“Today I met young black man from East London who is often harassed by police and subject to stop and search. Four years ago he was falsely arrested, assaulted by police & seriously injured. THANKS TO LEGAL AID, I supported his IPCC complaint and sought justice through the civil courts.”

“Today I met a man who is profoundly deaf and suffers a psychotic disorder. He had been “cuckooed” out his council flat and was homeless. THANKS TO LEGAL AID, I was able to get possession orders against those who had deprived him of his home.”

QASA is something that both the professions have to still concentrate upon and act together to defeat in its current form. At the time that there was a “noisy minority” who began to speak out about QASA we were consistently told that there was no link between PCT and QASA. Indeed after the consultation was announced Baroness Deech was quick to point out that QASA was not mentioned in the document and that we should, in effect, move on.

I have had conversations with people involved in the genesis of QASA who assert PCT had nothing to do with the design of the scheme. I am told that it was born out of a need to ensure the quality of advocacy in the Crown Court. Whilst I make no comment about such a necessity (and I could not address this issue as eloquently or with such authority as Moses LJ did during his Ebsworth Lecture) I am prepared to accept that many of the architects of QASA did not have PCT in mind when designing the scheme. That is exactly the problem. QASA has to operate in a legal landscape where PCT is being considered.

Whilst Baroness Deech may not be working towards PCT it is undeniable that QASA will form some part of its introduction. Quality assurance was first raised by Lord Carter in his 2006 review of Legal Aid procurement. He expressly linked a peer reviewed quality assurance regime with the safeguards necessary if there is to be any limit on the individual’s choice of representation. In the part of his review that governed procurement he proposed a quality assurance scheme, thereby linking such a scheme with remuneration. He made it clear that such a scheme had to be tried and tested as a pre-cursor to any form of contraction in the legal services market due to an “auction” process.

An MoJ spokesperson has recently been quoted as saying “Quality assured lawyers will still be available [post PCT]. Quality standards will be assessed as part of the tender process and we will ensure they are maintained by the lawyers who win the contracts.”

This is tacitly accepted by the BSB when they say “if you do not have QASA you will simply have some quality assurance scheme forced upon you by the government in connection with PCT”. I am afraid that this is no reason to accept a flawed scheme simply because one of the alternatives may be much worse. I would much rather work towards having a scheme which is much better. The caution shown by Lord Carter that such a scheme should be up and running well in advance of any fundamental changes being made to procurement shows the presence of such a scheme is a prerequisite for PCT and will have a dramatic impact upon its viability.

If the BSB have designed the scheme without the possibility of PCT in mind then it cannot be fit for purpose. Any quality assurance scheme needs to be running for a considerable period of time to allow refinement before PCT is ever introduced. If QASA was not designed with PCT in mind are the BSB not under a duty to either insist QASA is allowed to be developed and refined for a number of years before any widespread and fundamental change is introduced in to criminal legal aid procurement (as envisaged by Lord Carter) or that they withdraw the implementation of QASA until such time as the future of procurement is clear?

I will give you one example of the overlap. Plea Only Advocates. (I can now hear a legion of solicitor readers groaning). The current consultation places a heavy onus on seeking the early resolution of cases through financial incentives for the defendant to plead guilty. So the BSB are now ushering in a scheme whereby an advocate will go to court to conduct a PCMH when they are only able to represent the defendant competently up to the point when s/he pleads guilty and has a massive personal or corporate financial interest in the defendant doing exactly that. I am not demeaning the ethical standards of every practising barrister or solicitor. I am sure that the vast majority will still advise their client according to best practice. But what of five years from now? What if the POA is fresh out of the box with no wiser, more experienced practitioners there to guide them? What if the POA and their employer are not dependent upon their good reputation for work but only upon fulfilling the contract and maximising income levels? The danger to the public is all too evident. The defendant who pleads guilty when there should be a trial. The defendant who pleads guilty to the wrong offence. The prospect of either of these diminishes justice. Surely a scheme designed to ensure the quality of representation needs to at least have considered such issues before it is introduced?

So I throw this challenge down to the BSB. Do they remain committed to the implementation of a scheme which will be introduced to an unknown landscape? Are they satisfied that Carter was wrong when he said that quality assurance should be established and refined before major changes to the procurement processes are implemented? Are they satisfied that the public are being protected by a scheme which was designed with a different landscape in mind? Is there a need for further consultation prior to implementation so that problems such as I have highlighted above can be fully considered when we know what the future holds?

It seems to me to be perverse to introduce this scheme in the current circumstances. A prudent regulator would, at the very least, delay implementation. Only an unreasonable regulator would blindly ignore the link between QASA and the difficult times ahead for the public created in a post Price Competitive Tendering world. It is not weakness to listen to the noisy majority and think again.

Call
Sattia at Selangor Legal Aid Centre
at 03 55107007 or 55107008

1000000 People Request for the Whole Cabinet to Resign

Liked · 5 hours ago

Charles Siantiago:
REPOST： Mohan Ramakrishnan ： Anyone arrested by police tonight, Please call Sattia at Selangor Legal Aid Centre at 03 55107007 or 55107008. We have formed a team of Lawyers who are on standby

———————————————————————–

Well their “understanding” of the criminal justice system was based on what they’d read. What a shame the MoJ don’t talk to lawyers before they dream up the solution. PCT is based on idea there are too many lawyers. Somehow this affects the legal aid budget. Quite how is still not clear. The answer seems to be that some firms have said (when? To whom? which ones?) that there are too many firms for too little work. This is the very same stuff spouted for BVT which was determined to be unworkable.

Apparently the brief to LAP team is to save £220 million.

