Why free biros are ruining British justice

Posted: 23/05/2012 in Barrister, Legal aid, Solicitor
Tags: ,
0

FTD is never found with a decent pen in his pocket. Whilst his plummy contemporaries pull out beautiful Mont Blanc pieces, no doubt given to them for some achievement by a friend or family member, I’m often without a pen at all, or some broken biro that I’ve chewed the end off.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got a couple of nice pens (one, very nice bought from my Grandparents), but they inevitably run out of ink and I inevitably have lost the last batch of £10 a pop cartridges I bought for them.

I’ve never been able to hold on to a pen for long since I was a kid.

My solution was generally two fold: 1) smile at a friendly usher and be provided with a piece of bulk bought Court Service stationery, this is now impossible since Court Staff were forbade pens and now must do with eco friendly economical pencils OR 2) hunt around the robing room/advocates’ room for some abandoned ill functioning writing implement.

But nowadays, I have a new solution. The free biro. Ah yes, that little piece of plastic marketing that adorns many a solicitor’s conference desk. I now collect them, in large quantities, probably to the extent that ought to be frowned upon.

Thing is, that little piece of plastic represents the demise of our jusitce system.

‘Eh?

No, haven’t lost my mind, honest.

But it’s back again, the great Solicitor Advocate v Barrister debate.

In short, solicitor advocates are qualified solicitors who take an extra qualification during practice which entitles them to practice in all Courts all the way up to the Supreme Court. They can qualify in civil, or criminal law, or both.

Solicitor Advocates complain that they are treated rudely by the Bar and are assumed to be somehow inferior.

Barristers complain that Solicitor Advocates take briefs which they are not capable of doing and often put profits before representation.

The reality

I have seen barristers be incredibly rude to and about solicitor advocates. I had one particularly unpleasant member of the Bar bark at me for having lunch, in public, with a solicitor advocate.

I have had solicitor advocate friends complain to me that they are pressured into taking cases that they don’t feel ready for or are not capable of. And, I’ve seen solicitor advocates sit behind barristers in cases, commanding large fees where they have done nothing and are merely paid for sitting there.

As a junior junior, I’ve grown up with solicitor advocates. ‘Favourite solicitor’ one of the people who has helped my career most has become a solicitor advocate recently. I don’t dislike solicitor advocates, I don’t feel superior to them, they just do a different job then I do.

I recently co-defended with  a solicitor advocate, I was first on the indictment so took the lead. When we got to the end of the trial and the jury went out he told me that it was his first Crown Court trial but he hadn’t wanted to tell me as he worried I might have taken advantage.

I felt incredibly sad at that. I would have helped out all I could, other members of the Bar would have done too I hope? A number of times in the Magistrates’ I have co-defended with people doing their first trial, they’ve told me and I’ve helped out, especially baby barristers.

I’ve said to ‘Favourite solicitor’ if she wants to do her first Crown Court trial with me then I am happy to co-defend with her. Am I a traitor? Am I taking work away from the Bar? I don’t think so, as I know she’d only ever take on something she was capable of doing.

Back to the biro

The problem with the free biros is what is represents. Big firms of solicitors doing big quantities of work. That’s what the Government wants and they want them to do it on the cheap.

That inevitably will mean that more and more advocacy is kept in house at solicitors firms and that barristers will be used less. Bigger isn’t always better, often means less individual attention for clients.

The free biro is: remember us, we gave you a pen. Not, remember us because we have a relationship and represent your interests to the best of our ability.

Standards count when you’re playing with somebody’s liberty/livelihood.

My reality

I don’t worry about solicitor advocates. Why? Because I’m going to do my job to the best of my ability, put in the hours and hope to be noticed.

The end of the Bar is not nigh, the end of the Criminal Bar might be. But, if the Bar as a concept was outdated, it would have gone already, like Sergeants-at-Law. Look at the other end of things, the Commercial Bar is booming. If Commercial Solicitors wanted to do that job, they would and they could, they don’t – why?

And this is my objection, not to solicitor advocates, but to the ‘bulk buy legal services provider’:

Independence. Solicitor advocates are for the most part employed by their partners. In-house barristers are the same. They are open to pressure from individuals more senior to take on certain cases, or conduct them in a certain way. On the prosecution side of things, the lack of independent advocates creates incredibly odd situations – who has ownership of cases? Quite recently my opponent, at the independent bar took a view about the case, despite her seniority she had to take instructions from an in-house CPS lawyer who knew nothing about the case.

Independence has two further advantages: it means fresh eyes on a case and it means that Court advocates will have a wider range of experience. Why? Because they are not limited to a particular pool of clients, police officers, Judges in a small number of court centres. Independent provides a breadth of experience which helps for continuing learning and development.

Money, money, money: I’m not allowed to give kick backs, or negotiate deals. The Government has set a rate (they get a good deal!) for the services of a qualified Court advocate. That rate takes into account the amount of witnesses, pages of evidence and other matters which will have an impact on how long I have to prepare a house.

If I am giving a bung to a solicitor, or there is a certain arrangement where someone has got an eye on how much they need to make out of a case, then I am not giving my client the best possible service as then I’ll need to take on more work to fill the hole the bung made and so on.

A client, facing imprisonment or the loss of their livelihood, should get the best possible court advocate. That advocate should be picked for their skill and experience and how they will communicate with that client.

Because, that’s how a commercial solicitor chooses a barrister for their commercial client!

Money is no object

I know money is tight for everyone, but the solicitors and barristers engaged in dodgy financial arrangements are just hastening one thing. That’s big, factory firms, defending clients as cheaply as possible.

Criminal Defence PLC, keeping the overheads low. Keeping the standards low.

But you get a free biro.

So it’s not about barrister v solicitor advocate. It’s lawyers who put clients first v lawyers who put their pockets first.

FTD

p.s – the two firms I nick pens from the most are highly rated and very rarely use in house advocates – irony, the bloody irony.

The 10 commandments of British justice: No surrender

Posted: 17/05/2012 in Barrister, Civil Rights, Jury, Legal aid, Magistrates, Police, Pupil barrister, Solicitor, Stephen Lawrence, Trainee solicitor
1

If you follow me on twitter you’ll know I’ve had one of those weeks. There’s a pain in my neck and I’m not entirely sure if it’s from leaning over a computer or sleeping on a train.

