Apostilles go Digital. Whatever Next!

Shock Horror. Electronic Apostilles (E-Apostilles). No Longer Notarial Fountain Pen And Ink.

What will I do now with my old fountain pen?

I have blogged before to explain the role of the Apostille in the authentication of notarised documents world-wide.

See here and here and here.

Since it was first introduced in 1961, the Apostille has been in physical paper form, attached by glue to the document it relates to.

Now, the United Kingdom Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) Legalisation Office, has introduced the electronic Apostille (e-Apostille) after a trial period in 2022.

It says that the traditional paper service “involved a time-consuming and lengthy process”.

Yes, the notarised paper document does have to be physically presented to the FC&DO either directly via postal service or via a third-party agent. But it only takes a couple of days. So, most of the time it consumes is the time of the staff of the Foreign Office.

Anyway – they go on “by introducing the electronic Apostille, the UK has revolutionised the process, making it simpler and more efficient.”

They are taking the credit; I suppose it’s only human. In fact, the initiative was worldwide (as it would need to be since the whole point of the Apostille system is world-wide acceptance of an international standard) and it began in 2006 with the HCCH – which is Hague Conference on Private International Law – Conférence de La Haye de droit international privé.

What this means is that now, your notarised document can be made digitally and signed electronically. More usually, the paper document is completed in the usual way, and then I scan it and digitally sign the scan.

The FCDO electronic apostille can then be applied. This can reduce the three days turnaround to a much shorter time; the best I have achieved so far is within two hours.

There are certainly advantages to this process. The document can be emailed around the world in seconds and the end-users can check it is genuine by simply clicking on it and activating a link to the government website.

If you want one, I can get one.  

Up to a point

Please note that the FCDO currently cannot accept certain documents for electronic Apostille. This includes birth/death/marriage certificates or Certificates of No Impediment (CNI) issued by the Civil Registry Offices in the UK, as well as UK Criminal Records certificates (ACRO, DBS, Scottish Basic Disclosure, Northern Ireland Basic Disclosure), or fingerprint certificates.

But in particular, do remember, many countries have not yet even adopted the paper Apostille procedure yet – even though it’s been going since 1961.

And other countries have adopted it but still lawyers do not understand it. For example, India joined the Hague Convention of 1961 in 2008 but still lawyers there try to tell their clients that Indian High Commission stamps are essential – just like their fathers taught them – even now sixteen years later.

Therefore, it is very important to check with the requesting party overseas whether the e-Apostille is acceptable or whether they require the paper-based Apostille for the specific purpose needed.

So just because I can get you an e-apostille now, don’t just assume that it will be accepted by the lawyers and tribunals who will be using it in whichever foreign Country you require it.

The countries for which I have obtained e-apostille which have been accepted, so far, are Spain, Germany and Netherlands.

However, this does not mean that every lawyer even in those countries will accept them. Far from it. So, it is essential to check this with the end-user. At present, having a e-apostille may leave you feeling like the first person in the world with a telephone or fax machine. It is no use until it is more widely accepted. But it never will be widely accepted, unless people start using it.

No one can follow, unless there are Pioneers. So here is their song. Link here. (and whether e-apostilles themselves are a long-shot, destined to kick the bucket, time will tell.

Please do contact us whenever you need Notarial certification or Legalisation for your Documents– at http://www.atkinsonnotary.com – or phone   on 0113 816 0116 (internationally 0044 113 8160116)

For emails, here we are at  louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Please also feel visit our website www.atkinsonnotary.com

Louise Explains – Our Role In Your New German Office.

Louise explains – Our role in your new German Office.

As international Notaries working in a large English City, we are very often instructed to assist our corporate clients to assist with the creation or management of their linked German Company – GMBH (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung).

There are several reasons why a UK company might open a German Office, as a subsidiary or a separate entity.

• A German Company has unrestricted access to the German legal environment -And Germany is the largest European economy.
• A German GmbH is compliant with all German regulatory requirements, and is understood as an entity by its German contacts, its advisors, bankers suppliers and customers.
• If it has German suppliers and customers then of course the logistics are simplified by being physically closer to clients, suppliers, and partners in the region.
• This Closeness operates at a cultural and indeed emotional level. The German customers are not dealing with “foreigners”.
• The GmbH created is of course itself a limited liability company, therefore separate from its UK owner.
• The Gmbh is subject to German tax laws and may be eligible for German tax benefits or grants.
• Brexit trading problems between UK and German should be mitigated or eliminated.

Obviously, the creation of a GmbH is a major venture and you will need expert legal advice from your UK lawyers and also will need to appoint German qualified lawyers who have experience of advising UK companies in Germany in respect of German Company formation.

Once the strategic business decisions are made, the practicalities will include preparation of documentation just as in UK. You will need to agree the text of the articles of association, details of shareholders and directors, and the registered office address.

Then this is where we come in! The German authorities will require you as shareholders of the proposed new GmbH to execute many of the new company documents either in Germany, or if you cannot conveniently travel to do this, then before us in Leeds. 

By our certification we authenticate for the benefit of the German authority, your personal identities and your UK Company identity and certify that you fully understand the process you are entering into.

The documentation will require Legalisation (see my other Blogs on the subject of Apostilles) .

Once all this work is done in Leeds, your German lawyers will be able to create the new Gmbh and register it at the German Company Registry (Handelsregister) for the area of your new principal office. 

• Mögen Glück und Wohlstand Sie begleiten!

Please do contact us whenever you need Notarial certification or Legalisation for your Documents– at http://www.atkinsonnotary.com – or phone   on 0113 816 0116 (internationally 0044 113 8160116)

For emails, here we are at  louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Please also feel visit our website www.atkinsonnotary.com

The Death of The “Video Will”. As You Were, Everyone.

The Death of The “Video Will”.  As You Were, Everyone.

Shutterstock images ©

The Death of the “Video Will”.  As You Were, Everyone. We can be social again.

Back in 2020 when we were young and full of hope, and all locked indoors, the Government had a brainwave which was the subject of my Blog – Link Here – .

The cunning plan was that the way to make a Will, which has been in place since 1837, should now be changed to allow video witnessing. In response, the general point I was seeking to make was that just because something is new is often no reason at all to do it.

In this case, using a computer to make your Will by video – Zoom or Teams or one of the others.

The rationale was – everyone is stuck at home, and we are all scared of death from Covid, and we all want to make our Wills and yet we can’t do that because Wills need two witnesses in the room and if we have guests around to watch us make a Will then we all get arrested or die, whichever comes first.