However in a market priced on number of cases the MoJ can’t control costs as MoJ don’t control number of defendants.

So plan is to take those with more than £37500 out of legal aid. These people will have to pay for their defence. But if acquitted this innocent person will only be reimbursed if they have applied for legal aid and been refused. Even then they shall be reimbursed at legal aid rates. So someone who is acquitted could face financial ruin. Does that sound right??

What is the incentive to build a business under PCT?

Why use the independent Bar at all?
Ring fencing the Bar leaves them open to annihilation.
PCT will result in using “cheap labour” so quality will suffer.

So the LAP team have created a proposal which will interfere with the market for no good reason. There’s no evidence to support the model proposed. The hypothesis is flawed. There’s no guarantee of volume just of share.
The LAP team aren’t thinking about other areas of CJS so thinking is disjointed.

What about “choice”, one of the pillars of the Big Society?
The LAP team don’t seem to get it at all. Nor do they see the connection with quality.

The other main problem with this Confrontation process is that the MoJ representatives won’t discuss anything not in proposal even though MoJ have suggested we come up with alternatives.

The man in charge and his side kick “the boy” were insistent that submitting responses to the consultation was the key message.

The real key message is the the MoJ is repeating same old rubbish spouted in favour of BVT and have no evidence that what they are proposing will deliver savings or sustainable businesses( although what sustainability has to do with Government is beyond me).

The timescales are unrealistic.

This process is a waste of time and a Judicial Review waiting to happen. The trouble is that the LAP team aren’t really interested in proper discussion. It’s about time MoJ grew up and talked to us about real solutions to real problems and had a holistic approach. Instead of thinking about and writing proposals it would be better if MoJ showed some respect and talked to us.

The Confrontation process is a farce.

Michael Robinson
Emmersons Solicitors

The core argument is simple:

By Claire Falconer and Caroline Robinson

The UK government’s commitment to tackling trafficking for labour exploitation is being undermined by its immigration and labour market policies.

“Today I met a 65 year old man who suffered from a respiratory disease. When he was not in hospital, he slept on park benches. Every day his local mosque provided food and a shower. THANKS TO LEGAL AID, I was able to find him housing and support from a community care team.”

“Today I met a single mother with two young children. For the past 6 months she lived in an empty damp basement, surviving on charitable donations from her church. THANKS TO LEGAL AID, I was able to get her interim housing and benefits so she could buy food.”

“Today I met an elderly man with a serious heart condition. The DWP mistakenly suspended his housing benefit and his landlord was seeking possession for rent arrears. THANKS TO LEGAL AID, I was able to reinstate his housing benefit and keep him in his own home.”

Lord Woolf and others are right to warn that Chris Grayling’s proposals on legal aid could lead to miscarriages of justice (“Reforms end ‘justice for all’, lawyers warn”, 28 April). The plans to introduce competitive tendering for criminal legal aid work will destroy community legal services, and herald a race to the bottom which will only favour large corporations that can absorb the losses and deliver criminal defence services at rock-bottom cost. There is a real risk that fixed fees will result in poor quality legal advice and representation, so that people may be convicted of crimes that they did not commit.

Chris Grayling plans to cut civil legal aid as well. Cuts to civil legal aid rates, coming on top of previous cuts in payment rates and removal of legal aid for advice on welfare benefits, employment law, consumer rights, most family disputes and immigration cases, raise the possibility that there will no longer be specialist legal aid lawyers.  Civil legal aid might be technically available, but anyone entitled to it will be hard pressed to find a lawyer offering it .

In 2009, the average salary for a legal aid lawyer was £25,000. If Grayling’s proposals go through, those who cannot afford to pay for lawyers will find themselves unable to protect their rights.

Liz Davies

Some hoped that perhaps that might mean that a question could be asked of Mr Grayling relating to the proposals for legal aid.

The reason this is so important is that Mr Grayling refuses to meet anyone who is likely to challenge his ideas, and does not propose to implement his ideas in a manner which requires a Parliamentary debate. That means everything he says, and all the public misconceptions, are unchallenged.

Likewise in the press. Some newspapers have published stories which give our side of the debate, but others have allowed Mr Grayling an unchallenged platform to state his views. This is not balanced journalism because there is no exploration of the other side, or even an opposing quote.

I find it rather frightening that this can happen in our “democracy”, because this means that the executive can push through measures which severely damage access to justice for ordinary people who cannot afford to pay for their own representation, which in many cases limit the ability of the population to challenge the executive, and all of this happens on the back of a wave of populist misunderstanding and misinformation.

Only when the history books are written and say something like the following will the public sit up and take notice, but by then it will be too late:

“The ability of citizens to hold their government to account and to access justice in the courts increased steadily in the late twentieth century. However, by the early years of the 21st century the executive was reaffirming its hold on power. By 2014 successive governments had introduced measures to weaken the judiciary, the courts and the lawyers who served them. The public acquiesced in this process, believing it was in their interests, not appreciating that it was their rights which were being limited. A popular wave of hatred for legal aid lawyers supported the government’s aims, and it was not until a mass of cases were referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2025 that the great miscarriage of justice scandal broke. New measures were introduced but did not take effect for decades due to the weakening of the legal professions…” [my pessimistic view of future history]

So, it is important that the questions are asked. And asked they were on Twitter last night, with question after question appearing under the #bbcaq hashtag. I’d estimate that about 80% of the tweets last night related in some way to Mr Grayling and his proposals.

Here’s a flavour:

#bbcaq Please ask Mr Grayling why he refuses to debate legal aid with Michael Turner QC of the Criminal Bar Association

#bbcaq Please ask Mr Grayling how he is upholding the British tradition of a fair and equal trial by introducing justice on the cheap.

