HM Treasury has announced that legislation to promote cryptoassets to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) will be put in place once parliamentary time permits.  Approximately 2.3 million people in the UK are believed to possess a cryptoasset such as digital coinage or non-fungible tokens (NFTs). However, the Treasury stated that comprehension of the technology is on the decline, ‘suggesting that some users may not fully understand what they are buying’.Action has been taken by the Advertising Standards Authority against a number of promoters for their shortcoming in highlighting the risks of cryptoasset investments. In responding to a conference, the Treasury reports that qualifying cryptoassets will be promoted depending on FCA rules, alongside those applying for stocks, shares, and insurance products.  The chancellor of the exchequer, Rishi Sunak MP, noted ‘we are ensuring consumers are protected, while also supporting innovation of the cryptoasset market’.Government policy on cryptoasset management is guided by the Cryptoassets Taskforce, which was established in 2018, 10 years after the emergence of Bitcoin. The new guidelines on promotions will be put in place by secondary legislation in order to modify the Financial Promotion Order, which outlines the investments and activities in accordance to the financial promotion regime. Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, a business is not permitted to promote a financial product without authorisation by the FCA or the Prudential Regulation Authority, or the content of the promotion is authorised by a firm which is. Firms that intend to promote such investments and activities must abide by rules that financial promotions should be clear, fair, and non ambiguous.It has been announced by HM Treasury that legislation will be enacted once parliamentary time allows.Senior associate at blockchain specialist firm Ontier, Simon Cohen, stated:  ‘The Treasury’s announcement is a clear and welcome indication that the Wild West days of digital assets are coming to an end. But the devil is always in the detail, so we look forward to reviewing the government’s draft bill once published.’

The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that all users of the probate service will have to pay an increased flat fee.Currently, the fees are fixed at £155 for professional users and £215 for non-professional users. As of 26 January, after a consultation, these will convert to one single probate fee of £273.‘We support the MoJ’s aim to make a simpler, more streamlined process for users of the probate service, and we understand funds are needed to help this change and development,’ stated Stephanie Boyce, the Law Society president I. ‘However, we query why the UK government has decided to increase fees at this time, particularly as the probate service is still facing delays. In 2020, people had to wait 12 to 14 weeks on average to receive their grant. This is unacceptable, the service must be timely and allow executors to settle a loved one’s estate.’In October 2021, HM Courts & Tribunals Service reported that it had acquired 14,834 digital probate applications and 5,502 paper applications. During the same month, 20,128 grants of probate were distributed, and the time for all applications was around 9.3 weeks.Boyce further reported: ‘The government believes there’s no longer a justification for maintaining a lower fee for professional applicants, while a single probate fee will align with its managing public money principles – where the same fee should be charged for all users of the same service.‘The MoJ acknowledges our key concerns that any increase should be reflected in new and tangible improvements to the service. It’s reassuring to see they’ve been making further advances to address these.’Chancery Lane has proposed that a reimbursement for delays to users should be offered, howeverBoyce noted that the MoJ has not confirmed if it will definitely go ahead with this decision.

A 10 year ambition of entirely electronic conveyancing may soon become a reality if the company Search Acumen claim’s come to light. The company has revealed that technology will enable lawyers to oversea the whole residential conveyancing process via a central dashboard.The platform will deliver a single program that merges and filters data from different sources to simplify the key sections of the process. These entail managing client onboarding, local authority searches, engagement with HM Land Registry, title reports, indemnity issues, bank checks and post completion filings including AP1 forms and Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) submissions, the company reported. It will digitise the AP1 submission procedure in line with HM Land Registry’s measure to make digital applications mandatory from November. It is estimated that up to five hours could be cut from each transaction, with any user at a conveyancing firm being able to directly communicate with the selected Land Registry case worker, decreasing the risk of delays, the company has claimed.Managing director, Andrew Lloyd, stated: ‘Our residential platform will continue our track record of abolishing antiquated ways of working and empowering legal professionals to have greater control over transaction processes. It provides a single intuitive portal for the project management of residential sales and purchases and will play a crucial role in digitising key processes, most pressingly AP1 submissions ahead of November’s deadline.’

