Will the G.L.O.V.E. Become the Next Taser?

Posted by

Photo of Kevin Donoghue Solicitor Advocate and specialist in civil actions against the police. In this blog post he considers if the G.L.O.V.E. will become the next Taser.

By Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate and Founding Director at Donoghue Solicitors

I have spent the best part of 25 years holding police forces to account for the force they use against the public.

My successful clients include Edwin Afriyie, who won his case at the Court of Appeal after being unlawfully tasered by a City of London Police Officer.

So, when a new use-of-force device starts making headlines abroad, I notice. This one is called the G.L.O.V.E. – an acronym for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter.

Catchy.

This new device deserves the same scrutiny I have applied to Tasers. Let’s dive in.

What is the G.L.O.V.E.?

As you can see in the video below, the G.L.O.V.E is essentially a pair of gloves that can deliver an electric shock through direct skin contact. It is more formally described as a “wearable conducted electrical weapon device”.

The manufacturer, Compliant Technologies of Kentucky, USA, describes it as a “CD3” device. Another acronym. This one stands for “Conductive Distraction and De-escalation Device” and is, they claim, a “Force Multiplier” which “operates within the Force Continuum as “The New Protocol in Peace Keeping”. (What a word salad that is.)

How Does the G.L.O.V.E. Work?

In this article, the author describes how each G.L.O.V.E. is activated by pressing the on/off button on top of the glove. Then, the two conductive electrode pads in the palm side of the glove deliver an electrical pulse when laid on the subject/ victim. According to the manufacturer’s user manual, the current model (CT-G5) runs at 324 – 362 volts, delivering roughly 30 pulses a second.

The company says the weapon causes “neuro peripheral interference”: involuntary loss of muscle control and significant pain, enabling the G.L.O.V.E. wearer to subdue the subject person.

The manufacturers caution that:

  • no more than two (one pair or equivalent) of G.L.O.V.E. devices should be applied at one time to a single subject.
  • no more than 15-second activation duration should be deployed
  • the device must come into contact with the subject’s skin, but it is not effective through clothing or hair. This means that it can be less effective on “individuals or animals that are extremely hairy”.
  • it will function through soaked thin clothing layers (eg. T-shirts, thin blouses, etc) but can’t be immersed in water
  • it should not be used around flammable substances.

Helpfully, the device records “thousands of (activation) events”, which may be useful in subsequent civil/ criminal cases.

How Does It Compare to a Taser?

The key “selling point”, if there is one, about Taser weapons is that they are meant to enhance police officer safety. Officers can keep their distance, as the taser barbs travel between 15-45 feet (4.57-13.72 metres) depending on the model.

By contrast, the G.L.O.V.E. is literally hands-on, and must be used in close quarters, where the risk of secondary injury to both victim and officer is greater. For example, Edwin Afriyie suffered secondary injuries when he was effectively paralysed by the Taser. He banged his head on a stone ledge as he fell, causing serious, and entirely avoidable, injuries. I can only imagine the outcry if a desperate victim wrestled the G.L.O.V.E.s off a police officer’s hands and used them to shock the officer instead.

An image of the G.L.O.V.E. conducted electric weapon device.

The G.L.O.V.E. (Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter) is a wearable conducted electric weapon device that looks like a pair of ordinary work gloves.

Also, as you can see in the image above, unlike a bright yellow Taser, the G.L.O.V.E.s look like an innocent pair of heavy work gloves. It is unlikely that a subject/ victim would know that the gloves an officer was wearing could give them a painful, paralysing shock. (I suggest that even changing their colour to Taser yellow would not be enough.) That makes this particular use of force problematic when used as a safety, rather than pure compliance tool, as officers would have to explain how the G.L.O.V.E. works to someone who may not be in a fit state to absorb the information.

But I would make the same point I make about Tasers: a “less lethal” weapon is not a low-risk weapon, it is simply a weapon whose harm is harder to see and prove. The Instagram video below shows it in action. It should be noted that the demonstrator is using only one glove, reducing the effect considerably. He also operates it on grown men, when, as I will show later, the device has also been used on children.

(I suspect Eminem was not asked for his permission to use his music.)

As the chief of the Cape Girardeau Police Department in southeastern Missouri said, “It hurt a lot. I went down to my knees. I couldn’t think of anything other than I wanted the pain to stop.” (It should be noted that, despite that experience, this officer supported their use and his police force owns between 15 and 20 pairs of the gloves.)

Experiencing this level of pain is not a minor irritant. It is pain compliance by another name, and I have represented enough clients injured by “less-lethal” devices to know that the marketing and promotion of these weapons is out of touch with reality.

To be fair, it should be noted that the manufacturers explicitly say:

The G.L.O.V.E. SHALL NOT be deployed for any of the following:

  • Verbal defiance or belligerence

  • Punishment

  • Torture

  • Horse play

Whether police forces and officers take that advice is another thing completely.

Who Is Already Using This Technology?

More than 50 US police departments across roughly 20 states already use the device.

Prisons, hospitals, and, most worryingly of all, schools are buying and using them. As this report notes, people at an Omaha, Nebraska school board meeting pushed back against their use:

Parents and students talked about fears that the shocks could cause heart problems, or that children with autism or other disabilities could be perceived as causing trouble when they are having emotional issues.

Despite such concerns, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in America has ordered $20 million worth, meaning that they will soon become a common tool for federal officers in all 50 states.

What Does UK Law Say About Use of Force Technology Generally?

The G.L.O.V.E. would be considered a use of force device in policing. The Court’s judgment in Mr Afriyie’s case against City of London Police contained several important points about these devices, which include tasers, some of which other victims have used in their cases. These include:

  1. reminding the police and public that a Taser is a firearm, and classed as a prohibited weapon under section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968. It is not merely a “stun gun” as the police like to call it.
  2. noting that tasers should not be used as a “compliance tool”, and quoting the police’s own guidance which says that:

“Taser should only be used as a proportionate response to an identified threat. It should not be used to simply gain compliance with instructions or procedures where compliance is not linked to such a threat or where a threat has been reduced to such an extent that Taser use would no longer be proportionate. The duration of the initial discharge and any subsequent discharge must be proportionate, lawful, accountable and absolutely necessary (PLAN).”

The Afriyie case also set an important extra task for judges considering use of force cases: even if they find that subjectively the officer had a genuinely held belief that he or she was justified in using such force, the court must also consider objectively if the use of force was reasonable in the circumstances.

This two-stage test must be followed in all cases involving use of force in the Court of Appeal and all other lower courts when considered by judges hearing similar cases.

By now this crucial extra step should have found its way into official guidance and training.

How Would the G.L.O.V.E. Specifically be Viewed by UK Courts?

To their credit, the G.L.O.V.E. manufacturers promote following official guidance in their user manual. It says:

Any use of force, including CD3 deployment, may cause or contribute to death or serious injury. Follow your agency’s guidance and policies when dealing with medically compromised persons.

Various Agencies are called upon daily to deal with the general public. Sometimes the response is to individuals in various states or mind, or emotion and often times under the influence of some form of drug or alcohol. These individuals may also have underlying medical conditions that may or may not be easily discernable with casual observation and thus may be susceptible to an arrest-related death.

When dealing with suicidal individuals, be sure to follow your agency’s polices, TTPs and other related protocols when dealing with these subjects.

(my emphasis)

They also advise that:

Compliant Technologies recommends avoiding use of these devices on the following higher risk portions of the population:

  • The elderly

  • Small children

  • Pregnant women

  • The severely handicapped

And yet, despite these warnings, “Compliant Technologies does not consider CD3 Technology to be a weapon due to the low electrical current deployed.”

But this is a device that inflicts a 300+ volt shock. I expect that a UK court would disagree and find that it is a weapon under the Firearms Act, not merely a de-escalation tool. Even selling it in the UK might be problematic, as Amnesty International notes:

Electric-shock weapons are prohibited under The Trade in Torture etc. Goods (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and current Government export control guidance clearly states that all trading activity, including promotion and marketing of these goods anywhere in the world, is prohibited.

Are UK Police Forces Looking at G.L.O.V.E.s?

