More than 1,000 lawyers protest outside parliament at legal aid cuts

[ttosca]

Former Tory MP Sir Ivan Lawrence QC tells protesters he is ashamed of government for 'destroying criminal justice system'

---

More than 1,000 barristers and solicitors – many bearing placards declaring "Grayling must go" and accompanied by a giant, papier-mache effigy of the justice secretary – have protested outside parliament at cuts to criminal legal aid in their first full-day walkout.

Sir Ivan Lawrence QC, the former Conservative MP, told the demonstration he was ashamed of the government's destruction of the justice system. Across England and Wales thousands of prosecutions were interrupted or postponed as defendants were left without legal representation.

The disruption will continue for several weeks as barristers refuse to accept "returns" – cases that they would normally cover when other members of their chambers are unable to attend court.

The scale of the protest was intended to send a message to Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, that the £215m cut to the annual criminal legal aid budget will drive many solicitors and barristers out of the profession and leave defendants without expert lawyers to argue their cases. Barristers and solicitors are facing average fee cuts of 6% and 17.5% respectively.

At the rally, which took place opposite the House of Commons, Lawrence said: "I'm ashamed of this government. I have been a Conservative for 60 years of my life. Never has there been a demonstration like this. It's atrocious that this government has forced us to come and behave like this.

"All my life I have been opposed to strikes and industrial action that are not justified. This action is justified. [The government] think we don't have any resolve. We are going resolved to stop them destroying the criminal justice system which my party, supporting law and order, has held so dear."

Senior QCs, human rights leaders, barristers in wigs and gowns, solicitors and supporters held placards declaring: "Fight for legal aid," "Save UK justice" and "Be afraid without legal aid."

The actor Maxine Peake, who plays barrister Martha Costello in the TV series Silk, supported the protest. She said: "[Martha] would not have been able to join the Bar if she was starting out now. There would be no opportunity for her."

The Criminal Bar Association said almost 2,000 fewer cases had been scheduled to be heard at crown courts on Friday compared to the previous Friday as court clerks and judges re-arranged their lists to avoid hearing cases where defendants would be left unrepresented.

Nigel Lithman QC, the chairman of the CBA, said: "If these cuts are not addressed then the British justice system, which is held in such high esteem around the world, will cease to exist as we know it and the British public can no longer expect true justice to be delivered."

www.theguardian.com/law/2014/mar/07/lawyers-protest-parliament-legal-aid-cuts

[BackforGood]

A major part of the issue though is the way the whole system has got out of hand.
When my sister was on jury duty, the case was basically a bit of a kurfuffle / small fight at turfing out time at the pub.
Each one of the defendants had their own legal representation, and all the jury had to sit there through this theatrical nonsense whilst the public purse funded all the legal aid (as well as the court costs, jurors expenses, etc,etc) when, in essence, it should never have got beyond a night in the cells and a fine each.
For every terrible rape case where we can all agree legal aid is essential, there are an awful lot of time wasters that shouldn't be allowed to take money from the system.
The whole legal aid bill has to be looked at together, not just in the amount of pay.......

....although the chap they interviewed on the news last night might have started to lose sympathy when he moaned about the 'average' take home pay of these barristers was only £28K

[PastPerfect]

And to clarify, when I say the prosecuting barrister will likely be earning less than the juror, I mean being paid less than the juror is being paid to sit a a juror

Sadly the truth is the general public won't care until it's their sons and daughters wrongly convicted after they couldn't afford a defence lawyer or the creep that has stalked/harassed/violated them walks free because the standard of the prosecution is so poor that trials fall apart.

[Hanginggardenofboobylon]

There had been no increase in the set fees for barristers in criminal legal aid work since the 1990's. Many junior barristers doing criminal work do earn minimum wage or less. The figures spouted by the government to justify the 'fat cat' tag are inclusive of VAT and gross of all expenses (take off another 25-30% at least) the 'annual' figures may also include payment for work over a number of years.
Those with no sympathy for barristers, spare a thought for those accused of crime who need a good lawyer, they won't be able to get a decent one as all the good lawyers will be deterred from entering a profession with £50k debt for a salary less than your average shelf stacker.
This isn't about pay it's about justice.

Rant over

[PastPerfect]

backforgood if you were caught up in a "kufufle" in the pub and charged with assault, an offence that could lead to you losing you livelihood if not your liberty, how much do you think the lawyer representing you deserves to be paid?