#bbcaq Please ask Mr Grayling why he is going to destroy 1500 self-made small businesses in order to allow big business into justice system.

#bbcaq Please ask Mr Grayling why MOJ refuses to state how many people will be made redundant as result of legal aid changes (c.15,000?)

#bbcaq Please ask Mr Grayling why he thinks criminal defence for ppl who can’t afford to pay should never rise above the “acceptable” level.

#bbcaq Please ask Mr Grayling where the judiciary will come from once he has destroyed the criminal bar and solicitor professions.

#bbcaq Please ask Mr Grayling whether he has actually considered any of the many questions being asked by lawyers, or is justice irrelevant.

#bbcaq Pls ask Mr Grayling whether it is consistent w dignity of his office to repeatedly misrepresent lawyers’ earnings for political ends

#bbcaq Please ask Mr Grayling why he thinks it acceptable to take such drastic action ref justice system without a debate in Parliament.

#bbcaq Pls ask Mr Grayling if he was wrongly accused of expenses fraud if he’d want his lawyer to be high quality or just acceptable?

#bbcaq Should Mr Grayling resign his position as Lord Chancellor given his disdain for hardworking lawyers of both professions?

Were any of those questions asked?

No.

We need to make sure these issues are aired properly before it is too late.

AN UPDATE

Since I wrote the above post there have been a couple of other media events, but they don’t change the overall picture above.

The first was the appearance by barrister and ex-MP Jerry Hayes on Question Time. Again the BBC was deluged with questions, and again nothing was raised. Mr Hayes managed, briefly, to get a reference to the changes in, but as it was not the question being asked nothing went any further forward.

The second event was last Sunday on the BBC’s Politics Show. Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association. Michael Turner QC, travelled to Birmingham from London for an interview. We all hoped this would be a proper expose given national coverage. We were therefore horrified when it turned out this was local coverage only, and Mr Turner, who had spent about an hour being interviewed, was broadcast for only a few seconds.

It seems abundantly clear that this important issue is simply not going to be aired on the BBC, and the country will sleepwalk into the loss of a system which is admired the World over, apart from in our own country.

Michael Turner is fired up. He has just delivered a speech to a jury at Guildford Crown Court, and the sleet is lashing down outside as he sits in a bar in Waterloo, a glass of sauvignon blanc finally in hand. The unending winter isn’t the only reason Michael Turner is hopping mad. He is leading a vigorous defence of the legal profession in the face of government proposals that could have a devastating effect on legal aid, access to justice and the criminal justice system as a whole.

• Michael Turner QC is chair of the Criminal Bar association. He is leading the criminal bar’s response to the government’s changes to legal aid for criminal lawyers.
• He spoke to Oliver Lewis. Oliver is a higher court advocate with 20 years’ experience as a criminal defence lawyer. He was previously a partner in two legal aid firms and is now working as a freelance advocate and writer. He lives in North London and is chair of governors at a local primary school.
• You can read Oliver’s interview with James Saunders on The Justice Gap HERE and on his own blog HERE.

A veteran of the Old Bailey, Michael Turner has been involved in some of the most high profile criminal trials of recent years. He sees legal aid and access to justice as one of the pillars of the welfare state set up by the post war Attlee government, sitting squarely alongside health and housing and education.

‘The country decided after the war that we must never go back to the poverty of the 1930s. The Attlee government reflected the aspirations of our fathers and mothers after the Second World War – they built a society which was the envy of the world in terms of what it should provide. Proper housing for the nation, proper health, proper education, proper legal services, and the rest.’

Michael Turner’s own father was a Navy commander and was at Toulon after Churchill ordered the destruction of the free French fleet to stop Hitler getting his hands on the ready-made fleet.

‘I was very proud of my dad. He rarely spoke about the war but just once he described what happened at Toulon with tears rolling down his cheeks, this moment when he moved in to try to save the men on his French sister ship and got as near as he could, but looked through his binoculars to see them running on the burning decks jumping into the water to their deaths. They were their friends, they had been on naval exercises with them, and now they were being asked to kill them. He never forgave Churchill for that.’

He is full of scorn for the government’s assault on the values that emerged after the war. ‘It was an extraordinary generation. They were determined this country was going to be something great after the war, that’s what (Ken Loach’s film) The Spirit Of ’45 is all about. Now they are proposing to privatise the fire service for god’s sake. They are privatising the helicopter rescue. But there are certain jewels in the crown that you simply cannot privatise. You can’t have these services privatised. This process was started by Thatcher originally, as soon as she brought the privatised cleaners into the NHS. What happens is that you take the pride out of the professions, because what these private companies do to make profits is they screw down the price.’

It is these principles he is now bringing to the fight against the Government’s assault on legal aid and access to justice, yet his route to a career in law was not assured.

‘At school I was considered an idiot, and when I was seven my parents were sent a letter which suggested I should go to a school for the educationally subnormal, although I am in fact dyslexic. Dyslexia is actually quite a good thing to have as a lawyer, we dyslexics are quite bright!’

He eventually went to Mill Hill School where he excelled at sport – he was captain of rugby and played several other sports to county standard. Asked by teachers what he wanted to do when he left school, he didn’t know.

‘I literally stuck a pin in the paper and came up with law. My teachers laughed so long and so hard at me: “What? You, Turner, a lawyer?” So I thought, right I am going to prove you wrong and I got onto the law degree.’

The first generation in his family to go to university, he was accepted at Sussex. He says at first he had no idea what law was about and that he found the course a little dry.

‘At first I had no idea why I was there, but what kept me going was that you could choose other options and I chose poetry, politics and philosophy, and I proved to be rather good at them. Having been told I was an idiot at school I got to the tutorials and they told me I was actually quite bright.’

