Judicial Chicanery.
Lawyers are wordsmiths if nothing else. It is their only tool of trade. The ability to wrangle new meaning out of perfectly ordinary locution; they will happily wrestle for hours like greased weasels as they skilfully elude their opponents rhetoric and prove beyond doubt, beyond doubt, I put to you, that black is but a sub-shade of white and should be so categorised.
So I was tempted to believe this fine morning that the end of the world had arrived when I discovered that the entire legal profession had been struck dumb, to a man – and woman. Turned to blocks of bewigged granite; rheumy eyes casting about for sight of Magna Carta – did she die in vain as the old joke has it?
Overnight, Chris Grayling, our current venerable Lord Chancellor, or Justice Secretary as he prefers, has fired an Exocet into the bowels of the legal profession, the judiciary, the legal apparatus that we exported all over the world. It exploded shorty after midnight, in the midnight embargo way of these things. Some of our legal profession were safely asleep, spooned snoring besides their portly wives; others took their Port in the London clubs; none were expecting the deadly missile. Perhaps just one or two, the be-robed figures of Mssrs Slaughter and May, for they had helped assemble the incendiary device.
It was not enough for Chris Grayling, the savings he proposes to make by slashing the legal aid solicitors from 1600 to 400 – leaving just 35 to cover the entirety of London. Putting the provision of a legal defence into the hands of Eddie Stobbard or Tescos – delivering a flat pack barrister in your hour of need. Criminals, he says, aren’t the best people to exercise choice. ‘Too thick to pick’. Totally overlooking the fundamental point that those standing in the dock are merely accused of being criminals – some of them will be innocent men and women! This is a man who calmly stood by as a saga unfolded whereby commercial television and a private charity acted as judge and jury with official sanction on a citizen of this realm. Who said nothing when the evening TV lauded a vigilante group for their efforts to entrap citizens.
Now he has announced that he will ‘privatise the courts’. They are to be sold to private companies with shareholders. Hedge funds even. No, really.
Tenders will be invited to take over the Old Bailey, always the Fortnum and Masons of our legal world – will it now quite literally be the Fortnum and Mason Bailey? Will our judges wear robes with prominent adverts for Tescos? Abandon their wigs for baseball caps Formula One style? When Sky TV tender to take over Birmingham Central Court will they insist on multi-coloured gowns, to distinguish prosecution from defence for their more challenged viewers when they open their new ‘LawTV’ channel – free to Sky subscribers?
Just how far will shareholders go to ensure that these private companies make a profit out of operating the courts? Floodlit hearings to time with the ten o’clock news? Verdicts held back for the six o’clock news? Perhaps ‘change the rules’ every year, Bernie Ecclestone style – to make it more exciting for viewers – for sure the TV rights will become as important to the courts as it has to football and motor racing. Stewards enquiries after every verdict? You may have thought you got a ‘not guilty’ verdict, but the stewards have decreed that the bar code detected on the back of his gown constituted cigarette advertising and your brief has been forfeited three ‘not guilty’ verdicts?
Press the red button now – Sky viewers deliver their verdict in the latest exciting sex abuse trial, or text ‘CASTRATE’ to 0800 800800, Our Judge is waiting to hear your views.
I’m off to e-mail Charon QC – the poor old boy is going to have a coronary when he hears this one; someone needs to break the news to him gently…
May 31, 2013 at 06:48
-
We are catapulting to a ‘user pays’ society with privatisation (the selling
off of public assets at knock-down prices) and I guarantee the next on the
agenda is ‘plea bargaining’ ala the USA where charges are loaded up and then
plead down to an acceptable level as long as you plead to guilty to
something-anything as long as you have a conviction recorded.
As GB adopts
the US ‘public defender’ system by stealth (and come Noo Labour which is
identical to Faux Conservatives) this will happen. In ‘sex assault’ cases it
will be disastrous as the bar for level of proof has already been lowered in
this limbo dance to the bottom.
Consider the case of former children’s star
Pewee Herman who was busted for an act of ‘indecency ‘ (wanking ?) in an adult
theatre and had his career destroyed.
Lesser known is the charge he faced
about 6 years ago : possession of ‘child porn’. It was in fact quite a famous
collection of ‘erotica’ that he had purchased at auction and which had passed
through several hands similarly. Peewee eventually plead guilty to a
‘misdemeanor’ which carried no jail sentence and avoided depleted his life
savings by contesting the charges. Bizarrely, he still possesses the erotica
collection complete.
