (CCLF) Legal Aid billing system for Crown Court cases
• Crown Court Sentencing Survey Database Details of the factors affecting judge’s sentencing decisions at the Crown Court
• FamilyMan Case management system for family court cases.
• Forced Marriage Protection Orders Database of all Forced Marriage Protection Order cases in family courts
• Freedom of Information (FoI) requests database Case management system for FoI requests received by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)
• Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service language services information system Requests for face-to-face language services completed under the national Language Services Framework Agreement (commencing on 30th January 2012), and complaints made, by Criminal Justice System partner (e.g. criminal courts, tribunals etc)
• Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) Performance Database Database of summary statistical information about all HMCTS cases.
• Independent Monitoring Board Appointments Files HR type information relating to appointment of IMB Members, eg Application forms, interview panel forms, security forms, Ministerial Submissions
• Independent Monitoring Board Conduct & Discipline Cases Complaints about IMB members by IMB Members, Staff, detainees or prisoners
• Independent Monitoring Board Database Database containing HR type information for 2000+ IMB current and former members
• Integrated Accredited Programmes System (IAPS) Operational database for the management of accredited programme requirements in all probation trusts
• JUROR Holds records of all potential jurors for Crown, Civil and Coroners Courts in England and Wales.
• Libra Case management system for magistrates’ court cases, including information on breaches
• Linked Data The linked data is developmental and is produced from linking existing administrative data sources together to create a new valuable information asset which is being used for a variety of purposes.
• Means Assessment & Administration Tool (MAAT) Database holding details of Legal Aid work relating to: Magistrates Means Assessment, Crown Court Means Assessment, Benefit Status Checking
• MoJ extract of Police National Computer Extract of selected fields from the Police National Computer (PNC).
• Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Database Central system for storing data on MAPPA eligible offenders
• National Offender Management Service (NOMS) Deaths in Custody Database The central system for storing information relating to deaths in prison custody in England and Wales.
• National Offender Management Service incident reporting system The system for recording incidents in prison custody including self-harm and assaults.
• ORACLE HRMS HR Database containing the human resources records for public sector Prison Service and National Offender Management Service (NOMS) HQ staff.
• Offender Assessment System (OASys) Operational database used to assess the risks and needs of eligible offenders in prisons and probation trusts.
• Phoenix Database containing the human resources records for Ministry of Justice staff
• Police force Failure To Appear warrant information systems (various across the 43 police forces in England & Wales) Failure To Appear (FTA) warrants received, executed and outstanding, by category of warrant, in each police force area.
• Police force Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) systems (various across the 43 police forces in England & Wales) Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) issued and paid.
• Possession Claim Online Case management system for claims made through Possession Claim Online website
• Prison National Offender Management Information System (p-NOMIS) and Inmate Information System (IIS) Prison case management systems.
• Probation Trust Case Management Systems Probation supervision and court reports.
• Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD) Case management system for those offenders serving life sentences and indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection, recalled offenders and offenders who are restricted patients.
• Secure Accommodation Clearing House System (SACHS) Monthly population data for the under-18 custodial population.
• Tribunals Service Case Management systems including: ARIA, ETHOS (and Caseflow), GAPs 2, MARTHA, CICA and a set of SQL and Access based systems, and manual case records. Case management systems holding information on appeals in Tribunals
• YJMIS Youth Offending Team data return
• eAsset Monthly population data for the under-18 custodial population
• i-grasp Database containing details of recruitment exercises
• nDelius Probation supervision and court reports.

The full project title is: “The Defamation of Companies: Free Speech, Public Protection and the Economic Consequences of False Statements upon the Value and Reputation of Companies”. Application details available here (deadline: 19 April 2013)

Applications are invited to a three-year PhD Studentship in Portsmouth Business School, starting 1 October 2013.

Defamation compensates injury to reputation through the spreading of false statements. The English common law has recognized that companies have a reputation to protect, and therefore standing to bring defamation claims. A false statement about a company such as claims about the safety of its product, its treatment of workers, or sourcing of goods, can have adverse impacts upon its share price, income and corporate image. Yet theorists have claimed that unlike individuals whose reputation is damaged, and who may seek defamation to protect their honour and dignity, corporate reputation is a property interest linked to such business concepts as ‘goodwill’ and company value.

Calculating such damages is likely to result in more substantial award of damages than that associated with individuals, and this poses a major problem for groups and individuals who wish to hold companies to account for poor ‘corporate practices’ who may be deterred by companies using defamation SLAPP suits to stop criticism. Such suits undermine the freedom of speech of campaigners and has led to the adoption of anti-SLAPP suits in many US states, whilst in Australia the right of corporations to sue has been removed completely.

