Crime Statistics – Let the truth be told!

Published by Free Malaysia Today on 22 August 2012. FMT LETTER: From Veteran Cop, via e-mail.

...There are several types of crime where the classification can be manipulated from index to non-index. The maneuvering begins at the police district level which receives the report and subsequently transmitted to the State Police Headquarters and Federal Police Headquarters. The crimes which were manipulated are:

• Robbery cases under the Penal Code are classified as index crime. This offence will be classified as non-index under section 382 of the Penal Code. Since, section 382 of the Penal Code is a non-index crime, therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.
• Burglary under section 457 of the Penal Code is an index crime. This offence will be classified as non-index under sections 452 or 453 of the Penal Code. Since, sections 452 and 453 of the Penal Code are non-index crime therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.
• Causing hurt under sections 324 and 326 are index crimes. These offences will be classified under section 148 of the Penal Code. Since, section 148 of the Penal Code is a non-index crime therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics.

The under classification of the index crime to non-index crime runs into several thousand cases. Of course, by removing these cases from the crime statistics will reflect that the crime has gone down.

A simple way of ascertaining the extent of cases taken off from the index crime category for the purpose of reducing the crime statistics is by asking the police to provide the statistics of cases classified under sections 148, 382, 452 and 453 of the Penal Code since the implementation of the NKRA to date. Then a comparison should be made with the statistics of cases under the said sections in the last three years preceding the NKRA.

You will discover a sudden hike in the number of cases under those sections after the introduction of the KPI. This figure should then be compared with the figure of the same sections for the three years preceding the NKRA.  The result will confirm that for the period of three years prior to NKRA, cases classified under sections 382, 452 and 453 are almost nil and under section 148 may have only few reported cases. The number of cases recorded under the four sections for the 3 years after the NKRA minus the number of cases recorded for the 3 years before the NKRA will be the figure that has been manipulated.

Other factors that suppress the crime statistics during the NKRA period are:

• There are many cases under the index crime category that are not opened for investigation and were closed with no further action (NFA). These cases involve robberies, snatch thefts and burglaries. Police take no further action for the reason there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the matter if the suspect cannot be identified, the loss is minimal or there is no lead to proceed further. There are thousands of cases of this nature and since these cases are not opened for investigation, therefore, will not be reflected in the crime statistics. No profiling is done on these cases, but merely swept under the carpet. Without profiling then the trend, pattern, target areas and possible suspects could not be studied to address the recurrence of these incidents.
• There are also cases short-changed in order to achieve the KPI. Say, for example, in a particular day there are 10 cases of burglaries reported in a certain housing area. Only one case will be opened for investigation and the other nine cases will be cross-referred to the one case that was opened. For the 10 cases of burglaries, the statistics should be 10 cases of index crime. Since, there is only one case that was opened for investigation therefore the other nine cases will not be reflected in the index crime statistics.
• Dark figures (crimes not reported) are not factored into the crime statistics. There is a theory that for every 10 cases reported there will be one case not reported. People do not report crime when they have lost faith in the police. Lack of faith may arise when the people have the impression that the police will not treat the report seriously; ineffective investigation due to incompetence; practicing double standards; no confidence the police can solve the case or bring  justice to the victim or can recover the lost items; discriminative investigation based on the person’s background, influence, or status in society; minor trauma or losses treated with scorn; cases can be compromised by suspects getting away through bribery, influence be it political or social standing; exhaustive in going to the police station and lodging report; and last but not least is distrust and suspicion about the police.

Overall, the crime has indeed gone up. There are many flaws in the statistics dished out to the public. The statistics was tailored to justify the KPI and appease the powers that be. It is better for the police to tell the truth and shame the devil. In response to Dr. Lim Teck Ghee, the police said, “Crime statistics released by the PDRM are the actual figures of criminal cases reported to and investigated by the police department. These figures are auto-generated by the department’s computer system i.e. the Police Reporting System (PRS). In this way, no alteration or adjustment to the figures can be done, in order to portray a rosy picture of the crime situation as claimed by certain quarters.”

The rationalization of the computer system (PRS) to validate the crime figures is a flawed excuse. The system picks up only what has been fed into it. PRS system does not control classification of cases. To demonstrate that the GTP, NKRA and KPI are a success, classification of cases was doctored and entered into the system which will surely produce the result that was desired.

