Content

Agile Cambridge, I will be back!

Words by Emma Gooderham

From the moment I walked into the refectory at the Cathedral, ahead of the Saturday night pitches, I felt there was something special going to happen. It wasn’t until the pitches actually began an hour or so later, that I realised exactly what it was.

I’m ashamed to say I’ve never been to Sync The City, despite it being in its fourth year. The idea behind the event it to build a tech based startup in just 54 hours and then pitch for funding at the end. It was these final pitches I had come to see.

Twelve startups waited anxiously for Fiona Lettice, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the UEA, SyncNorwich and Sync The City organiser, to make her introduction to this year’s event. She described Sync The City as The Apprentice crossed with Dragon’s Den, with all the tension and hard work compressed into a little over two days. With this, and the prize of £3,000 in funding on their minds, the twelve groups began their pitches.

When I’d been in the refectory earlier there was clearly some concern about these pitches, but every single one was excellent. I was expecting lots of hesitation in the delivery, having been put together under the pressure of the time limit, but there was hardly any. The styles, methods, number of presenters, etc. for each pitch varied greatly, which helped keep my interest to the end.

By only the second pitch I knew what it was that felt special when I had arrived. It was the sense of comradery shared by everyone who was taking part – a real feeling that they were all in it together, regardless of who won at the end of it all.

There was a clear winner for me – a team called Footprint whose product helped individuals identify all of their data on the internet.

The People’s Prize, as voted for by the audience, went to Unwind, a chatbot intended to help with mental illness.

The official judges, Ian Watson (CEO Start-rite shoes), Chris Sargisson (CEO Norfolk Chamber), Kirsty Jarvis (CEO Luminus PR and Jazz Singer), Juliana Mayer (CEO SupaPass) and Wayne Taylor (CTO Thyngs) chose Lone Safe, a team who developed a system for keeping lone workers safe, as the overall winner.

The runners up were a team called ViaCab who were developing an app for hailing Black Cabs.

The explosion of excitement from the winning team and the audience alike was incredible! After Lone Safe were led off to sign the paperwork for their prize money, and Sean Clark brought the event to a close, they could be heard still celebrating in a side room, excited to be able to make their startup a reality.

Defining what it is to be a machine is tricky to say the least. In everyday terms a machine is something man-made that performs an automated function. Computers are often referred to as machines but they are much more than the limited definition above. Perhaps, instead of trying to pin down exactly what a ‘machine’ is in the 21st century, it would be more pertinent to define what a machine is to us.

Isaac Asimov once described machines as ‘the true humanising influence’. In his mind machines would only be used to perform functions and carry out tasks that make life possible, leaving humans more time to do the things that make life worthwhile. Essentially through their ability to perform mundane but necessary actions, machines would allow us to indulge in every part of life outside basic functions, to allow us to enjoy what it is to be human. From a more modern writer’s point of view, machines have gone beyond their initial point of freeing us to taking us over. Stephen King focuses stories on machines gone mad in our increasingly automated world. In his film ‘Maximum Overdrive’, a classic Eighties trashy horror, any machine with moving parts becomes homicidal. Lawnmowers, Walkmans, vending machines and lorries are all affected by a passing comet’s radiation (don’t think about it too hard, it’s not meant to be taken seriously), come to life and start killing people. The only solution (spoiler alert) is to find a place where there are no machines, hide there and wait for the astrological phenomenon to pass. In the film our plucky heroes manage to find a sailing boat and a completely deserted island in the middle of a lake, but in reality finding a place without the presence of even the most basic machine would be practically impossible. In his book ‘Cell’, King uses the ubiquity of the mobile phone to reset the whole of humanity back to its animal instincts. Anyone who doesn’t have a cell phone at the time is soon killed and eaten by those that did. In his view technology and automation are so pervasive that they can plausibly (forgetting the green comet radiation) be used to cause global disasters affecting the whole of humanity. Not a virus or giant tidal waves, but machines we invented and built ourselves.

