The words come from Coverdale’s translation of Psalm 72 and have great antiquity. The words of course mean more than a cursory read may suggest and embrace the protection of the needy, the poor, the weaker members of our ‘Big Society’, if you will. The wrongdoer is not only the ‘common criminal’. The wrongdoer may include an oppressor and an oppressor can, of course, include the State. We must never be seduced into thinking that the CPS and the State gets all prosecutions right. #twitterjoketrial comes to mind. (Also here: Law Review: Twitter Joke Trial – A travesty… why do we really bother?) I wonder how much that fiasco cost?
We are asked to embrace David Cameron’s idea of a Big Society; to help each other, to reduce government, to hand power to the people and we are being exhorted to hold true to the high moral principles which Britain both aspires to and has been known for. Fine words, fine aspirations and fine sentiments – but essentially meaningless unless backed up with money in a field of human behaviour and endeavour in some respects as important as physical health. A doctor cannot help with legal advice or representation a person undergoing extreme legal pressure or oppression.
The legal system for ‘Big Society” must be independent of government if it is to work. Unfortunately this can’t be cobbled together and funded by donations and cake sales at a village fete in the Home Counties and The Shires on a sunny summer afternoon. It has to be staffed by professionals and that costs money. I suppose we should be thankful that there are no plans to have directly elected judges, ‘district attorneys’ and prosecutors, to save a bit of money. Fortunately, justice minister, Jonathan Djanogly, is too busy cutting like someone out at night on Friday 13th, to read my blog. I would not wish to be credited for putting such an idea into his head.
Who is going to protect the children of the poor, the weaker less advantaged members of society, the innocent, the poor themselves, if legal aid, is to be cut to the bone? - whether Coalition or Labour government, I care not who is the perpetrator of this.
It costs money to fund even the most modest solicitor’s office, fund solicitor’s time or barrister’s time. Those who rely on legal aid tend not to be consulting the City and Commercial law firms – which, however, contribute in their way to our society by providing experienced lawyers who do many thousands of hours of free legal work for those who need help. (I would not wish twitter trolls and head bangers to think I had missed the point that lawyers are ‘fat cats’) Those who rely on legal aid consult lawyers who deal with very real, sometimes very serious and oppressive, legal issues which can seriously affect mental and physical health and even destroy lives.
The Ministry of Justice hopes to save a great deal of money with these reforms. Frankly, I would rather see our countrymen and women get help than see money given in overseas development aid to ease the passage of The Foreign and Britain is Well Hard and Up For Business Office headed by William Hague and promoted heavily by David Cameron. And please… spare me the …we have run out of money bit…. The Ministry of Justice savings are small compared to the money being made available elsewhere… I am advised…. but could have a very serious impact on the lives of many in this country. Yes, we need to make savings, build our country coffers back up – but these cuts could have unintended consequences for the political and moral health of our country and the people who need the help.
I shall write more on this in the coming weeks…and I may even find that some of the proposals – funding personal injury cases through No win, No Fee , for example (which I thought was going to be hammered by Jackson et al?) may not be such a bad idea after all.
I do not practise. I have no axe to grind, no favour financial, political or in career to gain. Nor do I hold a candle for all lawyers here – especially not the bad, lazy, incompetent lawyers who do not do a good job of representing clients but take their shillings. I do wish to support lawyers who do a good job, especially those who have the interests of our justice system and rule of law at heart. So I am not out to feather bed my nest through lobbying. I need not, other than observe the courtesies of good manners, need to be circumspect in my words to power. I am concerned that Ken Clarke’s announcement today on legal aid and justice will have a significant impact on the rights of a great many in this country and impact directly on the enjoyment of life for many who simply cannot afford legal advice and representation.
This is not a technical legal analysis… it my ‘starter for ten’ in what I hope will be a serious, intelligent and reasoned campaign to ensure that we keep British justice alive and well for the people who need it.
I’m sorry that my representation of Justice above – she isn’t blind – is a bit bloodied.
And… if you need a bit of ranting polemic…. when a footballer can get £250,000 a week and is pilloried in the press – superinjunctionless, I assume – for not scoring a lot of goals for his club or country recently, and whose hobby appears to be shagging grannies and tarts, perhaps we need to get a few of our Big Society priorities sorted….and stop all this bollocks about moral compasses and Big Society! (May as well have a ranting polemic from time to time. I blame my reading of the online version of The Sun and the comments at 5.00 am)
In the meantime..here is Nicholas Green QC, Chairman of The Bar on today’s news.
and, of course, this…
Legal aid cuts would remove free advice for thousands of people
Guardian: Family, housing and immigration among the areas from which free legal advice may be withdrawn
I think this is the best post I have ever read in this blog or possibly in any blog. Had to be said.
[...] See the article here: Law Review: Justice bloodied…and probably bowed [...]
“I suppose we should be thankful that there are no plans to have directly elected judges, ‘district attorneys’ and prosecutors, to save a bit of money. “
Yet…
Give them time. If elected police chiefs are brought in, it’s the next logical step, after all.