Despite Amnesty’s warnings, a UK company called The Squad Group describes itself as the UK and Ireland partner for the G.L.O.V.E. and demonstrated it at the Emergency Services Show. According to the show’s website:

The Emergency Services Show attracts a unique audience of over 12,000 key buyers, decision-makers, and frontline experts from the entire blue light sector—including police, fire & rescue, ambulance, search & rescue, and voluntary/support organisations.

The promotion of this product at a trade show targeting police forces should be taken seriously. It is likely that The Squad Group has contacts and credibility in the law enforcement community because it is run by three former police officers including Matthew Nicholls, former Assistant Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Constabulary.

As far as I know, no force has publicly confirmed a trial…yet.

When America Sneezes..?

Tasers arrived in UK policing on the promise that they were a “less lethal” option to deal with dangerous situations.

Two and a half decades and one Court of Appeal judgment later, we know that promise came with a cost: disproportionate use against Black, Asian and minority ethnic people, serious injuries, and, in many tragic cases, death.

I have no interest in scaremongering. But I hope that if the G.L.O.V.E. ends up (literally) in the hands of British police, it arrives with proper vetting, training, and a legal basis for its use that has been tested. Given that the police operate only with the consent of the public, that is the least we deserve.

 

Kevin Donoghue is the founding director of Donoghue Solicitors, a Solicitor Advocate, and winner of the 2025 Liverpool Law Society Outstanding Lawyer Award for his groundbreaking work in the niche of civil actions against the police. Contact him here.

 

 

Notes from the Donoghue Solicitors FC Football Tour

Posted by

By Kevin Donoghue, Club Chairman, Donoghue Solicitors FC

As some readers will know, outside of my day job as a Solicitor Advocate, I am also Club Chairman, FA-accredited Welfare Officer, and Coach of Donoghue Solicitors FC, a group of football teams playing in the Bootle Junior Football League.

Recently, we took our Under-13s football team on a tour to Holland to train with coaches at PSV Eindhoven and take part in competitive fixtures.

This is how it went.

What happened?

The football tour, organised with help from Inspiresport, took place between 5-9 April 2026.

On Sunday afternoon we took a coach to Hull and boarded an overnight ferry to Rotterdam. The journey both ways was smooth and, thankfully, no one got seasick!

We arrived in Rotterdam at 8am on Monday, transferred to our hotel in Helmond, and quickly headed over to PSV Eindhoven’s training facility at De Herdgang.

To say we were impressed would be an understatement. PSV are this year’s Eredevisie champions (more on that later) and to see where elite players train and spend their time outside of matchday was a real eye-opener and motivator for all of us. As you can tell from the photo below, the pitches were immaculate: more like snooker tables than football fields!

The boys met the PSV coaches and took a 90-minute session, gleefully zipping balls around with real pace as they adapted to their new surroundings.

PSV’s coaches worked with our team’s coaches too (our ‘gaffer’ being Alan Occleston). As well as focusing on the fundamentals of football, we learned some new drills and systems which we’ll take into future sessions.

That evening our team played the first of two competitive fixtures. The first game was against EMK Eindhoven’s under-13s at Wettenseind, about 20 minutes from the hotel.

The bus trip on the way over was full of nervous tension. For the Donoghue Solicitors FC team, this was the first time they’d ever played a competitive match on foreign soil.  But we needn’t have worried. EMK’s coaches and players were welcoming and keen to play in the right spirit.

The game was competitive, but fair, and ended 5-0 to our boys. Afterwards, both teams and coaches got together to share drinks and talk about how it went.

Greeting PSV – 2025/2026 Eredevisie Champions

On Tuesday, we took the boys into Eindhoven to welcome the victorious men’s first team home. Two days’ earlier, PSV clinched their third Eredevisie title in a row with five games remaining, the earliest in league history. It was a special moment when we got to cheer on the team’s open-top bus as it passed by. As you can see from the video below, it was reminiscent of Liverpool’s title winning parade last year, but with better weather! PSV even have their own version of Jamie Webster playing an acoustic guitar and singing, “Allez, allez, allez!”

Tuesday was our busiest day. It also included another coaching session in the morning, golf, a game against local team (DOSL), all followed by bowling in the evening.

We won the game against DOSL 4-2, but it was a real nailbiter, in which we were ahead 3-2 going into the final minutes. The game ended after a sweeping counter-attack from our team which would be worthy of winning a Champions League final! Once again, our opponents and their coaches were wonderful with us. Everyone enjoyed their part in the game and parted as friends.

All three teams were a credit to their coaches and countries. Thank you to EMK and DOSL for playing your part in making the trip such a success.

Donoghue Solicitors FC Tour PSV Eindhoven’s Philips Stadion

Our last day included a final training session and tour of the historic Philips Stadion. No trip to a football stadium would be complete without a stop at the club shop where the boys picked up merch for their new favourite second team.

We headed home via the overnight ferry from Rotterdam, and got back into Liverpool, tired but elated, on Thursday.

Who attended?

We took a full squad to Holland: 15 players, including 2 goalkeepers.

Our super-star squad consisted of: Lennon Hargreaves, Phillip Donoghue, Toby Kay, Riley Ridout, Bobby Occleston, Henry Waugh, Austin Kyle Bews, Kurtis Marais, Elliot McQuade, Jake Blackhall, Jayden Foster, Cody Daniels, Oliver Martin, Seb McGiveron, and Finley McLean.

Eight parents came along to share the experience. Every one of them paid for themselves and gave up their own holiday/ free time. On behalf of the boys, I pass on grateful thanks to Tony Kay, Daniel Ridout, Ella Ridout, Liam Waugh, Anthony Bews, Lee McQuade, Bethany Mason, Leroy Foster, and Barry Daniels.

Huge thanks go to the team manager, Alan, for leading the boys, both on the trip and back home!

Also, our Inspiresport rep, Melissa, was invaluable in making sure the trip ran smoothly.

Thank you to all the sponsors of the Donoghue Solicitors FC Football Tour

My firm, Donoghue Solicitors, allocated a large portion of the firm’s annual advertising budget to fund the tour and give back to our community. We paid logistic and associated costs, and a portion of each players’ expenses. But football tours are expensive, and not everyone could afford to go, so I reached out to the public for help. We all greatly appreciate the response from everyone who contributed to the crowdfunder, and in particular, these very generous sponsors and their organisations–

The boys also benefitted from amazing fundraising efforts with spot-the-balls, raffles, auctions, and a hilarious Bonkers Bingo Night (organised by Jamie McGiveron).

The trip would not have been possible without you all – thank you.

Positive impact

When club treasurer Daniel Fitzsimmons and I decided to organise the football tour, we had one thing in mind: to give the boys a positive, once-in-a-lifetime experience.

I’m sure they would all agree that aim was achieved. The boys (and their parents) were all on their best behaviour throughout and made sure that all the hard work we put in to planning and funding the tour was worthwhile. You made us proud.

On behalf of all our under-13s team players, thank you to everyone for making the trip so special.

As well as running and coaching local football teams, Kevin Donoghue is also a Solicitor Advocate and Director of Donoghue Solicitors.

No Comments

filed under: News

Did Wayne Couzens’ Shocking Crimes Change Policing?

Posted by

By Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate and Founding Director at Donoghue Solicitors

Photo of Kevin Donoghue Solicitor Advocate and Miriam Hide journalist. Kevin was interviewed by ITV News for a piece about how the police deal with abuse of authority for sexual gain since PC Wayne Couzens.

Kevin Donoghue Solicitor Advocate interviewed by journalist Miriam Hide for the ITV News Calendar programme.

It’s been five years since Metropolitan police officer Wayne Couzens brutally raped and murdered Sarah Everard.

This week, the ITV News Calendar programme reported on how police forces deal with abuse of authority for sexual gain within their ranks and what, if any, improvements have been made since 2021.

Miriam Hide, the journalist investigating the report, reached out to me because I have specialised in this niche area of law for over 25 years. I help victims of this serious form of police corruption get justice, compensation, and, if they want it, national media publicity to help others.

One of my clients, Shannon Mulhall, and I both agreed to on-camera interviews to raise awareness about this ongoing problem.

The interviews were very well done, and highlighted the following points:

Police Force Mistreatment of Abuse of Authority for Sexual Gain Victims Continues Unabated Despite PC Wayne Couzens’ Heinous Crimes

Miriam Hide asked for my perspective as a practising solicitor on how the police have handled abuse of authority for sexual gain, a “form of serious corruption” which “fundamentally betrays the trust that communities and individuals place in the police” since 2021.