When I finally got out tonight I was ready to switch off. So I dialled up ‘Pretty Boy’ – not that he’s inane, but when I phone him I don’t have to talk about crime, criminals, coppers, prisons or anything like that …. the conversation is much more… extra curricular. And, after ‘Pretty Boy’ I was going to call ‘TV Blonde’ – neither answered.

So as I wandered along through the streets of legal London, dragging wheelie bag behind I got thinking.

First, I smiled to myself, a helpful message @MPSWandsworth my local police, they looked into something I had concerns about. And, they’re fans of my blog, I laughed to myself, funny how many police readers I actually have.

Then I looked at twitter as I wandered along. The tweets were quite sad really. Sam Hallam was a happy piece of news in a sense, but sad that justice had taken so long. The Law Society announced what can only be described as a laughable minimum wage for new trainee solicitors and the police continued to talk about Winsor. Meanwhile home affairs correspondents and police commentators were talking about police privatisation. In other feeds human rights heroes, Hugh Southey QC and Mark George QC were talking about the death penalty.

I was shocked to see how many people had retweeted, my simple missive of the day:

‘Cut legal aid, lower advocacy standards, destroy the independent Bar, privatise the police and then #samhallam will be the norm. #legalaid‘

There is a divinity that shapes our ends, rough-hew them how we will

I had a total selfish moment. Bloody hell I thought, when I signed up for my wig it was meant to be simple, do a job I love, defend people in a fair forum, be paid a decent wage, get silk if I’m good enough, retire, die happy.

Now it hardly seems possible.

And then I thought, look at what I’ve missed,Bushel’s case, Somersett’s case, defending the suffragette, marching with the civil rights campaigners for racial integration here and in the US, busting the corrupt police squads, the Guildford 4, Birmingham 6.

And it’s only going to get worse, hellish vision posited here: http://forthedefence.org/2012/04/14/the-way-were-going-criminal-justice-2025/

I got quite depressed, as if I’d missed my moment to make a difference.

But then, I actually realised that we’re standing at a moment in history. A fundamental change in how we deliver criminal justice in this country. It started slowly under the Labour Government.

So: PCSOs, unqualified prosecutors in the Magistrates’ Courts, cuts to legal aid, erosion of the rules as to hearsay, the right to a jury trial and bad character evidence going before juries. A prison service which was underfunded and actively supplanted by the private sector. The probation service’s culture fundamentally changed virtually overnight. Indeterminate sentences handed out all over.

And nobody really paid attention to the slow drip. People complained about the individual changes, but nobody stepped back and looked at things in the whole.

In that environment, Barry George, Sam Hallam wrongfully convicted, probably with many others. It took what, almost 20 years to get justice for Stephen Lawrence.

Now, because of the economic circumstances, that drip has become a gush.

The police have marched against Winsor.

Court staff have walked out.

I’m going to have to learn four languages as there’s no interpreters left.

Barristers are trying to work out if there’s a right for them to strike.

Judges are complaining about declining standards in prosecutions.

People are worried about declining standards in criminal defence.

Trainee solicitors in legal aid fields are looking at a better living in Tescos.

People are asking whether you get a better service if you pay for your own defence and some lawyers are saying yes.

Naturally, we’re all concerned about our own position. We’ve all been reviewed individually, the Bar had Carter, the police have Winsor, the prison service have endless reviews and the probation service have a new name every other week.

Now, we’re saying there should be a Royal Commission on Policing, there should be advocacy tests for defence barristers, we ask Serco to fill the gap where public services used to.

When we say, we don’t like that, we’re accused of self-interest. And, of course that’s true, we are self-interested to a certain degree. But I hope people who don’t work in the criminal justice system accept this:

We were never in it for the money. If I’d wanted to earn more, I could have sat in the office next to ‘Pretty Boy’ in the city.

We’re vulnerable, why, because we’re in a vocation, our vocation is to secure justice, that I hope is the same for lawyers, coppers, probation officers and the rest…

And that should be our focus.

Hold the line

Has been a popular hash tag of the police in their campaign. A terribly British phrase which conjures a mental picture of other glorious moments in British history.

So rather than fighting individually (with the risk of being accused of self-interest), explaining how the gush will wash away our part of British criminal justice, why don’t we fight together for a single vision.

My Moses Moment

In my view, the ten commandments of British criminal justice are these:

1) The purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect the individual. Be it, to protect individuals from crime, protect individuals from the coercive power of the state, stop individuals from patterns of destructive behaviour and provide their safety through the passage of the system if Defendant, witness or victim.

2) The police, must police by consent. The police are holders of public office and can never be privatised. They must remain independent from Government, prosecutors and the media.

3)  Every person accused of a crime deserves quality legal representation. Quality of defence should not depend on ability to pay or the financial arrangements between legal services providers and the state.

4) Every person accused of a crime deserves to be tried by an independent body of their peers. The Magistracy must be diverse in age, race and gender and reflect their local communities. The Magistracy must be able to perform their function without excessive interference of the state. If accused of a serious, indictable offence, then every person has an absolute right to trial by jury.

5) Children should not be criminalised for trivial offences. Grass roots discipline comes from teachers and parents/carers not from police officers, lawyers and Judges.

6)The mentally ill should not be punishment for offending. Their treatment is from the social welfare element of the state not the imposition of punishment by the criminal justice system.

7)Prison shall be used as a last resort. Effective community punishment should be the preferred method of disposal. Restorative justice should be common place. For those who custody is the only option, they should be held in public owned prisons where their rehabilitation is the main aim. Punishment, be it in the community or in custody, ought never be for profit.

8) The purpose of the probation service is to prevent re-offending. This  is not an actuarial science, instead it is an idiosyncratic process where well funded probation officers aid offenders in re-integrating into society.

9)The Crown Prosecution Service must remain independent. They must make decisions as to prosecutions free from pressures of the police and the executive. Prosecutions should be based on local need and the prosecutor’s code not concerns of the media and/or pressure groups.

10)The Criminal law protects all and applies to all. Nobody will ever be subject to scrutiny by the police or punishment due to their race, age, gender, nationality or sexual preference. Nobody is above the criminal law due to their occupation, office or income. The Criminal law is deaf to the media but is open and accessible so that the public can see that justice is done.

