Wednesday 21st September. Midnight GMT. The world seemed to stop and cry together while it waited for news of the barbaric execution of Troy Davis by the American state of Georgia.
In a sickening and heart wrenching few minutes it seems that the right thinking people of this world united in grief, not only grief for the man about to die but grief for a lost moral code that could have prevented this from happening in the first place. Yes, while Troy Davis was strapped to a gurney awaiting death by lethal injection, I was watching my twitter feed.
I have never before felt so close to an execution and it is utterly soul destroying - god only knows what it must feel like to actually be there; I hope that I never find out. As I watched, I cried bucket loads of tears, I felt physically sick and I did something I haven't done for many, many years - I said a prayer (blame the catholic upbringing, it appears to kick in when I feel completely helpless).
I doubt very much that it was my prayer which did it but Troy Davis has been granted a temporary reprieve. It seems though that this in itself is nothing short of torture, reportedly being the 4th time and, just to make it even better, i'm currently watching various reports that the poor soul may still be in the execution chamber waiting to hear whether or not the state intend to kill him tonight. I feel sick again.
Currently #thewholeworldiswatching is trending, right up there at the top of the list, and the whole world is watching.
Whatever the outcome tonight, tomorrow, next week, next year, the world needs to keep watching and keep shouting and put an end to this barbaric practice once and for all.
I said earlier this evening that I was hanging my head in shame for not making a difference when it was needed. I was told that it wasn't my fault but it is. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to keep watching and to put this right.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Guilt by association?
Am I guilty? Am I corrupt? Am I lacking morals and am I failing to adhere appropriately to the Code of Conduct I have agreed to be bound by? These are the questions that keep flying around my head. Disturbing questions that may make you wonder exactly what I could have done to warrant them being asked at all.
What I have done is be a member of the legal profession.
I am, at the moment, deeply disturbed by the apparent readiness of others in my profession to ignore the rules and guidelines that have been carefully considered and written down over time, in favour of unquestioningly accepting the demands of political leaders. Yep, i'm talking of the sentencing guidelines and the manner in which they are being currently disregarded by Magistrates...Magistrates who are advised by people like me (though, I hasten to add, not me).
Now its a long time since I first studied the law but I do recall one of the first things I was taught was the need for there to be a level of certainty in how the law is applied and what sentences are passed. As its been such an age, I thought I should check so I wandered off to the website of the Sentencing Council. The Council, on the homepage of their website state:
I am far from an expert in this area, having studied it only as part of my academic legal training in the dim and distant past. I have never practiced criminal law. What I can offer is some level of understanding of how legislation and guidelines operate along with some basic commonsense. Applying these, I find the current situation lacking, seriously lacking.
I fail to understand how it can be considered acceptable to apply the harshest possible sentences to cases where there are no clearly aggravating factors, such as the case of the single mum who received a 4 month custodial sentence for handling a pair of stolen shorts. Can the fact that someone else went into a looted store, in the middle of a riot, really be an aggravating factor in her handling charge? I don't know but it certainly feels very, very wrong.
I am ashamed right now to think of myself as part of a profession which is willing to not only allow this to happen but also willing to aid and abet those demanding this despicable kind of rough justice.
Special thanks to Vicky, one of the brightest legal minds I know, for being my sounding board and for always seeing the good. For the record, she keeps the faith in the judiciary which I am still struggling to grab hold of.
What I have done is be a member of the legal profession.
I am, at the moment, deeply disturbed by the apparent readiness of others in my profession to ignore the rules and guidelines that have been carefully considered and written down over time, in favour of unquestioningly accepting the demands of political leaders. Yep, i'm talking of the sentencing guidelines and the manner in which they are being currently disregarded by Magistrates...Magistrates who are advised by people like me (though, I hasten to add, not me).