The government announced this week that the legislation introduced during the pandemic which enabled wills to be witnessed using Zoom and Skype, will be extended until January 2024.Lord chancellor Dominic Raab MP stated that the extension was a ‘common sense measure’ that would provide vulnerable people reassurance that their wills are recognised if they are needed to have them witnessed over video due to isolation.The Wills Act 1837 was amended in last year’s legislation to specify that wills should be signed in the presence of at least two witnesses, with their presence being physical or virtual. The two witnesses must not be beneficiaries, and electronic signatures are not allowed.The MoJ’s announcement details Law Society research which revealed that approximately 14% of legal professionals have made wills using the software including Zoom or FaceTime since the provisional measure was established.Society president I. Stephanie Boyce reported: ‘Solicitors have bent over backwards to ensure their clients have been able to make valid wills despite the restrictions during the pandemic. Those who have used video witnessing have told the Law Society it has been a useful option to have – to help vulnerable people set their affairs in order when making a will in the presence of witnesses is not possible.‘The Law Society continues to take the view that the most effective reform of the law would be to give judges powers to recognise the deceased’s intentions even where their will may not have been witnessed, in line with the Wills Act.’At present, the Law Commission is considering possible reforms to the law regarding wills, including whether to make the temporary use of video links a permanent measure.However, the MoJ stated this week that video technology should be considered a last resort and people should endeavour to continue to arrange physical witnessing where it is possible and safe to do so.

Digital evidence in criminal cases will most likely increase the chances of justice being served, but the courts must accept that it can also ‘obscure rather than illuminate’, the president of the Queen’s Bench Division has informed.Dame Victoria Sharp said the increase of technology has ‘transformed society and has led to distinct changes in how individuals behave and engage with the world around them’, presenting legal systems with ‘extraordinary challenges’.This calls for ‘adapting existing legal frameworks to new types of crime’ and ‘developing the expertise to combat such criminal activity, including internationally in this technologically connected world’, Sharp detailed in a speech to the National Criminal Justice Conference published this week.‘There are now very few crime scenes that might not be better described as digital crime scenes,’ Sharp noted. In many cases, the quality and legal integrity of digital evidence can be essential to ‘the fair resolution of the case’.However, Sharp warned that digital evidence must be ‘comprehensible and credible to the decision-makers in our system, who are, for the most part, ordinary members of the public sitting as lay magistrates or as jurors’.The ‘vast amount’ of digital evidence available to investigators and prosecutors is a ‘potentially precious resource’, Sharp said, which may prove ‘more reliable than traditional evidence and thus further the interests of justice’. But Sharp emphasised that ‘jurors – and, indeed, judges dare I say it – have to understand the evidence that is put before them’.‘Whilst digital evidence can enhance the prospect of justice being done, the scope for evidence that deals with the new technologies to obscure, rather than illuminate, must also be faced,’ she added.Sharp proposed that ‘it would not be surprising’ if judges or jurors found it hard to understand expert evidence or follow cross-examination targeted at ‘revealing flaws in scientific methodology, or then to determine how much weight to attach to it’. This gives rise to the ‘obvious risk that the resolution of an issue in dispute will simply involve deference to the opinion of a convincing expert’, she stated.

Raising the judicial retirement age to 75 could enhance diversity on the bench and motivate more women and lawyers from ethnic minority backgrounds become judges, a former lord chancellor has stated.Sir Robert Buckland MP shared with the House of Commons that raising the mandatory retirement age by five years would offer ‘a huge opportunity, not just for women but for people who come to the legal profession slightly later in their career’.Discussing at the second reading of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill on Wednesday, Buckland said that the current retirement age meant the judiciary was failing to take advantage of ‘many talented men and women at the height of their career’.Buckland stated he disputed the suggestion that increasing the retirement age would create a negative impact, stating ‘that worst-case scenario is based on a failure to act’. The raise ‘could be a spur to the Government and the Judicial Appointments Commission to do even more to attract women, people from an ethnic minority, and people who join the profession late to a judicial career’, he told MPs.Buckland added ‘it is incumbent on the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Appointments Commission and others interested in and passionate about diversity to do more to attract people of diversity to the judiciary,’Chair of the justice select committee, Sir Bob Neill, detailed there was ‘a number of distinguished former members of the High Court and the Supreme Court who have had to retire at 70, with many years of service still to give, and still do so, often sitting as arbitrators in important areas of commercial litigation and mediation’.Neill further stated that ‘we do need to make the judiciary more diverse and more representative, but the way to do that is not to keep down the retirement age to such a low level that able people are needlessly lost to judicial service.’Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine, however, highlighted concerns that the change ‘could have a negative impact on the diversity of the judiciary, which at the moment is dominated by older, white men’, so did Labour’s Matt Rodda, who questioned the government to offer additional details on how it would ensure  the raise did not ‘make it more difficult to increase diversity in our legal system’.The chief secretary to the Treasury, Simon Clarke stated that the government’s modelling proposed that increasing the retirement age would ‘retain about 400 judges and 2,000 magistrates per year’.

