At Friday’s “Grayling Day” demonstration in London, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association Nigel Lithman QC told the audience that
an indispensable part of our democracy is the criminal justice system. It’s taken centuries to build; it is taking this government a blink of an eye to demolish.
It’s difficult, he said,
to imagine how any more damage can be done to this system; and the whole system is in revolt as to what is happening. To destroy one part of the legal system may be regarded as a misfortune; to destroy all of them looks like carelessness.
He attacked the Ministry of Justice, which he said was “inept”, “not fit for purpose” and “an embarrassment”. In contrast he said the criminal bar was “the most restrained” profession in Britain.
For us to take to the streets and close the courts – all cannot be well.
He also hinted at the justification for further action:
Carl Gardner2014-03-09T20:43:14+00:00We are being shown no good will. So we will respond – and we too will show no good will.
Whilst i do empathise with the concerns and disquiet against the Grayling plan , it will do us well to remember that , there is merit in some of its aspects like the financial eligibility threshold test. Accused persons who hold a disposable income of GBP 3,000 or more , would not qualify for legal aid from the government. This will, in the long term help the UK government to curb down on unnecessary cash spend , even on those who are clearly able to afford legal fees. The Grayling plan though, has sparked off major controversy owing to provisions which have not struck a responsive chord with the british public in general and the legal fraternity in particular.
i think it is crucial to re-think the proposed cuts on legal aid lawyers fees , because if not thought anew, this could spell a gradual death knell for the criminal justice system in UK. The proposed cuts by a whopping 17.5% are inimical to the issue of quality of legal services , but also, a grim pointer to ” a looming threat to the ultimate independence of the Bar “. The rights to a fair trial cannot be over emphasized here. Any interference with this tenet in whatever form, is bad enough and unsettling for the entire legal system. It is bound to be counter productive and render an implosion of the criminal justice system. ” Accused will seek recourse to other alternative means to abuse and misuse ” the facilities placed at their disposal for trial. Little wonder , members of the Bar are the most aggrieved, in a move that bodes bad news for actual and potential beneficiaries of legal aid.
At any rate, i say the right of vulnerable groups like young offenders , children , mothers with young children , must not be sacrificed at the alter of what appears to be an austerity measure, in disguise. Civil rights and other freedoms given weight under the Human rights Act , 1998, should not be circumvented. Sooner or later, allegations of mainstreaming of equality and discrimination , are likely to take centre stage , if the reforms are not not debated afresh.
The Justice department still has plenty of room to go back to the drawing board and come up with a legal aid Bill that has the concurrence of the majority. In doing this , they will re-assure the British public and the world, that the justice department is keen on preserving the position of the English legal system as one of the best in the world. Ultimately, Grayling and team, will triumph in making it a socio-legal campaign , as opposed to now when the government has made the debate, one about financial cuts , hence sidelining the real issues being voiced by stakeholders.
Legal aid Reform can either be nutured to fruition if the justice deparment works on re-drawing a fresh bill, having the input of affected parties or, be cut off from the root as a result of the refusal to engage constructive dialogue. The Justice department would do well to borrow a leaf from other common law jurisdictions on this matter. A solution is possible.