(Police abuse of authority for sexual gain is also known as abuse of position for sexual purpose and abuse of power for a sexual purpose in official guidance and reports.)

Unfortunately, I could only report that my view from the frontlines is that there has been little to no change. Victims of police abuse of authority for sexual gain face the same challenges in 2026 as before 2021. These include barriers like:

  • difficulties accessing appropriate support
  • not being signposted to independent legal advice
  • extensive delays in investigating and pursuing this form of gross misconduct
  • facing costly litigation, which is often hard fought over many years and described by some clients as a form of re-traumatisation.

I can confidently say that I have received more of these enquiries than ever over the past five years. This suggests that messages about the seriousness of abuse of authority for sexual gain contained in official guidance from College of Policing, National Police Chiefs’ Council, Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) etc. are not getting through to the officers perpetrating such abuse, and their colleagues who witness but choose to ignore it.

Police Forces Use Local Investigations to Sweep Abuse of Power for a Sexual Purpose Cases Under the Rug

There are 43 territorial police forces (and 3 “special” forces – British Transport Police, Civil Nuclear, and Ministry of Defence Police) in England and Wales. The data provided by the IOPC for the ITV report showed that local investigations account for 70% of all cases reported by these forces.

Local investigations are the lightest form of investigation, conducted by in-house Professional Standards Departments. This lack of independence opens the door to investigators taking actions with one eye on protecting the force’s reputation. They can, in effect, “mark their own homework”. 

Both my clients and I have seen this first-hand. It does not inspire confidence in those immensely brave women who have come forward, or the wider public.

In-house local investigations ought to be reserved for low-level matters such as complaints or service issues, not abuse of power for sexual gain cases. I strongly believe that every one of these cases ought to be independently investigated by the IOPC.

No ifs; no buts; no exceptions.

It seems that the IOPC agrees. Their website says that they will consider abuse of power when deciding who should investigate allegations and that “violence against women and girls” is a core area of their work, deserving of special focus. If so, why are so many cases getting dealt with internally through local investigations?

Have Victims of Police Abuse Changed How They Handle It?

I have noticed two key changes since Sarah Everard’s story came to light:

  1. many more victims of police abuse of authority for sexual gain have contacted me directly to seek justice, accountability, and compensation
  2. the media are more willing to report on the issue, which has a positive impact by increasing confidence in those coming forward.

But, it’s not all good.

Unfortunately, the police complaint and civil claim processes remain stuck in the dark ages, which can make some survivors regret coming forwards. It is not uncommon to experience a hard fought, lengthy process to get justice. Some even suffer the re-traumatising effects of a cross-examination at the police officer’s misconduct hearing, or a civil trial. (Read one of my client’s experiences with the Metropolitan Police here.)

This needs to change.

Photo of the ITV Building in Leeds, Yorkshire.

The ITV building in Leeds, Yorkshire.

What Effect, if any, did the Angiolini Inquiry Have?

The Angiolini Inquiry was commissioned in November 2021. It had three parts:

  1. to establish a definitive account of the career and conduct of Wayne Couzens and identify any missed opportunities
  2. to establish if there is a risk of recurrence across policing, to investigate police culture, and to address the broader concerns surrounding women’s safety in public spaces
  3. to investigate the life of serial rapist, (now former) Metropolitan Police officer PC David Carrick’s life, vetting, misconduct known by colleagues, abuse of powers, and impact on victims.

The Inquiry reported on Part 1 in February 2024. It made various recommendations which will take a decade or so to have any real impact. The most important reforms needed are the cultural changes and the instances of officers reporting inappropriate behaviour by fellow colleagues.

For the moment, sadly, police officers continue to prey on vulnerable women. As Shannon Mulhall said in her ITV interview:

These officers are meant to be protecting the public. Well they’re not protecting the public because they’re not getting checked, they’re not getting looked into properly enough.

If they’re still walking our streets, still harming innocent people because they’ve got the power, it’s disgusting.

Watch the full report, including comments from Shannon and Kevin here.

A shorter piece of Shannon’s interview is here:


I am currently instructed in multiple cases which have occurred within the last 5 years involving police officers using classic grooming behaviour leading to sexual activity.

This means that, despite the tragic death of Sarah Everard receiving national attention, predatory officers still serve in the police and, seemingly, act with impunity.

Photo of Kevin Donoghue Solicitor Advocate who was interviewed by ITV News about police abuse of power for a sexual purpose cases.

Kevin Donoghue was interviewed by ITV News about police abuse of power for a sexual purpose cases.

Suggested Action Items to Deal with Police Abuse of Position for a Sexual Purpose

I urge the police to prioritise the following:

  • impose tighter vetting processes to weed out unsuitable officers before they come into contact with the public
  • more stringent and regular training of officers
  • more supervision and checks on officers, particularly of digital media and devices
  • change poor policing practices which heighten the risk of abuse. For example, I have lost count of the number of times I have heard about single male officers attending upon vulnerable victims of domestic violence or sexual offences who then go on to groom the victim
  • a top-down change in culture including officers challenging their colleagues’ misconduct
  • promote transparency in handling abuse of power cases because public confidence is harmed when police forces minimise its effects.

I am well aware that this is an ambitious list. But it is not unattainable. And, given that the police operate only by the consent of the public, it is the least we deserve.

Kevin Donoghue is the founding director of Donoghue Solicitors, a Solicitor Advocate, and winner of the 2025 Liverpool Law Society Outstanding Lawyer Award for his groundbreaking work in the niche of civil actions against the police.

Contact him here.

Kevin Donoghue wins the Liverpool Law Society Outstanding Lawyer Award

Posted by

By Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate

Photo of Kevin Donoghue with his Liverpool Law Society Outstanding Lawyer Award trophy.

Kevin Donoghue with his Liverpool Law Society Outstanding Lawyer Award trophy.

What a night!

I’m absolutely thrilled and flabbergasted to share that I won the Outstanding Lawyer Award at last night’s Liverpool Law Society Annual Dinner and Legal Awards.

As my colleague and fellow director Daniel Fitzsimmons described, an independent judging panel shortlisted four lawyers (out of a potential pool of more than 2,350) for the award.

I was delighted to make it that far and was not expecting to win given the calibre of lawyers in the group.

So, it was a fantastic surprise for me when I heard my name. I rushed up to receive the Award and, as you can tell from the photo below, was absolutely delighted with it.

Photo of Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate, receiving the Outstanding Lawyer Award from Liverpool Law Society President James Mannouch, and Kerry Greenwood of Miller Insurance.

Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate, received the Outstanding Lawyer Award from Liverpool Law Society President James Mannouch, and Kerry Greenwood of Miller Insurance.

Why I Won the Outstanding Lawyer Award

I founded Donoghue Solicitors nearly 15 years ago. Back then, I sketched out five founding principles which have guided me ever since. As you can read on our About Us page, they are:

  1. Donoghue Solicitors only represents claimants, never insurers.
  2. We treat our clients with understanding and compassion.
  3. Where possible, money is not an obstacle to justice.
  4. We recruit “the brightest and best” with a strong commitment to the highest legal, professional, and ethical standards.
  5. Donoghue Solicitors overcomes geographical restrictions by using technology.

Our commitment to these principles means that we have helped thousands of people throughout England and Wales get access to justice over the years.

I believe that this laser-focused approach on our founding principles was one reason why the Panel chose me for the Award.

It led to me taking a calculated risk by backing my client, Edwin Afriyie’s, case on a “no win no fee” basis through to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Mr Afriyie’s grit and determination mirrored my own, and those of his barristers David Hughes and Richard Clayton K.C. As a result, both Edwin, and society broadly, now benefit from clear guidance from the Court of Appeal about the police’s use of Tasers and how legal costs should be handled in “mixed claims”.

Creating new law in this way is rare and significant. It appears that the Judging Panel recognised that.

You can watch the video of me accepting the Award below:

Logo showing the Liverpool Law Society Outstanding Lawyer Award. Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate, received the award.