At the bottom of Mount Sinai

I hope we could all be there together. Those above are my ten commandments. I am sure some of yours would be different. But imagine if we could agree them.

What an amazing message that would be to Government and to the public.

If we all held that line together.

Imagine the march, where I stood there wig and gown, next to me was a Magistrate like Bystander, on the other side a cop, or @Chairforce1, maybe some senior members of the judiciary, QCs too and solicitors from the £6 per hour trainee to the big hitting leaders  of major legal aid firms and the prosecutors, probation officers and YOT workers. Marching behind, coppers in their tunics, Occupy protestors with their banners, victim support workers, legal advisors to the magistrates and qualified criminal justice foreign language interpreters.

That’s not just a line. That’s a dam which could stop the gush from washing away 100s of years of British justice.

FTD

‘They’re killing me Dad’ – this is what bad police officers do.

Posted: 09/05/2012 in Police
3

  As said previously, I do not hate the police. I hate bad police officers.

And here is a reminder of what bad police officers can do.

This is a picture of Kelly Thomas. Kelly Thomas died on the 10th of July last year. Now, two American police officers are potentially facing a trial for doing this to him.

A little after 8 o’clock in the evening on the 5th of July last year, police officers in Fullerton California received a call about petty vandalism of cars near the Fullerton bus and train station. Two police officers attended and began to investigate. When they did, they found Kelly Thomas. Kelly Thomas was sitting down without a shirt on. He was homeless and schizophrenic. He was unarmed.

The officers who attended set about searching him. Seems to begin with one of them giving him a slap around the chops.

Then they take their batons out and hit him several times.

They then tazer him.

One of the officers, Ramos, put on latex gloves and asked Thomas “Now see my fists? They are getting ready to fuck you up.”

They did fuck him up as they punched him, hit him with the butts of their tazer guns. And in the end six police officers piled on top of him. He’d done nothing to resist them.

As Kelly Thomas choked on his own blood, he pleaded with them, they didn’t listen. He cried out, ‘Dad, they’re killing me.’  He even apologised to the officers as they were crushing his face and compressing his thorax.

Nobody deserves to die like this.

Culture

Tomorrow the police march in central London to fight against the Winsor changes in British policing. I think it’s a sign of how great our Democracy is that even the police can show dissent to the state. I am glad that they are unified and have a single voice.

The Fullerton police officers were unified behind their colleagues, to the extent there was a coverup. To the extent that the FBI had to come in and investigate.

So, if you’re marching re: Winsor tomorrow, enjoy that unity. But, if one of your colleagues shows unnecessary violence whilst on duty then expose them, report them and make sure it’s followed up. Unite and show that you’re a great police force, the model of policing by consent. The model of a police force in a Democracy.

If you’re Joe Public and you see the police using violence against someone, don’t simply assume they deserve it. Consider it, report it.

If you’re in power, push for a better IPCC.

If you’re a Magistrate, don’t simply believe that the police would never do such a thing.

And let’s all make sure that we don’t turn into a country where those who we ask to protect us, could turn on one of us like this.

FTD

The Crime and Courts Bill – I hate it already

Posted: 09/05/2012 in Barrister, Civil Rights, Jury, Legal aid, Magistrates, Police, Solicitor
Tags:
1

Yes, I know. We haven’t seen the Bill yet.

Yes, I know. The Bill will be debated and changed.

Yes, I know. The Bill may not even make it into law.

But,

There’s more to life than Winsor

The Police are worried (and I understand why in part) about Winsor. The Police and the public should be worried about any ‘national’  police force. We are not America, we do not need a supra police agency. Why? Because for the most part the criminal law is the same throughout England and Wales. There is no Federal law and Local law. Also, local police forces already co-operate with each other on ‘cross-jurisdiction’ issues. And, national projects are ably co-ordinated by the Met, i.e Counter Terror and specialist protection, Royal protection and diplomatic protection.

And, remember too that the FBI deal with counter-intelligence matters as well. We have MI5 and special branch. Both are older than the FBI and both have sufficed.

Why re-invent the wheel? SOCA deal with extradition matters and larger pieces of international trafficking/fraud – fine, can’t we just leave at that?

Because the risk is this, there’ll be a drain of resources and talent upward into this national agency. That will have a knock on effect on neighbourhood and rural policing. That was very apparent when I lived in the US. The ‘provincial’  policing departments of sheriffs etc had very poor resources compared to their national counterparts and certainly couldn’t attract the talent.

There are two further temptations:

1) That rural/neighbourhood policing can be filled with cheaper options. So what is the cheaper option? Private companies. How are private companies cheaper? Lower entry levels, lower wages, lower training, lower resources.

2) It’s easier to integrate with European policing structures. And European policing structures forward the ‘European criminal law’ project which several  individuals are pushing. A European criminal law makes me shudder. But that’s for another time…

For my vision of where these type of policies lead us see my post on Criminal Justice in 2025: http://forthedefence.org/2012/04/14/the-way-were-going-criminal-justice-2025/

Summary neighbourhood justice

Summary neighbourhood justice. Hmmm, well that’s what Magistrates do already isn’t it?  They are local people, who sit in a summary court of justice. You see, what the Government don’t want is the court bit. Because the court bit is the expensive part. It involves cell staff, buildings, admin, lawyers … all cost. What are the Magistrates going to be doing above what they are doing already.

This: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8941499/Minister-signals-summary-justice-role-for-magistrates.html

So, effectively, putting Magistrates in police stations and having them decide whether or not offenders should be punished out of court there and then or they ought to proceed to Court.

No thank  you:

  1. The police / YOT teams have this discretion because they are full time professionals. They know the prevalence of particular crimes in areas and so on. They have the knowledge to make decisions as to the exercise of a discretion. If that discretion is being exercised incorrectly then that is a matter of training, not importing Magistrates. Magistrates do not sit full time. Magistrates do not have the same feel for local offending and offenders as those professionals that work with them.
  2. Magistrates are meant to be members of the judiciary. They are therefore meant to be independent. This initiative renders that  independence open for encroachment.
  3. Magistrates are not lawyers for the most part. Magistrates are advised as to the law by a legal advisor, without this advice there is a risk of Magistrates acting unlawfully.
  4. Peer pressure. How is a bench of Magistrates to feel if they get halfway through a case and there is scant evidence but it has been sent to Court by one of their colleagues. There will be a certain amount of pressure as they will be aware of the decision one of their number has already made.
  5. Punishment, no matter what type, affects the rights of the individual. If the law is punishing somebody that person deserves to have the protection of a legal  professional guiding them and making appropriate representations on their behalf.

