UK Legal System

[DeludedGuy]

I came across this on another forum and thought it worthwhile to post here.

I know some of you might have a small inkling of what is going on, but I wanted to explain a little so you can understand and if you feel like it, sign an e-petition to try and force a Parliamentary debate.

I know that when some people see the words Criminal Justice System, all you see is the word Criminal, and just automatically assume that it is only criminals that are affected by this, but I urge you to reconsider that. People are always innocent until proven guilty.

The Justice Minster, Chris Grayling, without holding any debate or vote in Parliament is about to make fundamental changes to the Justice System, that once done cannot be undone.


The main points of the changes:

Legal aid in criminal cases will be restricted to those with a family income below £37,000.
No longer will individuals be able to choose a solicitor under Legal Aid when accused of a crime.
4 Large Firms will win contracts from the Government to provide all legal aid funded criminal work in a Region (eg. London will be a region).
They will be guaranteed 25% of the work each.
They will bid based ONLY on price. The lowest bidder will win. There is nothing in the contract about quality of service.
Each company will be paid a fixed fee for each case that they receive...regardless of the complexity of the case.
There is nothing in the proposal about ensuring that quality continues after the contracts have been awarded.
Individuals will be allocated to a firm based on a random factor (day of the month you were born for instance).
Once allocated you will not be able to change the lawyer other than in exceptional circumstances.

What impact will this have?

The Government accepts that 1,000 or so high street solicitors firms will close. 1,000 small businesses gone from the High Street. Local knowledge, local connections and a competitive edge to provide an adequate service will all be lost.

The 4 large firms that are bidding will be paid a fixed fee regardless of the amount of work that is actually required. The "plan" being that these firms will lose money on some jobs but gain money on the other jobs.

The fact is that these companies will seek to maximise their profit, they will attempt to make every job a job that they can make money from.

It is the job of the Barrister to explain the legal and evidential matters to the client, and sometimes, it is the job of the Barrister to recommend to the client that they plead guilty to the offence (they cannot do this if the person says they didn't do it, but they can explain the benefits and explain how strong the prosecution case is and how weak the defence case is).

It is feared that when the company involved makes a profit from your plea of guilty that a conflict of interest will arise. It is feared that these companies may advise people about the benefits of pleading guilty, and over-exaggerate the prosecution case while playing down the possible defences, because it will benefit them financially to do so.

The loss of competition (you cannot choose your lawyer, there will be a fixed amount of work allocated to each firm regardless of their competency) will decrease the quality of work. Any time you create a monopoly on a service you face the very serious risk that quality will be reduced as there is no incentive to ensure that quality comes through in the work.

This is evidenced by the recent changes to interpretors in the UK justice system. ALS and Crapita gained a monopoly of the service and the problems that have followed continue to plague the court system with delays.

I urge all of you to sign the petition below, to force a Parliamentary debate, which is justifiable given the size of the changes being proposed.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48628

[wasabi]

I can see both sides of the argument here.

On one hand, I've seen public sector buying agreements in action. They look good to top level spreadsheet merchants but hide a multitude of sins. Often you can't buy what you want/need, so end up buying somethig at ten times the price as it is the only nearest equivalent. Also level of service is pretty bad as they know they've got you over the barrel.

On the other, I can see why government wants to save money defending and endless array of drunk youths fighting at the weekend and stereotyped bad-estate violent husbands hitting their wives/kids.

[DeludedGuy]

I can see both sides of the argument here.

On one hand, I've seen public sector buying agreements in action. They look good to top level spreadsheet merchants but hide a multitude of sins. Often you can't buy what you want/need, so end up buying somethig at ten times the price as it is the only nearest equivalent. Also level of service is pretty bad as they know they've got you over the barrel.

On the other, I can see why government wants to save money defending and endless array of drunk youths fighting at the weekend and stereotyped bad-estate violent husbands hitting their wives/kids.

But surely the type of people you are portraying fall into the lower income bracket so will certainly get free legal aid, where as the high earners who pay their taxes will have to in some cases pay their own legal fees when accused of a crime.

[flearider]

simple then ... don't get caught .. or commit the crime ..i'd say most people wont even notice ..

[Willzzz]

Well there are people who are wrongly accused you know. Mind you it isn't hard to outwit the CPS.

[capt_cornflake]

Already signed a few days ago.
Personally I think this is pretty appalling. The legal aid budget is something that has had a kicking from successive governments, but this is the ultimate nutshot.

I can see both sides of the argument here.
On the other, I can see why government wants to save money defending and endless array of drunk youths fighting at the weekend and stereotyped bad-estate violent husbands hitting their wives/kids.

simple then ... don't get caught .. or commit the crime ..i'd say most people wont even notice ..

The assumption by many that everyone seeking legal aid must be guilty is exactly why they are likely to get away with it.