Why the Outstanding Lawyer Award Matters Within the Legal Community

Liverpool Law Society is one of the biggest and most influential Law Societies in the country. It is respected for the high-quality of its membership and has an important role lobbying government and regulators on behalf of its members and, by extension, their clients. The Society is one of the Joint V local law societies. Combined, they represent more than 15,000 legal professionals.

The Outstanding Lawyer Award is a way for Liverpool Law Society to demonstrate its values nationally and highlight the quality of lawyers working in the Liverpool and Merseyside region. “Enhancing the reputation of Merseyside as a centre for legal excellence” was a key requirement for the Independent Panel to consider. I am humbled that they felt I reflect that aim.

Photo of Donoghue Solicitors team at the Liverpool Law Society Annual Dinner and Legal Awards on 13 November 2025.

Donoghue Solicitors legal team at the 2025 Liverpool Law Society Annual Dinner and Legal Awards.

What the Award Means for Me and My Team

Even though my name is on the trophy, I wouldn’t have won it without the support of my fantastic team at Donoghue Solicitors. Much of the work lawyers do is ignored, and often criticised, by those outside the profession. It is gratifying that, within the legal community, our efforts have not gone unnoticed.

Thank you to every one of my colleagues for helping me do my best. This is truly a team award, and I dedicate it to them.

Kevin Donoghue is a Solicitor Advocate and Founding Director at Donoghue Solicitors.

 

No Comments

filed under: News

Liverpool Law Society Legal Awards – Donoghue Solicitors Shortlisted Again!

Posted by

 

Photo of Daniel Fitzsimmons, director at Donoghue Solicitors , who explains why his firm has been shortlisted for two Liverpool Law Society Legal Awards.

Donoghue Solicitors has been shortlisted for two Liverpool Law Society Legal Awards. Daniel Fitzsimmons explains why here. 

By Daniel Fitzsimmons, director at Donoghue Solicitors

I’m excited to share that my firm, Donoghue Solicitors, has been shortlisted for two awards in the prestigious 2025 Liverpool Law Society Legal Awards! We’re in the running for:

  • Outstanding Team Award (Dispute Resolution and Litigation)
  • Outstanding Lawyer Award for Kevin Donoghue.
Logo showing that Donoghue Solicitors has been shortlisted for the Outstanding Team Award (Dispute Resolution and Litigation) at the 2025 Liverpool Law Society Legal Awards.

Donoghue Solicitors is shortlisted for the Outstanding Team Award (Dispute Resolution and Litigation) at the 2025 Liverpool Law Society Legal Awards.

Why Liverpool Law Society Legal Awards Matter

Liverpool Law Society Legal Awards are a big deal in the profession. With over 2,350 members, Liverpool Law Society is one of the largest and most respected law societies in England and Wales. The Society, founded in 1827, takes these awards very seriously. It’s not a popularity contest; the independent judges select firms based on strict criteria and merit.

You can read the full list of nominated firms and lawyers on the Liverpool Law Society website.

Outstanding Team Award (Dispute Resolution and Litigation) – Donoghue Solicitors Shortlisted

Nominating firms and others were required to answer detailed questions and provide evidence to support their submissions. The judges were interested in several aspects of our litigation team’s profile and performance. Among other things, questions focused on:

  • Promotion of legal excellence in litigation in Merseyside and beyond taking into account, where relevant, obstacles that have been overcome.
  • Excellence, initiative and innovative thinking in legal tech, client service and/or delivery.
  • Excellence in teamwork, including examples of collaboration to achieve a common goal, working in the most effective and efficient way, problem-solving and decision-making.

The judges were impressed with how our litigation team presented itself. So much so that we were one of only four firms among the many member firms shortlisted in this category.

Photo of Kevin Donoghue and Daniel Fitzsimmons. Their law firm has been shortlisted for two Liverpool Law Society Legal Awards.

Daniel Fitzsimmons with Kevin Donoghue. Mr Donoghue has been shortlisted for the Liverpool Law Society Outstanding Lawyer Award.

Outstanding Lawyer Award – Kevin Donoghue Shortlisted

My colleague and fellow director Kevin Donoghue was shortlisted for the Outstanding Lawyer Award, a repeat of his achievement in 2023. Kevin was one of only four lawyers (out of a potential pool of over 2,350) shortlisted by the independent judging panel for the Award.

Again, the judges asked pointed and challenging questions to identify exceptional legal professionals, including:

  • Evidence of best practice in client service, technical skills, legal tech and/or leadership.
  • Innovation and involvement in interesting, challenging or new areas of practice including any specific cases of significance or contribution to the development of your area of law.

I can’t be sure what the judges thought because they met in private, but I believe that Kevin’s nomination stood out because he could answer this question in a unique way:

  • Evidence of outstanding performance and the significant impact the individual has had in raising their own, their team’s, firm’s or chamber’s profile and enhancing the reputation of Merseyside as a centre for legal excellence.

I believe it mattered that Kevin created new law with his client’s case of Edwin Afriyie, which has had a significant impact nationally. Mr Afriyie’s case succeeded in the Court of Appeal and clarified the law on police officer’s obligations when considering the use of Taser firearms. It also produced practical guidance on costs in “mixed claims” involving personal injury and other aspects. This means that the principles established in the Afriyie case extend beyond civil actions against the police.

While Kevin Donoghue is much too modest to brag about it, I’m glad for him that he has been shortlisted. Kevin, and everyone in our team, work so hard behind the scenes to help our clients get the justice and compensation they deserve. I’m thrilled that their hard work has been recognised.

Logo for Liverpool Law Society Outstanding Lawyer Award 2025. Kevin Donoghue, solicitor advocate, has been shortlisted for the award.

Kevin Donoghue is shortlisted for the Outstanding Lawyer Award at the 2025 Liverpool Law Society Legal Awards.

Judging Panel Comments

As the Society noted, the independent judging panel members were: 

“very impressed by the talented and industrious law firms and lawyers in the Liverpool City Region. The support provided by those working with vulnerable clients, offering outreach clinic and conducting pro-bono work, was substantial. A strong sense of community engagement was evident with many partnering with local charities, working with law schools to encourage new talent and opportunities, especially to under-represented groups. Our local lawyers attract national and international work and lead on the development of the law. It was difficult to produce a shortlist from all the fantastic nominees.  All should be very proud of themselves.”

2025 Liverpool Law Society Legal Awards Ceremony

I want to thank the Liverpool Law Society nominations panel, our clients, staff, and families for helping us get this far.

The awards will be presented at a black-tie ceremony on Thursday, 13th November 2025 at the Rum Warehouse, Titanic Hotel, Liverpool. As a thank you, Kevin and I will take everyone in our “Outstanding Team” to the event. We can’t wait!

 

Daniel Fitzsimmons is a director at Donoghue Solicitors, a Liverpool-based firm of civil litigation lawyers. Contact him here.

No Comments

filed under: News

How QOCS Arguments in Edwin Afriyie’s Case Created Legal Precedent

Posted by

Photo of Kevin Donoghue Solicitor Advocate. He explains how Edwin Afriyie's case helped establish QOCS costs protection legal precedent.

Kevin Donoghue Solicitor Advocate represented Edwin Afriyie. Here he explains how Edwin’s case helped establish legal precedent and was referred to in QOCS arguments.

By Kevin Donoghue Solicitor Advocate and director at Donoghue Solicitors

One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday was fact, today is doctrine.

-Dedication to the English Nation – The Letters of Junius. (1769-1771)

A High Court ruling issued by Mr. Justice Bourne on 28 July 2025 highlights the importance of legal precedent, especially when considering the thorny issue of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS).

The recently decided judgment is ALK & Anor v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police [2025] EWHC 1964 (KB). ALK extensively cited the Court of Appeal case of Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London [2024] EWCA Civ 126. (I represented Mr. Afriyie from start to finish in his civil action against the police.)

The judgment is noteworthy because it shows how:

  1. lawyers rely on legal precedents to make arguments; and
  2. judges use that information to make decisions.

Crucially, it also:

  • helps victims of police misconduct understand QOCS; and
  • gives clients and their lawyers valuable insight to help manage litigation risk.

What is Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS)?

Mr. Justice Bourne defined QOCS as:

“automatic costs protection which ensures that claimants with a claim for damages for personal injury, whether they win or lose, do not emerge from the proceedings with an adverse costs liability. The rationale for its introduction was a perceived risk that costs risks would deter injured people from claiming compensation.”