Let’s get real: the Government want less cases  going to Court. The Government want the Magistracy to legitimise this. Please don’t.

Drug driving

Apparently drug driving is to be outlawed. Hmmm, I’ve done a number of drug driving trials already. Have I missed a trick? Was it not an offence. Oh wait, section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988,

 

4 Driving, or being in charge, when under influence of drink or drugs.E+W+S

(1)A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.

? There it is, on the statute book.

I imagine that the Government are going to try and toughen it up, so removing the difficult to prove ‘unfitness’ aspect. Of  course this will mean that the Crown will have to prove the person has been taking drugs. That will of course require expensive equipment. And, because they have learnt nothing from prison law, it means litigation as to the accuracy of the equipment.

Waste-of-time-and-money.

One-for-the-Daily-Mail/Express

Lights, camera, action

Well, all barristers are failed actors so there is no doubt that some will relish the opportunity to appear on screen. This business about demystifying the justice system is utter rubbish. If you’re mystified by the Magistrates’ Court then go and sit in one. If you want to know what goes on in the High Court then you’re welcome to come and visit. Anything else?

There’s nothing mystical about a jury trial. You can watch. Or you can choose not to defer your jury service. They’re not sport/spectacle. They should be allowed to have some dignity. Because I’ll tell you now, if you put a TV camera in a criminal courtroom, then you are putting massive pressure on people, that includes not only lay people like jurors and witnesses, but also Judges and Counsel.

I’ve been in a murder trial in the US where cameras were in the courtroom throughout. It was a circus.

Let’s take a more dignified approach to our justice process please.

They giveth, they taketh away

I was saying just last week how happy I was with some of the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, http://forthedefence.org/2012/05/02/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-a-quick-guide/ 

The Crime and Courts Bill is not looking as happy a piece of legislation.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – A quick guide

Posted: 02/05/2012 in Civil Rights, Magistrates
Tags:
1

Give me liberty or give me death.

Earlier this week I was suggesting that the ConDemNation could afford to be a bit creative and could upset the right wing press.

And this piece of legislation gives me hope that we might see some more liberal legislation (not too much mind). Plus, we may see some restoration of British rights and liberties that were eroded under New Labour.

Samples

The retention of DNA and fingerprints of innocent people was highly controversial. Now the retention of DNA is not a  matter for each individual Chief Constable but laid down in statute.

Sections 1 to 25 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 deals with this.

Some highlights:

  • If the fingerprints or DNA were taken unlawfully then they must be destroyed.
  • The samples must also be destroyed if the person was subject to an unlawful arrest or if the arrest was based on mistaken identity.
  • If somebody is arrested, but not convicted of a ‘qualifying offence’ and their samples are taken, they may  only be retained for 3 years (although this can be extended by a Criminal District Judge – Magistrates do not have this power).
  • Special rules apply to persons convicted once under the age of 18.
  • Voluntarily given samples can only be held until they have ‘fulfilled their purpose (one assumes that large scale voluntarily testing in serial rape/murder cases, destruction of samples upon conviction.)
  • The Secretary of State is to appoint a Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometric Material.

Interestingly as well, sections 26 to 28 deal with the retention of biometric data by schools.

Surveillance

Is dealt with by sections 29 to 38. In short, it changes the law with regard to CCTV and the law with regard to intrusive surveillance.

Highlights:

  • There will be a new code of practice for surveillance camera systems. That code will be put before Parliament and the Secretary of State will keep it under continuing review.
  • A  Court when determining an issue can take into account any breach of this code of conduct.
  • And appointment of another Commissioner, a surveillance Camera Commissioner.
  • Greater judicial scrutiny of the disclosure of telecommunications material/surveillance/

Miscellaneous

More I read this, more I realise it’s a wide piece of legalisation indeed, other features include:

  • A change in the law with regard to powers of entry.
  • Reform of the law with regard to car clamping on private land.
  • The Independent Safeguarding Authority is abolished (another quango in place…)
  • Less activities involving children/vulnerable people are to be regulated.
  • Any men with old convictions for ‘homosexual offences’ i.e sexual activity between men/buggery can apply to have the offence deleted and disregarded.
  • Freedom of Information Act is amended, if you ask for data electronically it ought to be given to you in that form so it is easily reproduced.
  • Stop and search in terrorism cases is reformed

New offences

And new offences, one for stalking, one for trafficking people.

So there’s a start. Important stuff, but not ground breaking. And for anyone who fancies an easy life, there’s two new jobs to apply for…

… wonder what the Magistrates will make of the ‘DJ only powers’,

Do you feel your freedoms are protected?

FTD

 

 

Time for the Tories to come out of the closet

Posted: 01/05/2012 in Civil Rights, Police
Tags: , ,
0

Left a bit. Right a bit. There, perfect. If you’re a regular reader and a bit like me then I imagine that you’re not really sure how to vote at the moment.

I was about to say, ‘I’ll never vote Labour’ – but then I realised I hate people who say, ‘I’ll never vote X’ – kind of takes the thinking out of democracy. What I would say is, it’s unlikely I’ll ever vote Labour. And that’s based on three chapters of life experience.

First chapter, growing up in a rural county, in a rural town. Labour never showed any interest or any knowledge or experience in rural affairs. Quite frankly I never thought they were bothered.