Bang to rights
Whilst at Sussex he set up the first student Free Representation Unit. ‘It was very successful. It was effectively a student law centre and we represented members of the public in tribunals and so on. It was that experience that made me realise that I really wanted to be a lawyer.’

Soon he was involved in the Law Centre movement and was called to the bar in 1981. Part of a generation of campaigning lawyers, he became involved in many high profile cases. He represented many clients fitted up by the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, and he says the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which introduced the tape recording of interviews with suspects, proved what was already widely known.

‘Before PACE there was case after case where the police would report suspects saying “I’m bang to rights, guv!”, and there was lots of injustice as a result. After tape recording came in those ‘verbals’ disappeared completely off the agenda.’

Turner was later one of the lawyers in the successful appeal in the notorious Carl Bridgwater murder, representing the late Jimmy Robinson. ‘In the third appeal he had 79 grounds of appeal, and one of the key points we took was that the main witness against Jimmy was a planted informant. The prosecution conceded the point: Jimmy had been verballed in prison.’

Lost the plot
Now Turner has turned his campaigning aim at the government.

‘Our politicians have completely lost the plot. This government allows voracious capitalists to feed off the poorest in society. In a double dip recession a government should be restraining the money lenders, but they are allowed to proliferate, and they charge an interest rate which makes the rate charged by the Krays look positively charitable. I read that 90% of loans from Wonga is spent on food and other essentials. That is disgraceful in our society! The people who should be regulated are the money lenders, the politicians and the bankers. But no, the sledgehammer of regulation falls on doctors, lawyers and now the press. And then you see what they pay civil servants leaving the NHS and other departments to keep quiet about what’s going on. So at one end you’ve got muzzling free speech with bribes, and then at the other the government is introducing secrecy into the court room to hide torture and extraordinary rendition. You would have thought we would quite like to know if prisoners are being tortured in a democracy!’

Legal aid
The government’s measures to cut legal aid and restructure the profession are a disaster for both justice and the justice system, Turner says.

‘The legal aid budget is peanuts in terms of the whole government, and they want to shave £145m off, and it is just killing the service for no purpose whatsoever.’

The government also wants to save money by putting services into private hands but it doesn’t work, he says. He has plenty of evidence.

‘Since the private company Capita took over interpreting services for courts it’s been a complete and utter disaster. 80% of interpreters don’t work for them and interpreting services in our courts is about to be found inadequate by European standards, and it ends up costing the taxpayer more. For instance I was in court recently in a case with 14 Romanian defendants and there was one interpreter for the lot. In another case we couldn’t sit for four days because the private company with the contract for delivery of prisoners couldn’t get three of the prisoners to court because they only had one van. It costs £110 per minute to run a courtroom with a jury, and you just have to ramp that figure up every time there is a screw up.’

He lays into the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) too. ‘Our disclosure of evidence system is broken. There was a recent case in Southwark Crown Court which went belly-up after six weeks because of disclosure problems and the CPS were ordered to pay half a million pounds costs and it was estimated that there was at least a £3m cost to the taxpayer overall.’

The next level
Turner thinks that the government should raise funds by taking a levy from the banks. ‘The banks are defrauded because their systems are crap and so frauds proliferate. We should say we will take a levy from you until you tighten up your systems. That could raise a billion pounds, and there’s your legal aid budget right there.’

Turner is worried that the government’s changes will affect access to justice and produce miscarriages of justice, but he says his campaign is part of a political battle on many fronts. ‘What is happening to the justice system is a reflection of what is happening to other sectors of our society, health, education and so on, and it’s all because of the obsession this government has with putting services into the private sector under the pretence that it is saving the taxpayers money. I want to take this fight to another level, and perhaps the Bar and solicitors have been guilty of sitting in their bunkers and they have not reached out to other professions who are facing exactly the same thing.’ He recently met a TUC leader to discuss the issue. ‘She said “What’s a posh bastard like you having a chat with the TUC?” In fact we got on like a house on fire, and at the end she said the TUC will back any fight you have. They understand we are all fighting the same fight. I’ve got the support of doctors, nurses, health-workers, teachers.’

With that he is back out into the Waterloo night, wrapped up against the sleet, fired up still.

This article originally appeared in The Justice Gap.

This past fall, our client (R.L) was pulled over for speeding. After being stopped, R.L. informed the officer that there was a loaded gun in the car. The officer then took possession of the firearm and reviewed our client’s record. R.L.’s record revealed that he not only failed to possess a permit to carry the handgun, but also had a criminal history in his home state that specifically prohibited him from possessing a firearm. Our client denied any knowledge of this restriction.

 R.L. was then indicted on three charges: (1) possession of a regulated firearm with a prior felony conviction, (2) illegal possession of a regulated firearm and (3) transporting a handgun in a vehicle. The penalties for these offenses reflect the seriousness of the crimes, with a 15 year maximum incarceration penalty for possession of a firearm with a prior felony, a 5 year/$10,000 penalty for illegal possession of a regulated firearm, and a 3 year/$2,500 penalty for transporting a handgun.

At trial, Mr. Onifer negotiated with the prosecutor and successfully lobbied for the two felony charges (Count 1, 2) to be dismissed. Our client pled guilty to the 3^rd count, a misdemeanor, and paid a $1000 fine.

At the Law Office of Michael J. Onifer III, P.A. we offer free consultations and advice on obtaining a favorable settlement. Our office specializes in criminal defense and has an outstanding record in Cecil County. For more advice or legal assistance, contact the Law Office of Michael Onifer III at (410) 398-3075 or via e-mail at onif8645@verizon.net. Our office is located at 147 E. Main Street in Elkton, Maryland.

