E-petitions: Save UK Justice

davmaggs · May 2013

DonDaddyD wrote:

'We can't afford it' Ah yes, the universal argument to simply stop all publicly funded services at the expense of those most vulnerable while demanding the same (if not more) amount of tax. This was once a country that protected the weak and poor.

As I said there are ways to make the system more affordable without sacrificing our right to choose who represents us legally.

There's usually a good rule of thumb that anyone that resorts to "the weak and the poor" line is saying something they can't really back up.

Obvious holes in your assumption about some kind of golden age being that the welfare state didn't exist until relatively recently. Even then, for the short time it has been around it hasn't offered all the services (or involvement/meddling in people's lives) that it does now. The state has expanded year after year since 1945 and does things today that people would have once said (even in my lifetime) were unimaginable intrusions into the lives of its citizens.

The NHS was founded when people died far younger, and at a time when treatment was simple and cheap. I suspect that legal aide might well be the same in that the growth of divorce, the Human Rights Act and other cases means far more expenses than 20 years ago.

DonDaddyD · May 2013

But everything has a cost and right now (and for many years) were spending a lot more than we're collecting. So either:
a) raise taxes
b) cut cost
c) increase the debt for the next generation

Which do you choose?

D) Reform, to make the delivery of said service more affordable but not at the sacrifice of the overall quality of said service. Not at the expense of removing the right to choose who argues your civil liberties and legal rights within society.

Were you against the housing benefit cuts? Similar, more of a cut for the rent seekers than the poor.

Different scenario with a different outcome. At its very worst the housing benefit results in people being relocated to a city up North, Leeds or something - the impact of high unemployment and what happens to those kids might be as damaging, even more so than increased debt for the next generation. But hey! We've washed our hands of the unwashed, right? At its very worst having a sh*t lawyer, paid the same whether a client pleads guilty or not (guilty means less work, more cases, more money - so you can see where sh*t lawyer will be leaning towards) may result in an innocent person being imprisoned or a decent parent losing their child. But hey! It's OK as long as it is not me, right?

This doesn't mean we close the public sector down, just that we live within our means.

Live within our means, with a State that supports its citizens in an enriching way.

davmaggs wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

'We can't afford it' Ah yes, the universal argument to simply stop all publicly funded services at the expense of those most vulnerable while demanding the same (if not more) amount of tax. This was once a country that protected the weak and poor.

As I said there are ways to make the system more affordable without sacrificing our right to choose who represents us legally.

There's usually a good rule of thumb that anyone that resorts to "the weak and the poor" line is saying something they can't really back up.

That is absolute idiocy. You're trying that I can't point out that a legislation puts those financially limited at a disadvantage because its somehow wrong to do so? That's the same illogical arguement put forward by those who used to shout people down who cried racism in the face of the Sus laws - "You're only resorting to accusing us of racism because you can't back it up" even though it is!

When has it ever been wrong to point something out what it is.

In a scenario where only the rich can afford proper legal representation where having a choice of said representation was available to all then you are disadvantaging the poor.

[quote=Obvious holes in your assumption about some kind of golden age being that the welfare state didn't exist until relatively recently.[/quote]
I don't think I put forward a notion that there was a golden age. Point these actual examples out - not just your assumption of what I wrote, use what I actually wrote.

Even then, for the short time it has been around it hasn't offered all the services (or involvement/meddling in people's lives) that it does now. The state has expanded year after year since 1945 and does things today that people would have once said (even in my lifetime) were unimaginable intrusions into the lives of its citizens.

I'm not going to argue with you over every single area where the State has expanded and I'm not going to attempt to generalise said expansion. Yes, the State has expanded, and yes, in places it can be retracted. Having the right to choose your legal (aid) representative in a criminal case where the outcome might be a lifetime custodial sentence is one area where I do not believe the State should retract.

The NHS was founded when people died far younger, and at a time when treatment was simple and cheap.