The legal basis for QOCS costs protection is laid out in the Civil Procedure Rules 44.13-44.16. (Click on the link to read the rules.)

Three things to note about QOCS protection is that it:

  1. is a relatively new area of law. It was introduced as part of “the Jackson reforms” on 1 April 2013;
  2. only applies in cases with personal injury, in whole or in part. Cases with personal injury and other elements, such as Human Rights or trespass claims, are known as “mixed claims”; and
  3. is discretionary in mixed claims. Usually, the judge hearing the case decides whether QOCS costs protection applies in mixed claims and, if so, to what extent.

The combination of these factors means that QOCS protection is routinely challenged by defendants when a claimant fails to prove their claim. This is because, if QOCS costs protection is successfully disapplied, defendants can recover some, or all, of their costs from the claimant.

What Was the QOCS Issue in ALK & Anor v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police?

Both claimants in ALK brought civil actions against Surrey Police for compensation. They sought damages for false imprisonment, battery, and trespass.

Unfortunately for the claimants, they failed to prove their claims after a five-day trial before HHJ Judge Simpkiss in January 2024. The police force defendant sought a contribution towards its costs.

Considering this, the court noted that the claims included non-personal injury elements. Accordingly, they were treated as “mixed claims”. The judge chose to disapply full QOCS costs protection, applying the mixed claim exception under CPR rule 44.16. He ordered that the claimants pay 70% of the police’s costs.

The claimants appealed this order on the basis that the judge had erred in law by applying the mixed claim exception. This resulted in an appeal before Mr. Justice Bourne on 2 July 2025.

What Happened at the Appeal Hearing?

Mr. Justice Bourne heard submissions from the parties’ barristers, George Murray (representing ALK and ECN, the claimants/ appellants), and Adam Clemens (representing the defendant/ respondent). Both sides agreed that the:

  1. claimants brought substantive personal injury claims which were not “tacked on” purely to seek QOCS protection
  2. claims included non-personal injury elements, so were rightly viewed as mixed claims. This meant that QOCS protection was in the judge’s discretion under CPR rule 44.16
  3. starting point when considering QOCS is complete costs protection for claims properly characterised as personal injury claims “in the round”.

After that, each side sought to advance their position:

  • the claimants/ appellants argued that, even though they pursued mixed claims, they were personal injury claims “in the round”. As such, they were entitled to full QOCS protection despite the discretion to disapply it
  • the defendant/ respondent argued that HHJ Judge Simpkiss did not err in law. They agreed with the judge that the claims were not personal injury claims “in the round”, so that his discretion applied and was properly exercised. Following the legal precedent in Jeffreys v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] EWHC 1505 (QB), it was appropriate that, without QOCS costs protection, the police were entitled to recover 70% of their costs from the claimants.

Having considered both sides, Mr. Justice Bourne allowed the claimants appeal. He found that HHJ Judge Simpkiss erred in law by exercising the discretion. The claimants were granted complete QOCS costs protection.

Why Edwin Afriyie’s Case is Important to the Wider Community

Courts and lawyers rely on legal precedent. Previously decided cases form the “common law” which, along with Parliament-made law, help establish and maintain our system of justice.

Edwin Afriyie’s case contributes to the canon of common law because of the facts, legal arguments, and judicial findings. While it is vitally important in the niche area of civil actions against the police, it has wider implications for other cases involving mixed claims, such as road accident credit hire claims.

Why Mr Afriyie’s Court of Appeal Ruling Matters

Initially, in 2023, High Court judge Mrs. Justice Hill DBE found that Mr. Afriyie failed to prove his claim against the City of London Police. With my help, he overturned that judgment and succeeded in the Court of Appeal in 2024.

The fact that Edwin’s case was ultimately decided in the Court of Appeal matters. It is the second highest court in England and Wales, below only the Supreme Court. As a result, the Court of Appeal’s decisions bind all lower courts, including all High Courts and County Courts. (I expect that this was one reason why the lawyers in ALK referenced it.)

Because of its national significance, Mr. Afriyie’s case continues to serve two purposes for the legal community and society more broadly. It:

  1. affirms police officers’ obligations when considering Taser firearm use. This helps police forces and their trainers develop guidelines and set standards. It also helps determine liability in cases involving Tasers. (Read the 2024 Court of Appeal judgment for details.)
  2. clarifies if, and how, QOCS costs protection applies to mixed claims, especially in cases involving civil actions against the police. This was point was addressed by Mrs. Justice Hill DBE in the High Court following written submissions. (Read her judgment here: Afriyie v Commissioner of Police for the City of London (Re Costs) [2023] EWHC 1974 (KB).)

How Afriyie Helped Clarify QOCS Protection in Mixed Claims

After Mr Afriyie failed to prove his claim in the 2023 High Court trial, Mrs Justice Hill DBE reviewed the police’s position that full QOCS protection should not apply. They argued that, because Mr Afriyie’s claim included non-personal injury elements, including misfeasance in public office, aggravated, and exemplary damages, they were entitled to 25% of their costs.

The Judge dismissed those claims, correctly finding that Mr Afriyie’s claim was a personal injury claim “in the round” and that there were no “exceptional features” of the non-personal injury claims to justify disapplying full QOCS protection.

It is important to note that the police did not appeal Mrs Justice Hill DBE’s finding that QOCS protection applied in full in Mr Afriyie’s mixed claim. Consequently, despite not coming from the Court of Appeal, her judgment and reasoning carry weight.

The Basis of the “In the Round” Precedent

Considering personal injury claims “in the round,” while not a statutory provision, is helpful because the idea is based in legal precedent. It was first advanced in the previously decided case of Brown v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1724. In that judgment, Coulson LJ said:

57 But in such proceedings, the fact that there is a claim for damages in respect of personal injury, and a claim for damage to property, does not mean that the QOCS regime suddenly becomes irrelevant. On the contrary, I consider that, when dealing with costs at the conclusion of such a case, the fact that QOCS protection would have been available for the personal injury claim will be the starting point, and possibly the finishing point too, of any exercise of the judge’s discretion on costs. If (unlike the present case) the proceedings can fairly be described in the round as a personal injury case then, unless there are exceptional features of the non-personal injury claims (such as gross exaggeration of the alternative car hire claim, or something similar), I would expect the judge deciding costs to endeavour to achieve a ‘cost neutral’ result through the exercise of discretion. In this way, whilst it will obviously be a matter for the judge on the facts of the individual case, I consider it likely that, in most mixed claims of the type that I have described, QOCS protection will – in one way or another – continue to apply.”

(My emphasis in bold here and throughout.)

How the Lawyers in ALK Used Mr Afriyie’s Case

As you can see from this extract from the judgment, in ALK, a large part of the court’s time was taken up with submissions from both sides relating to Edwin Afriyie’s case. It was highly relevant to the:

  1. circumstances of the ALK case (a civil action against the police involving personal injury and other claims)
  2. arguments on costs (whether QOCS protection applies to mixed claims and, if so, to what extent.

Remember in the following exchange that Mr Clemens represented the police, and Mr Murray the claimants:

  1. Mr Clemens emphasized that Afriyie, unlike this case, arose from physical acts i.e. tasering which caused the claimant to fall and suffer injury, and handcuffing. All of the issues about motivation and misfeasance were concerned with those acts. There was a live issue at trial about the extent of any injury and various experts were relied on by the claimant to deal with personal injury issues.

  2. Finally Mr Clemens submitted that the QOCS regime was not intended to capture police cases of this kind, where claimants may elect a trial by jury which is liable to increase costs.

  3. In answer to a question from me, Mr Clemens said that it was not contended that this was a case where a spurious personal injury claim was “tacked on” in an attempt to obtain costs protection.

  4. Mr Murray responded on those last two points, contending that Afriyie was not materially different because in a personal injury claim there is no material distinction between physical and psychiatric harm, and pointing out that police cases could have been excluded from the QOCS regime but were not.