The police made another assertion, “All crime data and statistics generated within the PDRM system have been audited and verified by Pricewaterhouse Coopers Malaysia.” Do you expect accountants to audit and verify classification of cases? Are they going through all the police reports to ensure the nature of crime committed, categorizing the correct section of the offence under the law, and classification of the case as index or non-index? Be truthful on their role that is only limited to calculating the figures given by the police. In fact, it is a waste of public funds hiring accountants to just vet the figures if only the police are honest in the first place.

End the charade on public relations (PR) exercises to erase the fear of crime. Stop fooling the public with PR programs, like ‘high profile policing’, ‘high visibility patrol’ ‘walkabout’ ‘stop and talk, ‘meet and greet’, and ‘singing in shopping malls’, that won’t work when criminals are still milling around. Spending huge money hiring consultants with no background or expertise in criminal field to advise the police was the biggest blunder. It is a shame on the police organization of 205 years, having police officers of more than 30 years in service and experience with educational background from degree to PHD, unable to tackle the crime situation...

There must be a climate of fear and respect towards the police. The fear must come from the wrongdoers and those who intend to contravene the law. Respect is from those who feel secured when seeing the men in blue. Are the police doing the right thing to earn that respect? People are feeling unsecured with the crime situation and the fear of being a victim keep increasing. Ironically, even the policemen are having the same sentiment. Camouflaging crime figures will only aggravate the situation further. Be honest and tell the truth.

Read more here: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/08/22/crime-statistics-%E2%80%93-let-the-truth-be-told/

CRIME WATCH: Who has FAILED - Home Minister or Malaysians?

Published by Malaysia Chronicle on 19 August 2012. Written by Crime Buster.

http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=38392:crime-watch-who-has-failed-malaysians-or-hisham?&Itemid=2

Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein in his pre-Raya mood celebration message lambasted Malaysians for not cooperating to fight crime.

Malaysians, what is your take on that? Why are you not cooperating? So if you get robbed or get stoned to near death under some dingy car park, or get raped – don’t blame the police lah.

Blame yourself. Understand? The unfortunate happened to you because Malaysians are not cooperating to fight crime, understand!

Umno logic

Holy cow! Any public relations novice studying Mass Communication will tell you that the Home Minister has just made the worst public relations act.

Let us now ask the honorable minister the following questions:

How many houses do not have pad-locked fences, gates, doors, frills?

How many houses do not have five-feet high fencing and walls around their property?

What about the alarms we install in our homes and cars?

How about the thriving CCTV business in Malaysia?

What do you want us to do?

And now you tell us that walking to the car alone is tantamount to non-cooperation? That carrying a handbag in public is non-cooperation? That if a robber breaks into my padlocked house it is because I am not cooperating?

What do you want Malaysians to do? Jump and strangle the daylight out of a would-be robber in a car park? Club a potential robber even before he breaks into a house?

Or do you want the public out on their daily routines to also double-up as security personnel out in the streets, in their Tamans, and at car parks?

So you want us to hide our little hard earned wealth displays of gold and even resort to keeping our little shopping money inside our under garments so that we are seen to be cooperating in not tempting robbers?

So every time a festive holiday comes, a family must run to the police station to inform that they are not going to be in the house?

Try for some common sense, please

Please Mr. Honorable Home Minister, can we have some common sense and responsible leadership around us when it comes to fighting crime?

Malaysians are spending far too much of their hard earned money to ensure that they have grills, padlocks, chains, alarms, CCTVs, dogs and even guards to ensure they can be safe at home.

Malaysians have installed alarms in their vehicles and added on pad-locks and steering locks too.

Today Malaysians do not wear gold and diamonds to work or when driving around. The only pearls, diamonds and gold decking we see being flashed are on the ministers’ spouses.

Please let us have some level headed accountability and honor.

Malaysian economic plans defy global woes

By Jeremy Grant in Singapore. Published by Financial Times on 16 August 2012.

Using the soaring rhetoric of nation-building on a grand scale, Najib Razak, the Malaysian prime minister, recently snipped a ribbon to inaugurate construction of a 28-hectare site in Kuala Lumpur destined to be a new financial centre.