What is your point, because people are living longer and treatment is more expensive we shouldn't have an NHS. I would argue that we need a NHS now, more than ever.

I suspect that legal aide might well be the same in that the growth of divorce, the Human Rights Act and other cases means far more expenses than 20 years ago.

Like the Health and Social Care bill, I agree in principle to reform if it makes things more efficient and ultimately sustainable - but not at the expense of the overall quality of the service.

Having a choice who argues my case against a decision that will change the course of my life is of the utmost importance to me.

spen666 · May 2013

TheStone wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think its a sad state of affairs when we have people whose greed results in them wanting to be taxed less at the sacrifice of societal enriching things, like a National Health Service, Legal Representation et al.

So you don't think we're taxed enough?
And in this case you'd tax people more to give it to rich lawyers? I'm sure there's a better way.

Rich Lawyers?Most legal aid criminal defence lawywers are earning less than £30k per annum - hardly rich is it

TheStone · May 2013

spen666 wrote:

TheStone wrote:

So you don't think we're taxed enough?
And in this case you'd tax people more to give it to rich lawyers? I'm sure there's a better way.

Rich Lawyers?Most legal aid criminal defence lawywers are earning less than £30k per annum - hardly rich is it

I think the current rate is £150/hr, so someone's getting rich.

spen666 · May 2013

TheStone wrote:

spen666 wrote:

TheStone wrote:

So you don't think we're taxed enough?
And in this case you'd tax people more to give it to rich lawyers? I'm sure there's a better way.

Rich Lawyers?Most legal aid criminal defence lawywers are earning less than £30k per annum - hardly rich is it

I think the current rate is £150/hr, so someone's getting rich.

I think you are inventing figures - Legal Aid for criminal case does not pay that much for a whole case let alone per hour.

I'd invite you to provide a link to where this £150 per hour for legal aid criminal defence work is paid

TheStone · May 2013

spen666 wrote:

I think you are inventing figures - Legal Aid for criminal case does not pay that much for a whole case let alone per hour.

I'd invite you to provide a link to where this £150 per hour for legal aid criminal defence work is paid

It's based on a quick google, which led me here:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-r ... -taxpayers

spen666 · May 2013

TheStone wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I think you are inventing figures - Legal Aid for criminal case does not pay that much for a whole case let alone per hour.

I'd invite you to provide a link to where this £150 per hour for legal aid criminal defence work is paid

It's based on a quick google, which led me here:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/news/press-r ... -taxpayers

so you believe government propaganda?

I think if you try harder you can find other lies.

However, if you look at the Legal Aid Remuneration rates, you will find that criminal defence lawyers are getting less than £150 for a whole case from initial instructions to conclusion of the case.

What the Government do not tell those gullible enough to believe its propaganda is that those rates are what they pay in a miniscule % of cases and is paid only to the top QC's in the biggest cases.

However, it does its job as idiots start repeating those figures and telling evweryone that is what all lawyers get.

Please do not let the truth get in the way of demolishing one of the bastions of a free society

TheStone · May 2013

spen666 wrote:

so you believe government propaganda?

I think if you try harder you can find other lies.

However, if you look at the Legal Aid Remuneration rates, you will find that criminal defence lawyers are getting less than £150 for a whole case from initial instructions to conclusion of the case.

What the Government do not tell those gullible enough to believe its propaganda is that those rates are what they pay in a miniscule % of cases and is paid only to the top QC's in the biggest cases.

However, it does its job as idiots start repeating those figures and telling evweryone that is what all lawyers get.