The turnout for the state’s first Lawyers in Libraries program at the Bangor Public Library on Wednesday demonstrates the need for legal services in the community, said Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice Andrew Mead, who helped organize the statewide event. Many people don’t seek legal advice because they are concerned they won’t be able to afford it or don’t know how to go about finding a lawyer, Mead said. 

Credit: Bangor Daily News

Limited resources exist for individuals to obtain free or discounted assistance by lawyers, but most people are unaware of these resources or where to find them. Many of Maine’s citizens go to their local public libraries and attempt to conduct their own legal research without the assistance of a lawyer. As a result, librarians are often called upon to assist with legal research — or even to offer advice and suggestions on legal issues — tasks that they have undertaken with tremendous goodwill, but with which they would welcome the involvement of lawyers.

[On May 1st] about 70 attorneys spent two hours between noon and 2 p.m. in more than 40 libraries around the state. The program, planned to coincide with Law Day, celebrated nationally on May 1, provided information about free resources, low-cost legal assistance and ways to work with an attorney to lower the cost of legal services. After a panel of four Bangor lawyers spoke, each met for about 15 minutes to discuss specific legal issues with attendees.

“I talked with about six people and the issues ranged from medical malpractice to a real estate boundary issue to a possible wrongful death action,” [Attorney Christopher] Largay said after the program. “They wanted to be heard and to understand their situation better. All were very receptive and very respectful.”

The program is the culmination of years of work by the Maine Justice Action Group, which includes judges, lawyers, librarians, social service providers and representatives from advocacy groups. JAG’s goal is to improve access to justice in Maine. Wednesday’s program was organized by the Collaboration on Innovation, Technology and Equal Access to Justice, an offshoot of JAG.

Mead said that the goal of the program is to have local lawyers in libraries at least once a month around the state. Over the past six months, libraries have held sessions using the statewide teleconferencing system based at the Maine State Library in Augusta. Lawyers with the Maine Volunteer Lawyers Project have talked about different topics from the state capital and they have been broadcast to local libraries around the state. Two more will be held this month.

For information on the program, visit www.lawyersinlibraries.org or visit your local library.

R (on the application of T) v Legal Aid Agency (formerly Legal Services Commission) [2013] EWHC 960 (Admin) Collins J, 26 April 2013 read judgment

The application for judicial review of the LAA came before Collins J. He concluded that:

For the reasons given the decision of the defendant was wrong in law. Reasons have not been given. This might not have led to any relief beyond a declaration if I were persuaded that the only result could be that the decision was confirmed. Not only am I not so persuaded but I find it difficult to see that it would be reasonable, at least without engaging with the judge whether in writing or orally, to fail to comply with what she has decided is necessary.

Background

The claimants are the six children of Mr & Mrs T. All the children are under 11. The London Borough of Ealing (LBE) carried out investigations as a result of which on 22nd September 2012 all six children were removed from their parents’ care and have been since in foster care. On 4th October 2012 LBE commenced proceedings for care orders in respect of the children to remove them from their parents on a permanent basis. On 9th November 2012 District Judge Gibson gave permission to instruct a named adult psychologist to report on the parents, and to instruct the Marlborough Family Service (MFS) to carry out a multi-disciplinary assessment of the parents and children. The psychologist was to be funded by the LAA. District Judge Gibson determined that the assessment should assess the attachment between the parents and the children and the parents’ capacity to meet the needs of the children. She also noted in the order that:

• the proposed assessment and report are necessary to the resolution of this case for the following reasons: a multi-disciplinary assessment is necessary for the court to determine whether the parents are able to meet the children’s needs.
• this case is exceptional on the facts because there are allegations of neglect in respect of six children under 10 years
• the costs to be incurred in the preparation of such report shall be paid by the parties in equal shares and are wholly necessary, reasonable and proportionate disbursement on the funding certificates of the publicly funded parties in this case
• the court considers the hourly rate of £90 to be reasonable in the context of their qualifications, experience and expertise.
• the field in which this expert practises and the particular expertise which they bring to bear on this case is highly specialised. There is no realistic prospect of finding an alternative expert with the necessary expertise at a lower fee.
• the issues in this case are not appropriately addressed within the evidence before the Court.

The letter of instruction was sent to MFS. However, MFS asserted that until work began, it would not be possible to decide how much time was needed to carry out the assessment and therefore what the total fee would be. Accordingly, in respect of some areas of work, minimum and maximum figures were set out. The overall maximum was £31,650 and the minimum £23,550. On 14th February 2013 the case came before District Judge Gibson for further directions. By then, an amendment to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 had produced a new Rule 25.1 which provides:-

Expert evidence will be restricted to that which in the opinion of the court is necessary to assist the court to resolve the proceedings.

District Judge Gibson concluded that the report was necessary. The LAA’s initial response to the request for prior approval was to allow only a total of 131 hours on the ground that ‘the parenting/family meetings appeared to be residential assessments and therefore outside the scope of legal aid’. This was an error. The matter was again returned to court at which time no representative of the LAA attended, despite being invited to do so. The District Judge expressed her concerns about the delays caused by the refusal to grant prior authority to the funding for the assessments which she was satisfied were necessary. On 19th March 2013 the LAA gave its amended and final decision. It accepted that 120 hours was not for residential assessments and so was within what should have been allowed. The total approved of £19,170 was less than the minimum sum assessed by MFS.

Application for Judicial Review

Collins J referred to the guidance given by Sir Nicholas Wall P in A Local Authority v S & others, and in particular:

A court considering whether to order the preparation of an expert report in care proceedings will have to decide, in accordance with the imminent amendments to FPR r 25.1, whether the report is “necessary” rather than “reasonably required” for the resolution of the case.