A truly great post Charon. This needed to be said and you have, as always, said it well. A very apt illustration too….
I ask that same question again – why is the law so expensive? Is it really necessary to have its complicated and expensive superstructure – to double everything? Why all those collosal and high rent buildings? Why all the bowing and scraping – all the arrogance of power? Why the endless addition of new rules, new restrictions?
Saying that the Government should pay more is the approach of the rent-seeker. Us lay folk have become supplicants to some form of Swiftean nightmare – we don’t understand how it works, we are bemused by its outcomes and yet we are told to bow to it bewigged participants, to call them learned, to see them as the philosopher kings of the age. (apologies for mixing references there).
It behoves these people not to weep beef tea at the prospect of “cuts” but to ask how they can make law accessible to us all.
Might I suggest that you start by abolishing the Bar?
Simon Cooke… any thoughts on what abolishing the Bar would actually achieve for Big Society since you put the suggestion…….?
Ignore the privately funded bar – they are paid by the big commercial and City firms, who in turn are paid by business, who in turn are paid by the ultimate consumers of their products.
Legal aid solicitors do not earn a great deal…. £58.50 an hour comes to mind as the maximum for a London firm for section 7 help at court/family help and the latest legal aid results are published in the link below.
http://d-notice.blogspot.com/2010/11/legal-aid-cuts-will-lead-to-greater.html
Legal aid firms (and many other high street practices do not have bewigged high rent premises) The wigs and bowing and scraping is largely irrelevant – a hangover from a bygone age and is merely a courtesy to the crown or, in the criminal case, a device to make justice anonymous.
Charon – a most excellent article if I may say so.
This is an area which, as I am sure you know, concerns many of us massively. I have not yet had time to analyse the government’s proposals but I fear that you are absolutely right. It will be the most vulnerable who will be driven to the wall in Cameron’s so-called “Big Society” which, I think, actually means the “Big” getting “bigger” at the expense of the poorer members of society.
Simon Cooke (above) asks some reasonable questions and there is no denying that many lawyers are highly expensive. Over the years I have been supportive of a number of changes which, due to vested interests, never even got on to the starting blocks. Examples include: merger of the branches of the legal profession and abolition of QCs.
There are many in the legal profession who would support the abolition of court dress (full-bottomed wigs, breeches and buckled shoes) and wigs and gowns in court. Personally, I would not quite go so far. Court dress should disappear – it is unnecessary and utterly out of date. Wigs should disappear in all civil cases. [There are some sensible arguments for their retention in the Crown Court]. Gowns should continue to be worn.
Most sensible lawyers also support efficiency both in terms of procedure and finances. Any reforms must never prevent a person achieving justice and if access to the court is likely to cost you all you have (maybe including your home) then we do not have a fair system. Regrettably, that is how things are now looking.
As for elected Police Chiefs etc – am I right in thinking that these ideas have actually been considered. I think they certainly were considered by the Tories prior to the election and the formation of this wretched coalition which now seems to lock itself into power for 5 years – (Fixed Term Parliaments Bill) and, meanwhile, seeks to fix the constituency boundaries to suit itself at the next election (Parliamentary Voting and Constituencies Bill). Ideas such as elected Police Chiefs will be still there somewhere – albeit on the back burner.
I am still bemused by the expensiveness of it all. I sit here pondering whether to buy advice I cannot afford or run the risk of losing out. Yet the other side can buy that expensive advice – thousands of pounds that I don’t have – leaving me at a disadvantage.
“We have taken advice” they say – in the manner of “nah, na, na, nur, nah” – as I struggle to work my way through reams of impenetrable language.
And when I challenge, the answer comes back: “We have taken advice and you’re wrong.” What am I to do? I cannot afford advice.
This isn’t about the Government paying my bills – we have too much of that at it is – but about a system that costs too much for people like me to make use of it.
I went before a tribunal thingy – thinking it would be a case of presenting my case. The Standards Board shipped a London Barrister up to Bradford for two days – at heaven knows what cost – for her to shout at, berate and insult me then swan off back to the Smoke as if she hadn’t played a part in making someones life a misery. And for what? For swearing at another councillor – who I’d known for 20 years and who was a real mate.
But of course I couldn’t afford a lawyer – let alone a barrister. No-one explained how it worked to me. No-body gave me advice.
So please don’t tell me the law is cheap. It ain’t. Most folk are terrified by it – it’s costs, it’s language, it’s crazy decisions – and avoid it wherever they can. And lawyers can fix this – except it’s not in the interest of their institutions to do so.
Simon – you are right…. law is too expensive for many people and, in many places, far too complex – unnecessarily so, often.
Mediation is becoming increasingly popular – but there are dangers that this dispute resolution method, in time, will become blogged down and expensive.
I shall have to think a bit on the good points you raise. See if I can come up with some thoughts and ideas. This may take me some time!
The amounts being saved through cuts to legal aid are a pittance against the reported £4.8 trillion national debt that has accumulated over the decades. Yet the negative impact on people’s lives is likely to be disproportionately large.