The Government’s new idea was, – use your computer camera. Get two friends watching with their computers. Sign your Will whilst they watch you. Send your Will in the post to friend number One. When it arrives, have another video meeting and all watch witness number One sign. Number One posts it to number Two. Have another video meeting and all watch witness Two sign it. Then Witness Two posts it back to the person making the Will and joy is achieved – a valid Will.

Nothing can go wrong with this at all not-at-all-complicated-scheme. – right?

Up to a point Lord Copper.

Actually, as my Blog in 2020 predicted, everything that can possibly go wrong with that is going to go wrong.

1. Mostly, the Will makers were elderly.
2. Mostly, they cannot work computers.
3. Or if they can, they don’t have 2 friends who each can.
4. They will not understand the rules or adhere to them – the witnesses will sign without having the second or third video meetings.
5. If the Will is urgent, the Will maker might die before the second or third witness can sign it.
6. The posting of the purported original Will gives the opportunity (however unlikely) for fraud. The witnesses are unlikely to have bothered to make a screenshot of the signed Will and printed it even if they had a working printer and know how to do that. (Nine times out of ten when I visit a client’s home having been assured “there is a printer here we can use”, the printer is on the floor behind the TV, the connecting cables are missing, there is no paper and certainly no ink and the client’s son knows how to work it but has been called out to a job.)    So the witness has no real way of being sure that the Will received in the post is the Will which they saw being signed.
7. The new law – link here – was clear, but there was also a Government internet guidance which seems to contradict it -telling us that the new law procedure should only be used where people “CANNOT” make Wills in the conventional way.
8. The words were: – “The advice remains that where people can make wills in the conventional way they should continue to do so. “

To paraphrase – if a Will CAN be made in the old way, then the new Video system should NOT be used. Where the conventional way is IMPOSSIBLE – is presumably what “cannot” means? There is nothing in the actual new Law which said this is for emergency only. So, is it, or isn’t it?

• Because if it is a procedure for emergency only, then surely the Will can be challenged if a person disinherited can show that a Will COULD have been made another way.

For example, during the lockdown, I, being a Lawyer, was an “essential” worker allowed to leave my home. During this strange period, I witnessed the execution of many documents, including Wills, by standing in folks’ gardens, with the window open so that I could speak with them and watch without being in the same room.

That procedure probably ALWAYS COULD have been used, and if it could then it is arguable that there is no video-witnessed Will which could not have been.

It is highly arguable therefore that every video-witnessed Will was both compliant with the new law and also made in breach of Government guidance. Just (not) like Schrödinger’s Cat which is BOTH alive and dead, a video-made Will is NEITHER valid nor invalid.

What a stupid mess.

There are of course other reasons why for nearly two hundred years the making of a Will has required physical presence of two witnesses. Which include but are certainly not limited to for example: –

• internet connections can be intermittent or unstable, leading to potential disruptions during the creation or recording of a video-witnessed will. This may impact the clarity and completeness of the communication.
• Zoom meetings we have attended “Is your microphone on? Fred, I can’t see you. OK I can see you now, but I can’t hear you. Daisy did you see me sign? Sorry the dog needed a wee and Deliveroo has just rung the doorbell”
• In online interactions, miscommunication and distortion of information can occur, and important details may be lost or misunderstood. This can be particularly critical when it comes to legal matters where precision and clarity are essential.
• Will a video witness be able to be certain that the Will maker was not confused, or not being threatened by someone “off camera”. Even if they are certain, will a Court find their evidence as compelling as if they were present in the room, when the validity of a Will is being challenged?

Anyway, for all of us who find that every new Law actually makes everything worse, at last there is some good news. We can all forget about the whole damn thing. The video witnessing of Wills has become impossible again, as from February 2024. Lord Bellamy has given a statement to Parliament which can be read here -link here–

The statement doesn’t suggest there was anything wrong with the idea of course. Or refer to a 38% rise in Probate caveats being lodged during the Covid years – the Probate caveat being the initial step taken where the terms or validity of a Will are challenged.

That extra 38% of additional disputed Wills is of course only in respect of Will makers who have since died, not the Wills which are still stored in filing cabinets as “smoking guns”. waiting for the deaths.

So, if you want my advice (believe it or not, some people do) it is, – If you made a Will between 2020 and 2024 using Witnesses who were watching you by video, MAKE ANOTHER ONE.

Do it now, in the presence of witnesses physically present with you together in the same room .

Do it, even if you do not wish to change a word of the older “video” Will.

The new Will can be in exactly the same terms if you want. But it will revoke the older Will, which then can be forgotten as if it never had been made.

And your new one will be much harder for anyone to challenge if you make it in the old way. The way which has passed the test of time since 1837.

Song? If It Be Your Will. -Link Here-

Please do contact us whenever you need Notarial certification or Legalisation for your Documents– at http://www.atkinsonnotary.com – or phone   on 0113 816 0116 (internationally 0044 113 8160116)

For emails, here we are at  louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Please also feel visit our website www.atkinsonnotary.com

A Notary admits – What do I know? Sweet F A!

Photo credit: Lee Earle / Shutterstock.com 

A Notary admits – What do I know? Sweet F A!

Well, I thought I did. Sweet F A. It means “Nothing”, doesn’t it. A more polite way of saying Sweet F*** A**. (In a blog, Bowdlerisation* is key for those who wish WordPress to Publish).

And in turn, Sweet F*** A** means – Nothing, Nothing at all. As in, “I worked all night to please the Boss, but in the end he took all the credit and I got Sweet FA.”

I expect you are all ahead of me, but I have got to my respectable age in ignorance of the root of the expression so I thought I might share my findings. (Feel free to read something else).

It turns out that the expression was coined by sailors in the mid 19^th Century when tinned food was first introduced to navy rations. Specifically tinned Meat.

On a late-night trawl through the City after a night out, for some of us a kebab which would have been repulsive in the daytime becomes an irresistible midnight treat. Just give me that mystery- meat. With tzatziki or hummus, chillies peanut sauce or teriyaki. Load it up and don’t regret it till morning.

Same idea with the sailors. When you are in need of food after exhausting work up and down the rigging, who cares what’s in the tin. It’s meat. I think? Any idea? What was it when it was alive? Cow, Lamb, Pig, Horse, Dog? Little Girl?

It’s Sweet Fanny Adams. Gallows humour is big in the armed forces. It still is, on the principle that what you can’t do anything about you may as well laugh at.

Sweet Fanny Adams, all chopped up and put in a can.

Who was Fanny? Horribly enough, she was an eight-year-old child murdered in 1867 in a peaceful village on a hot day in August. Her head was cut off and impaled on a stick in a field.

