to wonder why Chris Grayling's plans to smash our justice system appear to have gone unnoticed here?(82 Posts)
I've been lurking on here for 3 years now. Never plucked up the courage to post until now.
Barristers in the North are "on strike" (ie meeting) to discuss the latest threat to legal aid and our justice system.
AIBU to wonder why this is not being discussed on MN?
I agree. I work in the legal system, on the civil, rather than criminal court side and the future is looking pretty bleak there too. I think the problem is that the public don't need a lawyer for anything at all for most of the time, so it's all very remote. When and if the time comes that they do, I suspect there will be an outcry....but it will be too late
my position is that I am worried that the country is sleepwalking into some kind of Robocop style nightmare. I don't fully understand all the issues (I'm not a lawyer!) and I hate to get all conspiracy theory about it but I find it really sinister that there is hardly anything being reported about it in the media
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Now he wants teachers to run prisons! Is there no end to this nonsense?!
I agree with everyone that this is a very serious issue. Found a lot about it on barristerblogger.com/?p=110
In my defence it was a few years ago before he had reached his current heights of stupidity
mumsnetters stand idle while the Tories kill our justice system! But at least my thread about its impending death limps on
Sorry to be melodramatic, but I still can't believe that only 27K people have signed the Save UK Justice petition
When will the country wake up and realise we are headed for an unmitigated disaster!!
60sname you had to break bread with him in order to reach that conclusion
Unconstructive but after having lunch with Chris Grayling once I concluded that he is an idiot (he spent the meal demonstrating the more pointless apps on his iPhone)
I signed the petition, even though I'm not keen on the wording, which seems to be confined to "citizens" when surely it should be anyone accused of a criminal offence.
I'm still angry at the collapse of the Immigration Advisory Service due to changes in legal aid, which came suspiciously suddenly after some important wins against the government. Talk about targeting the most vulnerable, including asylum-seekers, refugees, victims of trafficking.
"First they came for.."
...and babybarrister - ditto with the civil cuts that came in on 1 April. I bleated on and on at people, wrote stuff, campaigned etc but in the end, not many people gave a shit - the general perception seemed to be the 'fat cat lawyer' meme. Now it's come in, people are horrified - 'What do you mean I have to pay to get contact with my kids/ get you to help me sort out my debt?' etc.
Lots of my friends also lost their jobs, and are really struggling to find anything else out there - solicitors, support staff, advisers etc.
We're not allowed to strike - last time BVT/PCT was on the cards, the Law Society made it very clear that it would discipline anyone striking! So much for any solidarity from our professional body. They don't even recognise my union.
Hi Kungfuupanda - even in those areas with only 4 MAXIMUM contracts, what if g4S, Serco, Stobart etc bid? Are you in a PDS area? They're guaranteed one of those contracts. What if one of the London firms like Duncan Smith, or even Manc firms like Tuckers bid out of area? Because they will.
If you're in North Yorks, which is a proposed 4 contract area, that encompasses an ENORMOUS geographical area - Scarborough, Harrogate, York, Hull etc. Logistically, it will be difficult, as well as factoring in 4 or 5 offices to be run, travel costs etc etc
I'm in an area where our firm is pretty well placed to get a contract as long as out of area/ national providers don't step in. Even if we do get a contract, then I would expect a pay cut if I'm kept on at all tbh.
WorldofSab - I agree with everything you say, except that I don't think they've found preferred providers yet. Possibly in London, given how active the Johnson group have been, but not in most places.
I work for a firm that is big enough that we will almost certainly survive this in some way, shape or form - although the individual solicitors aren't sure which ones of us will be kept on. There will be 4 contracts for our area and it is pretty inconceivable that we won't get one of those. We haven't been approached by anyone.
Well done those Welsh lawyers - will be interesting to see what happens.
The point that family makes about clinical negligence is very worrying. I feared the govt. would ram that one through. Makes it easier for them to destroy the NHS - none of the patients they harm will be able to sue for the costs of life-long disability... sacking midwives and running a dangerously understaffed unit suddenly becomes a lot more attractive to trust chief execs.
The Welsh are striking!!
And the really stupid thing is, all this ridiculous proposal will do is cost more - as cases will take far longer when people are representing themselves and there will be many more miscarriages of justice, which are ruddy expensive to deal with. (Far more expensive than getting it right in the first place.)
I came across this thread and hope to add some further information. It is great that at last this disastrous proposal, is being talked about by non-lawyers. Lawyers are not popular, but criminal lawyers generally do not work in this area without a belief in justice and fairness and which, despite misinformation, will not make them wealthy. I am not a lawyer but my daughter is a criminal barrister and my husband was a criminal solicitor. Independent self-employed barristers, those not employed in-house by solicitors or the CPS, rely on Crown Court advocacy work referred to them. Increasingly solicitors and the CPS keep as much work to themselves as they can and understandably refer out only when they have to. This means that a self-employed barristers work currently is mainly trials, particularly those which have problems, which results in a stressful working life. Fees for Crown Court work have been repeatedly reduced. After price-competitive tendering large companies, which are not required to have any legal background, will under the new scheme make the most money if people plead guilty and will lose profits if a person insists on the right to trial. These companies will only make a reasonable profit, as they will have had to bid low to win the contract in the first place, if they employ people at the lowest cost to them that they can. It is unlikely that these will be the experienced, well qualified support staff, solicitors or barristers who work in the current system. The little work referred to self-employed barristers will be at slashed fees, paying a trial as much as a guilty plea even though many hours will need to be spent to properly prepare and advocate in a trial. My daughter is struggling financially now, and if the new system comes in she will have to find a new way of earning a living. Out of principle she will not work within the new scheme. There will be miscarriages of justice, victims of crime will not receive justice, good quality solicitors firms and the independent criminal Bar will be gone for good, together with their ethics and knowledge, and huge numbers of people will lose their jobs. Solicitors and barristers are in this together. If they dont fight together and the general public does not understand what is at stake everyone loses.
it is a complete fit up! and still only 23 000 people have signed the petition
Although maybe the government is banking on the fact that loss of legal aid/privatisation will mean no-one can afford to take a case to Europe and prove it is illegal/ there are no solicitors left to take the case because they are all huge firms who benefit from the changes.
Found something interesting about EU rules on access to justice: page 47
Article 47 CFR states that legal aid shall be made
available to those who lack sufficient resources in
so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective
access to justice. Thus, denial o flegal aid may
constitute a violation ofthe fundamenta lright of
accessing justice ifthe lack oflegal aid may lead,
for example,to an inequality of arms, which would
create a substantial disadvantage forthe individual.
In its case law, the ECtHR noted that the state must
display diligence so as to secure to those persons
the genuine and effective enjoyment of the rights
guaranteed under Article 6.
In the case of
Miroslaw Orzechowski v. Poland the ECtHR found that
the decision to refuse legal aid infringed the very
essence of the applicants right to access the courts.
I have no idea edam, maybe someone more knowledgeable can explain?
the Independent are reporting it today though, at last!
Isn't there EU legislation about access to justice - how do the govts proposals stack up against this (or am I mistaken)?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.