Candidates logging into their SQE accounts to view their results were able to view other candidate’s data – however, the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s exam provider confirmed that no breach occurred.Under the new route to qualifying as a solicitor, nearly all of the 1,090 candidates who took the exam were given access to their results last Thursday. Kaplan, the exam provider, confirmed that the issues for eight candidates were settled last Friday.Following this, the Solicitors Regulation Authority announced that 53% of candidates passed SQE1, the first of the two sets of assessments under the new qualification route.Kaplan reported that candidates who took the exam are sent an email notifying them that their results are accessible in their account. A breakdown of their results are found on the results page, including their quintile position in connection to others in the exam.Asked if results were visible among candidates, Kaplan said: ‘We were made aware by a small number of candidates of inconsistencies in non-exam information displayed on the website, specifically relating to name and candidate ID number. We have investigated and do not believe candidates saw other candidates’ results.’Pressurised further on the matter, Kaplan noted: ‘Yes, several candidates saw a name and exam ID number of another candidate, but this was on pages outside of the secure log-in part of the platform, and therefore no other information was seen.’When questioned if any of the issues had been reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office, Kaplan responded: ‘We were made aware by a small number of candidates of inconsistencies in non-exam information displayed on the website. We have investigated to ensure that no sensitive information was released in error. We have determined there was no reportable data breach but the SRA has notified their relationship manager at the ICO as part of their standard process.’

The billions recovered by law enforcement through fines and confiscations should be utilised by the UK to create a ‘central economic crime fighting fund’ to support agencies which are ‘under- resourced, over-stretched, and out-gunned’, a recent report details.The National Crime Agency (NCA) has suggested that the UK loses approximately £290bn each year to fraud and money laundering, which when combined equals to almost 15% of the UK’s GDP.Nonetheless, anti-corruption charity Spotlight on Corruption has estimated that the average sum spent per year on law enforcement agencies was £852m, equivalent to just 0.09% of entire government spending or 0.042% of GDP.In a report published this week, Spotlight on Corruption stated that The Serious Fraud Office, HM Revenue and Customs, the Crown Prosecution Service and the NCA ,proposed around £3.9bn through fines, confiscation, forfeiture and civil recovery orders, between 2016 and 2021.For example, assets worth £568m were recovered by the CPS through its proceeds of crime unit over the past five years, which is ‘eleven times more than its £51.7m budget for the same period’.It is estimated by Spotlight of Corruption that if that £3.9bn total was reinvested back into the agencies, ‘overall enforcement spending could have been provisionally increased by an additional £748m per year – an approximate increase of 93% on current funding levels’.However, despite making a significant revenue, ‘law enforcement budgets at core agencies tasked with fighting economic crime continue to suffer from real-term cuts and short-term budget allocations rather than sustained investment’, it further added.The report detailed: ‘Existing government proposals for funding law enforcement are not sufficient to drive the transformational change needed to keep pace with what the government recognises as a severe and growing threat. If the UK is to tackle economic crime effectively, far greater ambition about the scale of public investment needed is required.’Spotlight on Corruption also requested ‘a coherent strategy for protecting the public purse in economic crime law enforcement actions’, which would include the progression of ‘an enforceable model litigant code for lawyers to prevent the use of stalling and spurious tactics that waste court time and drain public resources’, and collaborating with judges ‘to ensure better judicial management of cases to strike out abusive litigation tactics’.

HM Land Registry has informed conveyancers to ‘get ready’ for a fee rise, which will be the first to be implemented since 2009. The blog that published this information also has suggested that further changes could potentially lie ahead.Last November the agency reported that fees for registers and transfers of title would increase by up to 21% under new changes that will take place from 31 January.  In the recent blog, Iain Banfield, the chief financial officer, noted that applications which are submitted before 31 January, but were put forward on or after this date, will be contingent to the new fees, along with will applications placed before 31 January but later cancelled, refused or resubmitted on or after the 31st.Banfield stated: ‘The fee increase allows HM Land Registry to move forward with plans to deliver what customers need – more consistency and speed in service delivery – by investing in both operational capacity and accelerating the digitalisation and automation of services. With this in mind, we are exploring further changes to the fee order, including its structure and simplicity. We are currently engaging as widely as we can before we set out any proposals.’

Westernisation can provide a basis for a claim for leave to remain in the UK in cases where individuals face a pressing chance of persecution, if they are unable to comply with the standards of conservative societies, a tribunal has ordered.A ‘westernised’ family of five who escaped Iraq in 2006 have successfully won an appeal against the denial of leave on the terms that they would face ‘a real risk of persecution because they are atheists’.Gaenor Bruce, Upper Tribunal Judge, stated: ‘They do not wish to adhere to conservative Islamic norms because they fundamentally do not agree with them. They should not be expected to do so simply in order to remain safe.’Bruce highlighted that the Refugee Convention does not issue ‘a protected and unfettered right to enjoy one’s life in the way that one would like: there is no human right to listen to a particular kind of music, drink alcohol or to wear jeans’. Nonetheless, it can provide protection ‘where the modifications required of the claimants amount to suppressions of the inalienable rights afforded to them by international law’, she added.Westernisation can additionally allow an individual to protection in circumstances where they have been residing in the UK for a lengthy period of time, or if they are unacquainted with the mainstream culture in their country of origin, as there is a chance that their ‘modified behaviour will slip’.The tribunal were informed that the family, who were all ‘nominally’ Muslim, but have not been practising, formerly lived in an wealthy area of Baghdad, in which their atheism was ‘simply never an issue’.Bruce however commented, that ‘the Iraq of 2021 is very different from the Iraq that they left’ and alluded to expert evidence proposing that ‘today religion permeates the public space’ and that atheists ‘often keep their views secret’ for worry of harassment, attack or possibly murder.‘In that context an individual does not have to sell books, or shout on a street corner, to proclaim that he is not a Muslim: his lack of faith is apparent in his everyday actions,’ Bruce noted.‘[The father] will be regarded with curiosity if he permits his daughters to go out unchaperoned; that curiosity will rise to suspicion if he is never seen at mosque; suspicion would quickly escalate to hostility if the family fail to observe the fasts in Ramadhan or to don black during Muharram; that hostility could, at any time, give rise to persecution if, for instance, the women insist on remaining unveiled or the family’s attitudes lead to them being identified as particularly wealthy.’She further stated: ‘Although evidence about fashion, or entertainment preferences, appears at first glance to consist of little more than an appeal to pluralism, and thus lying entirely outwith the protection framework, that evidence must be carefully assessed.‘First, to determine whether the lifestyle choices of the claimant are in fact an expression of  beliefs prohibited or disapproved of in his country of origin. Second, whether there is a real risk of that claimant failing to effectively mask his “western” identity and thus exposing himself to harm.’The human rights claims of the parents and their youngest child were formerly permitted by consent, as the Home Office acknowledged it would not be appropriate to expect their young child to leave the UK, which led to the acceptance of their two other children’s human rights appeals. 

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.