[CelticPromise]

BackforGood is £28k take home massively princely for a professional, responsible, massively stressful job? And many juniors are on much less than this. Against this you can consumer that the magic circle commercial firms pay their trainee solicitors £50k+.

There are very good reasons why co defendants may need different legal representation. And trials are paid at a fixed fee dependant on the offence and the number of pages of evidence that have to be considered and advised on. It's not a matter of jumping on a gravy train- criminal defence is not where you go if you want to get rich in law.

[ReindeerBollocks]

Hang on a second it isn't even 28K. That's a gross figure.

28K then has to have chambers fees removed, subscription fees to the bar counsel, legal books, wigs, robes, travel expenses. You name it they paid everything. There isn't any money in crime, unless you have 20+ years experience and can do long trials. Even then you will be being underpaid for your skills.

Listen, it might sound like high salaries to those on NMW - but it's far from the truth and comparatively it is terrible pay. It is terrible and there won't be a criminal bar if it continues.

[ReindeerBollocks]

Btw, a 'bit of a scuffle' could actually result in S18 charges (dependant on injuries), for which sentencing starts at 10 years imprisonment.

Losing 10 years of your liberty isn't a big thing? Would you want to represent yourself in those proceedings, because that will happen if there is no criminal bar.

[LauraBridges]

I am not sure the cuts will be reversed.

I think most of us have known for 50 years you don't do most criminal law if you want to earn a reasonable amount of money. We have a divided legal profession and the divide is not so much between solicitors and barristers but between those doing this type of work and those doing commercial/business law.

[longfingernails]

Boo hoo. Yet another public sector special interest group complaining "we're different, you can't cut us".

So foreign terrorists, murderers and rapists will now have to pay for their own appeals against deportation instead of fleecing the British taxpayer... cry me a river.

[ParsingFancy]

[longfingernails]

Abu Qatada was paid £500k in legal aid. Not a penny of it should have been paid.

I don't give a fig for his human rights, especially mythical ones granted by a European court which has no credibility. That £500k should have been used for deficit reduction, or tax cuts.

Any of the bleating hordes of shroud waving lawyers want to defend this outrage against the British taxpayer? It's clear that deep and permanent cuts are needed to prevent such a travesty ever happening again. And if the leeching lawyers want to defend this outrageous waste of money - by all means, take it to the court of public opinion. You will lose.

[BenevolentVole]

Would you be able to explain your position in a little more detail Longfingernails?

Do you support legal aid cuts which will affect everyone because of this one (extraordinary and exceptional) case?

Are you opposed to legal aid being used to fund human rights challenges of any kind, or just in this case?

Do you believe that all lawyers are leeches or only the ones who participated in this case?

My own belief is that equal access to justice is a cornerstone of British life and that access will be irrevocably eroded by these cuts. That will affect every one of us, forever. I don't think it is something we should allow to be snatched from us in this way. We may save some money in the short term, but the price will be to threaten the liberty and access to justice of every one of us, and, for me, that is just not worth it.

[longfingernails]

Yes, I support the legal aid cuts, as far as they go, but do not feel they go nearly far enough.

I believe the right to a family life is not a human right. The other "human rights" cases are equally vexatious. In any case, I don't believe human rights trump all else. I certainly don't believe that the European Court of Human Rights has the moral authority to judge on behalf of the British people.

I have no sympathy for soft judges who have never lived in an area rampant with crime. I have even less sympathy for the lawyers who defend these scumbags, especially when I am paying for them!

I believe the best way to reduce legal bills is to cut the number of laws. Make the law simple and universal.

Cut legal aid, cut the number of laws, cut the deficit, cut taxes.

Some pompous lawyers are squealing. Well - until and unless they can convince the British public that the hundreds of thousands squandered on Abu Qatada was money well spent, or admit it was a gross mistake which will never happen again, legal aid will be cut, and cut, and cut again. And nobody will have the slightest sympathy.

[LCHammer]

LFN - don't you see this as a disaster? That due to a case such as AQ other people, some innocent, should suffer? As for simplifying the law, how pared down do you want? The Ten Commandments and become like one of the other countries with poor Human Rights record?

In fact, quite honestly, don't answer. You tend to scream and froth and not spending my Sunday reading your bile.