Never mind that the capital already has a thriving business district, home to Bursa Malaysia and dozens of domestic and foreign banks.

The new Tun Razak Exchange – named after Mr Najib’s father, a former Malaysian prime minister – is to be even bigger, representing “the future of Malaysia as the catalyst for economic and financial growth” and positioning the country as “a nucleus of global talent”. Its developer, a state-owned investment agency called 1Malaysia Development is overseeing the $8bn project, set to rise within walking distance of the Petronas Twin Towers.

With much of the world economy experiencing anaemic growth at best, it is hard to believe that any country would contemplate a project on this scale. Yet Malaysia’s economy is enjoying a gravity-defying boom that is confounding sceptics. Second-quarter gross domestic product figures out this week showed the economy grew by 5.4 per cent, way above consensus expectations of 4.6 per cent, and the 4.9 per cent recorded – after an upward revision – for the previous quarter.

That was due to big-ticket government spending, lending to business by well-capitalised banks, and robust consumer demand, fuelled by pay rises for civil servants and cash handouts that have even seen taxi drivers receive vouchers for free replacement tyres...

Malaysia’s healthy economy – and the resulting “feel-good” factor – stands in contrast to growing anxiety among Malaysia’s neighbours in south-east Asia as the global downturn has tarnished their economies. Analysts point out one nagging concern for Malaysia: rising household debt, caused by rapid growth in credit card usage.

Growth could yet be tripped up by domestic politics too. Mr Najib has been playing a cat-and-mouse game with the opposition, led by veteran leader Anwar Ibrahim, over when to call an election, which must occur by April. When that comes, it is expected to be the closest for decades, raising the spectre of political uncertainty for investors...

Read more here: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cf85972a-e782-11e1-86bf-00144feab49a.html#axzz23mhwTYlr

More British women aborting their children over financial worries, say UK doctors

BY HILARY WHITE, 

ROME CORRESPONDENT.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/more-british-women-aborting-their-children-over-financial-worries-say-uk-do

LONDON, August 14, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A survey by a market research firm has found that the global economic crisis may be influencing more British women to abort their children. The research by Insight Research Group found that about one-fifth of GPs are reporting more women requesting abortion for financial concerns.

Seventeen percent of GPs surveyed felt there was an increase in patients who “were specifically requesting terminations due to financial concerns.” Fifty-four percent of those GPs said they believed the biggest increase was among women ages 26-35. Another twenty-three percent believed the biggest increase was among single women with no previous children, while twenty-one percent said they believed it was among single women living with a “partner” with 1 to 3 previous children.

Thirty-four percent of all the GPs surveyed said that they are seeing women putting off having children “until their financial security improved.”

The findings echo those of Russian demographers who fear that recent gains in the country’s abysmally low fertility rate will be lost as more women turn to abortion to ease financial worries http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/international-life-and-family-roundup1 . 

Although pro-life observers say that they have no argument with the study’s findings, they question the reaction of GPs who endorse abortion for financial reasons.

Anthony Ozimic, the communications manager for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said that for authority figures like doctors to affirm with their actions that an abortion is an acceptable solution to financial anxiety sends a profoundly negative message to the culture at large.

“Whatever the merits or otherwise of this study, Western society will continue in its moral and demographic declines as long as the message goes out that women should abort their children or significantly postpone conceiving because of financial concerns,” Ozimic said.

The UK should follow the lead of other EU countries who are offering financial, tax and other incentives to increase the financial security of families and encourage couples to marry earlier and have children, Ozimic said. Instead, the myth is being promulgated that there is such a thing as a “perfect” economic condition in which to have children, when the reality is that such conditions will not exist while the European fertility rate continues to decline.

“While prudence in planning a family is necessary, optimal economic conditions for raising children are illusory.”

Ozimic confirmed that the law does not technically allow for abortions for financial or “social” reasons, but said that doctors have been granted enormous latitude in deciding what factors in a woman’s life constitute a threat to her “mental health”.

This is acknowledged even by the courts to be the case, despite voluminous research demonstrating that abortion has a serious, long-term negative impact on women’s mental health and increasing skepticism http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-study-says-pregnancy-is-safe-even-beneficial-for-women-recovering-from/  among the psychiatric community of the existence of any mental health benefits of abortion.