Please do not let the truth get in the way of demolishing one of the bastions of a free society

I'm sure you're right, but 30k/year sounds equally nonsense on the low side.
The budget would pay for nearly 100k lawyers full time!

vitesse169 · May 2013

There is a % of the legal aid bill (not sure how much) that is spent on 'defending' the scumbag shoplifters/burglars/druggies - in & out of magistrates court week in week out, year after year. Maybe that is where much savings could be made.

spen666 · May 2013

vitesse169 wrote:

There is a % of the legal aid bill (not sure how much) that is spent on 'defending' the scumbag shoplifters/burglars/druggies - in & out of magistrates court week in week out, year after year. Maybe that is where much savings could be made.

so you decide who is guilty or not before granting them legal aid?

I've heard of putting the cart before the horse, but this is taking it to new levels

vitesse169 · May 2013

spen666 wrote:

vitesse169 wrote:

There is a % of the legal aid bill (not sure how much) that is spent on 'defending' the scumbag shoplifters/burglars/druggies - in & out of magistrates court week in week out, year after year. Maybe that is where much savings could be made.

so you decide who is guilty or not beefore granting them legal aid?

I've heard of putting the cart before the horse, but this is taking it to new levels

Well done spen - I didn't say that. But after a career in the Police, even now, I see the same faces (actual people) in mags court that I was putting there 20 something years ago charged with theft from shop/ burglary/possession of controlled substance etc etc. There has to be a point that is reached where the habitual offenders have had enough tax payers cash spent on their defence. Where that point is I don't know, but in these cash strapped days most are pulling in their belts, why not the legal eagles ?

spen666 · May 2013

vitesse169 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

vitesse169 wrote:

There is a % of the legal aid bill (not sure how much) that is spent on 'defending' the scumbag shoplifters/burglars/druggies - in & out of magistrates court week in week out, year after year. Maybe that is where much savings could be made.

so you decide who is guilty or not beefore granting them legal aid?

I've heard of putting the cart before the horse, but this is taking it to new levels

Well done spen - I didn't say that. But after a career in the Police, even now, I see the same faces (actual people) in mags court that I was putting there 20 something years ago charged with theft from shop/ burglary/possession of controlled substance etc etc. There has to be a point that is reached where the habitual offenders have had enough tax payers cash spent on their defence. Where that point is I don't know, but in these cash strapped days most are pulling in their belts, why not the legal eagles ?

So you decide that in future X is not entitled to legal aid and he is therefore fair game to be fitted up/ mistakenly jailed for an offence he did not/ could not have committed and instead the real murderer/ rapist/ burglar walks the streets free to commit his crimes.

You may have spent a career in the police, but you appear to have forgotten that people are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty simply because he is known to the police.

EVERYONE has the right on EVERY charge to a fair trial and to be properly represented.

Your suggestion is a bit like turning it round the other way and saying to a victim of say domestic violence that because you suffered domestic violence in the past, we will not investigate this case or prosecute the person who assaulted you.

Just because you have been convicted of a crime in the past does not mean you are guilty of the matter alleged against you this time

spen666 · May 2013

vitesse169 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

vitesse169 wrote:

There is a % of the legal aid bill (not sure how much) that is spent on 'defending' the scumbag shoplifters/burglars/druggies - in & out of magistrates court week in week out, year after year. Maybe that is where much savings could be made.

so you decide who is guilty or not beefore granting them legal aid?

I've heard of putting the cart before the horse, but this is taking it to new levels

Well done spen - I didn't say that. But after a career in the Police, even now, I see the same faces (actual people) in mags court that I was putting there 20 something years ago charged with theft from shop/ burglary/possession of controlled substance etc etc. There has to be a point that is reached where the habitual offenders have had enough tax payers cash spent on their defence. Where that point is I don't know, but in these cash strapped days most are pulling in their belts, why not the legal eagles ?

no one is arguing against that point, but lets have a few facts instead of misleading propaganda.