“Never will so much harm be caused to so many by so few pounds saved”.
The majority of legal cases are not complex; they are straightforward and just require some common sense and a pragmatic application of the law; minimum cost, minimum fuss.
Very few legal cases require sophisticated legal minds. We live in a world where much of what we see, we know.
It’s a shame the government thinks slashing budgets is the only way forward. There is so much that could be done to improve our legal services and keep pushing for protection of the most vulnerable.
We have too many people in the justice system doing too many pointless jobs and whilst removing some of these departments would create problems of their own (unemployment at the top of the list), our most pressing priority must be those who are most vulnerable.
The recent comments by Kenneth Clarke on the private family law legal aid cuts is embarrassing. If we just got rid of some of the pointless departments in the sector and focused on removing the majority of all that form filling and envelope counting, we could get somewhere.
In lean times, being able to prioritise with sensitivity and deftness is a must. Going round cutting costs is just a hacker’s game.
There are two separate issues. The first is that the legal aid system has no effective mechanism for containing costs and is easily abused (notwithstanding the good work done by many legal aid lawyers). The second is that the government wishes to take away the means for its policies being challenged in the courts. Hence the audit commission is removed and legal aid dismembered.
Simon Cooke – for it what its worth (and I presume by the tenor of your post not a lot as they have already found against you) the standards board has been thrown onto the bonfire of the quangos.
The real problem, which everyone seems to forget when we talk about legal aid, is that we have a justice system that is only open to the rich and the poor.
I always thought that legal aid should be open to more people, but be restricted in scope; save legal aid for holding government to account and enforcing the most important private law rights. Typically the Tories have just cut it (and we will never get it back), but I don’t necessarily disagree with some of their logic.
Jackson tried to grapple with costs, but he discovered there are no easy answers (although there is an argument that once a high street practitioner loses their legal aid contract they will be forced to reduce their fees or otherwise fold).
Simon it sounds as though you believe that you have suffered an injustice because you felt unable to afford legal advice and I am very sorry to hear it.
I am all the more sorry that you seem to have come from my part of the world and failed to take advantage of the pro bono services in West Yorkshire that the Bar and many law firms offer.
Ever since 2005 I have run a free intellectual property clinic every month in different towns and cities around Yorkshire and the Wirral through http://www.nipc-clinics.co.uk/ People come to this panel for all sorts of advice – not all of it legal. If an inventor or businessman wants to consult say a product development consultant or a patent agent all the professionals on this list have agreed to give the people I introduce to them an introductory interview over the phone or at their offices absolutely free: http://www.ipyorkshire.co.uk/about-us
Talks on patenting, confidentiality, branding and so on are also given at the inventors clubs I chair in Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield.
I also publish practical information through presentations
http://nipclaw.wordpress.com/jane-lambert-2/presentations/
on-line publications
http://nipclaw.wordpress.com/
http://nipclaw.wordpress.com/
http://ipyorkshire.blogspot.com/
http://nipcinvention.blogspot.com/
I’m just one woman in one specialist area. There are plenty of other free or inexpensive services that you could have consulted in any other areas of the law through the professions:
http://www.thefru.org.uk/
http://www.barprobono.org.uk/
http://www.lawworks.org.uk/
Charities
http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/
and the law centres at Leeds
http://www.lawcentres.org.uk/directory/detail/harehills-and-chapeltown-law-centre/
and Bradford
http://www.lawcentres.org.uk/directory/detail/bradford-law-centre/
I don’t know who you approached but you really could have got the information you needed – and in all probability free of charge.
I also want to disabuse you of the urban myth that barristers are more expensive than solicitors. Some are more expensive than some solicitors but most are actually very much cheaper than solicitors of similar experience in the same field. The reason for that is that we are not (yet) allowed to take clients’ money on account and therefore do not need the computer systems, staff and offices required to account for that money.
That, however, is likely to change soon as a result of the Legal Services Act 2007 which allows barristers to form partnerships or companies with other professionals.
If you really think that costs would come down or that service would improve if we didn’t exist, take a look across the Atlantic where there has always been a fused profession. Are legal fees lower there? Are services better?
I have taught at a US law school and been European legal advisor to a US banking group. Most Americans, lawyers and litigants, and indeed most Brits I have met with experience of the two legal systems seem to prefer ours.
[...] confronting the Eurozone that may lead to a Europe-wide bail-out of Ireland, or any analysis of the swingeing legal aid cuts in England and Wales that will deny justice to any person that isn’… allowing the supine populace to rest [...]
[...] Charon QC It costs money to fund even the most modest solicitor’s office, fund solicitor’s time or barrister’s time. Those who rely on legal aid tend not to be consulting the City and Commercial law firms – which, however, contribute in their way to our society by providing experienced lawyers who do many thousands of hours of free legal work for those who need help. (I would not wish twitter trolls and head bangers to think I had missed the point that lawyers are ‘fat cats’) Those who rely on legal aid consult lawyers who deal with very real, sometimes very serious and oppressive, legal issues which can seriously affect mental and physical health and even destroy lives. [...]