Conversely, anarchic cartoon South Park showed us that while we might think we don’t need machines, we still want them, especially when it comes to fulfilling mundane, everyday tasks. Characters in a recent episode complained that they were losing their jobs and being replaced by machines, but when given the chance to work as the electronic assistant ‘Alexa’ in the Amazon Dot device, they found the job so demeaning they quit. They realised that adding items to shopping lists and playing songs on demand were jobs that were beneath human beings and left Alexa to it. Who knew that technology would evolve to the point where an episode of South Park would prove a point made by Isaac Asimov nearly fifty years earlier?

Popular culture and plot devices aside, machines, of any kind, were created for a purpose – to make things better. Either to speed up processes, increase yield, reduce workload; to make things safer, quicker or more accurate. When we see a machine in this way, they become a tool to be used, rather than technology to be relied upon. We choose to use them, rather than to not be able to live without them. Rather than our future coming crashing down on us because of our reliance on our own creations, machines will hopefully become assistants to our way of life and give us more time to enjoy it. As Asimov said “It is machines that will do the work that makes life possible and that human beings will do all the other things that make life pleasant and worthwhile.”

Words by Lauren Gwynn

The first half of the year has seen some fairly major changes to the provisions of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, which have been brought substantially into force and with somewhat unusual speed. Some of these ‘urgent’ provisions were brought into force following royal assent on 31 January 2017.

So what are the main changes?

Bail

The rules surrounding bail have been majorly overhauled. Where a case has commenced on or after the 3 April 2017, there is a statutory presumption that a suspect should only be bailed where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. It is therefore likely that bail will only be used where there are grounds to justify an arrest and bail conditions (such as restrictions preventing the suspect from going to certain areas or speaking to certain people) are required.

If a suspect is granted bailed, then the term of such bail must not exceed 28 days in routine cases or three months in Serious Fraud Office cases or those which have been designated as complex. This period can be extended by the Court, or by a Superintendent, or a senior civil servant.

This change is likely to see a significant reduction in the use of bail. The police are now able to take samples without an arrest and searches following an arrest can be carried out before the suspect is released. In addition, the police are now routinely releasing suspects ‘under investigation’. A suspect released under investigation is, in essence, ‘free to go’ and cannot be subject to any conditions (although they will often be provided with a letter which warns of the risks of contacting witnesses or taking other steps which may prejudice the case). The time limits set out above do not apply to suspects released under investigation; a status which can go on indefinitely.

Police officers are required to advise suspects when an investigation has come to an end, but otherwise they are not entitled to receive any information on the progress of the case. If the aim of this provision was to reduce the amount of suspects left in investigative limbo, it seems that this alteration takes one step forward, and two steps back. 

Firearms

‘Blank-firing’ guns are often created as props for film and television, however there has been an increasing trend worldwide in the conversion and use of these guns (and other imitation firearms) by criminal elements who value them for the difficulty law enforcement face in tracing them. This has seen the introduction of a new offence under the Firearms Act 1968 of possessing an article with the intention of using it to turn an imitation firearm into a real one. The tools used to carry out these modifications are not highly specialised and are relatively commonplace, therefore the intention element of the offence is vital. This serves as an important reminder to engineering firms that they should not carry out or offer to carry out these modifications.

Sexual Offences

A new offence has been created of sexual communication with a child. The offence arises when a person aged 18 or over communicates with a person who is under 16 in a way which is sexual or is intended to encourage the other to make a communication which is sexual, and the purpose is to obtain sexual gratification. It is a defence to show that the alleged offender reasonably believed that the other person was aged 16 or over.

“Sexual exploitation” under the sexual offences act has been redefined, with effect from 31 January 2017 to include the streaming of indecent images.

These changes demonstrate the necessity for the law to reflect changes in technology; with smartphones commonplace amongst under 16s, it is vital to ensure that conduct which puts children or vulnerable people in danger does not fall through the legislative gaps.