How Mr Justice Bourne Viewed the Afriyie Case

Mr Justice Bourne summarised Mr Afriyie’s case, and arguments about Mrs Justice Hill’s analysis of the QOCS regime, succinctly:

  1. In Afriyie v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2023] 1974 (KB) (“Afriyie”), police officers had used a taser on a claimant and handcuffed him. He claimed, unsuccessfully, for assault and battery and misfeasance in public office, seeking basic (i.e. non-PI) damages, damages for personal injury, special damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages. Finding that this too was “in the round” a PI claim, Hill J ruled that QOCS protection should be applied with no deduction. She noted in particular that the grounds for the aggravated and exemplary damages claims arose from the same actions of the police which gave rise to the PI claim, and in any event the issues about the behaviour of the police, including their truthfulness, had to be considered in order to decide primary liability.

In his Discussion, Mr Justice Bourne found that Afriyie was helpful because:

  1. Similarly, this case had in common with Afriyie the feature that claims for aggravated and exemplary damages depended on the same facts as the PI claim. But Afriyie was more obviously a PI claim because the “act which was at the heart of the case” (Hill J at [28] was what caused the alleged injury whilst subsequent conduct was more the foundation of the claims for aggravated and exemplary damages.

Consequently,

  1. In my judgment, the fact that – as the Defendant rightly agrees – this is not a case of “the … ‘tacking on’ of a claim for personal injury damages (regardless of the strength or weakness of the claim itself) … just to hide behind the QOCS protection” (Brown at [58]) is very important. These claims included an entirely viable head of loss consisting of personal injury which is not at all unusual in a claim for the torts which were alleged in this case, and which was supported by prima facie credible expert evidence. And, the personal injury head of loss would, or could be expected to, account for a substantial proportion of any damages that would be awarded if the claims succeeded.

  2. In those circumstances, I consider that it was an error to apply the discretion as to costs protection on the basis that this was not, in the round, a personal injury case. That therefore undermined the exercise of discretion by the Judge.

A Contrasting View of QOCS Costs Protection

By coincidence, only three days before the judgment in ALK, another judge found against a co-Claimant in Searson & Anor v Chief Constable of Nottingham Constabulary [2025] EWHC 1982 (KB).

There, the judge found that when two co-Claimants bring actions against the police, QOCS costs protection does not automatically pass to both claimants.

In that case, the court ordered the first Claimant to pay 100% of the police’s costs; the second Claimant had to pay 50% because they had a “mixed” claim. (It should be noted that neither side referred to Afriyie in their submissions.)

What the Recent Judgments Say About QOCS

In Mr Afriyie’s case, the City of London Police (somewhat desperately, one may say) also sought to disapply QOCS protection by arguing that Mr Afriyie was “fundamentally dishonest”. Mrs Justice Hill DBE dismissed this out of hand and gave clear, and unarguable, reasoning in her judgment when she found that QOCS costs protection applied in Edwin’s mixed claim. Sensibly, the police did not appeal this finding.

And yet, the two recent QOCS cases of ALK and Searson remind us that all court decisions depend on the circumstances of each case, and the views of the judge hearing them.

I expect that the police will continue to make QOCS arguments in cases where claimants fail to prove their mixed claims. There is a lot at stake. Costs in civil actions against the police often exceed £100,000 if claims go to trial. Unsurprisingly, the police seek to recover some, or all, of those fees. And, unlike individual claimants, the police are in a strong position to do so. After all, they have dedicated legal departments and virtually unlimited budgets courtesy of the taxpayer.

This inequality of arms means that, until the courts and/or government issue definitive guidance, claimants and their lawyers must be prepared for spurious QOCS litigation in civil actions against the police.

Why Legal Precedents Matter

Taking on the police is not for the faint-hearted. Claimants know that they are challenging the State, the most powerful institution in the country. (The police are an arm of the State with all the power and influence that affords.)

They also know that judicial and public sympathy often leans towards police officers, who are portrayed in the media and by their representatives as doing the best that they can in difficult circumstances.

And, as described above, the police have the deepest pockets of any party to court proceedings. This enables them to hire top quality lawyers. For example, in Edwin Afriyie’s case, the City of London Police used taxpayer money to appeal using two, highly paid, barristers to prepare their arguments, one of whom was former government Minister Lord Faulks, KC.

Lastly, the police, as an institution, have time on their side. Edwin Afriyie’s case took more than six years to resolve. His determination to see the case through meant that, in the end, he got the justice and compensation he rightfully deserved.

And, by taking matters as far as he could, Ed helped create legal precedent and new law which benefits us all. Relying on his case helped the claimants in ALK secure full QOCS costs protection. No doubt others will do the same.

For this, and for all the other brave claimants who bring genuine civil actions against the police, we should be grateful.

Kevin Donoghue is a Solicitor Advocate with over 25 years’ experience in civil actions the police.

Contact him here.

 

No Comments

filed under: News

Why I Took a Law Society Client Care Microcredential Course

Posted by

Photo of Daniel Fitzsimmons, a director at Donoghue Solicitors who recently earned a merit after studying the Law Society's Client Care microcredential.

Daniel Fitzsimmons explains why he invested his time and efforts in a Law Society Client Care microcredential here.

By Daniel Fitzsimmons, Chartered Legal Executive and Director at Donoghue Solicitors

I recently completed a Client Care Microcredential course provided by The Law Society of England and Wales. This was a discretionary course, which means that I was not required to do it.

But I wanted to because achieving success in the course will help me and my clients. This is why.

What is the Law Society of England and Wales?

Before talking about the course, and my reasons for taking it, it might be helpful to explain the Law Society’s role. The Society’s About Us page says:

We’re the independent professional body for solicitors in England and Wales. We’re run by and for our members.

We:

  • are the voice of solicitors
  • drive excellence in the profession
  • safeguard the rule of law
  • work to make sure no-one is above the law
  • protect everyone’s right to have access to justice

We:

  • promote England and Wales as the jurisdiction of choice

  • promote the vital role legal services play in our economy

  • work internationally to open up markets for our members

  • defend human rights at home and abroad

  • support members with career opportunities, providing networking events and development training.

That last point, about development training, is what led me to take the Client Care microcredential.

What are Law Society Microcredentials?

The Law Society offers various “learning options” to help lawyers maintain and improve their professional skills.  These include online classrooms, “bitesize training”, and “microcredentials”.

Microcredentials are “self-paced courses created and assessed by experts which cover the essentials of key subject areas”.

The Society presently offers microcredential courses targeted to lawyers who are at least intermediate level, so they are not suitable for all.

These courses enable lawyers to satisfy “competence” standards set by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. This is an essential requirement for lawyers when qualifying and renewing their annual practicing certificates.

What is the Client Care Microcredential?

The Law Society’s Client Care Microcredential course:

covers essential client care topics, underpinned by compliance requirements and good practice guidance for the legal sector. This course is self-paced with an interactive learning element, where you can engage with peers on issues in client care that are most relevant to you.

It helps lawyers satisfy the following SRA continuing competence standards. Specifically, it shows that lawyers who successfully complete the course:

  • Act honestly and with integrity, in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements and the SRA Standards and Regulations
  • Communicate clearly and effectively, orally and in writing
  • Establish and maintain effective and professional relations with clients
  • Establish and maintain effective and professional relations with other people

The course is offered only twice a year, and space is limited because every person who takes it has to be expertly assessed in seven modules:

  • Introduction to Client Care
  • Communicating effectively with clients
  • Developing a Healthy Solicitor-Client Relationship
  • Ethical Issues in Client Care
  • Wellbeing and Client Care
  • Handling Client’s Complaints
  • Teamwork and Client Care

There are strict deadlines and targets in place. To pass the microcredential,

  1. all modules must be completed within two months of the start date. Then
  2. the assessment must be filed by 5pm the following day.

You only get one chance to pass the assessment. Failure means re-taking the whole course again.

What Was My Experience of the Course?

Even though it was expected to take about eight hours, I found that the course took about two working days in total.

This is because each module took an hour or so to complete. And I was required to:

  • complete additional tasks such as “knowledge checks” to test and apply understanding. These questions set scenarios and asked how I would handle them
  • engage with other lawyers on the course through its system
  • prepare and submit the assessment, consider the assessor’s remarks, and review my learning.

What was the Assessment Like?

The final assessment was in the popular “open book” format.