Just because you don't have the resources to hire a lawyer should not mean that you have to roll over and accept it when wrongfully accused. There are plenty of examples of cases where someone has been accused and taken to court entirely based on over-zealous misinterpretation of evidence, or just failings in CPS procedures. Under the new system if it involves more than a cursory glance at the evidence to pick obvious holes, I suspect the defendants are more likely than not going to be pressured to just accept it and plead guilty, and if they don't the defense will be so lacklustre that they may as well have.

And the worst thing is that they are pushing it through without even a commons debate. And it's not even projected to actually save that much money (~£200M).

In combination with the recent (and upcoming changes) to the benefits system, this really is a declaration that to be poor in this country is to be an underclass with fewer rights than the rest of us.

I do wonder how this fits in with the EU Convention on Human Rights (In particular Article 6 - the right to a fair trial), but i don't know the details of exactly how it was implemented into UK law. Of course if the current Government (or at least the Tories) get there way, they'd do away with this altogether.

[DeludedGuy]

Thanks capt_cornflake, for echoing my thoughts.

There seems to be this strange idea that people are guilty until proven innocent, this became even more apparent during my two weeks of Jury Service, I was shocked at how many jury members seemed to think that it was the up to the defendants barrister to prove he was innocent, which is simply not how our system works. We ended up a hung jury because three people could not understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Also, two of the jury members didn't know what "reasonable doubt" meant, once we explained they then agreed he was not guilty.

Think I went a bit off topic there.

Best way to put this is:

Imagine someone accused you of a crime which you knew you hadn't committed, you are arrested and then assessed and you do not fall under the low income bracket so now you have to pay for a solicitor out of your own pocket, even though you know you are innocent.

[wasabi]

In combination with the recent (and upcoming changes) to the benefits system, this really is a declaration that to be poor in this country is to be an underclass with fewer rights than the rest of us.

Being devil's advocate, they technically have more rights. i.e. the right to free legal advice.

[Saracen]

....

Best way to put this is:

Imagine someone accused you of a crime which you knew you hadn't committed, you are arrested and then assessed and you do not fall under the low income bracket so now you have to pay for a solicitor out of your own pocket, even though you know you are innocent.

There might be a better way to put it ...

At what point do you expect people to pay for their own legal costs, rather than expecting taxpayers, the vast majority of whom earn a lot less than you (a generic you, not you, DG) to pay it for you?

Let's start with the absurd .... should billionaires expect taxpayers, the average of whom earns someting around £25-26k, to fund their legal defence?

What about Alan Sugar?

Peter Stringfellow? David Beckham?

Suppose, for example, I'm a City of London banker, on a £5million pound annual bonus, do I get legal aid if I'm accused of a drunken fight in the Savoy bar because I over-indulged in the Bolinger?

What about if my income is paltry £500,000 a year, from my trust fund, and I live in a £20m mansion, on the 1000 acre estate my parents left me?

What about a trifling £250,000 a year?


When does the taxpayer cease being liable ... if ever?

[melon]

Thanks capt_cornflake, for echoing my thoughts.

There seems to be this strange idea that people are guilty until proven innocent, this became even more apparent during my two weeks of Jury Service, I was shocked at how many jury members seemed to think that it was the up to the defendants barrister to prove he was innocent, which is simply not how our system works. We ended up a hung jury because three people could not understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Also, two of the jury members didn't know what "reasonable doubt" meant, once we explained they then agreed he was not guilty.

Think I went a bit off topic there.

Best way to put this is:

Imagine someone accused you of a crime which you knew you hadn't committed, you are arrested and then assessed and you do not fall under the low income bracket so now you have to pay for a solicitor out of your own pocket, even though you know you are innocent.

Yes that truly sucks , but how many people fall under that bracket now with literally no middle class ?

What I would like to see a fairer system where lawyers have less power to influence the outcome , and it was up to defendants to prove their innocence more than having someone able to buy themselves out of it using influence / power.

[DeludedGuy]

There might be a better way to put it ...

At what point do you expect people to pay for their own legal costs, rather than expecting taxpayers, the vast majority of whom earn a lot less than you (a generic you, not you, DG) to pay it for you?

Let's start with the absurd .... should billionaires expect taxpayers, the average of whom earns someting around £25-26k, to fund their legal defence?

What about Alan Sugar?

Peter Stringfellow? David Beckham?

Suppose, for example, I'm a City of London banker, on a £5million pound annual bonus, do I get legal aid if I'm accused of a drunken fight in the Savoy bar because I over-indulged in the Bolinger?

What about if my income is paltry £500,000 a year, from my trust fund, and I live in a £20m mansion, on the 1000 acre estate my parents left me?

What about a trifling £250,000 a year?


When does the taxpayer cease being liable ... if ever?