Concerns over anti-SLAPP suits and the deterrent effect of large damages awards in cases of corporate libel have been raised in regards to the recent debate on defamation reform in England. The current version Defamation Bill addresses this issue only through the new general requirement that requires all defamation claimants to prove the ‘publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm.’

The aim of this research is to evaluate whether corporations should have the right to sue, and if they are to do so how should damages, or “serious harm”, be calculated, and can this be done in a manner which does not deter civic society organisations and individuals from criticising or monitoring corporate activities.

The research is expected to adopt a number of methodologies to address these questions:

• Examination of case-law and commentary to understand why companies were permitted to sue for defamation in the first place and how this law has developed.
• Examine the underlying theories of defamation/reputation (such as Howarth 2011).
• Use empirical data collection relying upon a series of event studies of alleged libels of companies (such as Vick and Campbell 2001)) to assess the long-term economic and reputational interests upon companies, comparing these with event studies of corporations whose corporate misconduct have been proven.
• Undertake a comparative study with countries which have amended their libel laws to introduce SLAPP suits and prohibit corporations from suing to see if this has any impact upon the reporting of corporate malpractice.
• Review the adequacy of alternative mechanisms of protecting corporate reputation including other legal actions like malicious falsehood and methods employed by reputation management companies.

Full details at this link…

We’re in a contradictory and disconcerting place at the moment. Three years ago we saw the abolition of criminal libel and blasphemy and the word ‘insulting’ is to be removed from the Public Order Act.

However, there has been increasing use of criminal law in relation to social media – sometimes in disproportionate ways, as in the ‘Twitter joke’ trial. Concerns have also been raised about the consistency and severity of sentencing, especially in relation to sick jokes and political – albeit distasteful – comment.

It appears, as Professor Ian Cram has argued, that much energy is spent on ‘shoehorning new practices and behaviour into existing legal categories’. It is encouraging that the CPS now acknowledges these tensions with its sensible, if vague, interim guidelines.

A more nuanced consideration of social media use and the public interest is certainly needed. But there is another area to emphasise too: education. As the CPS rightly identifies, children ‘may not appreciate the potential harm and seriousness of their communications and a prosecution is rarely likely to be in the public interest’.

That lack of appreciation may apply to many adults too. Better public legal education around media is needed to prevent genuinely harmful communication acting against the public interest, especially in relation to breaches of reporting restrictions, threats of violence and harassment.

via BBC – Blogs – College of Journalism – Social media and the law: a case to regulate or educate?.

The Lawbore website was born a whole decade ago, in 2002, at a time when there were few websites for lawyers or law students. Today of course, all branches of the legal profession enjoys consuming and creating online commentary around the law, but then there was then little content out there generated by lawyers.

Lawbore was created by the law librarian at City University London (Emily Allbon) as a basic gateway to resources. Initially it aimed to raise awareness of free legal resources for those students finding it hard to distinguish between poor and quality sources, but Lawbore has expanded enormously over the years.

A summer revamp has waved goodbye to the well-known Lawbore green and heralded in a new slick look for all parts of the site, whilst still retaining its element of fun. If you’ve not come across the site before here is a rundown of what it does:

• Directory: mini guides to free resources split into subject areas
• City Hub: aimed primarily at City law students – includes all e-resource information, law school news and an extensive Law Events directory for things going on in London
• Future Lawyer: careers blog complete with news articles, interviews and event reviews.
• Learnmore: legal skills wiki containing videos, articles and talking slideshows on legal writing, careers, legal writing and a massive Moots section. Here’s what one of City’s students said about Learnmore:

“I feel like when you get to law school you’re forced to hit the ground running, often so quickly that you feel like you’re completely unprepared for the challenges that get thrown at you. However, Learnmore breaks down the foundations of being a successful law student into bite-sized pieces, albeit pieces with great graphics and cool designs. It helps you teach yourself things you might not think you’re capable of doing. I learned how to moot from Learnmore…”

What’s unique to Lawbore is that it has been built around the experience of City students, each year adding new content and features directly as a result of Emily’s day-to-day contact with her students. Both current students and alumni also get involved in creating content. This isn’t a service just for City students either – the majority of content is freely available to everyone.

Find out more about the development of the site or get in touch with Emily if you’d like to get involved: @lawbore / contact details.