Harassment

With effect from 3 April 2017, changes have been introduced to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The maximum sentences for the offences of putting people in fear of violence, and stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress, committed after 3 April 2017 have been increased to 10 years imprisonment. If the offences are racially aggravated the maximum sentence is now 14 years imprisonment.

Criminal Finances

Much was made, before the election, about the introduction of Unexplained Wealth Orders. When this section of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 comes into force these orders will allow the authorities to investigate where a person makes a purchase which they do not seem wealthy enough to afford. The move, which follows reports that London is the money laundering capital of the world, was welcomed by anti-corruption campaigners Transparency International.

Certain parts of the Criminal Finances Act 2017, including new offences for ‘relevant bodies’ who fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion come into force in 30 September 2017.

Investigatory Powers Act 2016

Little of this statute is yet in force but it will in due course replace the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

These changes broadly represent the criminal law catching up with trends and technological advances which are changing the way crime is committed. Whilst changes to the rules surrounding bail may mean fewer people are place on bail pending charge, the increased use of “released under investigation” status means that practically not much has changed.

If you have any questions on anything covered in this article, please do get in touch with our Criminal Defence Team on 01603 610911. 

In the recent case of Ball v Ball, three children failed in challenging their mother’s Will on the grounds that she lacked mental capacity and had been unduly influenced by her husband; their father.

There were 11 children in the Ball family in total. In 1991 three of them reported their father, Mr James Ball, to the police for indecently assaulting them whilst they were minors. As a result, Mr Ball was prosecuted, receiving a suspended prison sentence.

Mrs Barbara Ball was reportedly disgruntled when the allegations made by her children were publicised and she was of the opinion that they had been exaggerated. Mrs Ball therefore set about executing a Will which excluded the complainant children from any share of her Estate. The Estate was left to her eight remaining children and to one of Mrs Ball’s grandsons.

Mrs Ball died in 2013 without having made any further Will, leaving an Estate of £157,000. The three disinherited children challenged the Will advancing their claim under three heads at trial:

1.    Lack of Capacity;

2.    Undue Influence; and

3.    Reasonable Provision pursuant to the Inheritance (Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Lack of Capacity

Testamentary capacity is required when a Will is made, that is to ensure that the testator (the individual making the Will) fully comprehends the nature of the Will and the effect it will have. Challenging a Will on the basis of testamentary capacity is an extremely difficult claim, the starting point for which will be considering the deceased’s medical records, usually together with an expert report.

In this case the children accepted before trial that Mrs Ball had not been suffering from any physical or mental illness but instead based their argument on the view that Mr Ball had told Mrs Ball that he had not committed the above mentioned offences, which led to her disinheriting the children. The three children said that Mrs Ball’s mental state was impaired ‘in the sense that she was misled and… would not have reached those conclusions has she not been misled. Her state of mind was such that her capacity was lacking, because of the serious misapprehension under which she was labouring’.

However, there was evidence to suggest that Mr Ball had admitted to Mrs Ball that some of the allegations against him were true and the Court therefore held that Mrs Ball was not misled, which disposed of the lack of capacity argument.

Undue Influence

In order to establish that the Will was invalid for undue influence, the children would have to prove that Mrs Ball made the Will as a result of force or fear (through actual or threatened injury); or fraud (after being misled by some pretence) or undue influence (where her freedom of choice was overcome with intolerable pressure). Such claims are inherently challenging, not least because the main witness has passed away.

The children based their argument on the sole fact Mrs Ball disinherited them as a result of  their accusations against Mr Ball and she must therefore have been influenced by him. This was rejected by the Judge who found that ‘the evidence shows that her husband was not putting pressure on her, even though I have no doubt that she took his wishes…into account in deciding what to do’. In fact, the Judge found evidence Mrs Ball was the dominant partner in the marriage and that she ‘…was very strong minded, and it was very difficult to change her mind once it was made up’.

This strand of the children’s claim also failed. The Court considered that Mrs Ball was entitled to make the Will she had made and the fact others did not like her choice did not mean that she was unduly influenced.