Malaysians Protest Against Changes to Internet Law #Stop114A

Picture taken from http://stop114a.wordpress.com/get-involved/website-owners-and-bloggers/

Published by BBC News on 14 August 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19251896

Malaysian activists and bloggers are staging an online black-out for one day to protest against changes to a law they say restricts free speech online. They have replaced their home pages with black screens critical of the Evidence Act, revised in April, for Internet Black-out Day.

Critics say the law makes people unfairly liable for content published from networks and personal devices.

Officials deny the change is meant to silence critics ahead of an election. The revised law means that Malaysians could get into trouble even if their devices or internet connections have been hacked into, critics say.

The Centre for Independent Journalism in Malaysia said the revision was "a bad law passed in haste and does not take into account public interest and participation", said the Agence-France Presse news agency.

Critics want the law to be changed or scrapped completely. Premesh Chandran, founder of online news site Malaysiakini, said that the burden of proof on internet users was unfair. "In other words, if defamatory comments are posted on a blog, the blog owner is likely to be sued or charged with criminal defamation," Malaysiakini said in a statement on its website.

The internet has been key to helping sway a large number of voters from supporting the governing coalition, says the BBC's Jennifer Pak in Kuala Lumpur. Online media has also exposed corruption scandals among the governing parties, who have been in power for nearly 55 years, our correspondent adds.

Related reports:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1220057/1/.html#.UCoFysgoa28.twitter

Malaysia's prime minister said he would review a legal amendment that critics claim threatens free expression online after they staged a one-day "Internet blackout" on Tuesday. Prime Minister Najib Razak, facing mounting pressure ahead of looming elections, said on Twitter that he had asked the cabinet to discuss the controversial new section of the Evidence Act.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444042704577589001501616464.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read

A series of prominent websites, including those of the Malaysian Bar Council, the opposition Democratic Action Party, and news portals Malaysiakini, Free Malaysia Today and BFM Radio, were either blacked out voluntarily or featured a pop-up message: Stop 114A. In the early evening, Mr. Najib responded on his personal Twitter account, saying "I have asked Cabinet to discuss section 114A of the Evidence Act 1950. Whatever we do we must put people first."

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/press_statements/repeal_section_114a_of_the_evidence_act_1950.html

The Malaysian Bar appreciates that the problem of anonymity on the Internet is of a different nature to that in the print media.  Persons hiding behind the cloak of a false persona can incite racial hatred, incite and organise violent hate crimes and commit fraud and escape being identified.  Hence there is a need for some statutory intervention to ensure criminal elements do not exploit the anonymity that the Internet can provide to escape the consequences of their actions. However, the Malaysian Bar is of the view that the recently-introduced section 114A of the Evidence Act of 19501, which came into force on 31 July 20122 , is not the answer to these problems, and should be repealed.  Suitable replacement legislation can be enacted later, if necessary, but only after full consultation with all stakeholders.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/najib-cabinet-to-discuss-controversial-evidence-law

Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin, and MCA Senator Gan Ping Sieu added their backing to a growing chorus of protest against the new law.

http://www.thesundaily.my/news/463385

The blackout also garnered international attention with Wikileaks and BBC picking up on the issue yesterday, while the Association of the Computer and Multimedia Industry of Malaysia (Pikom) also echoed the need for a review of the law. In a statement to Digital News Asia, Pikom president Shaifubahrim Saleh said the amendment may "appear to lower the bar for the prosecution of potentially innocent parties".

http://news.malaysia.msn.com/regional/malaysia-to-review-law-after-web-blackout-protest-2
Malaysia has long been known for its authoritarian rule but Najib, who came to power in 2009, has launched a campaign to repeal some repressive laws to gain voter support. However, the opposition and rights groups have dismissed the drive as a sham, saying that various laws introduced to replace the previous legislation have been little better than the old statutes.

Why Gay Marriage Is More Than a Legal Issue

Published by Christianity Today on 27 July 2012. 

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/july-august/why-gay-marriage-is-more-than-a-legal-issue.html?paging=off

The marriage debate shouldn't drive us to outrage or panic.

The gay marriage debate continues to boil over, tempting our nation to inaugurate a new era of McCarthyism. Back in the 1950s, anyone suspected of communism became a pariah. Now that seems to be true of anyone who supports traditional marriage.

