UK Criminal Justice - endangered species?

[Eames]

And now having read the blog... Which whilst well written is flawed. It uses a massively emotive subject to make its point... you are being manipulated into believing the points raises by citing a mishandled investigation and then linking it somewhat clumsily to a "target driven lawyer encouraging exhibit c to plead guilty"

If that's how her husband operates he should not be practising. You take instruction from a client and act on their instructions. You give advice and if it's ignored you do what the client wants....

Please also bear in mind her husband's career and her Lifestyle would appear to be dependent on legal aid so of course any reduction in his access to it will be viewed as a bad thing.

Not saying the MOJ have got it right, but neither has the blogger.

[snowychap]

It is in most cases too easy to get legal aid. It is not necessary for divorce proceedings, mediation should be the expected route to resolve differences.

On divorce, mediation requires two parties that wish to resolve these 'differences' in a reasonable manner, though, doesn't it?

Or at least not having (at least) one party that is thoroughly opposed to being reasonable.

On all of the changes (enacted and proposed), why do you claim that access to justice will be largely unaffected?

 

Please also bear in mind her husband's career and her Lifestyle would appear to be dependent on legal aid so of course any reduction in his access to it will be viewed as a bad thing.

That's largely the line that is always put out when someone puts the point of view across as in that blog.

The same could also have been put directly to a friend of mine whose caseload mostly consisted of legal aid family law (the vast majority children's stuff, I think) a few years ago. He was incredibly critical of the previous government's changes to that branch of legal aid (about 5 years ago, perhaps - though my memory may have got that wrong) which meant that the firm for whom he worked was dropping all legal aid work in that area. His 'lifestyle' hasn't been affected, he still has the same level (and type) of cases but the client base has obviously changed from those who could and could not afford his representation to only those who can.

My point (though this above is obviously just anecdotal) is that opinions shouldn't always be denigrated under a blanket vested interests/gravy trains pooh-poohing.

Edited May 18, 2013 by snowychap

[Eames]

Wholly agree Snowy.

However the reason for an argument is often just as relevant as the argument itself. People present arguments based on their own prejudices and preconceptions. (an oft parroted fact in the bolitics threads)

In the mediation debate, perhaps if one party is not being "reasonable" it should be for that party to fund the costs of proceedings... Just an idea...

Why will access to justice be unaffected? the right to a fair trial is not affected, as I said it's more about access to representation. Lawyers will have to reduce costs to attract work... If they aren't getting the legal aid work then will have to be more creative. The coop for example are introducing fixed pricing for some casework. It may be that this will be a positive change if fees get cheaper in the long one.

[snowychap]

In the mediation debate, perhaps if one party is not being "reasonable" it should be for that party to fund the costs of proceedings... Just an idea...

It's an idea but is that any more workable than anything else?

If they don't have the money (or make the claim that they don't) then what happens?

The stuff that is put forward on mediation (as with other things) is all very well for most, perhaps, but at the margins (and perhaps a great deal further in) there will be real problems caused.

I think that taking it forward in the way they have, the government have implicitly said that they couldn't give an effing monkey's about anyone for whom the new system falls short.

At the heart of that is the ability to pay - if you have it then you are less likely to be the unfortunate one on the wrong end of this system and I think they are quite happy with that.

 

Why will access to justice be unaffected? the right to a fair trial is not affected, as I said it's more about access to representation. Lawyers will have to reduce costs to attract work... If they aren't getting the legal aid work then will have to be more creative. The coop for example are introducing fixed pricing for some casework. It may be that this will be a positive change if fees get cheaper in the long one.

In an adversarial system, doesn't the right to a decent level of representation count for a great deal as well as a nominal 'right to a fair trial'?

It's not as though we ought to kid ourselves that outcomes of trials or civil cases necessarily represent a public discovery of 'truth'. Perhaps we ought to look at evening up the levels of representation available on both sides of the system (equality of arms) rather than removing access to representation for those who cannot afford it? Of course we'd still possibly have a disparity in the level of talent of the representation but there's only so much leveling one can do.

[Moneill]

Was in small claims court today, after a van I bought the last year broken the same day I collected it and the dealer refused to do anything. Even though I proved they faked auto trader adverts in there evidence. The judge ruled in there favour. So the is no justice. I know it's not criminal justice but I wanted somewhere to have my rant

[Anthony]

Just so you know, the petition has over 100000 signatures now, so there will be a debate in Parliament. I love when new technology makes our 'democracy' more accountable and responsive. let's see what happens...