Reasonable Provision pursuant to the Inheritance (Family and Dependants) Act 1975

The Court also rejected the claim for reasonable provision under the Inheritance (Family and Dependants) Act 1975. In order to succeed here, the children would first have to show that, objectively, the Will did not make reasonable financial provision for them in all the circumstances according to the relevant standard (there is a higher standard for spouses than for other applicants). Due to the fact that this is an objective question, the answer largely turns on financial evidence; it is not necessarily a question of whether the deceased acted reasonably or was morally right or wrong.

In this case the Court found nothing to suggest that Mrs Ball had not made reasonable financial provision for her children and no special circumstances to persuade the Court that Mrs Ball had failed to make reasonable financial provisions for her children’s maintenance. None of the children were considered to live “below the breadline” and they were no worse off than the remaining children and grandson who stood to inherit Mrs Ball’s Estate.

The Judge duly dismissed the claim from the three children and they were not entitled to any financial provision under their late mother’s Will.

Comment

Although this decision may come across as harsh, it serves as a useful reminder of the significant evidentiary hurdles in a claim against an Estate. The Court has no obligation to be sympathetic and it is clear the Court will assess each claim on a careful analysis of the facts and application of the relevant legal considerations.

The Wills & Probate Disputes Team at Leathes Prior recently represented a client in similar circumstances and, despite the reticent stance taken by the Court in Ball v Ball, the team secured a very favourable outcome for our client who received a significant sum on settlement. This therefore highlights that the outcome very much depends on the circumstances of each case and expert advice should always be sought to ensure proper representation.

If you wish to make a claim against an Estate, or need to defend such a claim, please do not hesitate to contact our Wills & Probate Disputes Team who can provide highly specialist advice.

A few years ago, I heard a speaker at a conference talk about ‘finding out what your people’s purpose is.’ It was a comment which has stayed with me ever since because I believe that if we truly understand our people, really know what drives them, what matters to them, then we will be able to engage, manage and work together much more effectively.

That which drives us, which propels us out of bed in the morning, will vary greatly as we are all uniquely, wonderfully different. But chances are that for many of us, that which matters to us, above all else, isn’t work. That’s not to say that what we do isn’t hugely satisfying and important, and indeed, integral to our being. But, rather there may well be a different motive behind all that we do –  be it our family, our hobby, our charitable interest, or a heartfelt ambition which has no correlation to our day job.

And yet, many employers don’t recognise this and instead expect employees to behave as if their number one priority is work. Some employers will expect their people to prioritise work, and its demands, above all else.

But they are missing the point. Because expecting employees to put work first creates dissatisfaction and demotivation. By creating cultures of long hours, where people are not empowered to bring themselves to work, by encroaching constantly on out of office times, by not giving people space to follow that which matters to them – be that attending a child’s sports’ day or doing voluntary work – creates frustration and ultimately, disengagement.

I am lucky. I love what I do – and in setting up The Engaging People Company, I have been able to marry my personal beliefs with my career. I want to make people happy, be it loved ones, friends, people I meet, people I work with, and myself. But behind that is a far bigger priority, a far deeper purpose – my family. Everything I do, I am doing for them.

And that’s what employers need to understand. And demonstrably too. Employers who get to know their people, understand what drives them, and who demonstrate respect for that which truly matters to the employee will create far better working relationships, leading to greater satisfaction, engagement, and productivity. Employers need to show that they understand what drives people – and empower them to fulfil their purpose, wherever feasible. Managing By Walking About allows employers to understand their people, create a dialogue and engender trust. And once managers understand that purpose, they need to be ready to support and empower their people to fulfil that through their management and engagement.

Employers should never create an expectation that work should be the priority, above all else, in an employee’s life. Because this will only lead to dissatisfaction, demotivation and possibly an employee departure.  