The assessment comprised of four scenario-based, essay-style questions. It was a challenge to provide answers within the word limits. (Some were as short as 250 words, shorter than a tweet!). It was hard to provide in depth answers within the strict word limits.

I was very aware that I only had one submission attempt and had to get it right.

Once submitted, my answers were assessed by an expert and I received personalised feedback.

I was thrilled to learn that I passed and earned a “merit”. This allowed me to download and use the Client Care Merit Badge below:

Client Microcredential Merit Badge issued to Daniel Fitzsimmons, Director at Donoghue Solicitors, by The Law Society of England and Wales.

Daniel Fitzsimmons was awarded a Merit badge by The Law Society after completing the Client Care Microcredential course.

This “digital credential” badge is a quality mark from the Law Society and proves that I am “competent and compliant in core legal, professional and personal skills”.

Would I Recommend the Client Care Microcredential?

As a director of Donoghue Solicitors, one of my roles is to help my colleagues improve our service through their own learning. Having undertaken the course, I have recommended it to them and will assist them with any learning issues which may arise.

The client care microcredential drives home this vital part of legal practice. We have always been committed to client care; having the Law Society’s seal of approval show it.

Daniel Fitzsimmons is a chartered legal executive and director at Donoghue Solicitors. Contact him here.

 

How the Bail Information Service Could Help Those Involved in the Criminal Justice System

Posted by

 

Photo of Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate, who discusses how the HMPPS Bail Information Service could help those involved in the criminal justice system.

Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate and Director at Donoghue Solicitors, discusses the potential impact of the HMPPS Bail Information Service.

By Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate and Director at Donoghue Solicitors

One of the things I love about my job is learning new things. I have a genuine thirst for knowledge and am always on the lookout for information which could help my clients, many of whom are victims of police misconduct.

Recently, while working with the Criminal Practice Committee at Liverpool Law Society, I came across a briefing note which was issued by the Ministry of Justice. (I am an unpaid volunteer director of the Society and play an active role in various Committees to help represent the interests of the legal profession in Merseyside.)

The briefing note informs legal representatives about His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service Bail Information Service. This blog post offers a summary of the note’s contents and details how it could help defendants, the courts, criminal lawyers, and even the police.

What is the Bail Information Service?

The HMPPS (HM Prison & Probation Service) Bail Information Service supports the Magistrates’ and Crown courts by providing information to assist decisions about conditional bail for adults where access to the defendant is possible.

The Bail Information Service is now being rolled out nationally after a successful pilot which started during the COVID-19 pandemic. The government is recruiting Bail Information Officers to meet demand as you can see in this job advert.

What are Bail Information Reports?

The main role of the Bail Information Service is to complete bail information reports. HMPPS says that a Bail Information Report should:

“provide relevant, objective, and factual information to the court to enable it to make fully informed decisions about bail or custodial remand.”

Importantly, Bail Information Officers:

“do not advocate for or against bail but gather information to assist the court decision.”

Their reports are delivered orally or in writing and can be prepared quickly depending on the need for BASS (Bail Accommodation Support Service) or other accommodation referrals.

The government hopes that Bail Information Reports can be delivered within:

  • 30 minutes for non-BASS services
  • 2 ½ hours for assessments requiring a BASS or other accommodation referral.

The Service will be provided by probation court staff at first hearings, and prison-based staff at second and subsequent hearings.

How Will the Service Work?

Bail Information Officers will have the following duties:

  • work with the Crown Prosecution Service, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service, Defence advocates, Probation Service, police, and other agencies by identifying cases early and sharing information
  • interview defendants to gather important details
  • verify proposed addresses by talking to householders and making safeguarding enquiries with the police and local authorities
  • connect with support services and refer to NACRO-CAS for accommodation if needed
  • check with Home Office Immigration to confirm the legal status of foreign national defendants
  • prepare a written Bail Information Report or update courts verbally as needed
  • work with His Majesty’s Prison colleagues for bail applications.

How the Service Could Help Both Victims of Unlawful Detention AND Those Responsible For It

Often, through no fault of their own, my clients are detained wrongly at courts or prisons due to the unlawful acts of police officers and others with powers of detention, such as prison and court staff. This “false imprisonment” forms the basis of many civil actions against the police (or other detaining authorities) for compensation, as you can read on this page: The Law in Civil Actions Against the Police.

The Bail Information Service has the potential to streamline and accelerate the bail and custodial remand process. This should ease the burden on the State and wrongly-accused defendants by limiting the time spent in unnecessary and unlawful detention.

By doing so, it could also help those responsible by reducing the level of compensation they must pay for false imprisonment, psychological damage, and other losses. (Read about potential losses in police claims here.)

My Advice to Criminal Defence Solicitors

All parties to the criminal legal system must play a part for the Bail Information Service to work efficiently.

Solicitors on both sides have a key role because, crucially, the Bail Information Service can also be requested by defendant lawyers or the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) if they believe further information would be beneficial to the presiding Bench or Judge.

With this in mind, HMPPS requests that:

Legal Representatives:

Please liaise with probation court colleagues or prison bail officers at the earliest opportunity.  By identifying cases at the earliest possible opportunity, we will maximize the time available to seek out the necessary information that will support judicial decision-making regarding bail or remand decisions, including removing practical barriers to bail or signposting to community support services.

Please contact the Probation Service to get the contact details of your bail information officer and information on when the service will be available at your court.

General BIS enquiries:

Bail-information-service@justice.gov.uk

How I Can Help

My firm has represented thousands of victims of police misconduct over the years. Many have been referred by criminal lawyers, who work tirelessly in challenging conditions to make the criminal justice system function.

I invite criminal lawyers to contact me if they have any questions about potential civil actions against the police or other detaining authorities, especially where false imprisonment is alleged.

 

Kevin Donoghue is a Solicitor Advocate (Higher Courts- Civil) and has over two decades of experience in suing the police. Read more about him here.

 

No Comments

filed under: News

Abuse is Not in a Day’s Work

Posted by

Photo of Daniel Fitzsimmons, director at Donoghue Solicitors, who describes abuse received by his firm.

Daniel Fitzsimmons, Director and Chartered Legal Executive at Donoghue Solicitors.

By Daniel Fitzsimmons, Director and Chartered Legal Executive

Warning: this blog post contains offensive language.

Like every workplace, we deal with abuse occasionally, albeit rarely.

Sometimes it’s over the phone. Other times in emails. Very rarely in person, probably because “keyboard warrior” bullies tend to lose their confidence face-to-face.

An example of the kind of abuse we get came in emails one of my female colleagues received from someone who sought our help with a civil action against the police. This is what he said (in three separate messages):

It’s all about bloody money this case and evidence against the police is easy to win!! But it seems your only interested in is bloody money!!yr loss, and I’ve got my MP on my side sir nic dakin from Scunthorpe,u all need to be ashamed of yr self’s!!!! Greedy greedy greedy bye bye

Five fucking thousand go fuck yourself with a jagged bottle up your clitoris you fucking greedy bastards,!!!!

Hope you all rot in HELL

What did we do to deserve this abuse? We’re simply a firm of solicitors who represent claimants (never defendants) throughout England and Wales. We don’t work for polluting oil companies, big banks, or other bodies responsible for many of society’s ills.

Instead, we help “David beat Goliath” and have a proven track record of success at the highest levels, taking cases referred from other solicitors and matters less experienced firms can’t handle. For these, and other reasons, we receive thousands of requests for legal help every year.

While our sole purpose is to help members of the public get justice, unfortunately, we can’t help everyone. Let me explain how we work, so you can decide for yourself if the abusive email was justified.

Poster showing that abuse is not in a day's work at Donoghue Solicitors.