The President’s observation was that to a lawyer it:

…remains curious that an administrative body can effectively render nugatory a judicial decision taken in what the court perceives as the best interests of a child.

However, it is clear that the LAA does have the power to do so, since public money is at stake to refuse to fund or to fund in part only. The President stated that the remedy for practitioners was judicial review of the LAA’s decision if, of course, there were grounds for believing the decision was unlawful. It must be recognised that the LAA is entitled to question and, if persuaded that the payment for which approval is sought is excessive, to refuse to accept it. But it must act in a reasonable way. That was the crux of the application for judicial review. Seemingly the LAA has a right to question excessive expenditure, as would a person paying privately, but in doing so, they must act reasonably. It was observed that while there is no statutory requirement for reasons to be given by the LAA, the law has developed to require reasons where fairness so dictates. Cases such as these where children may be removed from parental care involve Article 8 ECHR along with considerations of the welfare of the child, which is paramount. The parties and the court, it was held, are clearly entitled to understand why a refusal to allow what the court has considered necessary has been made so that it can, if appropriate, be challenged speedily. All too often in care proceedings matters are beset by delay and so any consideration of the need for prior authority from the LAA to fund assessments before such work begins needs to happen as soon as the issue arises. The court held that it is also important for the expert to explain why the work (which will be charged for) is needed, particularly if, as in this case, the overall figure is high. Given that the instruction of experts can only follow if a judge so orders because he or she is satisfied, and gives reasons for being satisfied, that it is necessary, the LAA should only refuse to give prior authority if it has good reasons so to do. Whilst the District Judge’s decision is not binding on the LAA, it must carry very considerable weight. If there is good reason to reject it in whole or in part the LAA should engage with the court. This can be dealt with in many cases in writing. If the judge, having considered the LAA’s representations, maintains his or her decision it is difficult to see how a continued refusal to give effect to it could be other than unreasonable. In some cases oral representations may be considered necessary.

Comment

Applications for prior authority continue to increase and, unfortunately and inevitably, delays to proceedings follow. In these times of straitened timetabling time cannot be wasted. The clear message emanating from this case is that where prior authority is refused clear reasons should be provided by the LAA since they are, in their actions, overriding the decision of the court. In some circumstances it may be appropriate to invite the judge to hear from the LAA in person to explain their decision-making process or, at the very least, to explain further their decision in writing. It is not surprising that the LAA are seeking to reduce expenditure as is the case with most government departments. The LAA have very strict criteria when it comes to paying out for expert assessments and this case confirms that the LAA has a right to query and question expenditure. What they must do, however, is provide reasons for refusing to fund an assessment deemed necessary by the court. This enables the court, as is its duty, to ensure that throughout proceedings, the parties’ Article 8 rights are not breached and the child’s welfare continues to be paramount.

Eleanor Battie is a barrister in Crown Office Row Chambers Brighton

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

• Local authority ordered to pay substantial costs in human rights case
• Care system failure breaches children’s human rights
• Local authorities and the duty to consult with parents
• Interests of children should not prevent extradition for serious offences
• Vulnerable adults still protected by High Court’s “great safety net”

The baddies

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not going to argue that all of my husband’s clients are angels. Far from it. Many are out and out criminals. The kind of people most of us will never have the misfortune to come across. Like the one who threatened to hunt my husband down and slit his throat. And that was after he’d persuaded the judge to give him the drug treatment order that he wanted and needed, rather than the custodial sentence that the public would probably have preferred him to get.

Thing is, the real baddies often take his advice and plead guilty. They take his advice because they trust him. They don’t trust the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and they certainly don’t trust the police. The government and gutter press would have you believe that all criminal defence lawyers encourage their clients to plead not guilty, so that their cases go to trial and they can earn more money in the form of trial fees. Not true. The lawyer will always act in the best interests of their client, and often that will mean advising them to pleading guilty. My husband and experienced lawyers like him know when to make that call. A lawyer that is greener than the criminal he is representing (the kind of lawyer we might be left with if Chris Grayling gets his way) couldn’t do that. An inexperienced lawyer will most likely go along with whatever the mouthy criminal (who often has no idea what will work out best for him) wants to do: “I’m not gonna plead!”. Leading to a trial that is a waste of everyone’s time and taxpayers money.

The goodies

Most lawyers don’t want to spend their time defending the indefensible. They would rather get the matter dealt with and move on. Because the next case might be one where someone really needs them, one where they can make a real difference. The next case might be one where an upstanding, law abiding, member of the general public finds themselves, to put it mildly, in a spot of bother.

Initially I was surprised that we haven’t heard more from this group, those who have “legitimately”, for want of a better word, benefited from legal aid lawyers in the past. The falsely accused, the victims of police and CPS blunders. I thought that they might all rally to the Save UK Justice campaign battle cry. All over the papers shouting about how if it hadn’t been for this barrister or that solicitor and our current legal aid system they would have a criminal record and be languishing in prison. But they have been silent. Maybe (like the majority of the public) they are unaware of what is going on. My husband proffered another explanation: they just don’t want to talk about it.

If you had been charged with something horrible, something that you hadn’t done, possibly spent time in prison awaiting trial, gone to court and (eventually) been found not guilty and walked free, would you want to speak publicly about it? After you’d been stuck in a nightmare for maybe a couple of years, perhaps lost your job, your partner, access to your kids, would you really want to go to the press and have it all raked up again? Some do, but they are few. Some defendants don’t even tell their families whilst it is going on, or after it is finished. Most just want to try and rebuild their lives, try and forget it ever happened. In any case, the press lose interest when people are found not guilty. Once the drama and scandal is over they go in search of the next big thing.