On the 24th November we saw the return of Norwich’s fourth Sync the City event, which took place in the beautiful setting of Norwich Cathedral. For those who have escaped the hype surrounding this event over the past few years, Sync the City, run by SyncNorwich, is a 54 hour event which brings together budding entrepreneurs with experienced business mentors and technology expertise. The lucky competitors start by taking part in a 1 minute pitchoff, where anybody can pitch an idea. The best ideas are taken forward and you hire a team on the spot! The teams then have from Thursday afternoon until Saturday evening (minus a few hours sleep) to make their ideas a reality. This is more than your average Hackathon. It’s a three day frenzy of start-up building where the winning team can potentially win £4,000 in cash prizes (£3,000 judges’ winner and £1,000 people’s choice), as well as sales training from Sandler Training and one year associate membership of Norfolk Network. Not only that, but last year’s winners, SenLab, who took their Sync the City idea forward, went on to secure around £300,000 worth of funding in their first round of pitches; turning 18 year old computer science student George Davis into Group Chief Executive.

I chatted to our one of our Software Developers, Henri, and Software Apprentice, Jack, who took part for the first time this year, to find out how they found the experience.

What were you expecting from Sync the City?

We were slightly apprehensive. We pictured a really tense environment with lots of serious people doing serious work. But we were also worried that our skill set might not match up to that of the rest of our team and we might not be able to contribute all that much.

What were your overall impressions of the event?

In the end it was really enjoyable. We ended up with a great team who were all really friendly and that meant that everything was very open. They were accepting of everyone’s different skill sets and everyone was given the chance to put their ideas forward. And, even though not everyone had experience of presenting, we were all asked if we’d like to give it a go when it came to doing the final pitch and given the opportunity to challenge ourselves.

Can you tell us what the idea behind your startup was?

Our idea was for a type of social network that encourages face-to-face meeting. We named it “Jolli Good” and it was actually tailored toward lonely people and encouraging community involvement. You start by posting the words “Who wants to…” followed by something like “start a community allotment” or “go and see x film”. So the focus was really on finding people near you who are free at the time and who aren’t already in your social network or Facebook friends list.

Who was on your team?

There were 9 people on our team from various backgrounds. Our Team Mentor, Brian, was a developer from Earthware, a digital consultancy who design apps and websites. And then there were 3 people from Liftshare, another aspiring developer from Norwich City Council and a Design student from the UEA.

What aspects of the project were you responsible for?

We were both responsible for developing a prototype for the frontend, but we had to focus on the elements which would make it easiest for the rest of the team to pitch and for people to understand the concept.

What was the most exciting / challenging aspect of the event?

When we had to scrap the original plan about 8pm on Friday night and start again with a whole new concept. We definitely had to work hard from then onwards to meet the deadline.

What would you do differently next time?

We probably could have driven our own ideas into it more from a developer perspective and managed the rest of the team’s expectations a bit better in terms of what we could get done in the timeframe. And never again will we try to shove new ideas into the build 15 minutes before the technical demo; only to mess up the code so that we were worried we weren’t going to have anything to show at all!

What did you think of LoneSafe’s winning project?

They had a great pitch and a really nice idea for a system for keeping workers safe, which would probably have a wide ranging social impact if it was developed.

Have you caught up on sleep yet?

Just about. We only had about 3 hours sleep one night.

Would you do it again?

Definitely!