Second chapter, I don’t think we’ve been so close to America as we were in the 00s. Certainly not since Reagan/Thatcher or Roosevelt/Churchill. Did any member of the Labour Government suggest to the American Government that they ought to think about the Federal Death Penalty or Military Death Penalty? Not that I’m aware. And did we persuade them to sign up to the International Criminal Court? Point me in the right direction if they did. Despite this 1000s of Brits are anti-death penalty activists and equal numbers believe in and advocate for the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Present chapter, practice. On a day to day basis it’s rare I use a ConDem law. The law I’m condemned to deal with comes from that Labour decade. And people assume because of my practice I vote Labour. Are you joking? People point toward the Human Rights Act 1998 but they ignore the Criminal Justice Act 2003. If you’re concerned about a ‘British Brand’ of justice, that did more to undermine it than the HRA ever did. Hearsay evidence goes before juries. Bad character evidence goes before juries. Forget the fact that the common law had developed, to balance fairness in these areas for a thousand years. Control orders v Habeas Corpus, the list goes on…

So it’s unlikely I’ll vote Labour.

The promise

David Cameron is…. I don’t know who he is. I thought before the election I did. To me the Tories had made all the right noises in my areas of interest. They were talking about rehabilitation in prisons. They were opposing detention without judicial scrutiny. Maintaining jury trials was an issue they fought Labour on. They opposed the extension of ‘snooping’ powers beyond the security services and police.

And, on a personal level, big society sounded good. In particular, I had hoped that it would support charities like the CAB and help reduce the administrative burden on small charities like the kids’ charity I am involved with.

Labour had already planned to give my colleagues and I a pay cut. I can cope with that, everyone is hurting and I should hurt to as part of my income comes from the public purse. I’m not animated about cuts (although I would like to know how much the Counsel in Leveson for a) the inquiry b) other public bodies i.e the Met are being paid, when we’re having our pay cut…) I understand it needs to be done.

I am animated about stupid behaviour. This constant rhetoric about  the Human Rights Act. Two simple facts: European Convention on Human Rights, we were integral to its instigation, fact two, if you’re not a signatory you cannot be a member of the EU.  The Government knows both these things, they’re banging the drum because parts of the general public like the deafening monotonous thud.

Policing. Winsor is an ill thought disaster. Although I do agree that civilian staff and police officers doing the same job ought to be paid the same, the rest? The rest smells of cutting people. If you want to cut police costs then properly focus their responsibilities and give the public a shock by telling them that an armed response vehicle and helicopter won’t be sent when there’s a child kicking a ball against a wall. And the cultural change needed within aspects of the police, that will somehow be magically achieved by fast tracking graduates. Instead, there ought to have been a full Royal Commission on policing in this country.

And, a manifesto promise, that youth offending would  be dealt with at a grass roots level with increased and earlier social intervention. Young offenders within the system would have the intervention of non-state mentors and access to drug rehabilitation. Yawn, didn’t happen, but don’t worry readers children are still prosecuted for school yard fights and shoplifting paper clips.

I know your secret

I know the Tory Cabinet’s secret. Half of them are in the closet. No, not like that. Another closet. A cupboard actually. A rather regal Chippendale cabinet. A fair few of them are red tories or one nation conservatives.

And there are tell-tale signs:

-          Some of them emphasise development of new green jobs rather than attempting to resuscitate manufacturing industries.

-          Some have attempted to reduce prison numbers and give prisoners purpose.

-          A number shuddered at the thought of privatised police.

-          There’s been moves to reconsider our position on extradition again.

So what do these red tories or one nation conservatives believe in FTD? Simple, we’re one country, united under the law. Building harmony and acceptance between all aspects of society.  It means actively fighting all forms of discrimination and in modern times has focussed on not only this country but promoting the protection of rights abroad. Small government and economic freedoms. And, protecting the rights of individuals and limiting the State’s restrictions on our everyday lives.

Why they’re clearly in the closet

There’s glimmers of one nation in the front bench. Ken Clarke’s abandoned sentencing policy is such an example. Libyan intervention, depending on your view, is another suggestion at least. The dedication to the NHS and free schools are indicative too. Come on, Big Society, there’s a clue if there ever was one.

But they’re scared. Every time they try and do something radical they have a panic attack. The right wing press go mad, the Express and the Mail pour vitriol onto the pages and Cameron panics, flip flops.

The sentencing reforms that Clarke proposed and Cameron initially supported are an apt example.

The ghost of Thatcher haunts them too. Heath, a one nation conservative failed. Thatcher succeeded, she survived  and saved the nation during the last recession. The back benchers are full of Conservative MPs who think that Thatcher was yesterday. They forget the social damage done by images of police officers charging on horseback into protestors.

Those MPs forget that the Winter of Discontent then SWAMP 82 were a watershed for police/public relations and they have not improved really since. The distance between the police and public is one of the reasons why communities can’t form active social cohesion.

And, the Tories too are scared to an extent I think. Scared to appeal to a new generation who want to secure social justice, do not want excessive state intervention in their lives, want their sexual and social preferences to be respected. They don’t want the planet to be destroyed and they want international development to remain on the agenda. That generation want to be able to access education to work in new, green industry and be allowed to get on with things. All one nation Tory values.

May day

I think it’s probably more mayday mayday in the cabinet room in number 10 at the moment. And voter numbers next week threaten to be very low. That should be a big enough hint to the Government. Try something new! Or actually, try something old. Thatcherism might have worked for the 70s recession. Majorism (if there is such have thing) might have worked for 90s.

All of these cuts might be a little easier to swallow if we all felt we were in it together, one nation and the Tories weren’t scared to upset an element of the electorate or the tenants of their back benches.  I hope the British public have enough intelligence to vote for who they prefer, not who the Daily Mail tells them to.

It’s May Day, it’s a good day to come out of the closet, to think about historic approaches and apply them to today’s problems. It might even encourage some of the other parties to do the same.

FTD

Bet they don’t wear wigs in Qatar

Posted: 30/04/2012 in Barrister, Magistrates, Police
Tags: , , ,
1

This internet thing is terribly clever. I am big brother. I know how many people have been on FTD, what they’ve looked at and when.

I am Theresa May, I know all your secrets. Apart from how you got yourself in the bag and locked it, can’t work that one out.

But anyway, this has led to a new obsession, online people watching. And the one thing I check, everyday, is where the visitors come from. Since I’ve started FTD, I’ve had visitors from all over the cyber world.

Top 5

So, in at number 1: The United Kingdom – no real shock.

Number 2: The United States

3.Australia

4. Canada

5. Cayman Islands

OK, maybe the Cayman Islands is quite surprising. But actually what surprises me most are the countries which follow after the Caymans. India, Bangladesh, Qatar and Zambia is number 6! Ahead of France!