The untold stories

Over the next few posts I’m going to tell you the stories of some of the clients that fit into this category. The people that we hear so little about that the public don’t even realise they exist. These people who could be any one of us. The ones who, under the proposed system, would probably be advised to plead guilty.

First up will be Exhibit A – the “child pornographer”  if you haven’t already signed the Save UK Justice e-petition please do that while I’m writing for this next post.

The truth is that qualifying for legal aid in criminal cases has been getting tighter and tighter for years. Many people who would expect to qualify don’t – and then when they are found innocent cannot even recover what it cost them to prove their innocence!

So how does the system work? Lets look first at the magistrates court. This is where the majority of cases are dealt with. Legal Aid is strictly means tested. Earn too much and you don’t get legal aid. So will a millionaire qualify? No. In fact, someone on the average UK salary wouldn’t qualify. More than that: imagine you get a take home pay of £300 a week – that’s less than £20,000 a year gross – and you pay £100 of that a week in rent. Think you would get legal aid? Think again, you earn too much. The average salary is over £26,000. If you support a partner on that salary, even if your rent and council tax have now gone up to £7,500 a year the two of you are too rich to qualify! In fact, if your son lives at home with you and brings home £250 a week rent free, he earns too much to qualify. How will he pay for a lawyer out of £250 a week?

So, you haven’t qualified for legal aid, but you’ve been wrongly accused and you want to have a lawyer represent you. Legal aid hourly rates haven’t been increased since the mid-90s. They are borderline uneconomic. The government however publish rates that they expect solicitors to reasonably charge. These have always, outside London, been about 4 times the legal aid rates for a senior solicitor. As with everything in life, the more experienced a solicitor, the more in demand, the more they are likely to charge. If you are found not guilty, you are entitled to ask for your costs back – only you won’t recover more than the legal aid rates so you will still be significantly out of pocket! Yo are a hard working individual, on an average salary, someone makes a false allegation against you and, as well as all the stress and worry, you are now £2,000 out of pocket for the privilege…..

But hang on, what about the Crown Court? The papers are full of rich people getting legal aid in the Crown Court aren’t they and can’t I choose to have my trial there so I get legal aid? You would be right, Crown Court legal aid is different because cases are more serious and tend to cost a lot more but few legal aid lawyers will want to represent you if you elect Crown Court trial rather than being forced there because the Court view it as a sufficiently serious case. Why? If you do not have a trial your solicitor and barrister will, for the months of work involved in seeing witnesses, preparing for trial and attending numerous hearings, get £500. Not £500 each – that’s between them. You say, yes but I’m going to have my trial, I want to prove my innocence but the lawyers are “punished” financially not only if you change your mind and plead guilty, but also if the prosecution realise you are telling the truth and drop the charges or even if the prosecution witnesses disappear and don’t come to court!

If you apply for Crown Court legal aid, it is fair to say everyone qualifies so, technically, a millionaire footballer who gets in a brawl could get legal aid. They would, however, have to pay an income contribution. This would amount to, if you earn £1 million a year, £370,000 plus, assuming they would own a house or have savings, a further contribution of any capital over £30,000 to make sure they paid all their legal fees. Why, then, would they ever want to pay this when their contribution would far exceed the cost of the case?

Lets look at those on lower incomes, though. Lets say you earn a decent salary. Single man, with a take home pay of just over £2,000 a month – the equivalent of £36,000 a year – with rent to pay of £725/month. Can you afford to pay £4,845, because that is what legal aid will cost you as your income contribution. Can’t afford it? Think again. If you don’t pay it on time a penalty of almost £1,000 will be added. Negotiate with you lawyer that they will do it for less? That for some is an option but it comes with this caveat: don’t apply for legal aid in the Crown Court and, if you are proven innocent, you will recover exactly zero of your legal fees. That’s right. Pay for a lawyer privately and you write off that money even though you are innocent.

Think all of this is fair? Well there is a lot more to come yet. The government are currently consulting on proposals which will, even according to the government’s own papers, drastically restrict choice, drive down quality and reduce the number of people who qualify even further.

In this country we take justice for granted. We assume that we could never fall foul of the criminal justice system but every day people just like you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, are falsely accused or make a silly mistake. Make no mistake, millionaire footballers don’t get legal aid, but nor do many hard working, decent people who, without it, cannot afford to have someone prove their innocence. What if that decent, hard working person was you?

Oklahoma lawyers are providing legal aid for free Thursday. 

The Oklahoma Bar Association and the 77 county bar associations will be taking your calls at no cost from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Phone number to call: (800) 456-8525 

In addition to the statewide hotline, most other counties also provide free legal advice at more limited times on that day.

For the complete list and more information, go to www.okbar.org/lawday.

Credit: Uganda Law Society

About Ruth Sebatindira: Ruth is a business lawyer and the founder and managing partner of Ligomarc.  Her fourteen years’ of experience include time as a litigator, where she handled unprecedented cases in banking and finance as well as in trademarks and drug regulation. She has also worked as a Senior Tax Advisor with Deloitte & Touche, Kampala and with M/s Kalenge, Bwanika, Kimuli & Co. Advocates, a commercial litigation law Firm in Kampala. Led by her efforts, the Uganda Law Society created the first ever Female Lawyers Committee in its 57 year history to improve the standing and influence of female lawyers in the legal profession.

Women

In 2011, it was reported that ULS had 1,250 attorneys. Do you know approximately what the percentage of women in the legal profession is now?

The ULS membership has been steadily growing: 1250 in 2011, 1400 in 2012. Currently 37% of the Uganda Law Society are women.