Now its a long time since I first studied the law but I do recall one of the first things I was taught was the need for there to be a level of certainty in how the law is applied and what sentences are passed. As its been such an age, I thought I should check so I wandered off to the website of the Sentencing Council. The Council, on the homepage of their website state:
The Sentencing Council for England and Wales promotes greater consistency in sentencing, whilst maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The Council produces guidelines on sentencing for the judiciary and aims to increase public understanding of sentencing.Nowhere that I can see on that website, does it say that guidelines don't really matter if a politician says otherwise.
I am far from an expert in this area, having studied it only as part of my academic legal training in the dim and distant past. I have never practiced criminal law. What I can offer is some level of understanding of how legislation and guidelines operate along with some basic commonsense. Applying these, I find the current situation lacking, seriously lacking.
I fail to understand how it can be considered acceptable to apply the harshest possible sentences to cases where there are no clearly aggravating factors, such as the case of the single mum who received a 4 month custodial sentence for handling a pair of stolen shorts. Can the fact that someone else went into a looted store, in the middle of a riot, really be an aggravating factor in her handling charge? I don't know but it certainly feels very, very wrong.
I am ashamed right now to think of myself as part of a profession which is willing to not only allow this to happen but also willing to aid and abet those demanding this despicable kind of rough justice.
Special thanks to Vicky, one of the brightest legal minds I know, for being my sounding board and for always seeing the good. For the record, she keeps the faith in the judiciary which I am still struggling to grab hold of.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Too fast, too furious
Its a funny old world that we live in, particularly so over this past week. We've seen public disorder spread across England on a not too overwhelming scale though it appears to have caused prolific insanity among previously right-minded people along with that best-known of ailments that affects only those in authority, knee-jerkitis.
When I returned from an evening out and first saw the images of burning buildings, police in riot gear, kids smashing shop windows, I was shocked and saddened like everyone else but what I can admit which most don't, is that I also felt the lure of the riots. I felt the excitement of seeing something different happening on my telly, of thinking that maybe now is the time that the average people of the UK would find their voice, stand up and be counted. It may have been started by angry youths and initially spread by inane ones but I felt the potential for it to turn into something meaningful that would make those in power realise what they have done, over decades, to our society and that maybe, just maybe, the people could effect the change we all need. That possibility made for compulsive viewing...viewing which boosted the ever fantastical reporting and prompted a media frenzy and moral panic, the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since the death of LeahBetts.
Sadly, in my opinion at least, the revolution didn't arrive. Instead of meaningful protest and having our voices heard, the politicians came running home from their comfortable holidays to silence us. I do believe it was right for them to return home and act as the leaders they profess to be but I am disappointed by the clear lack of understanding of the society they claim to represent. I am equally disappointed by the generic stupidity of that society which largely seems only capable of perpetuating all of its bad traits and further diluting the good.
I am fed up of seeing politicians from all sides screaming for justice against a people who need understanding and help. I am sick of having to listen to the likes of Louise Mensch debating issues about which she clearly has no understanding and David Cameron preaching morality when he mixes daily with individuals who have none.
I am angry that the idea of swift and rough justice is being glorified and forced upon us, with courts staying open through the night to process the perpetrators of these terrible crimes. All I see here is a justice system which is as corrupt as the politicians who are manipulating it and by that, I am appalled.
It frightens me that in dealing with matters so quickly, important points may be missed and mitigating factors ignored simply because our Prime Minister has made clear his own view of justice and how that should be applied to all who are charged...that is, as long as they're not his mates who have fraudulently deprived this society of many thousands of pounds in recent years - very obviously a lesser crime than pilfering a bottle of wine from an already looted store, right under the noses of the police who are looking on quietly; or accepting a pair of shorts that somebody else stole while you weren't even present.
I've pondered long and hard over the possible motivation of those directly involved in the 'rioting' and my conclusion is that people, in general, are thoroughly pissed off, bored, angry and most importantly feel disenfranchised and unheard by those who are supposed to serve, lead and protect us. There is no single reason or even a main reason, it is a great big melting pot of ugly, angry everything.