How we deal with new enquiries

This is what every person who contacts us for legal help receives:

  1. We try to make it as easy as possible for potential clients to find out if they have a case. Consequently, every new enquiry is taken free of charge. This means that we don’t charge for people to contact us via our website contact form or to phone our offices. In fact, the extra cost for calls made to our freephone number 08000 124 126 is paid for by us. (There may be data or phone minutes charges from phone or internet providers, but they are not something we can control or benefit from.) Nor do we charge for the work involved in reviewing new enquiries, which can take hours and involves hard work by skilled and experienced lawyers.
  2. Every enquiry for legal help is first reviewed by our New Enquiries Team which is led by me, a fully qualified Chartered Legal Executive. I take this role very seriously, because, as a director of Donoghue Solicitors, I know that the firm’s very existence depends on us taking, and succeeding with, genuine claims. I am also responsible for training my firm’s staff to make sure that every enquiry is properly considered. Where appropriate, I instruct my colleagues on the New Enquiries Team to follow up with potential new clients and ask for further information and documents in support. This can take multiple phone calls and/or emails, but sometimes that work is required to help us properly assess potential claims.
  3. When we are satisfied with the preliminary information we have obtained, every enquiry is considered by a qualified lawyer or group of lawyers (Solicitor Advocate and/or Chartered Legal Executives). Because of the importance of this exercise, and unlike some firms, only qualified lawyers perform new enquiry reviews at Donoghue Solicitors.
  4. Solicitors are generally free to accept or decline instructions. So, depending on the outcome of the review, we may, at our discretion:
  • advise that we need more information before recommending civil action, and offer to investigate the potential merits of the claim on a “private client” basis (where the client pays the investigation fees up front)
  • offer legal representation and discuss the various issues involved in pursuing civil legal actions, including the crucial issue of funding (click to read about “no win no fee”, private client, and other options)
  • decline instructions. This can happen for a number of reasons, as my colleague Kevin Donoghue explained, including that we do not consider the case has merit or that we do not have the capacity to take on new work. To expand on that, you may be aware that we are a small team (on purpose) of highly qualified and experienced lawyers. You can read more about us here. Our lawyers help with sensitive, emotionally draining, and time-consuming cases including sexual abuse compensation claims. It is important to us that every client receives outstanding service and that our lawyers are protected from “burn out”. Kevin Donoghue and I carefully monitor each lawyer’s caseload to make sure we can give our best to each client. Being at capacity as a firm is no reflection on the potential enquirer’s case; it just means we can’t take it.

If we can’t help, or the potential client doesn’t want to instruct us, we give them options including a link to the Civil Legal Advice website and phone number so they can explore alternatives.

What happened to cause the abusive response above?

I have thought about the abusive email my colleague received and whether we could have done anything differently. I have drawn a blank. We considered the enquiry from the person who sent it in the same careful way I describe above. This means that, at no charge to the enquirer:

  • we spent considerable time taking details and liaising with him
  • had a qualified and experienced actions against the police lawyer (me) consider the potential merits of the case. At the end of the review I determined that we needed more information before we could advise whether to pursue a civil claim against the police. This careful approach matters because cases can take years, are often defended all the way to trial, and, importantly, despite the common perception, “no win no fee” does not mean “free”. Read why here.
  • offered to do this investigative and advice work on a “private client” basis
  • invited the potential client to discuss what needed to be done and proposed a payment on account of £5,000, a reasonable amount in cases against the best funded and most powerful organisation of them all-the State and its agents, the police. We explained that this payment would be used only for legal costs and expenses, fully recorded and itemised with costs updates provided, and unused portions refunded if appropriate.

How we deal with abuse

Knowing how we dealt with the new enquiry, I hope you will agree with me that it is frankly bizarre that someone would send such an offensive, expletive-filled message in response to our proposal.

We offered to help as any other qualified professional would. No one gets upset when accountants, surveyors, or architects ask potential clients to agree the terms of work and payment to do it. Why should solicitors be any different?

Now ask yourself: would I put up with this sort of abuse?

No? Neither will we.

There are no excuses for the email we received. As the title of this blog post says: abuse is not in a day’s work.

As a director and employer, I have a duty to protect my staff and their mental health, and to make sure they are in a safe working environment. We use technology to prevent future contact. And, where appropriate, we report abuse to the police, who have sweeping powers to take criminal action which can result in fines, probation, and even jail time.

My message for those thinking about abusing my staff? Think again.

Daniel Fitzsimmons is a Chartered Legal Executive and leads the New Enquiries Team at Donoghue Solicitors. Contact him here.

 

Why I am Running to be a Director of Liverpool Law Society

Posted by

Photo of Kevin Donoghue Solicitor Advocate, who is running to be a director of Liverpool Law Society

Kevin Donoghue Solicitor Advocate is running to be a director of Liverpool Law Society. Read why here.

By Kevin Donoghue, Solicitor Advocate and Director at Donoghue Solicitors

On Thursday, 28 November, Liverpool Law Society will hold its Annual General Meeting.

The meeting, which will be at the Liverpool Racquet Club, is an opportunity for the Society’s directors, committee members, and 2,434 members to review the Society’s accounts, annual report, and other things. Importantly, it is when the members elect nine directors of the Society, who are also members of the General Committee, to serve three-year terms. Five members have already been re-elected. Six people have put themselves forward for the remaining four directorships. I am one of them. The others are:

  • Nichola Harris
  • Kate McEvoy
  • Laura Spence
  • Sally Stanway
  • Ian Townley

I am sure that everyone who has been nominated would do an excellent job. But this is why I invite members of the Society to vote for me:

1. The members want a director who is already well-known within the Society

I have been a member of Liverpool Law Society for over 20 years. I regularly take part in the Society’s various extra-curricular activities, such as the:

Through such activities I have been able to make, and develop, valuable connections and friendships with fellow members of the Society, including this year’s President Gaynor Williams.

I have also worked closely with the editorial team at the Society’s Magazine, contributing articles to help and inform, such as “Should You Qualify as a Solicitor Advocate?” in the October edition.

All this means that I can “hit the ground running” if I am appointed.

2. They want someone who can add something extra

I am not seeking to become a member to grow my social network or otherwise progress my career. I am happy with my status as a Solicitor Advocate and grateful to be a director of my own thriving law firm. Instead, I want to become a director to benefit the Society and its members, in part by relying on my experience in setting up, and running, my own firm.

I founded Donoghue Solicitors in 2010. You may remember that this was during the recession when bank funding was scarce, and insurers of new practices were cautious.

Despite these hurdles, I set up the firm and began practising from my dining room table. I grew it carefully and deliberately, with an emphasis on sustainability and financial prudence and the support of my fantastic colleagues. Today, we are a ten-strong team based at 25 Hatton Garden in Liverpool. Being “small on purpose” means we can concentrate on providing our clients with the highest quality service while supporting each other. As you can see from our Google reviews, our clients agree!

From the beginning I focused on our strengths and targeted the niche of representing claimants in their civil actions against the police. Within five years Donoghue Solicitors won the Liverpool Law Society Niche Law Firm Award, in part due to what the independent judging panel described as our:

“clear and significant commitment to widening access to justice.”

In running my own small firm, I have learned about management, finances, marketing, compliance, recruitment, training, and a thousand other things. I hope that my knowledge will benefit the Society and those members who may not practice “at the coal face”.

3. They want someone who reflects Liverpool’s values

I am an unapologetic scouser. I was born and bred in the city and have an enduring commitment to its people and core values of self-sufficiency, mutual respect, and support.

I frequently appear as a “talking head’ in national media discussing my work seeking justice for victims of police misconduct throughout England and Wales. There is no hiding who I am, where I’m from, or who I represent. Nor should there be.

I have always sought to better myself and my colleagues. To me, education is the key to self-determination. Like many of the Society’s members, I took the long way round to legal qualification. I first qualified as a legal executive, then a solicitor, and recently as a Solicitor Advocate.

I freely share my knowledge through training (having prepared and delivered training courses on actions against the police) and mentorship. I established my firm’s pathway to legal qualification, helping numerous aspiring lawyers qualify as legal executives by providing stable employment, course funding, mentoring, time off, and other support. This dedication to helping others, and encouraging my team to do the same, led to me being shortlisted for the Society’s Outstanding Lawyer Award in 2023.

Our commitment to the wider community continues outside of the office. We are involved in many charitable initiatives. For example, with my colleague Daniel Fitzsimmons’ help, I set up, manage, and run Donoghue Solicitors FC youth football teams in Bootle Junior Football league.

But, without doubt, my proudest achievement is as a husband to Stephanie, and dad to our three boys William, Phillip, and Rupert.

I look forward to attending the AGM on Thursday and invite the members to vote for me then.

Kevin Donoghue is a Solicitor Advocate (Higher Courts- Civil) and director at Hatton Garden-based Donoghue Solicitors. Contact him here.