What are some of the biggest challenges for women in the legal profession in Uganda?

The challenges for our women lawyers include the fear of running one’s practice, rainmaking, work life balance, equal pay, and maternity leave.

As the numbers continues to rise through law schools, only a few law firm partners and even fewer women lawyers are involved at the highest levels of management, except in the case of corporations where women lawyers have risen faster than their colleagues in law firms, law schools, the judiciary and government agencies. There are also not many women in leadership positions in the Judiciary and yet they employ a good number of brilliant women.

(From my informal interaction with both men and women lawyers) women are less satisfied with the advancement opportunities within the legal profession. Law firms, in particular, need improvement when it comes to encouraging the professional development of women lawyers and advancing women lawyers to leadership positions. In the corporate world, huge strides have been made and the women lawyers there have progressed faster into leadership roles like board members, heads of legal teams, etc.

The mother of all challenges is pregnancy, which is a barrier to advancement, especially for those working in law firms. Overall, there is less remuneration for qualified female lawyers, delayed promotions especially when women return from maternity leave, and fewer days for their rightful maternity leave. Most female lawyers take off less time for maternity leave than is stipulated under the law.

In addition, there are challenges faced by women in small firms and sole practices, particularly when they have family responsibilities, are on maternity leave, or are raising infants at home. Many women close their practice until they come out of maternity leave.

What role would you like to see the women of ULS take on in the future?

Women lawyers should take up more leadership roles in their law firms and wherever they are employed. They should impact their world. I would like to see more female partners in law firms. Those that have risen should mentor the young ones and they should not forget their duty to groom others for leadership positions, which will in turn advance all women in the legal profession.

Law firms should have hiring, motivating, and retention policies to keep women lawyers so that they do not completely leave the profession or leave to start small firms which they cannot run on their own.

Previous studies show that women in parts of Uganda have difficulty accessing justice due in part to financial constraints, distance, and gender bias in the law. Do you think the participation of female lawyers in pro bono and access to justice programs has had an impact on this?

FIDA U [The Uganda Association of Female Lawyers] is doing very good work in this area through their clinics. Since the majority of their lawyers are female, they have made such a huge difference for women especially in family matters.

In the future, female lawyers should set up sensitization sessions that target women so that these women in turn are empowered to demand respect for their rights. The more enlightened women are, the more they will seek access to justice.

Technology

Previously, you’ve mentioned that you’re passionate about technology. In fact technology seems to increasingly be playing a role in helping people understand and exercise their rights. What role, if any, do you see for technology as ULS tackles some of the goals you mentioned you would like to meet this year (ie. improve access to justice, the national curriculum; strengthen institutional capacity, and contribute to the policy/legal framework in Uganda)? (I see ULS has already taken advantage of facebook and twitter!)

Credit: Guardian UK

Uganda has caught up with the advancement in technology at a very fast pace. With these new advancements, it will be easier for the public to access information on case progression, nearest legal aid clinics through platforms such as SMS inquiry system (almost every adult in Uganda has access or owns a mobile phone), legal phone apps (for the contribution to the legal/ constitution awareness drive) as well as an e-court system and the digitization of court records. If people can receive the information relating to their case on their mobile phones, this in the end will deliver effective and high quality justice for our people as well help save on transportation costs to the Courts.

The benefits are, but not limited to, improving access to information, online payment for court fees (which will also cut out the middlemen who have been charging exorbitant fees from unsuspecting citizens of the public); and online updates of court progress on cases.

Currently, we are also looking for partnerships with a technology company to help us maximise the use of technology as we deliver services to our members and the public.

Are there any innovative programs that you feel ULS has implemented and what has been the result?

Our Access to Justice services are the most innovative. Our Legal Aid Project, with support from the Democratic Governance Facility (DGF) and the Justice, Law & Order Sector (JLOS), have established three new clinics in Mbarara, Arua and Soroti. Our community outreach has improved and has remained key to the project as this has enhanced the capacity of various communities to demand Rule of Law, accountability, and respect for human rights. Through this activity, the project was able to sensitize over 2,824 people. The project also undertook capacity building for community-based paralegals in Mukono and Mbarara; whereby 120 community paralegals were trained in the application of domestic violence laws, land rights, children’s rights, succession, and issues related to marriage and divorce.

We hope to introduce the Duty Counsel Scheme, which if successful, will allow a number of courts to have an Advocate present to provide on the spot legal advice and representation to those unrepresented indigent persons in courts of law.

International Partnerships

ULS has partnered with a number of international organizations to promote the rule of law in Uganda. Based on your experience working on these programs, what are 3 things you believe should be incorporated or changed in future programs?

In our future programs we will focus on training our people at the secretariat to achieve excellence in serving our members and the Public. We would like to recruit more staff and create a bigger secretariat to serve our growing membership and the growing population of Uganda. We would like to think global in our approach and participate more broadly in rule of law spheres where the global agenda is set. We also want to attend all the important meetings at both regional and international levels so that we participate in rule of law discussions, share our experiences, and learn from such forums.

What do you think the international community should pay more attention to?

1)  See that we have in place a National Legal Aid Policy

2) Address the deficiencies in the judiciary which include: Lack of an e-court system and digitized records; Premises that are unsuitable for court work; Backlog; Poor remuneration and working conditions; Corruption; and the Judiciary’s funding issues (by increasing the amount of funds that it allocates to the Judiciary); and a quota of the National Budget should be allocated to the Judiciary as a standing national obligation protected by legislation. This will enable the Judiciary as ‘an equal arm of government’ to be effective when properly funded to deliver its mandate.

3) The Administration of Justice Bill should be passed by Parliament to ensure that Courts execute their mandate in an environment that is free from all forms of control.