We know it was a hot summer day because her murderer, Frederick Baker wrote his diary that evening. He wrote “Killed a young girl. It was fine and hot”.

Can I just say, as a Notary, that “”Killed a young girl” is a phrase and not a sentence. Grammar and indeed punctuation can be everything. “I have eaten Grandma” – means, I am a Cannibal. “I have eaten, Grandma” – means, I don’t need anything to eat thanks Granny.

The Defence at Baker’s trial pleaded that the entry “Killed a young girl” simply lacked a comma, and that “”Killed, a young girl” was merely a record of what had happened in the village that day. As in a headline “Storms in UK, Killed, five people”.

Not that the intended meaning of the phrase would have concerned the jury overmuch, given the bloodstains on Baker’s clothes.  

The success of his defence can be judged by the fact that Baker was hanged later that year. A pleasant Christmas Eve out for the crowd of thousands.

This is a link – Here is a link – to the somewhat niche  website “British executions” showing detail of the murder and with photos of Fanny, her gravestone, and her two young friends from the village standing by it.

Executions were a big draw in England in the 19^th Century. Here is a link to a broadsheet published after the Execution – Here is a Link – . Interesting to me to note that the awful artwork is just as bad as we get these days. – One image of a swinging bloke with a bag over his head, and another of a chap with face like no-one ever had ever.

From the same website, – here is a link – the report of the execution of William Corder who murdered poor Maria Marten. The Murder in the Red Barn, remember?

If you have nothing better to do, the whole website is a fascinating glimpse of a vanished England, when a woman could be murdered because her landlord found out that she had saved up a Guinea (One pound five pence) -here is the link – and five men could be hanged together because they were burglars who had taken 2 watches and some sewing-silk.-Link here –

Contrast and compare with today – apparently the police are being told that they have a better chance of catching burglars if they, you know, GO AND HAVE A LOOK. -Link –

What are the chances of even catching a burglar these days, let alone hanging one? Sweet FA, if you ask me.

Two versions of the same song here – First the Traditional Ballad with, unusually in Folk Music, a happy ending  – The Hangman Song- and then we have the darker – Led Zeppelin version. –

Please do contact us whenever you need Notarial certification or Legalisation for your Documents– at http://www.atkinsonnotary.com – or phone   on 0113 816 0116 (internationally 0044 113 8160116)

For emails, here we are at  louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Please also feel visit our website www.atkinsonnotary.com

• * In the 18^th Century Bowdler wrote, amongst others, “The Family Shakspeare, in which nothing is added to the original text; but those words and expressions are omitted which cannot with propriety be read aloud in a family in 10 volumes”.   
• To Bowdlerise is most often considered these days to be to exhibit an unnecessarily prudish preoccupation with cutting out the “dirty bits”. I was surprised to read in Wiki that no less a literary figure than Swinburne wrote “More nauseous and more foolish cant was never chattered than that which would deride the memory or depreciate (now, deprecate I think) the merits of Bowdler. No man ever did better service to Shakespeare than the man who made it possible to put him into the hands of intelligent and imaginative children.” 
• So there.

Oaths, Affirmations, Statutory Declarations and Affidavits – what is the difference? Louise explains.

Oaths, Affirmations, Statutory Declarations and Affidavits – what is the difference? Louise explains.

All of the above are terms used to describe the function of providing “Evidence” to be used by a Court or adjudication body (lets call it a “Court”) to help it understand the facts of a matter and to reach a judgment.

Often, Witnesses have an interest of their own in the favourable outcome of a case. A person accused of murder and perhaps their friends would like their innocence to be believed and may seek to give evidence of innocence whether actually guilty or not.

The best way for a Court to receive evidence is to have each witness appear in the courtroom to give evidence:- then the body language, as well as the verbal language, can be assessed.

Also in most judicial systems, if they attend in person then the witnesses can be cross-examined by lawyers who are intent upon testing the evidence.

Usually, a witness will be required to undertake to tell the truth and accept that the consequence of telling lies is that a criminal offence is committed. The offence is “Perjury” and in most countries a perjurer before a court (the offence being, perverting the course of justice) can be imprisoned for life as a maximum sentence. In other countries or USA States, there is still the possibility of a sentence of death.

In England the undertaking to tell the truth was usually made by “swearing upon Oath” and this is still done today. I doubt that many persons whether religious believers or not, think that telling a lie on Oath will condemn their souls to everlasting torment in a future world after death. But some do. Everyone however understands that you had better not be caught out in a lie upon Oath, because there will be consequences in this world.

However, perhaps led by members of the Quaker faith who invoked the bible :- “Matthew 5:34-37
“New International Version
“34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”

Some Quakers four hundred years ago refused to give any Oaths. To accommodate that feeling, an alternative of a non-secular process was devised. Here no holy text is used, simply an acknowledgement that the evidence to be given will be treated as if it had been under Oath, so that there are legal grounds for a perjury prosecution if a Lie is told.

This position on the part of the Quakers resulted in the Quakers Act of 1695 now repealed.

Now everyone can choose to give their evidence with a “affirmation” and not an Oath.

Often a court requires to have evidence from a witness, but the witness is abroad, or in hospital or otherwise unavailable. Then the Court will often accept a written form of evidence, an Affidavit. (In Treasure Island, Long John Silver refers to giving his “Affy-Davy” – presumably the author is showing that the pirate is an uneducated man. In my experience Long John is now winning this pronunciation battle.)

Again, the Affidavit was to be signed in the location of the witness before a lawyer – a Commissioner for Oaths – and an Oath administered upon the Bible or other holy book.

By 1835 in England there was sufficient recognition of a popular objection to giving an Oath Sworn before God, that a secular alternative came into being, enshrined in the Statutory Declarations Act of 1835 which is still on the Statute Books – Link here –

The important thing to understand is that in whatever form such evidence is given, whether Oath, Affirmation of Declaration, it is given under peril of criminal prosecution for the crime of Perjury.

So, who is authorised to witness and administer a (sworn) Affidavit or an (unsworn) Statutory Declaration? Unsurprisingly, the requirements for an authorised witness vary from one jurisdiction to another – as Notaries Public we are authorised to administer Oaths, Affirmations and Declarations for any country of the world.

We would also like to mention that increasingly many Affidavits we see refer to other documents referred to as “Attachments” or “Exhibits” in support of facts stated in the Affidavit.