I'm not an expert in the field and yes, you are right, its difficult to come to a sensible fair answer, however when you consider our government has made some really bad, rash decisions recently - the whole bedroom tax fiasco springs to mind - I doubt they would get much stick for scrapping legal aid to households with an annual income of £300k+.

Bu why stop there? Maybe take property into account, anyone with a property worth £3m+ shouldn't qualify either, but then that opens another can of worms, it's tricky and there just isn't one simple solution, but the proposed solution certainly isn't the one.

[Saracen]

Yes that truly sucks , but how many people fall under that bracket now with literally no middle class ?

What I would like to see a fairer system where lawyers have less power to influence the outcome , and it was up to defendants to prove their innocence more than having someone able to buy themselves out of it using influence / power.

Hmmm. Part agree, part don't.

I don't want to see the burden of proof shift, and for a couple of reasons.

First, I think letting some guilty people go free is better than locking up innocent ones, which would happen, or rather, happen more often, if you shift the burden of proof.

Second, the state can bring the full force of the state to bear. It has loads of full-time supposedly professional investigators, called police, and it can unleash virtually unlmited amounts of man (and woman) power.

It also has whole arnies of professional prosecutors, and it isn't soending it's own money if it decides to use seversl highly paid ones to prosecute you .... or me.

It damn well ought to be abke to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt, or we start a slippery slope back towards a Star Chamber principle.



But, I'd agree, right now, going to law is a rich msn's game, and the justice the rich get is going to be better thsn the justice the rest of us get, precisely because they can afford it.

About theconly way to prevent that is that all defence attorneys names go into a bit hat, and every defendent, regardless of wealth, gets a random name, good bad or indifferent, drawn from the hat.

Good luck getting anything like that.

The rich getting the best of things is a fact of life, and unless people want to end up bitter and twisted (like me), they'd best get used to it.

[Saracen]

I'm not an expert in the field and yes, you are right, its difficult to come to a sensible fair answer, however when you consider our government has made some really bad, rash decisions recently - the whole bedroom tax fiasco springs to mind - I doubt they would get much stick for scrapping legal aid to households with an annual income of £300k+.

Bu why stop there? Maybe take property into account, anyone with a property worth £3m+ shouldn't qualify either, but then that opens another can of worms, it's tricky and there just isn't one simple solution, but the proposed solution certainly isn't the one.

Well, the so-called bedroom tax is another issue, but we can do it if you like. The principle is, IMHO, absolutely right, but as with many changes and just about all tax and benefit changes, the issues are always about some hard cases at the periphery, so the fine detail is critical, and rarely discussed in headline press coverage.

[wasabi]

There might be a better way to put it ...

At what point do you expect people to pay for their own legal costs, rather than expecting taxpayers, the vast majority of whom earn a lot less than you (a generic you, not you, DG) to pay it for you?

Let's start with the absurd .... should billionaires expect taxpayers, the average of whom earns someting around £25-26k, to fund their legal defence?

What about Alan Sugar?

Peter Stringfellow? David Beckham?

Suppose, for example, I'm a City of London banker, on a £5million pound annual bonus, do I get legal aid if I'm accused of a drunken fight in the Savoy bar because I over-indulged in the Bolinger?

What about if my income is paltry £500,000 a year, from my trust fund, and I live in a £20m mansion, on the 1000 acre estate my parents left me?

What about a trifling £250,000 a year?


When does the taxpayer cease being liable ... if ever?

The gotcha is more like married couple who have mid-level retail jobs at £20k each, so household income of £40k. Over the £37k limit so you could easily end up many many thousands of pounds in debt. Personally i think we've gone to far in many of the government's recent measures - they stock refrain is always to pander to 'protecting the poorest'.

I'd hope that at least they'd limit the number of times the guilty can dip into the free-to-them legal aid pool. Perhaps if you've been successfully prosecuted once, you don't get free legal advice for the next ten years or something.

[DeludedGuy]

Yes that truly sucks , but how many people fall under that bracket now with literally no middle class ?

What I would like to see a fairer system where lawyers have less power to influence the outcome , and it was up to defendants to prove their innocence more than having someone able to buy themselves out of it using influence / power.

I disagree. I'm guessing you have never been accused of something you didn't do. Some people fall to pieces when being questioned, even though are completely innocent, they can still crack under the pressure and come across as guilty.

Most thieves are accomplished liars who can make themselves sound very convincing, then you can also get the females who can sob uncontrollably at will, maybe you think you are good at reading people you have never met but from experience I am genuinely poor at it.

[Lucio]

I think that the threshold is a little low, but otherwise the principle is fine. My arguement is that the threshold should be pegged to twice the annual average salary, so that those households with a pair of average earners gets legal aid, but if you're better off than the average man, you have to pay.