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy, in answer to an interview question about the principles of the popular fast-food company, said, “We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit.” This set some people’s teeth on edge. But the heat rose when some discovered Cathy said a couple of weeks earlier, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes marriage.’”

That may be prophetic, but in our culture it is impolitic to say this. Cathy’s comments raised the ire of Chicago alderman Joe Moreno, who said he would block the company from building a restaurant in his ward. He was supported by Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, and, from a distance, Boston mayor Thomas Menino, who wants Chick-fil-A to vacate the premises of his town ASAP. As Menino put it, he’s “angry” about such “prejudiced statements.”

And this, even though Chick-fil-A followed up with a statement saying it strives to "treat every person with honor, dignity and respect—regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.” And then there’s this not unimportant fact: There is absolutely no proof that Chick-fil-A has ever practiced prejudice of any sort.

So apparently how you actually treat homosexuals is not a sufficient test of one’s Americanism. Now you need to think right to get into the good graces of government. This has struck even some pro-gay marriage advocates as a bit over the top--some would say Stalinist. As the Chicago Tribune’s Eric Zorn put it, “Don’t ask The Man to do the dirty work of attempting to marginalize and silence your opponents.”

Back in the spring, there was a similar dustup over the issue. On May 8, North Carolina citizens voted to ban gay marriage by a hefty margin of 61 to 39 percent. The next day, President Obama said on national television, "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

The comments following both events were predictable. From gay marriage advocates, there was talk about civil rights and history being on their side. Proponents of traditional marriage, meanwhile, resonated with this statement from Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: "We cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society."

To sum up what we at Christianity Today have said before: We believe gays and lesbians should not be denied fundamental rights granted to every other American, nor should they suffer slurs or intimidation in any shape or form (and neither should those who oppose gay marriage). Further, we continue to believe that marriage should be defined in our nation as a moral and legal bond between a man and a woman. For, among other reasons, societies that fail to shape themselves by the most basic and universal of divine laws and institutions cannot have a happy future (Cathy is right to be concerned). This seems built into the very order of creation by our loving Creator.

Careful readers will notice that we do not get panicked or outraged when gay marriage sometimes gets the upper hand in the ebb and flow of national debate. As much as we want the state to recognize and protect traditional marriage, we're not depending on the state to do so. In fact, the state has already done plenty to undermine traditional marriage—no-fault divorce law being perhaps the most egregious example. Since its advent in 1970, this policy has destabilized marriage like no other.

Nor do we think that the future of marriage or the American experiment hinges on how we as a nation decide the gay marriage debate. The on-the-ground understanding of marriage was weakened long ago. While the formal conversation around marriage is often about making a commitment to love and serve another for life, in practice it is clear that the cult of self-fulfillment drives many if not most of today's marriages.

It is impossible to find accurate numerical data that report the reasons for divorce, due to states having different requirements, terminology, and reporting methods for divorcing couples. But reasons commonly cited on legal and counseling websites include infidelity, communication breakdown, sexual incompatibility, boredom, and differences in priorities and expectations. The clichéd response, "We grew apart," is not a bad summary of all these reasons. It strongly suggests, "I'm not interested in pursuing this relationship if you're not interested in what I'm interested in."

Far more than the protection of the legal definition of marriage, what our society needs is a fresh understanding of marriage. One does not have to be a Christian to see how much richer and deeper marriage can be if it is primarily entered into for the sake of others, certainly the spouse but especially for the offspring of a marriage.

Nor does one have to be a theist to recognize that there is something fitting, unique, and precious about the sexual union of a husband and wife. For the Christian, of course, marriage is more than all this (a sacramental witness to God's covenant with his people, for example). But we can happily join hands with people of other faiths or no faith who recognize the tangible, natural dimensions of marriage that seem to be built into the very order of things.

While we continue to strive to convince our nation of the value of traditional marriage, we must not get discouraged on the legislative front, and should take in stride the prejudice against those who publicly support traditional marriage. While proponents of gay marriage will make it sound like history is on their side, in fact, history keeps surprising us. Not long ago, many thought that communism was the inevitable future, others, that religion was on its last legs. No, our nation's formal definition of marriage still hangs in the balance.

