*/
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.
Chair of the Bar sets out a busy calendar for the rest of the year
Why Virtual Assistants Can Meet the Legal Profession’s Exacting Standards
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Examined by Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
Time is precious for barristers. Every moment spent chasing paperwork, organising diaries, or managing admin is time taken away from what matters most: preparation, advocacy and your clients. That’s where Eden Assistants step in
AlphaBiolabs has announced its latest Giving Back donation to RAY Ceredigion, a grassroots West Wales charity that provides play, learning and community opportunities for families across Ceredigion County
Despite increased awareness, why are AI hallucinations continuing to infiltrate court cases at an alarming rate? Matthew Lee investigates
The proscribing of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act is an assault on the English language and on civil liberties, argues Paul Harris SC, founder of the Bar Human Rights Committee
Come in with your eyes open, but don’t let fear cloud the prospect. A view from practice by John Dove
Anon Academic explains why he’s leaving the world of English literature for the Bar – after all, the two are not as far apart as they may first seem...
Review by Stephen Cragg KC