Photos by Tim Stephenson Photography

Words by Hollie Shooter

A 20 year-old cyclist has recently been acquitted of manslaughter, but alternatively found guilty of ‘wanton or furious driving’, after a 44 year-old woman died having been struck by the cyclist on his bicycle in February last year when crossing the road in East London. It should be noted that this appears to be the first occasion a cyclist had been prosecuted for manslaughter in such circumstances. Causing bodily harm by ‘wanton or furious driving’ is an offence under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This historic piece of legislation is still used in criminal courts up and down the land, being the basis of the offences of actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm, and wounding. Such an offence encapsulates being in charge of any kind of vehicle or carriage, including bicycles. At the time of the incident the cyclist was riding a Planet X fixed wheel bike which he purchased during the preceding month. The bicycle was designed for riding in a velodrome, thus not lawful for use on the road without first being modified to add front brakes. Having no front brakes on a pedal cycle (with a saddle more than 63.5cm from the ground) on a public road is an offence in itself in accordance with regulation 7(1)(b) The Pedal Cycle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1983, however in this case the prosecutors took the unprecedented step of charging the individual concerned with manslaughter, which carries a maximum life sentence. Crash investigators who studied CCTV of the incident concluded the cyclist would have been able to stop and avoid the collision if the bike had been fitted with a front brake. Posting online after the incident, the cyclist described how he warned the individual twice to get out of the way. He went on yo state: “It is a pretty serious incident so I won’t bother saying oh she deserved it, it’s her fault. Yes it is her fault but no she did not deserve it…Hopefully, it is a lesson learned on her behalf, it shouldn’t have happened like it did but what more can I say.” The alternative offence for which the cyclist was ultimately convicted carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The cyclist will be sentenced at the Old Bailey on 18 September 2017, with Judge Wendy Joseph QC commenting that a custodial sentence is a distinct possibility. Judge Wendy Joseph QC, in her closing remarks, also stated: “If you want to rely on remorse, I am bound to say I haven’t seen one iota of remorse from Mr Alliston at all – at any stage.” This case has led to suggestions that cyclists who cause incidents should be subject to the same or equivalent offences as those charged against drivers. Whilst collisions between pedestrians and cyclists are comparatively much rarer and less likely to result in serious injury than collisions between pedestrians and motorists, serious incidents evidently still occur. A report compiled by Cycling UK claims that, in the period between 2005 and 2015, 32 pedestrians were killed in collisions with cyclists. If you have any questions on anything covered in this article, contact our Criminal Defence Team on 01603 610911.

For over 5 years, Abate Pest Management has been servicing Bretts Transport’s 170,000ft2 ambient warehouse at its Guyhirn Distribution Centre in Cambridgeshire. Simon Brett, Managing Director has praised Abate for the services that they carry out to the required BRC requirement. He then asked if he could have some help at his private residence. Simon has had an issue with birds at his house for some time. Pigeons were roosting at various places and depositing pigeon guano over window ledges, brickwork and onto the drive. He had tried several different methods to resolve the situation but didn’t have much success. We advised that bird gel would be a great solution. Gel systems are a physical barrier to discourage birds from landing on buildings. The gel is applied to ledges and ridges in small pots. To the birds, the gel distorts their landing patterns and this discourages them from perching. It was later found that a gel solution had been tried before but not installed correctly making it ineffective. We also recommended a spike system for a certain area of the property which consisted of strips of plastic spikes that again provide a physical barrier preventing birds from landing. They are a cost effective and adaptable solution that can be used on a wide range of buildings. We cleaned down by soaking the affected areas with water and an anti-bacterial agent to prevent the creation of dust whilst cleaning all the guano. Our technicians then applied the gel and spike solutions throughout the necessary areas of the property. Simon said, “It was like magic.  The birds instantly disappeared and haven’t been seen since the work was carried out”.  Jon Blake of Abate said “Bird control isn’t just for commercial buildings. At Abate we create a bespoke solution for the type of bird problem and the property concerned. There are several solutions that we use to eradicate bird problems. Every property is different.  We conduct a detailed survey to identify the best solution to use which may be based upon the age of the property; if it is listed and where the bird problems are taking place. To see all of the different proofing solutions, check out the bird control page on our website.”

Give the gift of Park Farm Hotel. Whether it be for a birthday, special occasion, Christmas or just to let someone special know you care. Give them a Hotel voucher to enjoy the finest hospitality Norfolk has to offer.

Enjoy a generous 10% saving from your total order when purchasing hotel vouchers online. Just use this discount code upon check out chamber2017

Vouchers available:

• Afternoon Tea
• Spa
• Dining
• Accommodation

Head to → www.parkfarm-hotel.co.uk/shop