*/
Let me start at the end: Sir Henry Brooke’s speech received a standing ovation; it was spontaneous, heartfelt and thoroughly deserved. As one tasked to report it, the question is, can I do it justice? Fortunately the text of the speech is widely available but reading it will not fully explain the surge that brought the audience to its feet. Certainly there were rhetorical flourishes and it might be tempting to imagine a passage such as ‘... now that the office of a tough old-style Lord Chancellor is as dead as the dodo, Parliament must give teeth to a new Justice Commission, to see that justice, in all its emanations, can never again become a Treasury lickspittle...’ had been delivered with a Churchillian relish.
However, this was not an orator’s speech but one delivered with a quiet and building power. There was no lack of passion (read the speech on sirhenrybrooke.me and you will see it and you may even detect an underlying cold fury in the text) but there was none of that in the delivery, which was almost dispassionate and all the more compelling for it.
The distilled essence of the careful research that went into the Bach Commission report The Right to Justice was given the spotlight: the government has spent £1bn less on legal aid than the £450m saving it had anticipated; fewer than 100 people had received exceptional funding in the last year as against the 1,000s anticipated when exceptional funding was introduced; almost 100,000 fewer people are now entitled to early legal help with housing law than was the case five years ago. But these are not real savings as Sir Henry pointed out, the government accepted a study that suggested £1,700 spent saving a 16-year-old girl from being wrongly declared intentionally homeless had probably saved the Treasury in the region of £20,000 in the long run. The family courts inevitably featured significantly; their problems encapsulated by a letter from an unnamed district judge who had written to Sir Henry shortly before publication of the Bach Report: ‘Every day in the family court, with so many unrepresented litigants, is a long nightmare. So very many have mental health problems, drugs, language, learning difficulties. I can no longer do justice or protect the vulnerable child or adult. I am in despair.’
Rawdon Crozier is a barrister at KBG Chambers, Plymouth, specialising in property law. He is a member of the Counsel editorial board, writes for several legal journals and also writes poetry. In 2015 he went straight from Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36 in the Supreme Court to starting chemotherapy and ‘got the right result in the latter’.
Let me start at the end: Sir Henry Brooke’s speech received a standing ovation; it was spontaneous, heartfelt and thoroughly deserved. As one tasked to report it, the question is, can I do it justice? Fortunately the text of the speech is widely available but reading it will not fully explain the surge that brought the audience to its feet. Certainly there were rhetorical flourishes and it might be tempting to imagine a passage such as ‘... now that the office of a tough old-style Lord Chancellor is as dead as the dodo, Parliament must give teeth to a new Justice Commission, to see that justice, in all its emanations, can never again become a Treasury lickspittle...’ had been delivered with a Churchillian relish.
However, this was not an orator’s speech but one delivered with a quiet and building power. There was no lack of passion (read the speech on sirhenrybrooke.me and you will see it and you may even detect an underlying cold fury in the text) but there was none of that in the delivery, which was almost dispassionate and all the more compelling for it.
The distilled essence of the careful research that went into the Bach Commission report The Right to Justice was given the spotlight: the government has spent £1bn less on legal aid than the £450m saving it had anticipated; fewer than 100 people had received exceptional funding in the last year as against the 1,000s anticipated when exceptional funding was introduced; almost 100,000 fewer people are now entitled to early legal help with housing law than was the case five years ago. But these are not real savings as Sir Henry pointed out, the government accepted a study that suggested £1,700 spent saving a 16-year-old girl from being wrongly declared intentionally homeless had probably saved the Treasury in the region of £20,000 in the long run. The family courts inevitably featured significantly; their problems encapsulated by a letter from an unnamed district judge who had written to Sir Henry shortly before publication of the Bach Report: ‘Every day in the family court, with so many unrepresented litigants, is a long nightmare. So very many have mental health problems, drugs, language, learning difficulties. I can no longer do justice or protect the vulnerable child or adult. I am in despair.’
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
