As reported on LegalVoice, it was revealed that 97% of criminal defence lawyers had encountered disclosure failures in the last year. According to a survey for the BBC’s File on 4 programme, more than 1,000 lawyers experienced such failures. Of 1,282 respondents, close to a third said they believed that evidence not being disclosed had led to miscarriages of justice.
On the Justice Gap site, Bill Waddington of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association pointed out that the programme did not have the time to focus on another issue connected to disclosure problems. ‘That is the general failure of the magistracy and judiciary in tackling disclosure issues,’ the lawyer argued. ‘Courts should apply the law and rules properly and the sooner they do so then the sooner the disclosure debacle will halt. I hope that those with power to do so can get an urgent grip on the rules by tightening them and removing any ambiguity. The profession is more than happy to help in this regard.’
The director of legal services at the CPS, Greg McGill told the BBC that disclosure was a problem ‘facing the whole of the criminal justice system’. ‘Can we put this in context?’ he asked; adding that there was a conviction rate in the Magistrates’ court of ‘almost 85%’.
The Secret Barrister did put it into context – although not possibly what McGill had in mind.
As far as missing the point goes, you have to go some distance to beat this.
“Lawyers are dealing with prosecution disclosure failings every day. There is a risk of serious miscarriages of justice.”
“Yes, but behold our 85% conviction rates.” pic.twitter.com/MR3Hv1evmD
— The Secret Barrister (@BarristerSecret) February 27, 2018
Anna Jemmison and Katie McFadden of the Young Legal Aid Lawyers writing for the Legal Action Group argued that the introduction of fixed fees had had ‘a particular impact in relation to disclosure’. ‘The fixed fee scheme results in payments to defence solicitors being made on the basis of three categories: type of offence; number of defendants; and number of pages of prosecution evidence,’ they wrote. ‘Unless otherwise provided within the regulations, all work conducted on the matter is counted as included within the fixed fee. To give an example, the fixed fee for a standard rape trial (a class J offence) is £1,467.58 (Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 SI No 313 Sch 1 para 2). This equates to approximately 32 hours of work.’
It was ‘hardly surprising’ that issues concerning disclosure were ‘often left unresolved until the door of the courtroom, if indeed they are resolved at all’, they argued Legal Futures (here).
The House of Commons’ justice committee expressed concern about the government’s ‘evident preference’ for online justice over courts – reported Legal Futures. ‘The estate reform programme is predicated on an assumption that increasing use will be made of modern technology in the administration and delivery of justice, leading to a reduced need for physical buildings… however, the consultation does not seek views on this aspect of the reform strategy,’ said Bob Neill MP, chairman of the justice select committee. ‘We do not doubt that further modernisation is needed, and we welcome proposals such as the centralisation of HMCTS administrative functions. However, we are concerned about the MoJ/HMTCS’s evident preference for virtual and online justice over traditional, court-based models in the absence of recent research, or evaluation of pilot projects.’
‘The MoJ appears to have undertaken no evaluation of virtual hearings since its pilot programme in Kent and London, which was evaluated in a report published in 2010. This found that virtual courts were expensive to set up and to run, that defendants appeared less engaged in the process and that the rate of guilty pleas and custodial sentences was higher than in traditional courts for reasons that were unclear.’
LiPs not ‘a problem’
Litigants in person should not be seen as ‘an unwelcome problem for the court’, judges have been told in guidance on equal treatment issued by the Judicial College (and as reported here in the Law Society’s Gazette).
‘A thoughtless comment, throwaway remark, unwise joke or even facial expression may confirm or create an impression of prejudice,’ the guide says. Litigants in person ‘should not be seen as an unwelcome problem for the court or tribunal’ and judges were urged to ensure they have every reasonable opportunity to present their case.
Lawyers north of the border have been told to stop complaining about legal aid fess – according to the Times. Martyn Evans, chairman of an independent review into legal aid in Scotland which published earlier this week, said that ‘negative public perceptions of the profession were being reinforced by high-profile lobbying to increase fees’. He dismissed a claim that rates had not risen since the early 1990s as misleading.
Evans, chief executive of the Carnegie UK Trust, called on lawyers to make the case for legal aid by ‘emphasising its importance to a just society rather than their own pay packets’.
‘We found the public quite like the idea of legal aid, they didn’t think the spend was too high. But they had a view about lawyers that was very negative. [Lawyers are] focusing on fees but they actually have to take the public with them about the value of what they are doing. Otherwise, all the public hears is ‘we would like more money for the work we do’ and the public knows too little about the value and purpose of legal aid. So I’m saying the legal profession should talk up the value and effect of legal aid on a fairer Scotland. I didn’t find the evidence to justify a general increase in fees.’
‘Tank-chasing lawyer’ Phil Shiner has been forced to sell his house – as The Sun put it (here). ‘An indebted solicitor whose law firm was shut down for hounding war heroes has been foiled giving away almost £500,000 in assets to his family instead of to his creditors,’ the tabloid reported.
Apparently, the lawyer ‘tried to dodge paying back money he owed creditors’. But he is now being forced to sell his house after insolvency investigators ‘rumbled his ruse’. Insolvency Service official receiver Justin Dionne said: ‘All his activities were easily spotted and we have been able to recover a substantial amount of money, even if it was in his family’s name.’ The service also extended his bankruptcy from the usual 12 months to six years.
Good point, well argued
Deborah Coles of INQUEST tweeted the following about Sara Ryan’s account of her fight for justice for her learning disabled son, Connor Sparrowhawk, who died in a residential unit.
— Deborah Coles (@DebatINQUEST) February 28, 2018
- JusticeWatch: ‘If justice was a tin of beans, how would it be branded?’ - 21st September 2018
- Greater Manchester Law Centre’s volunteers recover more than £1m in benefits in two years - 14th September 2018
- JusticeWatch: Not in it for the money - 14th September 2018
- JusticeWatch: Routes to justice - 7th September 2018
- LASPO review debate: ‘The moment must be seized before it is too late’ - 6th September 2018
- JusticeWatch: Immigration rules double in length since 2010 - 30th August 2018
- JusticeWatch: Austerity’s most savage cut - 24th August 2018
- JusticeWatch: More legal aid chaos - 17th August 2018
- JusticeWatch: Time for a pay rise? - 27th July 2018
- MPs find ‘worrying level of demoralisation’ in defence profession - 26th July 2018