But rather than put all of our eggs in the basket of constitutional amendments or judicial opinion, we Christians would be wise to shore up marriage in our churches. Doing this would be both an act of repentance for our narcissism (for we Christians succumb to this temptation as much as the next sinner) and a witness to what marriage at its best can be. That calls for continued efforts by church and parachurch ministries to strengthen marriages, and to offer winsome public arguments for a deeper and richer understanding of marriage than our culture can possibly imagine.

Six of the best law books

By Ros Taylor. Published by The Guardian on 8 August 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/aug/08/six-best-law-books

We asked you to tell us which books a future law student should read. Here are the top nominations - and some of the other contenders:-


The Rule of Law by Tom Bingham

Whatever did inquiring legal minds read before Lord Bingham published The Rule of Law? This slim volume has rapidly become the book Guardian-reading lawyers are most likely to recommend to anyone interested in the profession. As Joshua Rozenberg put it: "Bingham's definition of that much-used term is now entirely authoritative and will probably remain so for the next 120 years or more. In summary, it is 'that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publicly administered in the courts.'

Letters to a Law Student by Nicholas McBride

"Dear Sam, I hope you don't mind me writing to you in this way..." The only book to receive as many nominations as Bingham's was Letters to a Law Student, by All Souls fellow and director of studies at Pembroke College, Cambridge. Solicitous, authoritative and hardly discounted even by Amazon, it knows its audience - those who already have a place to read law are advised to skip the first chapters.

Glanville Williams: Learning the Law (ATH Smith)

Welsh legal scholar Williams died in 1997, but Learning the Law lives on - though much of the rest of his prolific output is out of print. His support for legalising abortion and euthanasia, as well as his role in decriminalising suicide in 1961, earned his reputation as a reformer. But not everyone is a fan. "I read it once and I've never touched it again," wrote Stephen Clark (LLB Exeter and about to start his BPTC). "This is supposedly the standard introductory text, but I couldn't encourage students enough to stay away from it. It really won't help when it comes to knowing the law, it won't help when it comes to understanding the law and it won't impart you with the skills necessary to do well on the LLB."

What About Law? by Catherine Barnard et al

Recommended by - among others - Southampton University lecturer Mark Telford, What About Law? describes the various fields of law in engaging detail, though is less forthcoming with practical advice. Opens with the legal implications of the wild party 17-year-old Laura throws while her parents are away for the weekend.

Eve Was Framed by Helena Kennedy

Baroness Kennedy, as listeners to her current Radio 4 series will know, is as much concerned with justice as the law. Much of this lively and highly readable book is devoted to exploring the myriad ways in which the legal system has let down women - as lawyers, victims and defendants - though there is also plenty of optimism, particularly about the ability of women to rise to the top of the legal establishment. Kennedy's Just Law was also nominated.

Bleak House by Charles Dickens

Somewhere in the new Rolls Building, a modern Jarndyce v Jarndyce is doubtless lumbering - or perhaps the Technology and Construction Court is hosting a particularly lengthy dispute involving tree roots. Dickens was a court reporter for four years and undoubtedly drew on his experiences, particularly at the Old Bailey, for his fiction - this coining trial may have inspired part of Great Expectations.

Other nominations

Cardiff and UCL academic Richard Moorhead: The End of Lawyers by Richard Susskind

UK Human Rights Blog editor and 1COR barrister Adam Wagner: Geoffrey Robertson's The Justice Game

Carrie Alcott: How Law Works by Gary Slapper ("Absolutely brilliant. Have just read it now, going in to my final year, and really wish I'd come across it before I began studying")

Lila Lamrabert: The Law Machine by Clare Dyer and Marcel Berlins

Michael Zymler and Jennie Evans: How To Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic by Madsen Pirie

Jason Miller and Emma Morris: The Case of the Speluncean Explorers by Lon Fuller (Miller: "Jurisprudence isn't everyone's cup of tea but it shows a variety of legal and moral viewpoints.")

Stacey Roden: Learning Legal Rules by James Holland

Paul O'Grady: A Short History of Western Legal Theory by John Kelly

Marika Giles Samson: The Best Defense by Paul Dershowitz

Jack Gilbert: The Colour of Law by Mark Giminez ("on a purely motivational basis")