Such a variety of people have been involved that the blame cannot be pinned solely on a lack of education or respect as much of the media and many politicians would like us to believe; nor can it be put down to any one of the other usual social targets - youth, unemployment, race or gang-culture. No, here we have seen people from all walks of life being enticed by the lure of what the politicians choose to refer to as criminality but what seems to me to be more akin to an opportunity to be seen, heard, understood and to release a lifetime of frustration.
EDIT: After 3 days of writing a mammoth blogpost, 'Blogger' decided to lose the entire thing. Above is about a third of the original which i'd written in Word and had saved. The essence of what is missing is that there is corruption in our society from the very top down to the very bottom. At the top we call it a mistake, at the bottom we call it a crime. It makes me very sad to see the gulf between the haves and the have nots ever widening and my fear is that it will soon be too great to ever be bridged.
When I returned from an evening out and first saw the images of burning buildings, police in riot gear, kids smashing shop windows, I was shocked and saddened like everyone else but what I can admit which most don't, is that I also felt the lure of the riots. I felt the excitement of seeing something different happening on my telly, of thinking that maybe now is the time that the average people of the UK would find their voice, stand up and be counted. It may have been started by angry youths and initially spread by inane ones but I felt the potential for it to turn into something meaningful that would make those in power realise what they have done, over decades, to our society and that maybe, just maybe, the people could effect the change we all need. That possibility made for compulsive viewing...viewing which boosted the ever fantastical reporting and prompted a media frenzy and moral panic, the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since the death of LeahBetts.
Sadly, in my opinion at least, the revolution didn't arrive. Instead of meaningful protest and having our voices heard, the politicians came running home from their comfortable holidays to silence us. I do believe it was right for them to return home and act as the leaders they profess to be but I am disappointed by the clear lack of understanding of the society they claim to represent. I am equally disappointed by the generic stupidity of that society which largely seems only capable of perpetuating all of its bad traits and further diluting the good.
I am fed up of seeing politicians from all sides screaming for justice against a people who need understanding and help. I am sick of having to listen to the likes of Louise Mensch debating issues about which she clearly has no understanding and David Cameron preaching morality when he mixes daily with individuals who have none.
I am angry that the idea of swift and rough justice is being glorified and forced upon us, with courts staying open through the night to process the perpetrators of these terrible crimes. All I see here is a justice system which is as corrupt as the politicians who are manipulating it and by that, I am appalled.
It frightens me that in dealing with matters so quickly, important points may be missed and mitigating factors ignored simply because our Prime Minister has made clear his own view of justice and how that should be applied to all who are charged...that is, as long as they're not his mates who have fraudulently deprived this society of many thousands of pounds in recent years - very obviously a lesser crime than pilfering a bottle of wine from an already looted store, right under the noses of the police who are looking on quietly; or accepting a pair of shorts that somebody else stole while you weren't even present.
I've pondered long and hard over the possible motivation of those directly involved in the 'rioting' and my conclusion is that people, in general, are thoroughly pissed off, bored, angry and most importantly feel disenfranchised and unheard by those who are supposed to serve, lead and protect us. There is no single reason or even a main reason, it is a great big melting pot of ugly, angry everything.
Such a variety of people have been involved that the blame cannot be pinned solely on a lack of education or respect as much of the media and many politicians would like us to believe; nor can it be put down to any one of the other usual social targets - youth, unemployment, race or gang-culture. No, here we have seen people from all walks of life being enticed by the lure of what the politicians choose to refer to as criminality but what seems to me to be more akin to an opportunity to be seen, heard, understood and to release a lifetime of frustration.
EDIT: After 3 days of writing a mammoth blogpost, 'Blogger' decided to lose the entire thing. Above is about a third of the original which i'd written in Word and had saved. The essence of what is missing is that there is corruption in our society from the very top down to the very bottom. At the top we call it a mistake, at the bottom we call it a crime. It makes me very sad to see the gulf between the haves and the have nots ever widening and my fear is that it will soon be too great to ever be bridged.