Muse on my musings

Without being too existential… It’s really got me wondering why they come and read at all. The top 5 I get it, especially the US, I quite often write about there, but, Qatar? The Zambia?

Qatar is rich, they have oil. This is about all I know. I now know too they have a people trafficking problem, a slavery problem, allow freedom of religion but not public displays thereof and still stones people.

Zambia has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, knew that. Didn’t know that 70% of people there live below the poverty line. Apparently there is very little representation in the lower criminal courts, legal aid is scant and the poor and women in particular lack mechanisms to access the Courts. Other than that, I can’t find much more about the Court system there. And much less about criminal justice.

India, well I thought I knew quite a lot about there. A billion people, a growing economy, post-colonialism. I didn’t realise there had been attempts to undermine the independence of the judiciary and that arguments as to the appropriateness of the death penalty were still being had and were in the public eye as recently as March of this year.

So an appeal

I wonder then if I can persuade one or more people who visit FTD from those countries to drop me a line and a story. Looking at the top five countries on my visiting list, they’ve all got some clout, their combined clout is quite weighty indeed – so I’d like them to hear and read about things going on in these countries.

And when they write, I think you should consider too, if you’re lucky to live in one of my top 5. What would it be like to have a corrupt police or judiciary? What would it be like if women or the poor couldn’t access the court? What would it be like going to Court without a lawyer and facing punishment. Might sounds fanciful, but, LASPO? Legal Aid cuts? Winsor reforms? It’s possible…

So if you’re a junior junior barrister from Zambia get in touch.

Or  a copper from India.

Or a Magistrate from Qatar.

We need to read all about it.

FTD.

Vale dicere to a brilliant District Judge

Posted: 26/04/2012 in Barrister, Magistrates, Pupil barrister
0

I’ve just found out from Bystander’s blog that District Judge Phillips is to retire this year.

It had two instant effects on me:

1) Feel old

2) Feel sad

DJ Phillips sits in West London. When you’re first on your feet he’s one of the Judges that young lawyers get told about.

I feel old because to me he was one of the Judges I cut my teeth in front of. From shopliftings in the West End to serious offences I had to deal with the first hearing on, perhaps on a wet miserable Saturday morning.

I feel sad because I’m so fond of him. Our first encounter didn’t go well, I was representing someone with a drug addiction. I can’t remember what I said, it was mention of my client’s addiction, I said either, ‘drug problem’ or ‘abuses drugs’ – something similar to that. He snapped at me, told me to change my words, whatever he said made it clear to me that the Defendant was more than just a drug problem, but was a person with a horrid affliction.

But from that point on we got on. I walked into his court one morning instructed late and somebody else was on their feet, he interrupted them, ‘excuse me a moment, Mr FTD, it’s been too long since you’ve been in my court, good morning to you.’ It was a kind nod in my direction.

And there’s nothing better than this, one day I walked in, my client looked very sheepish indeed, he was a young lad, ‘Right then X, you’ve got Mr FTD I see, good choice, but I’ve telephoned your Mum, you’ve been giving her some jip.’ His personalised approach made a massive difference, even Defendants were fond of him. I have no doubt that his approach has rehabilitated a number of young people who otherwise would have found themselves as repeat customers of the criminal justice system.

To me, I’m sad to see him go as he’s always treated lawyers like humans and clients too.

Bystander wrote that he was concerned by ‘idiosyncratic’ decisions of District Judges, when the lay magistracy felt constrained by guidelines. (You can read it here, http://magistratesblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/moving-on.html )

My message is this, look past the thick glass of the dock and look at the human inside. And don’t assume all lawyers are pinstriped wallet fillers.

And Magistrates remember, guidelines are to guide you, not bind you – guidelines not tramlines.

Finally, best of luck with your retirement Sir, if I make a full innings in my profession then the first chapter of my story is dedicated to you.

FTD.

Why it’s jolly English to be a wishy washy liberal

Posted: 23/04/2012 in Barrister, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Police, Stephen Lawrence
Tags: , , , , ,
1

Happy St George’s day my English brothers and sisters.

Every St George’s day my Grandad could be found with a red rose in his button hole. Why? Because he was proud to be English. Not proud of the soil under our feet, or our ‘ethnicity’ but because of our values and history.

English history, involves, believe it or not liberalism. And my Grandad wasn’t like me, he didn’t go to Court and argue about human rights, to my knowledge he was never in a protest but I know he believed.

The most obvious example was when I was working in the US. I was part of the team defending a black man in Mississippi, facing the death penalty for raping and murdering a teenage boy. A huge distance geographically and socially away from my Grandad the retired master plasterer from Sheffield.

Turned out that my client was eventually released before trial, as he was clearly innocent but that is beside the point. Because, from the other side of the world my Grandparents sent him messages of love and support.

Why? Because a belief in liberty and equality is very English.

Liberalism is in your blood, honest guv

Our forefathers have had plenty of dark moments: slavery, the Peterloo Massacre, Bloody Sunday, Swamp 82, the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Criminal Justice Act 2003…. there’s a long list.

But, liberalism was born in Britain. In England. In Somerset. With John Locke.  Followed up by Thomas Gordon It was entrenched with the Glorious Revolution. It gave us the abolition of slavery and universal suffrage. It was how we recovered from the Great Depression. It was why we fought the Nazis.

And what does being a liberal mean?

I’m a proud liberal, what does that mean I believe:

That the Government only rules with our consent.

The Government ought not interfere with me or my property.

We are all equal under the eyes of the law.

That I tolerate and protect people having different views to me.

That we should own the corporations that they cannot own us.

Terrible things? Things perhaps you agree with?

Liberal is a dirty word

Some people now consider the word liberal a dirty word. Some people use it as an insult. Some people blame it for the ills of English society.

Why? I think there are three reasons,

1) The liberal democrats.A political party has hijacked the word, ‘liberal’. People presume that if you say you’re a liberal, you vote liberal democrat. As such you are associated with all the policies, good and bad of that party. I have no doubt that most political parties have some liberal aspect, afterall we live in a liberal democracy? Why, because we can vote, we can express our views, we can protest and so on.