I have always hated Ayn Rand, psychopath that she is but psychopaths can at
times exhibit amazing intelligence and if Michael J. McFadden’s quote is
correct, then Rand was prophetic.
- May 31, 2013 at 07:15
-
JB, I got the quote secondhand, but the substance is definitely as I
remember it, and the reference to Reardon (Rearden?) would indicate Rand
(though I’m not sure if it was Atlas or Fountainhead… heh, that’s going back
about 30 years or more!)
Hmmm… here’s a more complete rendition — from a poster on Free
Republic:
===
Says the bureaucrat Floyd Ferris: “You honest men are such a
problem and such a headache. But we knew you’d slip sooner or later . . .
[and break one of our regulations] . . . this is just what we wanted.”
Rearden: “You seem to be pleased about it.”
Bureaucrat Ferris: “Don’t I have good reason to be?”
Rearden: “But, after all, I did break one of your laws.”
Bureaucrat Ferris: “Well, what do you think they’re there for?”
Continues bureaucrat Ferris: “Did you really think that we want those
laws to be observed? We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that
it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against . . . We’re after power and
we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d
better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power
any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there
aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a
crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who
wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But
just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor
objectively interpreted [Frederick Mann: Obfuscation of meaning is a key
element of the con games bureaucrats and politicians play.] – and you create
a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the
system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to
deal with.”
===
And a bit more digging around seems to tie it to Atlas
Shrugged.
– MJM
- May 31, 2013 at 09:16
-
It might be ‘misreporting’ as he is about as famous in the UK as Jimmy
Savile was in the USA, but I have always understood PeeWee’s offences to
have always revolved around an unhealthy sexual interest in children, albeit
he only looked and never touched.
I do wonder if the *plea bargaining* thing as described, is also a
mechanism for complainants and accused to simply become reconciled in a
public way and for the complainant caucus to then “leave orf”. One
realisation the Savile case has brought to the mainstream media in the UK is
that there is a huge caucus of UK citizens who are utterly convinced that
there are paedophiles lurking behind every other doorway (but their own) and
that the reason this has never come to public notice is that there has been
conspiracy in high places to condone it. With the rise of the internet and
social networking, these previously isolated individuals can now find one
another and endorse each others beliefs. The only way to calm this down at a
societal level might be for the ‘authorities’ to have a lot more people
being arrested/imprisoned – even if only temporarily – so that this caucus
of opinion can see ‘justice’ being done, and then their complaints that the
matter is being suppressed can be reasonably denied to the broad mass of
society byu those authorities who have to ‘keep order’. The veneer of
western civilisation is very thin as we saw in Yugoslavia not so very long
ago.
- May 29, 2013 at 06:22
-
The phrase “he knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”
springs to mind in respect of Mr Grayling.
- May 29, 2013 at 17:50
-
I expect he knows the price that all politicians pay in the end; the
price of failure….
-
May 29, 2013 at 17:57
-
Moor the FACT website appears to be malfunctioning – was it something
we said !!! ?
- May 29, 2013 at 21:10
-
- May 29, 2013 at 22:58
-
PS …. the *particular* post is working now at least: http://www.factuk.org/jim-cannot-fix-this-blog/
- May 28, 2013 at 21:33
-
What a frightening prospect… We all know what a cock up these private
generally make. G4S, for example.
- May 28, 2013 at 21:13
-
Rats are cunning creatures and quite capable of gnawing sufficient holes in
a House to make fumigation impractical.
- May 28, 2013 at 19:10
-
I suppose that if Tesco buy up chunks of the judiciary we could collect
vouchers with our shopping each week and instead of trading for a day at
LEGOLAND they could be swapped for a day with the local beak. Tesco could be
well in if someone is done for shoplifting at their premises. Job done.
-
May 28, 2013 at 17:51
-
These two Alleged Suspects are still alive, Silly. They might Sue.
- May 28, 2013 at 14:07
-
This new legislation does surprise me as the legal profession is
over-represented in Parliament and i’ve often thought they needed reform but
where held back by vested interests.One consequence may be a few more early
guilty pleas as the defence tightens it’s belt and stops encouraging guilty
criminals to give it a run.The Stuart Hazell and Dale Cregan trials spring to
mind straight away.
- May 28, 2013 at 16:54
-
I had to laugh at the weekend when the madmen from Woolwich were referred
to as “Suspects” by the same broadcasters who are contemporaneously content
to refer to the likes of Jimmy Savile or Cyril Smith as “criminals”. I was
hearing on the wireless that the darlings won’t be interviewed by the
rozzers until after the NHS has repaired them – at my expense.
- May 28, 2013 at 13:52
-
“Totally overlooking the fundamental point that those standing in the dock
are merely accused of being criminals ”
On this particular occasion.
A significant number will be proven criminals from their past
endeavours.
- May 29, 2013 at 17:20
-
“Totally overlooking the fundamental point that those standing in the
dock are merely accused of being criminals ”
The same can often be said about those the other side of the dock…
- May 28, 2013 at 11:49
-
Not entirely in context of your post but, I actually think legal aid, as a
system, should be abolished wholesale, as having entirely too many ‘unintended
consequences’.
As someone who earns an average wage, and in the past having been in
‘straitened circumstances’ and as such having had to make use of the
‘service’, I wonder about the costs involved. I cannot, as a wage earner,
afford legal advice precisely because each and every barely qualified,
inexperienced and barely competent solicitor automatically expects to charge
£105 per hour – as that is what they would get (I stand to be corrected) on
legal aid work. The costs of more experienced, better qualified and those with
‘reputations’ increases accordingly. The quality of the work, the results are
all irrelevant – they are paid the same no matter what (my personal experience
was that more billed time was spent on filling in the claim forms than on the
case itself, with predictable consequences… for me).
Without these subsidies surely solicitors and barristers will be forced to
work for a more ‘reasonable’ amount, or face bankruptcy? I’m sure there will
be howls of distress about how ‘qualified’ and ‘hard’ their roles are, but
compare and contrast with other professions to see how pitiful they are in
that comparison. (Consider that a newly qualified Doctor is paid less, per
hour, than a nurse, let alone the impossibility that a newly qualified
carpenter would receive such an hourly rate simply for ‘being a
carpenter’).
The situation as it is ‘now’ is one where being rich/powerful/notorious
gets you ‘the best’ legal representation. The feckless receive more and better
representation than any ‘worker’ can afford.
I also wonder, would the image you portray of a privatised court system
actually be any worse than that already in place (‘Family’ Court, Secret
hearings,…), and perhaps, in paying directly for the ‘service’ people would
start demanding some openness, responsibility, fairness, and dare I say it,
‘justice’ from the court denizens?
- May 28, 2013 at 10:43
-
Anna, I think you’re heading toward a combo of “The Running Man” with
“Death Row Gameshow” (Yes, the latter one is indeed also a movie… much lower
production standards than The Running Man, but a lot funnier!) Over here in
the US btw, I believe a number of our states have privatized the prisons…
while also making a contractual commitment to keep them at least 90% full!!!
No matter HOW many new laws need to be written to stick us all in jail!
Seriously.
– MJM
- May 28, 2013 at 10:02
-
In the world of civil justice – note civil, I am not qualified to speak
about criminal – the system is shutting down. Big cuts have been made in the
court staff (never very efficient in the first place) and the cost is
everything is being measured by the judicial day. In practice what this means
is that the courts are doing their best not to hear cases, or worse, cases are
being heard by judges who have no experience in the appropriate field. At the
top end of the spectrum there is talk of a privately paid for system in which
multinationals can pay for a Rolls Royce service – which sort of happens
anyway. The system for selecting judges has moved from an Old Boys’s Club to
one which suits those who fill in forms and attend the correct courses, but
have no ability.
In short, for the ordinary citizen, the system is becoming
a no go zone because of cost, uncertainty and lack of competence.
- May 28, 2013 at 11:17
-
@ Anonymous Mole in the Hole
I am sure you are absolutely correct
though when in practice I never saw how things would move ultimately though
it appeared to me then that the Judiciary at both the lower and higher ends
were being chosen more for their administrative ability (for which read
clear cases out the way one way or another) than any great skill or regard
to advancing ‘justice’. The Old Boys Club had its failings but give me one
of them any day to the modern lot —-at least at the wire they would listen
and listen with a degree of understanding that law is not just about ticking
boxes
- May 28, 2013 at 10:02
-
I recall post-Thatcher, it being remarked that the one closed-shop the iron
lady never opened up was the UK legal profession. Personally speaking I
imagine it might prove to be pretty crap, but it’s pretty crap already and
probably far more expensive than it needs to be, however crap it is.