Monday, July 11, 2011
United we stand, divided we fall.
Over recent weeks, as the subject of legal aid reform has been hotly debated, there has been much opposition to sweeping reforms voiced from a variety of sources and this is, without question, very positive. Worryingly, one issue which is shining out above most others, is the disjointed approach to campaigning taken by the main players in this crucial battle against Ken Clarke and his Ministry.
The Law Society; The Bar Council; The Judges' Council; Justice for All; LAG; and so the list goes on. All standing up to be counted, all shouting for the right to access justice regardless of social or economic status and each appearing to act in isolation to the others. We have the Sound Off campaign website and the Justice for All campaign website which, whilst complementing each other and showing mutual support, do appear to almost be competing at first glance and that cannot be beneficial - if people feel faced with a choice, it is likely that they will be unsure who to support and may well ultimately decide to support neither. It is a similar story across the board.
Each and every voice that shouts, or group that campaigns is, without doubt, beneficial but how much louder would the voice of the vulnerable be if all of these groups presented a united front and took a truly joined up approach?
It is clear to those within the legal profession that the various voices are all on the same side and fighting, relentlessly, to achieve the same outcome; I do not dispute this. I am however convinced that united we will stand but divided, we fall.
Now is the time to step forward in complete unity, with a single Legal Aid campaign, and shout louder than ever before to protect our rights and our ability to enforce them without discrimination or prejudice.
The Law Society; The Bar Council; The Judges' Council; Justice for All; LAG; and so the list goes on. All standing up to be counted, all shouting for the right to access justice regardless of social or economic status and each appearing to act in isolation to the others. We have the Sound Off campaign website and the Justice for All campaign website which, whilst complementing each other and showing mutual support, do appear to almost be competing at first glance and that cannot be beneficial - if people feel faced with a choice, it is likely that they will be unsure who to support and may well ultimately decide to support neither. It is a similar story across the board.
Each and every voice that shouts, or group that campaigns is, without doubt, beneficial but how much louder would the voice of the vulnerable be if all of these groups presented a united front and took a truly joined up approach?
It is clear to those within the legal profession that the various voices are all on the same side and fighting, relentlessly, to achieve the same outcome; I do not dispute this. I am however convinced that united we will stand but divided, we fall.
Now is the time to step forward in complete unity, with a single Legal Aid campaign, and shout louder than ever before to protect our rights and our ability to enforce them without discrimination or prejudice.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Lynch mobs at dawn
The naming and shaming of convicted criminals online has been endorsed by Home Office Minister, Nick Herbert. This appears to be yet another government [knee-jerk] plan to appease the masses be seen to be tough on crime, which hasn't really been thought through, in the government's sustained attack on our justice system.
The idea, it seems, is to publish photographs of offenders on 'crime maps' covering England and Wales; the result of which will be to reduce crime. This of course is unlikely to cause a reduction in crime at all; it is likely to do one of two things: create an increase in unsafe convictions whilst pacifying Joe Bloggs and his media bloodhound; or cause a drop in the conviction rate.
Why do I think this? Well stop for a moment and think about what will happen when a person is prosecuted primarily due to them having been identified in a police line up. Its my guess that the CPS will charge blindly toward the easy conviction finish line and the defence will, at a timely moment, gallop up to the front of the race and ask the question "has the victim ever looked at the crime map?" Cue sweaty palmed prosecutor watching his easy conviction slipping through his fingers.
The naming and shaming of criminals in this way will simply serve the reckless wants of Mr Joe Bloggs, vigilante-style, victim. He will, quite naturally, take an interest in the criminals in his area, look at their images on the map and whether he realises it or not, will commit their faces to memory. When Joe is later required to identify the individual he spotted running away from his house at the time it was trashed by a thieving little toe-rag, he spots the young man from the map - it might be him, same hair, same sort of height, yep, must be that one. Result! When this is raised in the toe-rag's defence it is enough to cast reasonable doubt so he gets to walk out of court rather than taking a ride to HM Holiday Camp.