Lawyers have voiced their disappointment with reports of judges requesting to see evidence of positive Covid tests before sanctioning a remote or adjourned hearing.An online memo from the recorder of Winchester, that covers both Winchester and Salisbury Crown courts, noted that no application for an adjournment will be considered unless ‘some evidence’ showing a positive Covid test by a defendant or an advocate.In light of recent problems acquiring PCR tests, the memo stated that the court would accept a photograph of a positive lateral flow test as evidence.However, advocates on social media have questioned why such evidence needs to be provided and proposed that judges are questioning their honesty and integrity.Vice chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Kirsty Brimelow QC said she had highlighted the issue this week with HM Courts & Tribunal Service, which will be followed up with the senior presiding judge.Beheshteh Engineer, a barrister with 36 Crime chambers, stated: ‘Even if there was an epidemic of lying lawyers, I won’t be providing proof of medical status (not for covid or anything else) on principle. I am trusted not to lie to the court, and that includes on the subject of covid tests.’Bernard Richmond QC, from Lamb Building, noted: ‘The system works because we value our reputation for integrity and our word is accepted. The criminal bar puts up with a lot but, this is a straw which might just break the camel’s back. Either trust us or don’t.’Chair of the Bar Council’s disability panel, Faisel Sadiq noted that the underlying message suggested an assumption that some counsel are concealing the truth regarding their lateral flow tests. ‘I am very concerned about where this could lead if not nipped in the bud,’ he added.

Court closures have ‘significantly contributed’ to the backlog, and the government needs to contemplate reopening recently closed courts to expand capacity. In recently published evidence to the public accounts committee, it has been identified that 11 court buildings which have recently closed but not yet been sold, ‘could potentially be opened at a minimal cost’. The reopening of these courts ‘would also contribute to their local economies, combining economic renewal and access to justice’, it stated.The Law Society additionally proposed that the government should ‘commit to fully funding court repairs so existing court rooms are not closed due to maintenance issues’, which would be ‘another relatively inexpensive way of boosting capacity in the courts’.Chancery Lane has backed measures introduced to address the backlog, including Nightingale courts, extra investment in the justice system and the dismissal of the cap on sitting days. However, it alerted that ‘the shortage of judges, court staff and practitioners to attend cases is becoming a serious concern that will affect efforts to lower the criminal courts backlog if it is not addressed through long-term investment’.‘Because the system has been underfunded for so long, it will not be possible to generate the necessary additional capacity quickly, but if left unaddressed the problem will only grow,’ the Law Society detailed.The shortage of resources available to defend solicitors will also ‘limit efforts to tackle the backlog’, it continued, with multiple firms currently working at full capacity and therefore unable to ‘support a greater number of cases’.The Society highlighted that, while the backlog was ‘worsened and exacerbated’ due to the pandemic, the issue pre-dates it. ‘The backlogs primarily lie in prolonged underinvestment in the justice system, including capping the number of court sitting days, reductions in court capacity and court rooms remaining idle in recent years,’ it reported.The obligation to expand the Ministry of Justice’s budget by £2.2 billion over the spending round was also encouraged, but the Society stated ‘this level of investment must continue and must extend to all parts of the criminal justice system’ in order to bring the backlog ‘down to manageable levels’.

This season’s Formula 1 championship reached a dramatic conclusion last weekend, following Red Bull’s Max Verstappen overtaking of the Mercedes of Lewis Hamilton on the penultimate lap. The finale was not necessarily expected to be entangled with such controversy, but given the fact a lawyer was brought to the track in advance, suggested that the race was not likely to proceed without a problem.Soon after Verstappen’s win, it emerged that Mercedes had barrister Paul Harris QC accompany the team in Abu Dhabi for the grand prix, and without question used his services after the chequered flag in order to protest against the result.This stimulated ample discussion as to whether or not Mercedes was preparing for a legal battle rather than a race.Following the event, Red Bull was quoted commenting: ‘We are a race team. We did not come here with a QC. We did not come ready to protest.’Since last weekends events, the Mercedes challenge appears to have failed, with Formula 1 officials turning down two protests against the result, with a further appeal still in discussion.