Only rich will get justice after legal aid reform

[cronus]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 39392.html

Only rich will get justice after legal aid reform, warns leading barrister

The leader of London’s barristers today warned of “catastrophic” consequences for justice if ministers press ahead with plans to cut £220 million from the legal aid budget.

Sarah Forshaw QC, head of the South Eastern Circuit, said miscarriages of justice, including the “guilty walking free”, would result because of plummeting standards in legal advice.

She claimed the changes — where those earning over £37,000 a year would lose the right to legal aid, and those who did qualify would lose the right to choose their solicitor — would create a two-tier system.

She warned under such a system only the rich would receive proper justice while “hard-working families” would be left with inadequate representation. Her warning will intensify pressure on Justice Secretary Chris Grayling to amend or abandon the reforms amid almost universal opposition within the legal profession.

Mr Grayling has insisted the changes will prevent taxpayers’ money being spent on undeserving cases and introduce greater efficiency without damaging quality.

But Ms Forshaw warned that his plan to introduce price-competitive tendering — with large firms such as the Stobart road haulage group expected to take over legal aid work from smaller companies — would undermine standards.

She also claimed the international reputation of Britain’s legal system — and the billions of pounds it generates for the economy — would be at risk. However, the Ministry of Justice insisted standards would be maintained. “We will continue to uphold everyone’s right to a fair trial. Quality-assured lawyers will still be available, just as they are now.

“With one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world — about £1 billion a year is spent just on criminal legal aid — we can no longer avoid examining how to deliver better value for every penny of taxpayers’ money we spend.”

THE British justice system is regarded as the best in the world. That is not just my view, it is the view of the vast majority of people I meet in this country and abroad. It is also the stated view of the Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling.

I am, therefore, at a loss to explain why Mr Grayling seems in such a hurry to dismantle an institution which, quite apart from its international reputation for fairness and quality, brings in £20 billion to the British economy every year — the vast majority of that to London. More importantly, his proposed changes will affect ordinary, hard-working people the most, by removing basic access to justice.

(continued idiocy)

[Svartalf]

Or barristers will start doing pro bono work...

It's not like the poor could really get justice against a stacked opponent anyway.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 39392.html

Only rich will get justice after legal aid reform, warns leading barrister

The leader of London’s barristers today warned of “catastrophic” consequences for justice if ministers press ahead with plans to cut £220 million from the legal aid budget.

Translation: London barristers are concerned their income will be cut.

Sarah Forshaw QC, head of the South Eastern Circuit, said miscarriages of justice, including the “guilty walking free”, would result because of plummeting standards in legal advice.

LOL - yes, because criminal defendants who don't get legal aid are more likely to walk free. From the defendant's perspective, I thought the idea of getting a legal defense is so that he will win the case... I wasn't aware that Queen's Counsel was relying on legal aid, and without it will start dropping the ball and let the guilty walk free...

She claimed the changes — where those earning over £37,000 a year would lose the right to legal aid, and those who did qualify would lose the right to choose their solicitor — would create a two-tier system.

Isn't there already a two-tiered system? LOL -- 37,000 pounds? That's like, wut -- $55,000? I'd be all like - hire your own flippin' lawyer.

She warned under such a system only the rich would receive proper justice while “hard-working families” would be left with inadequate representation. Her warning will intensify pressure on Justice Secretary Chris Grayling to amend or abandon the reforms amid almost universal opposition within the legal profession.

Mr Grayling has insisted the changes will prevent taxpayers’ money being spent on undeserving cases and introduce greater efficiency without damaging quality.

But Ms Forshaw warned that his plan to introduce price-competitive tendering — with large firms such as the Stobart road haulage group expected to take over legal aid work from smaller companies — would undermine standards.

If the standards of "legal aid" are what I think they are, they aren't doing people much good to begin with. I don't think you're getting Rumpole of the Bailey on legal aid in real life, lol.

THE British justice system is regarded as the best in the world. That is not just my view, it is the view of the vast majority of people I meet in this country and abroad. It is also the stated view of the Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling.

[/i]

\
Well, no surprise there -- of course the British justice system is the best in the world! Other justice systems pale in comparison....

[Svartalf]

I suspect that Only a British, or possibly an Indian or former colonial with a second rate justice system (like one where judges are elected) could say that the british system is the best in the world... case law systems are completely overrated.

[Coito ergo sum]

I thought North Korea had the greatest justice system. Their police only arrest the guilty, and the prosecution have a 100% conviction rate, and Kim Jong Un issues pardons in the most merciful fashion to only the truly repentant.

[Rum]

Vested interests crying foul are foul as a rule.

[mistermack]

I would rather legal aid money was spent on the sick. You can't spend it twice, so spend it best.

The problem is that this legal aid money will just finance tax cuts for the rich, it won't go where it should.

The problem with the barristers argument is that it assumes that you can only get justice if you spend a fortune on barristers.
Not true. You can represent yourself, or get a friend to speak for you.
I've found that more effective in the past. Lawyers are over-rated. It's only fear that makes people hire them.