So just because I’m a liberal doesn’t mean I’ll be voting for Brian Paddick at the Mayoral Election, or I believe in the coalition, or anything like that.

2) The liberals you hear. Linked to the above is the way in which other parties have used the term liberal. The left from Karl Marx onwards have used it as a term for people who don’t care about the poor, or social cohesion. They’ve used it as a way of attacking society, saying that the ‘liberals’ care only for themselves and accumulating individual wealth. And, on the right, ‘liberals’ are to blame for rising crime rates, soft justice and it is liberals who wreck traditions by allowing pluralism and indeed diversity.

Look above at what I’ve said. Am I to blame for rising crime. Do I not care for the poor?

3) The big one. We take for granted that we’re free. I think we’ve quite frankly forgotten that we live in a free society. That’s an amazing thing. We can vote for our Government. We can criticise them, in writing, on twitter, on facebook, on blogs, in newspapers, on the streets, to their faces, in songs, in banners.

We’re entitled not to be imprisoned arbitrarily. It’s illegal to torture us. The Government has to prove I’m guilty before they punish me.

The Government can’t just take my property.

Your Mother and Sister won’t be stoned if they commit adultery, they’re allowed to vote, they can wear what they want.

I can buy a share in a company which is publicly sold. But, just because I have 100 shares doesn’t mean I have more of a vote in the Government than someone who has no shares.

Again, history

Liberalism was born in England before the civil war, it was about limiting the right of Kings. The French went another step. Then of the course the Americans cast off British policies which limited their freedoms.

In World War II, the Nazis spread fascism throughout Europe. They limited liberty and freedom. We fought for that liberty and were proud.

Churchill (the Conservative) said: ‘all the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honour, duty, mercy, hope.’

So what it means to me to be an Englishman

As a English man I am a liberal. It means that I will defend the rights of others to have their view heard. To date that has meant, I have represented members of the EDL, anarchists, numerous members of Occupy.

Have represented incredibly rich businessmen and penniless refugees.

Clients have ranged from murderers to the proprietor of a noisy gay bar.

And look, please don’t miss this, because it says what is brilliant about our society. The police, often considered to be contrary to, or oppressing liberal values and some of them condemn us wishy-washy liberals, are exercising their right to protest on 10 May 2012, a very liberal right. And if any of them get nicked I’ll happily take the brief and defend them with the same ferocity I would any other client.

So – own it. Be that liberal.
Even the bard was a liberal:
This liberty is all that I request.
The Taming of the Shrew: II, i

The way we’re going: Criminal Justice 2025

Posted: 14/04/2012 in Barrister, Legal aid, Magistrates, Police, Pupil barrister, Trainee solicitor
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
2

The year is 2028 and the last fifteen years have seen more change in English criminal justice than the 150 years before it.

The rapid change began toward the end of 2012. The Winsor report was on coffee tables across Westminster. The Police Federation march had put the rank and file officers in the cross hairs of the coalition.

Meanwhile, after 4% pay cuts across the Criminal Bar, a  number of mid ranking barristers have found themselves without employment as the CPS have restricted who can prosecute on the basis of how barristers fill out a form. A number of cases have collapsed as the jilted barristers refuse to prosecute.

And whilst prison numbers have reduced, the Government are not looking to share the scarce resources of the prison service, instead, to target and remove another prison establishment.

Double dip

The default of Greece in 2013 led to a Europe wide recession.  Germany, France and the UK as a result had to restructure public finances to keep the European project alive.

Overnight there is a hole in the public finances.  Defence recruitment is frozen. Public sector pay is subject to a wide review. University fees go beyond £10k. Fare subsidies are cut and capital transport projects are delayed. Again, nobody is prepared to consider waste in the NHS or rationing the provision.

The Government have passed early release legislation, a number of prisoners are released early. There is only the support of charities to help them.

Whilst in Eastern Europe organised crime has used its free movement rights across Europe. Multi national, cross border crime is now the norm.

Save money, save it quick

The need to save money quickly caused the Government to look at whole sale reform in crime and criminal justice.

By 2018 every category B and C prison was in the control of private companies, there is no focus on rehabilitation at all. The focus of these establishments is to hold inmates as cheaply as possible. The Prison and Probation Ombudsman was incapacitated by the number of complaints, in particular as regard to use of force. The majority of the open, category D prisons have been closed, the remaining two which are open are run for those coming to the end of life and IPP sentences, they are contracted to charities. Whilst the Government pays for the room and board of the prisoners, it is for the charities to fund rehabilitative and resettlement opportunities.

The recession has had a wide spread impact on crime. Most organised crime has now got a European dimension. In 2016, the European laws with regard to extradition were abolished. All over Europe savings were made in domestic legal budgets. Instead of domestic police forces dealing with extradition an European Marshall Service was created. The European Marshalls have jurisdiction throughout the EU and can arrest anybody to whom a warrant applies.

The police have taken the Winsor report to a new extreme. Entry requirements for officers is high indeed. Most officers are now taken directly at the age of 21 from Russell Group Universities. The low entry pay being offset against the job security that policing officers. This lack of diversity amongst police recruitment has led some to conclude that the police are no longer representative of the public.

In any event, the general public had little contact with the actual police. Instead, the obvious saving was to increase the power, but not the pay nor the training of PCSOs. In 2018, the Police Reform Act gave PCSOs all the powers that police constables have, the only difference being that they only exercised their powers whilst on duty, in full uniform and in their force areas. Despite the Police Federation warning that it might lead to lower standards of policing, UNISON representing the PCSOs demanded the powers and access to weaponry. There was no entry requirements for PCSOs and they could be recruited from the age of 16.

The Labour Party, receiving funding from UNISON could not oppose the new powers to the PCSOs.

By 2019, the public complained that the police were ruder than ever, violent and unresponsive. Crimes went uninvestigated. The IPCC were buckling under pressure and police forces were having to build contingency funds for litigation.

Looking to impress

In 2019, David Cameron was heading toward the next election, the end of his second term. Facing rising crime rates and heavy criticism from the public as to policing, the Conservative government enacted the Criminal Justice Reform Act 2019.

Overnight the Magistrates’ Court was renamed the District Criminal Court. The Magistrates were abolished. Instead, their legal advisors were overnight promoted to District Judges. The conviction rate in the lower court went up overnight. Money was saved to put toward popular public projects.

Appeals from the District Criminal Court to the Crown Court and High Court ended. Instead, appeals were sent to the Senior District Judges, mostly the District Judges who had been in place before the change.

In the District Criminal Court the law was changed with regard to representation. Barristers and solicitors continued to appear. But, also trainee solicitors were allowed to appear in the Court. Additionally, police station representatives with no formal legal qualification and CPS caseworkers were now allowed to do summary trials.

By the end of 2019 the public complained that the Courts were a mess. Victims complained of improper treatment and witnesses went either unquestioned or were subjected to clumsy questioning. The Law Society and the Bar Council complain loudly that justice cannot be done in these new criminal courts. The Government resist any suggestion that these District Criminal Courts ought to be televised.

The Government rejoice that they have increased the success rate of prosecutions whilst saving costs.

The final chapter of the Act was to remove the application of the Human Rights Act to any person or situation involved in the criminal justice system, prompting widespread protests from liberties campaigners and a crisis in the Higher Courts.

Third term

The libertarians may not have liked what was said about the Human Rights Act, but the rhetoric of the right wing electronic and visual press helped get the Conservatives a third term. The crime problem was supposedly solved with the increase in successful prosecutions and money was being saved to purchase shiny things.

And in 2020 huge capital investment was provided by Government into transport, energy security, new technological industry and the development of small enterprise.

Part of this was funded by the wider world economic recovery, otherwise by savings from elsewhere.

The big promise to the public was to put local power back to local people. That though had to be offset about the reality that a closer Europe would require European solutions.

The new reality. PSCOs have been doing low level, local policing now for several years, the public though want the police back. The solution? Every local authority becomes responsible for its own day-to-day policing. They can choose from a number of providers, Serco, G4S etc.

The remaining police force is reshaped and the numbers decreased. There is now one national domestic police force, responsible for policing serious offences.

To cope with European Union wide criminal offending the European Marshall Service is extended and expanded. In 2021, the European Union Crime Agency was formed. Their remit to investigate ‘Federal Crime’. A new multi million £ court house is opened in London, Birmingham and Cardiff.

HMP Wandsworth is taken away from G4S control and becomes EUP Wandsworth. It holds those who have committed Federal offences.

Despite British objections all EUCA Officers are routinely armed with Austrian made glock semi-automatic pistols. The proliferation of weapons throughout Europe, in particular of old soviet and adopted pistols, means that the Government decide to routinely arm all members of the national police force. Webley & Scott produce side arms for the first time since the 1970s. A signficant number of officers are sacked when they refuse to collect their weapons.

Just outside of Temple

There is a large stone building with oak doors, brass door knockers and black iron railings. It looks more 1925 than 2025.

The building inside was tidy, but modest. In three open plan offices, INQUEST, the Howard League and the Prisoners’ Advice Service go about their business. They survived the recession and legal aid cuts by sharing a building and some other costs.

On the floors above is one of the few barristers’ chambers which survived the reforms.

There are five criminal barristers’ chambers left in London. And even then, criminal law is not their main source of work. Of those chambers, two will only accept work on a private fee paying basis. The other two only represent the Government and the private companies involved in providing ‘criminal justice.’

The chambers FTD is a member at is the one outside of Temple. FTD’s practice is mostly paid for by wealthy individuals, sometimes solicitors firms are able to persuade their paymasters to  get in an independent barrister, but it is in less than 5% of cases. Nobody junior in chambers just has a crime practice. Actions against the police are booming, the untrained PSCOs with greater powers were a liability, the privatised PCSOs are worse.

A number of members of chambers work in the International Criminal Court and in the European Federal Criminal Court. It is very rare indeed they would get involved in a normal criminal offence.

Barristers are now instructed not only by solicitors in their own jurisdiction but others in Europe too.

In 2025, solicitors are in a recruitment crisis. National firms of solicitors won all the contracts to provide criminal defence under legal aid, they squeezed and squeezed each other to do it as cheap as possible under the ‘Best Value Tendering’ scheme which has crippled the profession for the last 10 years. The result is every lawyer has a huge caseload and little support. There has been little to attract high quality candidates into the criminal law as the money at the bottom end is so bad.

People mortgage their homes and sell their possessions if accused of a criminal offence to pay for proper representation.

A number of Judges and retired lawyers are making it clear in their media that they think there are huge numbers of miscarriages of justice. City law firms are taking on criminal appeals pro bono as obvious wrongful convictions flourish.

Another video was released of privatised community police abusing members of the public. One 17 year old private company police support officer was seen racially abusing a group of youths. Another has been indicted for extortion. The English national police force are having to spend large amounts of time investigating their private company colleagues.

Prison is having next to no effect on re-offending rates and crime is on the rise again this year.

Tomorrow, the Sun on Sunday will launch its return to justice campaign, calling for improvement of legal aid lawyers and an entirely public run police force.

FTD is appearing on the Sky E News bulletin to remind the Government that they were warned of the risks many years before.

Drip drip

I don’t mean to be a drip.

But, lawyers who are not properly trained and not properly resourced will not succeed in securing justice. Graduates from top universities will not be attracted to legally aided law if they see it as being unstable and offering no financial reward whatsoever. The slow drip out of the legal aid budget (and these annual 4% gashes) will kill quality. BVT would end it all together.

Would you be comfortable to live in a society where only the rich could access the best criminal defence?

Privatising police forces will lead to injustice, not only in employment terms, but to persons who are policed. Again, reduce training and entry standards you will reduce service.

Would you be comfortable to live in a society where you are policed for profit not protection?

And we ought to recognise that with the continuation of the European project there will come a time that we need to have a serious consideration as to the lines of jurisdiction. The more integrated Europe becomes more integrated crime becomes. Is anyone being honest about the prospect of European criminal justice?

Honesty too must be applied to our policy of imprisonment. If you cut funds to prison the frills go first. The frills are rehabilitation. Without rehabilitation you are merely locking people up in a public funded barn.

Criminal justice cannot be privatised, small slices lead to large injustices in the long run. If you don’t pay for proper criminal lawyers then you will never achieve criminal justice.

Is my vision of 2025 so unrealistic?

FTD

Older Entries