*/
The findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the implications for access to justice of the Government’s proposals to reform judicial review; the publication of the Jeffrey Review; and facing challenges with resilience and determination.
It is 700 years since Edward II’s army was defeated by Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn, on 23-24 June 1314. At school, we were taught that Robert was inspired to overcome early setbacks in his career by a spider who refused to give up. The spider is now thought to have been an invention, probably by Sir Walter Scott, but his inspiration remains a valuable one for advocates, who often have to display persistence in the face of adversity if a case is to be properly presented. That is certainly true at present of the case for preserving access to justice in criminal, family and civil cases.
Support for that case came at the end of April from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is made up of MPs and peers, with a majority drawn from the coalition parties. In its report on The implications for access to justice of the Government’s proposals to reform judicial review, the Committee found, unsurprisingly, that the Government’s proposals would have a negative effect on access to justice.
However, the Committee went further and questioned the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in bringing forward these proposals. The Committee’s language is measured, but its message is powerful: “In an article in The Daily Mail on 6 September 2013, the day on which the Government’s judicial review consultation was launched, the Lord Chancellor suggested that the rationale for the Government’s proposed reforms is that judicial review is being used as “a promotional tool by countless Left wing campaigners.” Such politically partisan reasons for restricting access to judicial review, in order to reduce the scope for it to be used by the Government’s political opponents, do not qualify as a legitimate aim recognised by human rights law as capable of justifying restrictions on access to justice, nor are they easy to reconcile with the Lord Chancellor’s statutory duties in relation to the rule of law.”
The Committee has proposed a review of the combined office of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. This issue was also raised by several speakers in the House of Lords debate on 7 May 2014 on the latest regulations restricting legal aid for judicial review cases. Baroness Deech put the matter well, and succinctly, when she said, “Our system of justice lacks a champion.”
Sir Bill Jeffrey has now published his report on the market for criminal advocacy services. He has made recommendations which will be considered and debated by the professions, the regulators, the Government and the Courts. It is worth pausing, however, to consider some of the factual findings which he made:
These facts will come as no surprise to members of the Bar. Others may cavil, but they are the findings of an independent review by someone with no axe to grind. They deserve to be taken seriously.
We have proposed action by the Legal Aid Agency and the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee to address these specific c issues. We have also established a Criminal Justice Review Group, with Geoffrey Rivlin QC as chairman and with members drawn from the Criminal Bar Association, the Circuits, the employed Bar and the young Bar. This will provide an opportunity for the profession not merely to engage with and respond to the Jeffrey and Leveson reviews, but also to look ahead and consider carefully how best to ensure that the criminal Bar survives and flourishes, addressing the many challenges which it faces with the same resilience and determination as Robert the Bruce and his spider.
Support for that case came at the end of April from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is made up of MPs and peers, with a majority drawn from the coalition parties. In its report on The implications for access to justice of the Government’s proposals to reform judicial review, the Committee found, unsurprisingly, that the Government’s proposals would have a negative effect on access to justice.
However, the Committee went further and questioned the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in bringing forward these proposals. The Committee’s language is measured, but its message is powerful: “In an article in The Daily Mail on 6 September 2013, the day on which the Government’s judicial review consultation was launched, the Lord Chancellor suggested that the rationale for the Government’s proposed reforms is that judicial review is being used as “a promotional tool by countless Left wing campaigners.” Such politically partisan reasons for restricting access to judicial review, in order to reduce the scope for it to be used by the Government’s political opponents, do not qualify as a legitimate aim recognised by human rights law as capable of justifying restrictions on access to justice, nor are they easy to reconcile with the Lord Chancellor’s statutory duties in relation to the rule of law.”
The Committee has proposed a review of the combined office of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. This issue was also raised by several speakers in the House of Lords debate on 7 May 2014 on the latest regulations restricting legal aid for judicial review cases. Baroness Deech put the matter well, and succinctly, when she said, “Our system of justice lacks a champion.”
Sir Bill Jeffrey has now published his report on the market for criminal advocacy services. He has made recommendations which will be considered and debated by the professions, the regulators, the Government and the Courts. It is worth pausing, however, to consider some of the factual findings which he made:
These facts will come as no surprise to members of the Bar. Others may cavil, but they are the findings of an independent review by someone with no axe to grind. They deserve to be taken seriously.
We have proposed action by the Legal Aid Agency and the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee to address these specific c issues. We have also established a Criminal Justice Review Group, with Geoffrey Rivlin QC as chairman and with members drawn from the Criminal Bar Association, the Circuits, the employed Bar and the young Bar. This will provide an opportunity for the profession not merely to engage with and respond to the Jeffrey and Leveson reviews, but also to look ahead and consider carefully how best to ensure that the criminal Bar survives and flourishes, addressing the many challenges which it faces with the same resilience and determination as Robert the Bruce and his spider.
The findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the implications for access to justice of the Government’s proposals to reform judicial review; the publication of the Jeffrey Review; and facing challenges with resilience and determination.
It is 700 years since Edward II’s army was defeated by Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn, on 23-24 June 1314. At school, we were taught that Robert was inspired to overcome early setbacks in his career by a spider who refused to give up. The spider is now thought to have been an invention, probably by Sir Walter Scott, but his inspiration remains a valuable one for advocates, who often have to display persistence in the face of adversity if a case is to be properly presented. That is certainly true at present of the case for preserving access to justice in criminal, family and civil cases.
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.
On the 50th anniversary of the pub bombings, even now it is still unresolved. Chris Mullin, the journalist and former MP who led the campaign leading to the release of the Birmingham Six, looks back at events
Adele Akers’ reflections on health and wellbeing support at the very junior end of the Bar
Not one to say, ‘I told you so,’ Sam Thomas continues his cyber series with the key learnings from the major supply chain attack affecting 80 law firms and at least one set of chambers at the end of 2023
One year on and the Court of Appeal fails to quash convictions after receiving evidence of racism in the jury room, and there are still no revisions to the Equal Treatment Bench Book , says Keir Monteith KC
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