Many lawyers in foreign jurisdictions seem to think that it is correct to email the Affidavit wording without sending scans of the mentioned Exhibits! and the Lawyer overseas unbelievably seems to expect the Affiant to take an Oath and Swear before their God (or affirm, or declare) in peril of imprisonment for perjury -or worse!- that the content of the Affidavit (including the sworn statement that the Exhibits are “Attached”) and Exhibits are genuine even though the Exhibits have not actually been sent across to England.

Where are they? Well usually they are sitting on a Lawyer’s desk somewhere in the world! – this really does surprise us somewhat, given that an Affiant who would be prepared to do this would instantly be putting themselves at risk of the penalties of perjury – and even if the Affiant was prepared to do this, we can categorically confirm that we are not!

We are perplexed as to why the foreign lawyer would request this and expect this!

Chris recalls once actually phoning a lawyer in Florida and asking why – if the wording referred to “EXHIBITS ATTACHED” no such exhibits had been sent?
“Well, the exhibits are valuable so they are on my desk here in Miami and we will put everything together later.”
“So, you agree that you are asking the witness to swear an Oath stating that documents which are in Miami, are attached today to paper which is in Leeds? In other words, to lie?”
“It’s not really lying, is it?”
“Depends on what the word “attached” means in the American language”.
“Well, I would say, it kind of means that the exhibit exists.”
“Fine then, you are American, and you speak that language. Just for my file, can you send me a screenshot of the US Merriam-Webster dictionary just to confirm that the definition of “attached” in American is, in English “it exists”?”
“OK I will send the exhibits”.

Just one of those things that liven up the Notarial day.

A song. Don’t believe a word – here –

Please do contact us whenever you need Notarial certification or Legalisation for your Documents– at http://www.atkinsonnotary.com – or phone on 0113 816 0116 (internationally 0044 113 8160116)

For emails, here we are at louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Please also feel visit our website http://www.atkinsonnotary.com

The Post Office Revisited. Suddenly It’s News. And Quite Right Too.

The Post Office Revisited. Suddenly It’s News. And Quite Right Too.

I wrote a Blog four years ago – January 2020 – Headed, “Computer Says NO. Go To Gaol. Just Another Day At The Post Office.”

Here it is – Link –

I expressed my amazement then, that the Horizon Post Office computer had been useless and malfunctioning since installation in 2000, and that the Country was not up in arms about it.

Although Private Eye magazine and others had reported all about it for years, the General Public seems to have had a mental block.

Douglas Adams of course recognised that if a problem is so enormous, so overwhelming, – say a great big iceberg looming in front of the Titanic, – then people will prefer to ignore it.

He explained, they are not ignoring it, they literally can’t see it. It is an SEP. It has created an “SEP* Field” around itself.

*Someone Else’s Problem

A Somebody Else’s Problem field, or S.E.P., is a useful way of safely protecting something from unwanted eyes. As we know, Slartibartfast’s ship, the Bistromath, was covered by an S.E.P. field.

His Description:-
“An S.E.P. can run almost indefinitely on a torch or a 9 volt battery and is able to do so because it utilises a person’s natural tendency to ignore things they don’t easily accept, like, for example, aliens at a cricket match.

“Any object around which an S.E.P. is applied will cease to be noticed, because any problems one may have understanding it (and therefore accepting its existence) become Somebody Else’s Problem. An object becomes not so much invisible as unnoticed.

“A perfect example of this would be a ship covered in an SEP field at a cricket match. A starship taking the appearance of a large pink elephant is ideal because you can see it, yet it is so inconceivable, your mind can’t accept it. Therefore, it can’t exist, thus ignoring it comes naturally.

“An S.E.P. can work in much the same way in dangerous or uninhabitable environments. Any problem which may present itself to a person inside an S.E.P. (such as not being able to breathe, due to a lack of atmosphere) will become Somebody Else’s Problem.

“An S.E.P. can be seen if caught by surprise, or out of the corner of one’s eye.”

So – The Post Office, where friendly people sell stamps and give you your pension? What, you say? Horrible Crooks? Ooohh that’s an SEP mate. I can see it out of the corner of my eye, but I don’t want to look at it. Or think about it. Someone Else will sort it all out.

My Blog of course has changed nothing. If only I had been a playwright. Four hours of TV and now the Nation is united.

Personally, I am glued to the enquiry which is going on now – you can watch it on You Tube, the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry Live Stream.

If you read my earlier Blog, I stand by every word I wrote – except when I wrote “By the way, and not before time, it would appear that the Horizon system is now working properly. So that’s all fine.”

Apparently, it turns out, Horizon is still in use in UK Post Offices to this day. And still not working.

One postmaster, who runs two Post Offices in the South-East of England and spoke to the BBC on condition of anonymity, said the system is still unreliable.

“You still get shortfalls. You can’t trust it. You can’t rely on it.” BBC – Link Here –

A salutary reminder to me that however avidly you may or may not read my Blogs, they are not, on their own, likely to change the world.

Oh Well. -Song Here-

Please do contact us whenever you need Notarial certification or Legalisation for your Documents– at http://www.atkinsonnotary.com – or phone on 0113 816 0116 (internationally 0044 113 8160116)

For emails, here we are at louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Please also feel visit our website http://www.atkinsonnotary.com

The Government wants your Opinion

You Are Invited To Comment In A Government Consultation Upon Digitising Probates And Wills And DESTROYING ORIGINALS

At present, if a person in England and Wales has made a Will, then after their death their original Will must be submitted to the Court’s (Government’s) Probate Registry.

After the Government has checked that the will was properly prepared and signed, and checked the submitted schedule of the assets of the estate and checked that all necessary tax has been paid, then it will issue a Grant of Probate to enable the terms of the Will to be carried out.

The Estate value may be held in land or Bank assets or shares. If so then the Banks and the Land Registry and the stockbroker/registrars or other asset holders will need to see the grant of probate in order to transfer the property ownership to the Executors. The Executors can then distribute funds to the intended beneficiaries mentioned in the Will.

At that stage the probate court no longer really needs to hold the Will. So the Will can be shredded, it has served its purpose. However, in England since 1858 the practice has been that the court will keep the original Will. Keep it “for ever”.

As you might imagine this means that the archives are getting crammed with original wills. Wills which nobody very often (ever) asks to see or read.

Furthermore, ever since 2021 all Wills are also held as digital scans on the Government computers, and the digitising process is continuing backwards to earlier years. This means that any executors or persons concerned – or anyone at all, researcher, or nosy-parker – can pay a small fee and receive a scanned copy of any will online.

If the request is for an older will not yet scanned, then Court will find that Will and scan it and issue the scan.

That is the system today. Now there is a consultation to which you can contribute. Link here

The Government is asking you – Do you think that all Wills (including the Wills stored since 1858) should be scanned as soon as possible and kept in digital form in “the Cloud”?

On its own this proposal is unlikely to cause too much objection, it just seems sensible that in a worst-case event, say a fire which destroys the wills archives, there should be scanned copies available as back-up. Of course.

But the government proposal goes further. The proposal indeed is that after every Will has been scanned it should be destroyed. Not immediately, but 25 years after the death. Most of the Wills held of course are much older, so most would go now.

The argument in favour of this destruction is financial. To avoid the extremely high cost of storage space and the payment of wages to archivists currently estimated at 4.5 million pounds each year and but obviously this will only increase with inflation and with huge numbers of new Wills requiring storage every year.

Hands up those who think that this is an absolutely splendid idea?

The suggestion is subject to the idea that not all original Wills would go to the flames. No, there would be exemption for those of “famous” individuals.

Presumably this means the Will of say Winston Churchill, will not be destroyed. Yes, I’ve heard of him. He is famous.

What about the Wills of famous actors? Remember your Mum saying, “Oh no Jessie Matthews has died”? Hugely famous in the 1920s. I doubt anyone under 40 would have heard of her at all. So, does “Famous” mean famous now or famous once? Maybe the criteria should be a Wiki page? But what about your late granddad? I never knew him, but he was famous, and important, to you.

And as many commentators have pointed out, fame fades but it can also swell. Folk who were not household names in their lifetimes can become recognised as truly extraordinary only long after their deaths. Mary Seacole (Wiki link) was alive two centuries ago, but not famous until very recently. Her Will would definitely have been shredded in the proposed regime.

Does it matter? Let’s assume nothing can go wrong.

Assumptions
• That the Wills are all scanned very carefully, with nobody scanning page 20 then going to page 22. (There will be mistakes. Who will be doing the scanning? Top level, job-focused perfectionists? Oh.)
• That the technology stays in use and “state of the art” for the next thousand years. (It won’t. “Please can you open this file from 1981 – you may need to consult the MS/ DOS user manual. Or is it CP/M?”)
• That the outsourced owners and operators of the cloud computers to be used stay solvent and in friendly countries.
• That the whole system stays resilient and never gets hacked. (See my recent Blog. Link Here. The British Library website is completely unusable as I write. Of course, it will get hacked – the more important it is, the more the bad actors attack.)

OK, assume we all agree nothing can go wrong with the data capture or the storage technology.

In which case, it’s all good isn’t it? Who needs to see paper? To see the original Will of William Shakespeare (currently held in The National Archives in its original manuscript). To see the signature, made from the pen which the Bard was holding in his hand. In 1616. I mean, it’s been digitised now. You can see it -here-. What’s the difference?

If we accept that for Wills, then is there any qualitative reason why this digitisation process should not extend itself to works of art. I mean we all have the Mona Lisa available on our computer screens, and perhaps on towels and tee shirts and beermats, so why does anyone bother nipping off to France to have a gawp at it.

Maybe Da Vinci gets a pass, being “famous”. But Van Gogh wasn’t famous at the time of his death. So far as we know he sold only one painting in his lifetime (£16) let alone had one displayed in an art gallery. The Government’s digitization logic would be, take a scan, then torch the Sunflowers.

If you have in your possession a letter written by a great-great-uncle in the trenches before a battle in the Great War (many soldiers’ wills were written in these exact circumstances and not by the famous ones) is there not so sense of wonder in holding the document in your hand – the same document that he held in his hand?

Who thinks that age adds value to stuff? Real stuff. After a time, even relatively mundane documents become of interest. Letters home from anonymous Roman Soldiers (“please send me a cloak”) deeply miserable on the Scottish borders serving with Hadrian. Digitise and destroy it mate.

The other view of course is, it just doesn’t matter, – Nothing lasts forever; it’s all gone sooner or later. And if we keep all the old stuff, will there be any room for new stuff?

Today’s song -Going, Going, Gone-

Oh Cheer up, it’s a New Year.

If you have an opinion to tell the consultation process, do it before it closes on 23rd February 2024.

Please do contact us whenever you need Notarial certification or Legalisation for your Documents– at http://www.atkinsonnotary.com – or phone on 0113 816 0116 (internationally 0044 113 8160116)

For emails, here we are at louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Please also feel visit our website http://www.atkinsonnotary.com

We Have Digitised. Safe As Houses, Isn’t It.

“We have gone Digital”. It saves paper, and nothing can go wrong. Yeah, Right.

Whose idea was it originally to save time and money by installing a computer? As with all questions, a computer (“Google!”) can provide the answer. It was, in UK, a bakery called Lyons in around 1951 and – here is a link – to an archive with a photo.

This computer was used to assess the costs of baking ingredients and perhaps find economies to be made. Flour, currants, butter. It likely had less commuting power than your phone, and likely took up a larger space than your whole office. It will have needed specialist staff to operate it and one can imagine it being the first workplace in the Country where half of the staff (i.e. Bakers) could not understand the other half (Computer Types).

Have you spoken to your IT staff recently? Did you understand?

It does look somewhat old fashioned now, seventy plus years later.

But it had one advantage we don’t have today. Being the only device of its kind in the Country, no-one else owned one. It was therefore immune from being hacked. Hacked by the bakery next door, never mind from anywhere in the World.

Anyway, we humans are an inventive lot and now we have systems which can apparently be hacked by anyone at all.

In 2023 alone, hackers have disrupted the systems of 

• Royal Mail
• The British Library
• The Indian Council of Medical Research
• Kid Security – (ironically oxymoronic given it was a website allowing parents to monitor and control their children’s online security – 300 million records exposed, 21,000 phone numbers 31,000 email addresses, payment data cards and what have you)
• Prospect Medical Holdings (one of the largest Hospital networks in USA) 
• Barts Health Trust in UK- The biggest data breach of health care data ever in UK
• St Margarets Health, hospital in Illinois USA has had to close after 120 years.
• The operation of the City of Dallas Texas -police and fire services disrupted.
• British Company Capita will end up losing $25 million and the share price dropped 12%

The above are just a few, collated by me after less than an hour on the internet, see sources here and here and here and here and here and here and here   

Oh yes, here’s another one. It’s only SELLAFIELD NUCLEAR POWER. Yes, I know. Source here

Should we be concerned? Well call me nervous but I think perhaps.

What can we do?

Well that’s another question, so as we all do these days I asked a computer (Not Google – – a Chatbot!).

Here is what is said.

