*/
Justice has been in the news regularly over the summer with the government’s ‘stop the boats’ week, the Lucy Letby conviction (and absence from her sentencing) and the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s handling of the Andrew Malkinson case.
I was pleased to be able to make a joint statement with the Law Society criticising Conservative Central Office for circulating a dossier that was clearly intended to denigrate and marginalise immigration solicitor Jacqueline MacKenzie. I hope you had chance to read our statement. Happily, the Lord Chancellor and Law Officers have continued to use moderate and appropriate language when discussing lawyers who, entirely properly, take cases against the government. I hope others in senior positions of responsibility will follow their example. It is absolutely okay to criticise lawyers who behave improperly. It is absolutely not okay to criticise lawyers who are properly fulfilling their professional obligations to promote their clients’ interests. And it is vital to be able to tell the difference.
As we head into party conference season and politicians turn their minds to manifestos, we will take the opportunity to highlight our priorities for the Bar and wider justice system.
The Lucy Letby case raises many issues. It is easy to understand the demands that ‘something must be done’ to ensure that convicted criminals are present when they are sentenced. But it is very difficult to see that there is a truly satisfactory and practical way of achieving that, without also providing a stage on which a defendant can show his or her contempt for the process that has convicted them.
There is a suggestion that advice from medical professionals to remove Letby was ignored or overridden by non-medically qualified hospital managers. If true, this is deeply troubling. And I hope it might prompt a more general review of the role of professions and whether we have got quite the right balance between the extremes of untrammelled self-regulation of professions on the one hand, and on the other hand always subjugating professional judgements to non-professional oversight.
The level of professional distrust baked into the current system is such that anyone can be Chair of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) or of the Legal Services Board – just as long as they have never been a practising lawyer.
The government has just announced an independent inquiry into the circumstances and handling of the Andrew Malkinson case after he was exonerated in July over a rape for which he wrongly spent 17 years in prison. I welcome the announcement by the government. We will follow the developments with interest. The Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk KC, is right when he says: ‘The core function of our justice system is to convict the guilty and ensure the innocent walk free.’ We cannot safely aim for a system that ensures that every guilty person is convicted, but we can and must aim for a system that ensures that innocent people are not convicted.
I have not always been happy with the speed at which BSB complaints have been handled and have made that clear. The BSB is working to improve its systems, has called in external experts to carry out an independent review, and the BSB’s annual report records that the BSB closed 119 investigations in the second half of the year compared to 60 in the first half. So things are improving.
But efficient regulatory investigations need our cooperation. It is vitally important for barristers to cooperate with the regulator. And respond promptly to BSB requests. This will benefit all those involved.
I first stood in Bar Council elections about 35 years ago in the so-called ‘slate’ of candidates led by Gareth Williams and Anthony Scrivener, who felt the Bar was too stuck in its ways and needed to be more combative in challenging the government to provide adequate levels of legal aid. I made lots of friends, learnt about other practice areas, and had a chance to put something back into the profession.
Can I please encourage you to stand in the next elections. If you’ve tried before and been unsuccessful, it’s worth trying again. Nominations open from 9:00 on 7 September and close at 17:00 on 21 September. There is more information available on the Bar Council website.
Volunteering to represent the profession is the best way to help make the Bar even better than it already is, and to change those parts you think need changing.
I will be speaking in Inner Temple Hall at 18:00 on 13 September, on the Bar of 2043 and challenges we face, and then in conversation with Fiona Rutherford of JUSTICE. Tickets are free and can be booked here.
Nick Vineall KC is the Chair of the Bar 2023. Previously, he was Joint Head of Chambers at 4 Pump Court and sat as a Deputy High Court Judge. Nick practises in commercial, construction and financial services law.
Justice has been in the news regularly over the summer with the government’s ‘stop the boats’ week, the Lucy Letby conviction (and absence from her sentencing) and the Criminal Cases Review Commission’s handling of the Andrew Malkinson case.
I was pleased to be able to make a joint statement with the Law Society criticising Conservative Central Office for circulating a dossier that was clearly intended to denigrate and marginalise immigration solicitor Jacqueline MacKenzie. I hope you had chance to read our statement. Happily, the Lord Chancellor and Law Officers have continued to use moderate and appropriate language when discussing lawyers who, entirely properly, take cases against the government. I hope others in senior positions of responsibility will follow their example. It is absolutely okay to criticise lawyers who behave improperly. It is absolutely not okay to criticise lawyers who are properly fulfilling their professional obligations to promote their clients’ interests. And it is vital to be able to tell the difference.
As we head into party conference season and politicians turn their minds to manifestos, we will take the opportunity to highlight our priorities for the Bar and wider justice system.
The Lucy Letby case raises many issues. It is easy to understand the demands that ‘something must be done’ to ensure that convicted criminals are present when they are sentenced. But it is very difficult to see that there is a truly satisfactory and practical way of achieving that, without also providing a stage on which a defendant can show his or her contempt for the process that has convicted them.
There is a suggestion that advice from medical professionals to remove Letby was ignored or overridden by non-medically qualified hospital managers. If true, this is deeply troubling. And I hope it might prompt a more general review of the role of professions and whether we have got quite the right balance between the extremes of untrammelled self-regulation of professions on the one hand, and on the other hand always subjugating professional judgements to non-professional oversight.
The level of professional distrust baked into the current system is such that anyone can be Chair of the Bar Standards Board (BSB) or of the Legal Services Board – just as long as they have never been a practising lawyer.
The government has just announced an independent inquiry into the circumstances and handling of the Andrew Malkinson case after he was exonerated in July over a rape for which he wrongly spent 17 years in prison. I welcome the announcement by the government. We will follow the developments with interest. The Justice Secretary, Alex Chalk KC, is right when he says: ‘The core function of our justice system is to convict the guilty and ensure the innocent walk free.’ We cannot safely aim for a system that ensures that every guilty person is convicted, but we can and must aim for a system that ensures that innocent people are not convicted.
I have not always been happy with the speed at which BSB complaints have been handled and have made that clear. The BSB is working to improve its systems, has called in external experts to carry out an independent review, and the BSB’s annual report records that the BSB closed 119 investigations in the second half of the year compared to 60 in the first half. So things are improving.
But efficient regulatory investigations need our cooperation. It is vitally important for barristers to cooperate with the regulator. And respond promptly to BSB requests. This will benefit all those involved.
I first stood in Bar Council elections about 35 years ago in the so-called ‘slate’ of candidates led by Gareth Williams and Anthony Scrivener, who felt the Bar was too stuck in its ways and needed to be more combative in challenging the government to provide adequate levels of legal aid. I made lots of friends, learnt about other practice areas, and had a chance to put something back into the profession.
Can I please encourage you to stand in the next elections. If you’ve tried before and been unsuccessful, it’s worth trying again. Nominations open from 9:00 on 7 September and close at 17:00 on 21 September. There is more information available on the Bar Council website.
Volunteering to represent the profession is the best way to help make the Bar even better than it already is, and to change those parts you think need changing.
I will be speaking in Inner Temple Hall at 18:00 on 13 September, on the Bar of 2043 and challenges we face, and then in conversation with Fiona Rutherford of JUSTICE. Tickets are free and can be booked here.
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen
