When access to the legal system comes to depend on wealth,
as more and more it does, then the basis of justice is undermined. That’s the
effect of ConDem policies to destroy legal rights carried out under the guise
of “efficiency savings”.
Since April 1, legal aid has no longer been available for
cases involving divorce, child custody, clinical negligence, welfare,
employment, immigration, housing, debt, benefit and education. A number of
advice centres have closed as a result. An estimated 600,000 people will lose
access to advice and legal representation.
Then there are the proposals to curb the rights of
defendants to lawyers of their choice in criminal cases. These are so draconian
that yesterday hundreds of lawyers based in the North of England effectively
went on strike in protest. Instead of attending court, they held a day-long meeting
in Manchester .
Leading trial prosecutor, Nicholas Clarke QC, says the
proposals “will undermine the position of the independent bar, irretrievably
and forever”. No defendant would be able to choose a firm on the basis of
reputation or service.
Add in new laws providing for secret courts, you can see
where this government is heading – at a rapid pace. Without pausing for breath,
today the ConDems confirmed plans to curb the right to a judicial review. This
the process by which people and campaigns can – at their own expense – challenge
decisions of public bodies, including the government itself.
It’s a relatively unsuccessful route. Last year, there were
over 11,200 applications to the High Court and only 174 were successful in that
the courts made orders against the authorities concerned. More than 8,500
applications were immigration and asylum cases, reflecting the harsh way the
state and its tribunals treat people in the initial stages. Only 54 were
successful.
Now the justice (or should that be “justice”?) secretary
Chris Grayling has quadrupled legal fees and imposed tight restrictions on time
limits for lodging applications. The aim is to dispel what it calls the
"culture of using meritless judicial review applications". What is
really behind this measure, however, is the determination to steamroller
through planning and development plans.
Claire Norman, from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said:
"The financial costs alone were already prohibitive for environmental
groups to address environmental wrongs, halving the time limit in which they
can be made sends the message that the government really wants this safeguard
removed altogether.
"We need good quality development with public consent.
This decision only works to undermine the credibility of the planning system,
and removes one of the only means for community groups to challenge decisions.”
Judicial reviews are a cornerstone of the independence of
the judiciary and the rule of law – as opposed to the unfettered rule of the
executive - which was set out as a principle in the Bill of Rights of 1689. They
have grown in numbers since the 1980s as more and more people have fought back
against public authorities.
The attack on legal aid and other measures have prompted the
UK ’s
most senior judge to speak out. Lord Neuberger, president of the supreme court,
said last month that cutting legal aid would “start cutting people off from justice”,
which would be “dangerous”. While he was not saying that “the rule of law is
going to fall to pieces” he added: “But I do think we have to be careful.”
Clearly Neuberger is concerned about the threat to the rule
of law posed by accumulated changes in favour of the executive and against the
interests of those who seek redress or need to defend themselves. He is right
to be. The
market state is not interested in justice but in getting the best price at the
lowest cost. It’s another good reason to support the campaign for a new
democratic constitution sponsored by the Agreement of the People for the 21st
century.
Paul Feldman
Communications editor
No comments:
Post a Comment