Ransomware is a type of malicious software that encrypts a user’s files or systems, rendering them inaccessible until a ransom is paid to the attacker. It has become a significant cybersecurity threat, affecting individuals, businesses, and even governmental organizations. Here are common threats associated with ransomware and recommended measures to mitigate the risks:

Threats from Ransomware:

1.         Data Encryption:

•          Ransomware encrypts files, making them inaccessible to the victim. This can lead to significant data loss if backups are not available.

2.         Financial Loss:

•          Victims are often compelled to pay a ransom to regain access to their data. Paying the ransom does not guarantee that files will be restored, and it encourages criminal activities.

3.         Operational Disruption:

•          Ransomware attacks can disrupt normal business operations, causing downtime and financial losses.

4.         Reputation Damage:

•          Organizations that fall victim to ransomware may suffer reputational damage, eroding trust among clients, customers, and partners.

5.         Data Theft and Exposure:

•          Some ransomware strains threaten to publish sensitive data unless the ransom is paid, leading to potential data breaches and compliance issues.

6.         Phishing and Social Engineering:

•          Ransomware often infiltrates systems through phishing emails and social engineering tactics, tricking users into clicking on malicious links or downloading infected attachments.

Mitigation Measures:

1.         Regular Backups:

•          Regularly back up critical data and ensure that backups are stored securely offline. This enables organizations to restore their systems without paying a ransom.

2.         Security Awareness Training:

•          Educate employees about phishing threats and social engineering tactics. Training can help users recognize suspicious emails and avoid clicking on malicious links.

3.         Email Security:

•          Implement robust email security measures, including filtering for spam and phishing emails. Use advanced threat detection to identify and block malicious attachments.

4.         Software Updates and Patching:

•          Keep operating systems, software, and applications up to date with the latest security patches. Vulnerabilities in outdated software can be exploited by ransomware.

5.         Network Segmentation:

•          Segmenting networks can contain the spread of ransomware, preventing it from moving laterally within an organization’s infrastructure.

6.         Endpoint Protection:

•          Employ endpoint protection solutions, such as antivirus and anti-malware software, to detect and block ransomware before it can execute.

7.         Incident Response Plan:

•          Develop and regularly update an incident response plan to ensure a swift and coordinated response to a ransomware attack. This includes communication strategies and recovery processes.

8.         User Privileges:

•          Restrict user privileges to the minimum necessary for their roles. Limiting user access can help prevent ransomware from spreading across a network.

9.         Network Security:

•          Use firewalls and intrusion detection/prevention systems to monitor and filter network traffic, identifying and blocking potential ransomware threats.

10.       Collaborate with Law Enforcement:

•          Report ransomware incidents to law enforcement agencies. Collaborating with law enforcement may contribute to the investigation and prosecution of cybercriminals.

Taking a proactive and multi-layered approach to cybersecurity is crucial in mitigating the risks associated with ransomware. Regularly updating security practices, educating users, and implementing the latest cybersecurity technologies contribute to a more resilient defence against this evolving threat.

So, if you won’t take computer security advice from a Notary Public, please take it from my Chatbot

And the music is Public Services Broadcasting – “Progress” Link here

Please do contact us whenever you need Notarial certification or Legalisation for your Documents– at http://www.atkinsonnotary.com – or phone   on 0113 816 0116 (internationally 0044 113 8160116)

For emails, here we are at  louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Please also feel visit our website www.atkinsonnotary.com

Proof of Life/Certificate of Life. Louise confirms, WE CAN HELP.

Proof of Life/Certificate of Life. Louise confirms, WE CAN HELP.

Image © jscreationzs
Do you wish to need to claim money from a foreign Country? – for example if you have a foreign Pension or Life Insurance payment or Inheritance owing to you or similar. If you have been asked to prove that you are currently alive then don’t worry, we can help.

We see many clients who have foreign Pensions or payments due to them who have been requested by the foreign jurisdiction to “prove that they are alive” so they can start or continue to claim funds.

Most foreign jurisdictions will require the individual to prove this by going to see a Notary Public in the country where they reside in order to have a specific form or identification notarised.

What does this entail and how do you go about it?

The first step would be to arrange to see a Notary. In the North of England, that’s us!
We would request that you first email a scan of the form to us if one has been provided. We ask that you attend with your original passport and an original proof of your current home address (not something on your phone). If you own your house, we can check this with the Land Registry.

Once we meet at the appointment, the Notary will check your identification documents, make scans for our records and then assist you with what is required.

Typically, most foreign jurisdictions provide their own specific form for you to sign here so that the Notary can witness your signature and then add a certificate that he has done so and to confirm that the necessary identity checks have been undertaken.

If no pro-forma of words has been provided, we can create a suitable certificate wording for you to use.

Once documentation has been signed and notarised and/or copy identification notarised as required then usually the document would be ready at that stage to be posted abroad.

However, some countries may also require an Apostille stamp – this is a stamp issued by the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development office and warrants to the end-user that you have seen a genuine Notary Public in England. If an “Apostille” stamp is required, then we can obtain this for you – for more information about Apostille stamps please see my earlier blog – click here-

Still further, some countries want a stamp from their own Consulate or Embassy. If required, then we can get this for you.

Does a Proof of Life/Certificate of Life have an expiry date?

Yes, it does. Strictly speaking you can see that a certificate of life expires the moment you leave the office, just as a photograph of someone taken yesterday does not prove that the person is alive today. However most countries allocate a lifespan to a certificate of life of, often, a year but sometimes more and sometimes less.

So, if you have been asked to prove that you are alive then get in touch with us and let’s get you your money. (Tell the World – “I’m Alive” – -Click Here- )

Here we are at louise@atkinsonnotary.com and notary@atkinsonnotary.com.

Or alternatively please telephone on +44 (0)113 8160116 or +44 (0)7715608747. Please also feel free to visit our website http://www.atkinsonnotary.com

New Laws Coming For Companies. More Red Tape? Being More Chinese?

New Laws Coming For Companies. More Red Tape? Being More Chinese?

Image © Keerati

Governments and Opposition both often campaign on a promise to “Get Business Going“ and to “Cut Through the Red Tape”.

Yes, right, so here comes some new additional red tape and we are not surprised a bit.

Is the “Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill” on your radar?

It is the next step in the rule changes at Companies House proposed for all Companies including the very smallest ones (“micro-entities) and it Received Royal Assent at the end of October 2023. It will be implemented, as new Law often is, bit by bit, so that Companies and their advisors can have some time to get used to how it is going to work and what is required. No doubt Companies House also will need this time to get up to speed.

Here is a link to the text of it. Click here

New Law? What again? It’s not as if there isn’t a lot of it already, and it looks as if we’ll all be paying more money to our accountants.