What about jurors who, before or even during a trial, decide to take a look at the crime map? There is clearly the potential for them to convict on the basis that the accused had previously been handed a custodial sentence for a different crime, rather than ensuring a conviction on the facts of the case before them.
Yet again we find ourselves looking at the proposals of a bunch of halfwits who have failed to consider the negative connotations of their hair-brained schemes.
Note to government: Its not big and its not clever to undermine our justice system in any of the ways you have thus far attempted!
*The author knows little about criminal law but does have a bit of commonsense.
The idea, it seems, is to publish photographs of offenders on 'crime maps' covering England and Wales; the result of which will be to reduce crime. This of course is unlikely to cause a reduction in crime at all; it is likely to do one of two things: create an increase in unsafe convictions whilst pacifying Joe Bloggs and his media bloodhound; or cause a drop in the conviction rate.
Why do I think this? Well stop for a moment and think about what will happen when a person is prosecuted primarily due to them having been identified in a police line up. Its my guess that the CPS will charge blindly toward the easy conviction finish line and the defence will, at a timely moment, gallop up to the front of the race and ask the question "has the victim ever looked at the crime map?" Cue sweaty palmed prosecutor watching his easy conviction slipping through his fingers.
The naming and shaming of criminals in this way will simply serve the reckless wants of Mr Joe Bloggs, vigilante-style, victim. He will, quite naturally, take an interest in the criminals in his area, look at their images on the map and whether he realises it or not, will commit their faces to memory. When Joe is later required to identify the individual he spotted running away from his house at the time it was trashed by a thieving little toe-rag, he spots the young man from the map - it might be him, same hair, same sort of height, yep, must be that one. Result! When this is raised in the toe-rag's defence it is enough to cast reasonable doubt so he gets to walk out of court rather than taking a ride to HM Holiday Camp.
What about jurors who, before or even during a trial, decide to take a look at the crime map? There is clearly the potential for them to convict on the basis that the accused had previously been handed a custodial sentence for a different crime, rather than ensuring a conviction on the facts of the case before them.
Yet again we find ourselves looking at the proposals of a bunch of halfwits who have failed to consider the negative connotations of their hair-brained schemes.
Note to government: Its not big and its not clever to undermine our justice system in any of the ways you have thus far attempted!
*The author knows little about criminal law but does have a bit of commonsense.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Day 2 Letter to Ben
Dear Moron,
Following your recent comments regarding lawyers, the Legal Aid consultation and the resulting Bill, I would like to point out the following:
I will expect my personal apology by return of post.
Alice.
Following your recent comments regarding lawyers, the Legal Aid consultation and the resulting Bill, I would like to point out the following:
- I am a lawyer currently earning under £25,000 per year, employed in the not-for-profit sector.
- I have been subject to a pay freeze for 2 years because my pay is linked to that of the public sector.
- I studied and worked for 10 years to obtain my professional status, coming from a disadvantaged background and winning a scholarship to complete my legal education on the basis of excellence and my commitment to access to justice.
- I often work long hours, work weekends and evenings and rarely have time to spend with my family because of my duty to the members of the public that I serve.
- I care, passionately, about the work that I do with some of the most vulnerable members of society and am disgusted by your inference that I care only about myself.
- The publication of this idiotic Bill reduced me to tears of despair because it will stop me helping the people who need my help the most.
- I don't give a damn about money, save for the fact that I must exist and provide food and accommodation for my family.
- I have no self-interest at all, much less self-interest that is being dressed up as something else.
- I am adversarial and with good cause. I am trained to be that way when there is a case to fight and a client to defend, as is the case here.
- I do not whinge and whine, I fight my corner and the corners of those who are unable to fight for themselves. Politicians should do the same.
- You are clearly one of the government's leading Numpties and may wish to consider putting your brain in gear before trying to discuss matters that you very obviously do not fully understand.
I will expect my personal apology by return of post.
Alice.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Day1 Letter to Ken
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)