*/
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.
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Leah Arthur, a pupil, and her second seat supervisor, John Goss, share their perspectives on building a productive pupil-supervisor relationship
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
The Ministry of Justice will match-fund up to 100 criminal pupillages, with grants available to criminal chambers across England and Wales. Similar to the COIC scheme, the grants will match-fund pupillages additional to those otherwise offered without government funding
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