Trouble is, criminals are ever active and the UK Company Registration System is less than impregnable to fraudsters.

As Companies House states in its own Press Release, “At present, Companies House is primarily tasked with storing information in respect of UK corporates, and to making that information available to the public. Its ability to query information which is submitted to it is very limited, meaning that it cannot effectively police the submission of incorrect data or flag suspicious activity among corporate entities.”

I have often had to explain to foreign jurisdictions, who find it hard to accept, that up to now Companies House is entirely “re-active” not “pro-active”. Which means that, if you don’t tell Companies House that you have appointed a new Director in your Company, then it doesn’t know. But according to the present Law, the new Director is in place and can start running the Company, even though they are not on the record.

If a liquidator doesn’t tell Companies House that the company has gone bust, then again, Companies House simply doesn’t know.

This is in stark contrast to the ways of other countries. In Russia or China for example, No-one will be a Company Director unless the State says they are. (Are those Countries now our role models? Hmmm.)

The intent of the new Law is to change all that.

In future a newly appointed Director will not be able to act as a Director until listed as such at Companies House. (So – more like in China then!).

One other aspect of the present system is the lax approach to names. In many countries, your name is your name. Your whole name and nothing but your name. Just like with your passport number. You don’t leave out the middle three numbers and say – oh I don’t use the middle ones.

But names? Not in UK, or in USA for that matter. And Companies House has been accepting that. So, a Company with one Director who is also the Company secretary, might have Joe A Bloggs named as the secretary, and Joseph Albert Bloggs as the Director. They are the same person. But sometimes when I raise this with Mr Bloggs it seems that he simply doesn’t recognise the fact that they can’t both be his name.

Which is your name?
They both are.
But they are not the same words.
No, but they are both my name.
Doh.

We sort of get how this works in day-to-day life. James is Jim, William is Bill. OK. Yet it requires quite a sophisticated computer system to see that perhaps the two names relate to the same person.

So, in future the idea is that names (you know, what it says on your Birth Certificate) – will be used.

This merges with another requirement of the new law about the proper identity verification of all officers and persons with significant control. Which is that for reasons which with hindsight seem obvious, Directors will no longer be able to self-certify their identities. It seems you may have to submit your original passport or driving licence at least unless you use a professional identity verification service.

And here may I point out that Notaries Public will be accepted at Companies House as authorised corporate service providers suitable to deal with identity verifications. Just saying.

Shareholder details will be required to be notified in a much more transparent manner.

Companies will be required to have an email address.

And of particular relevance to smaller companies, there will be new rules as to filing of financial accounts.

This will mean that huge numbers of companies which at present do not have to file their profit and loss accounts, will now have to do just that.

The plan is to combat fraud. How exactly, I naively ask, does this achieve that? Answers on a postcard please.

And if this is a remedy, is it proportionate to the problem?

For example, If the patient has measles, then measles will no longer be a problem if the Doctor shoots the patient with a gun. But generally speaking, it’s not considered to be the best way to cure measles.

If we can accept that the majority of small companies are not fraudulent, still they will be required to publish their P&L accounts just like the crooks.

According to a blog by “accountingweb.co.uk” a staunch opponent of the reform, Izzi Rosenberg from Harris Rosenberg argued that the reforms are not going to meet its objectives to prevent fraud. “It’s completely useless. Anyone who needs to see a profit and loss, lenders and HMRC will get exposure to that and putting it in the public view will not combat fraud.”

He also raised concern that “it’s going to expose small businesses to a nosy neighbour culture” and will put them at a weak competitive advantage against larger customers.

“You have a lot of small businesses who are solely supplying to a supermarket chain as their main customer. But if that Supermarket now has access to P&L information on these smaller companies, they can see how much they contribute towards their turnover and they can see information about their profit margins, and if they think this supplier has been too profitable, then they’re going to start squeezing them,” he said.

I suppose that if there is no freedom and there is no privacy, then there is no fraud. But remember the patient? The patient is dead.

Anyhow, we are where we are.

Most of the measures outlined above will be brought in gradually.

There can be no doubt that these are real changes, therefore they need to be prepared for now, rather than addressed under pressure later.

A relevant song?. Click Here  Everything is Broken.

Please do contact us whenever you need Notarial certification or Legalisation for your Documents– at http://www.atkinsonnotary.com – or phone us on 0113 816 0116 (internationally 0044 113 8160116)

Foreign Owners of Land in England and Wales

Who are the foreign owners of UK Land. Are they laundering their loot?

image (c) Mr Lightman

The Register of Overseas Entities came into force in the UK on 1 August 2022 through the new Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022.

Overseas entities (defined as “Companies registered outside UK”) which want to own, buy, sell or transfer real property (land, or interests in land) in the UK, must register with Companies House and tell it who their registrable beneficial owners or managing officers are.

It is one step in the fight to prevent ownership of land in UK by criminal enterprises. Whilst of course for criminals it will be just one more thing to try to get around – and successful criminals are inventive if nothing else – for the honest and genuine foreign investor it becomes another level of bureaucracy to deal with. It will be time consuming and difficult for them to manage from wherever they are in the world, so they will need an agent in UK.

If the company ignores the new requirement the penalties which can be imposed include fines of £2,500 per day. Which punishment applies at least theoretically, to the entity itself and also every officer of it personally. Click Here.  Also, imprisonment.

In particular, it is a pain in the neck for such businesses because unlike most new law in UK, the registration requirements are retrospective.

So, a foreign Company may have owned land in UK for over twenty years, with no need for registration in UK as an Overseas Entity, but now that is no longer possible.

No one has yet been punished in this way, but these are relatively early days, so perhaps we are in a “phoney war” period.

The rules apply retrospectively to overseas entities who bought property or land on or after:

• 1 January 1999 in England and Wales
• 8 December 2014 in Scotland

The date for registration has passed – it was 31 January 2023.

The current estimate seems to be that there are some 31000 such overseas entities which own land and that over 28000 have now complied and are registered.

How have they done it? – it’s not straightforward. Imagine you are a Company Director working hard in Germany or somewhere, making widgets all day and fully occupied. Your company owns office premises in England. Now you must register. And for ever after, update annually.

You need a UK based agent to do this for you.

Prior to registration, the information you wish to give must be verified by an independent UK-based agent who is supervised under the UK’s Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.

Clearly this is a very onerous job. Do you want to do it?

What do you have to tell Companies House every year?

Every “beneficial owner” of the foreign entity needs to be listed at Companies house, with

• Name.
• Date of birth.
• Nationality.
• Residential address.
• Service address.
• Date at which the individual became beneficial owner of the entity.
• Nature of control of the entity.
• Whether the individual is on sanction lists.