It might be just handy government propaganda, but the BBC has pointed out
that their investigative branch (not much investigation required – just an FOI
request) has just established that there are 57,000 people on prolonged police
bail just now, and some have been “on bail” in excess of three years. One
thing that would be good would be the abolition of the CPS so the police are
once again responsible for their Crown duties and the shuffling of
responsibilities between the officers of the law and the lawyers of the law is
ended, along with the shuffling of legal paper and legal salary
chitties.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22624648
-
May 28, 2013 at 21:48
-
Can’t locate figures for the last couple of years but there were 1.4m
arrests in England & Wales 2010-2011.
57,000 arrested persons who have to be formally required to return to the
police following a set time in order that the police can to carry out
further investigations before a decision to charge (or not), when viewed in
relation to 1.4m arrests (or thereabouts) doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
Regrettably, not all offences can be investigated and disposed of following
an informant providing some crucial evidence and the suspects folding under
questioning like happens in one half-an-hour episode of The Bill.
Of the 57,000 the BBC quote, just over 3,000 have been on bail for over 6
months. Just wanted to point that out as you have quoted the 57,000 as being
on ‘prolonged’ bail. 3,000 would seem more accurate when using the term
prolonged.
And when you say “some” have been on bail in excess of three years, do
you mean the 2 examples quoted in the FOI reply? I suppose 2 out of 57,000
is ‘some’, technically.
Handy government propaganda – oh yes.
Abolish CPS and allow police to
prosecute their own cases again? Yes please.
- May 29, 2013 at 00:06
-
That reminds me of the argument that losing £1M in the NHS is mere
pocket change and doesn’t matter, because the NHS works its way through
£100B [or whatever the numbers might actually be]
It does give me an opportunity to mention that there were over 40,000
people prosecuted for hate crime last year though. Not bad for a what is
almost a brand new crime and the more crimes we have, the more bail we’ll
need…
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hate-crimes-england-and-wales-2011-to-2012–2
- May 29, 2013 at
01:25
-
“the more crimes we have, the more bail we’ll need”
Two points:
1) Remember the earlier discussion about the government committing
itself to keeping the privatized prisons 90% full.
2) A wonderful quote from Ayn Rand that I had talked about for over
20 years and had never been able to track down where I’d originally seen
it. Just had one of our Free Choice folks here in the States quote it in
full a month ago!!
===
“Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr.
Ferris. We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that
it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and
we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any
government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there
aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to
be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking
laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that
for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed
nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of
law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr.
Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be.much
easier to deal with.”
===
– MJM
- May 29, 2013 at 23:17
-
Having to bail someone does not equate to losing money (or anything
else), I don’t see any comparison. It’s a necessary postponement of a
charging decision should further investigation be required.
A complete and utter non story, to the 10th decimal place.
- May 29, 2013 at 23:45
-
“Police cuts are one reason why bail times are being
extended.
Another is suggested by Wallis, “The level of “reasonable
suspicion” needed by police to make an arrest is simply far too low. I
hear time and again about ordinary people being arrested and kept on
endless bail so police can mount a fishing expedition into their
lives.””
http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2013/05/the-scandal-of-endless-bail-2506104.html
- May 29, 2013 at 09:29
-
Shock! Thatcher the barrister protected her own!
- May 30, 2013 at 00:12
-
Tories traditionally seem to primarily represent the lawyering
frat-group. They took a hammering in 1997…..
http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexclusive/2456501/Representatives-of-society-Background-and-characteristics-of-MPs.html
- May 28, 2013 at 09:25
-
The idea of privatised trials is absolutely absurd, and I would also
include in this category privatised rape victim support centres:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/g4s-set-run-rape-sex-4007378
Privatised police:
Private probation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/13/serco-first-private-probation-contract
Private court interpreters:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/364629/Court-interpreter-services-slammed
And many more in the criminal justice system. It is not that each of these
will necessarily be a disaster – they might, but equally, they might not. The
point is that the chances of improving service quality and saving huge amount
of money are so low that it is just not worth the risk!
{ 29 comments }