Dear Mr Clarke,
I have read, with interest, your response to the consultation on Legal Aid reforms and the resulting Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. I note that, whilst you profess to have listened to all concerns raised, you have actually done little to take those concerns on board and make relevant changes to improve your imbecilic proposals.
You aim, so you say, to reform the system in order to ensure access to public funding in those cases that most require it and to ensure the early resolution of disputes in order to avoid unnecessary conflict. Having now read your consultation response and the resulting Bill in their entirety, I can say, with some certainty, that you are either entirely out of touch with reality and have no understanding of what is required to ensure your aims are met; or you have an alternate political agenda to perform.
I would agree entirely with your assertion that legal recourse should be the last port of call rather than the first. Unfortunately, your Bill fails entirely to recognise that approach by denying public funding to people wishing to resolve their disputes at an early stage; instead you see fit to only allow funding to be accessed long after court proceedings are issued - prime example of this being your suggestion that debt cases may only be funded where the home is at immediate risk and an order for sale is sought. This is a bizarre proposal from one so keen to resolve issues before they reach a court room. If you were to allow people legal assistance at the outset in this sort of situation, it would probably never get as far as a court room. I wonder if you have actually considered why cases like these even get to court? It isn't generally because the individuals want them to, more often it is because the corporate bodies involved refuse to negotiate reasonably and insist on forcing the matter before a judge to protect their interests (and why shouldn't they make use of the legal redress freely available to them). What I want to know is why don't you choose to regulate that type of behaviour rather than remove access to a proper defence from the already under-privileged?
You point out in your consultation response that individuals will be able to seek guidance from other sources at an early stage - I assume that you refer to services such as CABx which, whilst doing an excellent job providing generalist, low level, guidance, are often unable to do anything more than signpost users on to providers of legal services - even at the earliest of stages. As an individual who regularly mops up CABx mess, I can assure you that I am correct and even extend an invitation to you to come and see for yourself (I of course accept that facing the reality of your incompetence may not be something you wish to do, so I won't bother putting the kettle on any time soon).
You have stated that the government supports the simplification of the legal system but that these reforms are not dependent on those measures, they should be. The current system is not easy for lawyers to navigate after years of training and in the vast majority of cases it would be unthinkable for a lay person to navigate their way through the system successfully. I fear your implication that the legal system could be accessed by litigants in person as the norm may be somewhat delusional and misguided.
Much of your rhetoric is directed at the current expense of Legal Aid in the UK compared to that of other countries and the need to reduce that spending. I absolutely agree with you on this general point. I think that the reason we are spending so much is a matter of societal values - ours are so far eroded that they barely exist. May you, perhaps, be better off concerning yourself with ensuring that rules and policing are tightened up rather than denying those already victims of the system access to justice and legal recourse? #Justsayin.
Mr. Clarke, you claim to have considered carefully the impact of your reforms on the more vulnerable members of our (yes, our, not your) society yet you fail to appropriately acknowledge what vulnerability can amount to - instead restricting your definition to older people, those with disabilities and those experiencing traumatising circumstances in which the proceedings are being brought. Whilst I accept that you do not categorically state no other vulnerability should be taken into account, your failure to use the broadest of definitions clearly has dramatic and devastating implications for the majority of vulnerable people, including those with physical and mental health issues. I do not accept that you have understood the wider implications of your proposals and I do not accept that you are acting in a manner which will offer protection to those members of our society which need it the most.
I was somewhat relieved to note in your response that you were to widen the criteria for family proceedings where domestic violence is present. I then read and digested your proposals. Domestic abuse is terrifying. It affects the victim's ability to function as a 'normal' person might. It is absurd to insist on objective evidence of abuse being present and all that this will be likely to achieve is more abused women staying in relationships under fear and duress because they can't afford to access the legal system. This will undoubtedly have an effect on the well-being of any children involved - aren't you supposed to protect the interests of the child? Perhaps i'm confused. In reality here Mr. Clarke, what you are going to achieve is ensuring that women have to beaten to the point of no return before they will be entitled to public funding to help remove them from their situation. I personally find that incomprehensible but then I know what it feels like.
I find myself astounded by the level of ignorance displayed in your consultation response regarding the way that the lower echelons of society function on a daily basis. I am appalled by the lack of understanding of peoples' basic needs and more so by the clear lack of true commitment to the ideal of equality before the law. Freedom from persecution is a basic human right, did you forget that when making your declaration of compatibility?
I have much, much more to say regarding this farcical approach to reform and will return to haunt you soon with the next installment.
Yours in disgust,
Alice.
No comments:
Post a Comment