Well at least the definition of Beneficial owner is fairly clear? Think again. (No, it’s not.)

Easy enough in a small family concern with a married couple owning 50% of the shares each. Bit more complex when there are hundreds of shareholders and directors.

And once you have decided which of those persons actually is a “beneficial owner”, bear in mind that you also, as the agent most easily locatable to be arrested and carry the can, are personally at risk of the punishments listed above – £2500.00 daily, five years jail, for non-registration, late registration or incorrect registration.

Solicitors are usually people keen to embrace a new role if there is the opportunity to open a new income stream. They may think – here is some new onerous work which it is essential for foreign Companies to pay for. Otherwise, the company cannot sell the land it owns in UK or buy additional land here. Let’s jump into this and earn some money.

But the Law Society is advising Solicitors to be very cautious indeed.

Here is published guidance for Solicitors, from the Law Society. “WHAT ARE THE RISKS FOR SOLICITORS ACTING AS VERIFICATION AGENTS? “

Despite the commercial opportunities, this is not an area of work to be taken on lightly. Some of the core risks for solicitors include:

• Lack of understanding or competence in the register of overseas entities process, and/or applicable legal skills to unpick corporate and trust structures in overseas jurisdictions. Specialist overseas counsel may be required.
• Acting under the mistaken assumption that verification is the same as identity verification under the Money Laundering Regulations. It is not. For instance, the definitions of ‘beneficial owners’ differ. And as things stand, verification is not conducted under the ‘risk-based approach’ we are all familiar with.
• Receiving documents from the overseas client in foreign languages and in unfamiliar formats. Notarised translations may be required.
• Missing a deadline to submit Companies House applications, where this is a part of the retainer, could result in a negligence claim.
• Caving to intense pressure from overseas clients to complete verification without the required independent and reliable information. The stakes are high for those requiring registration, potentially curtailing their UK property investments, and presenting criminal liability. Solicitors will need to be able to robustly resist pressure.

Solicitors undertaking verification without the required skills and expertise are likely to be in breach of the SRA Code of Conduct. The regulator has already hinted that ‘there may be issues’ for law firms acting as verification agents, and would be well advised to heed the caution contained in The Law Society guidance.

Professional indemnity insurance cover may also be an issue, and firms need to check that acting as a verification in this new and potentially risky area is covered. 

In the worst-case scenario, there is criminal liability for verification agents who misrepresent the beneficial ownership of an overseas entity to Companies House.

It is perhaps a job only for firms of Solicitors with offices in many countries and the ability to employ staff to act as verification agents and do nothing else.

Of course, if solicitors don’t do it, someone else will fill the void. Not me though, thanks.

Although if you are an owner or officer of a foreign company owning or wanting to own UK land, I can put you in touch with suitable agents.

A relevant song? Not really, but I like it. Click Here   Living in a Foreign Land

Please do contact us whenever you need Notarial certification or Legalisation for your Documents– at http://www.atkinsonnotary.com – or phone us on 0113 816 0116 (internationally 0044 113 8160116)

RIGHT TO DIE. How Is That Going?

“Right To Die” and “Assisted Dying”. Eight Years on.

In 2015 I wrote a Blog Click Here about the case of a man with a degenerative disease who killed himself before he really wanted to, so as to avoid living to become incapable of doing so later when perhaps in much greater pain. As he said in an interview recorded before his suicide, if there were a law in England which would allow his friends to “assist” him in dying when life became unbearable, then he would have postponed matters.

His earlier death was the result of his knowledge that “assisting suicide” is a crime, so that if his friends acted to help him to die later then they might have to go to jail. Therefore, he killed himself whilst he could still move and do so alone.

This caused plenty of comment, with the usual heated certainty from both sides of the argument.

On one side, a feeling that this case highlighted the urgency of a legal framework for euthanasia.

On the other, that this case was terribly sad but changed nothing. In my earlier blog I mentioned the “thin end of the wedge” concern. That if euthanasia were to be legalised then first, it would be applied with the strictest of safeguards, to only the “hardest” cases. But that later, society would get more used to the general idea, and assist people to die when perhaps with better help and therapy those people might want to live instead.

And that later still, euthanasia might well be applied to people who did not want to die at all.

I quoted the arguments of two Parliamentary debaters at the time:-

Lord Falconer said from the heart –  “Some say that the current law should just be allowed to continue. They are wrong. Without intending to be, and despite the very best efforts of those who seek to enforce it, the current law provides the option of an assisted death to those rich enough to go abroad; for the rest, it provides despair and often a lonely, cruel death — and no adequate safeguards”.

Just as emotively, Baroness Campbell of Surbiton said: “First, I must declare a very important interest. THIS BILL IS ABOUT ME. I did not ask for it and I do not want it but it is about me nevertheless. Before anyone disputes this, imagine that it is already Law and that I ask for assistance to die. Do your Lordships think that I would be refused? No; you can be sure that there would be doctors and lawyers willing to support my right to die. Sadly, many would put their energies into that rather than improving my situation or helping me to change my mind. The Bill offers no comfort to me. It frightens me because, in periods of greatest difficulty, I know that I might be tempted to use it. It only adds to the burdens and challenges which life holds for me.”

Now we are eight years on and in fact in Canada, euthanasia was legalised seven years ago. For those with “terminal illnesses” only.

But what’s this, from the Canada government website today:- click here

A specific statement – your condition need not be terminal. We are happy to kill you anyway. (I paraphrase)

And hang on, what about this paraplegic lady who is seeking a stairlift from the Canadian Army Veterans, an arm of the Canadian state, because she is entitled to it and because paraplegic ladies can’t run up and down stairs. A reasonable request. The stairlift was promised and four years after the promise it had still not been installed. What would you do? Surely, like she did, you would try to explain the extent of your suffering, of the hardship day by day which a stairlift would resolve.

You might perhaps say “ I just can’t keep going like this. I can’t keep living like this”.

Dangerous phrases to use in Canada these days. Because the response was not “We are so very sorry and your stairlift will be installed tomorrow.” No. It was “You know, if you really feel you can’t go on like this and feel you can’t do it anymore, you know, you have the right to die.”

Links to her case and others click here, Here and Here.

In my opinion the current score is Baroness Campbell of Surbiton ONE – Lord Falconer NIL.

On which note here is a jolly song Click Here

Here I am in Leeds, for all your Notary needs. Do get in touch whenever I can assist  and  whenever you have a legal issue which has any foreign element notary@atkinsonnotary.com or phone me or Louise +44 (0) 1138160116