[CelticPromise]

I'm sure I will regret engaging with the voice of the Daily Mail, but it's got nothing to do with AQ. This is about the reality of ordinary criminal work, not high profile extradition. I don't know how normal extradition Work is funded, I have never done it, but I do know that latter's who challenge the government in the civil courts and win are generally paid their full commercial rates (loser pays). Lawyers doing ordinary legal aid work day in day out are paid considerably less. The system that we have demands robust defence and prosecution. What have you got against the defence? Someone's got to do it.

[ReindeerBollocks]

Wow that's a lovely mindset you have there LFN

Lots of innocent people can get locked up and prosecuted without representation just because we go back to a Victorian era type legal system.

And that's ok , because the EU allowed representation for AQ? Really??

I bet you'd be the first to complain if it was a family member that was affected.

[ttosca]

longfingernails also makes the typical reactionary's mistake of confusing the accused with the guilty.

[ttosca]

It's noteworthy that the same people who defend high pay and bonuses in the banking sector as necessary 'to get keep and attract the best' and in proportion to their skills are the same who

criticise the legal profession for overpaying highly skilled lawyers, who are necessary to maintain a legal system and any semblance of justice.

It's worth emphasizing that it's not just people's wages which are at stake, but the public's ability to access to justice in general.

[DonnaDishwater]

Lawyers should be treated the same as any other tradesperson, free to sell their services on the open market. Charge what people are prepared to pay. For too long we've heard story after story of lawyers lining their pockets with legal aid, did they seriously not think this was coming eventually?

[ReindeerBollocks]

See ^ shining examples of why lawyers have stopped trying to get the public on our side.

Read the thread FFS and realise that there isn't such a thing as a fat cat legal aid lawyer.

[Hanginggardenofboobylon]

Donna and LFN are the reason why the government are doing this, they are relying on these attitudes. AQ is an exceptional case where the government cocked up and AQ took advantage of EU law to exercise his rights to the full. It wasn't even criminal law, it was extradition.
Without criminal legal aid Sally Clark - the woman wrongly accused of shaking her baby - and the others who faced the same allegation would never have been freed.
Without legal aid your son/daughter wrongly accused of a crime would face the criminal courts alone or with a poorly qualified lawyer.
People need to wake up and stop spouting the DM rhetoric.

[MissBeehiving]

Agree Reindeer - "lining their pockets with legal aid" FFS It makes you wonder whether some people only read the DM and never get information from anywhere else

Legal aid rates are so far removed from what the rest of the profession earn, it's unreal.

Being charged with an offence does not make you GUILTY of it. There are people who appear in court who are actually innocent . If you're wealthy then you'll be able to pay to have a defence but unless you can afford to pay enhanced rates privately, then even if you are innocent then you'll have to navigate the system on your own. It's only a few years banged up and you'll be unemployable when you come out but who needs access to justice, right? In fact we could avoid the whole bother of a trial and evidence and just allow the police to bang up anyone they don't like the look of permanently.

[DonnaDishwater]

Why can't lawyers just charge rates that are affordable to normal people? And if the legal system is overly complex, simplify it. It is an artificial construct after all.

[LauraBridges]

There are two sorts of lawyers. Those like me who are paid mostly by companies. We charge what we are worth and what the market will bear. if our services are rare and hard to find and we are very good we charge more than otherwise.

The second sort do all their work (or part of it) for people funded by the state. They are on the whole very badly paid if they only do public funded work, much worse than most people think and we need them for those people who are in difficulties. You would need a very strong social conscience and not much sense to go into legal aid work these days. We are probably lucky some are foolish enough still to do so.

DD's question - we are talking here about people who are paid by the state under legal aid. If you mean why do lawyers charging companies charge a lot per hour or on a divorce (no legal aid on divorces these days) I don't think many of those charges are very different from what you pay a plumber. I just had radiators repaired and last year a new boiler. The rates were not too different from those of many solicitors.

Outside legal aid it is a free market on the whole. Anyone can give legal advice even if they are not a solicitor or barrister as long as they do not call themselves that or conduct litigation. We charge what people will pay. That is a very different topic from what this thread is about which is very low rates for state funded legal aid work.

[Viviennemary]

Well this hasn't convinced me in the least. I'm glad to see the reforms to legal aid. People got denied legal aid under the old system who really needed it and couldn't afford it.