Lawyers are not arguing over rates, but over access to justice.

you would be the first to complain if you were denied representation when accused of a crime

vitesse169 · May 2013

Again, well done - I'm trying not to feed you, but, no where have I said that there is a presumption of guilt, or that there should be no access to legal reps. It is the cost that is the point.
Need I remind you of the Timmy Robinson enquiry ? He and his firm of solicitors were defrauding the legal aid system for years. Not that that has any bearing on the guilt/innocence of any accused, but the ease with which the legal aid bill is racked up by firms. Many 'wrong uns' plead NG numerous times then enter a guilty plea once all the witnesses turn up. How much does that put up the bill for that 1 case ?

Multiply that by the 1,000's of cases each day accross the country, then multiply that by 5 days a week then by any number of weeks of the year that the courts are open = HUGE legal aid bill. And thats just the mags court in criminal cases.
There are, I grant you, good and awful legal reps - if they were paid an ammount per case the bad ones would quickly fall by the wayside. Which firm would employ a bad lawyer ?
Most large institutions cry foul when poked with the reform stick, Police included, but QC's downwards are looking after themselves - how many MP's are in the legal system ? All rich beyond my dreams, the point still is cost - it needs to be kept in check.

spen666 · May 2013

vitesse169 wrote:

Again, well done - I'm trying not to feed you, but, no where have I said that there is a presumption of guilt, or that there should be no access to legal reps. It is the cost that is the point.
Need I remind you of the Timmy Robinson enquiry ? He and his firm of solicitors were defrauding the legal aid system for years. Not that that has any bearing on the guilt/innocence of any accused, but the ease with which the legal aid bill is racked up by firms. Many 'wrong uns' plead NG numerous times then enter a guilty plea once all the witnesses turn up. How much does that put up the bill for that 1 case ?

Multiply that by the 1,000's of cases each day accross the country, then multiply that by 5 days a week then by any number of weeks of the year that the courts are open = HUGE legal aid bill. And thats just the mags court in criminal cases.
There are, I grant you, good and awful legal reps - if they were paid an ammount per case the bad ones would quickly fall by the wayside. Which firm would employ a bad lawyer ?
Most large institutions cry foul when poked with the reform stick, Police included, but QC's downwards are looking after themselves - how many MP's are in the legal system ? All rich beyond my dreams, the point still is cost - it needs to be kept in check.

Quite what are you arguing

firstly you want to deny people the right to be represented- having decided in advance they are not worthy of representation. most people would see that as pre determining the case. If they can represent themselves, then why not everyone else. In fact lets get rid of prosecutors and police as they are not needed either and have justice totally run by lay people.

now because 1 solicitors firm committed fraud - all are guilty? Well I hate to tell you some people on bikes (aka as cyclists) committed murder so should we lock evey cyclist up as they are clearly all murders?

You are just throwing mud. You are simply attacking all in the legal profession without discrimination.

The topic in this thread is about ACCESS to justice, not about pay rates or anything else, so why not debat ACCESS to justice? Why throw mud about matters irrelevant to access to justice?

DonDaddyD · May 2013

Spen is right.

The core of his point is this:

EVERYONE has the right on EVERY charge to a fair trial and to be properly represented.

From what I've seen, no one has yet to sufficiently argue against this point. More to the point, I never want to lose this right, ever.

vitesse169 · May 2013

spen666 wrote:

vitesse169 wrote:

Again, well done - I'm trying not to feed you, but, no where have I said that there is a presumption of guilt, or that there should be no access to legal reps. It is the cost that is the point.
Need I remind you of the Timmy Robinson enquiry ? He and his firm of solicitors were defrauding the legal aid system for years. Not that that has any bearing on the guilt/innocence of any accused, but the ease with which the legal aid bill is racked up by firms. Many 'wrong uns' plead NG numerous times then enter a guilty plea once all the witnesses turn up. How much does that put up the bill for that 1 case ?

Multiply that by the 1,000's of cases each day accross the country, then multiply that by 5 days a week then by any number of weeks of the year that the courts are open = HUGE legal aid bill. And thats just the mags court in criminal cases.
There are, I grant you, good and awful legal reps - if they were paid an ammount per case the bad ones would quickly fall by the wayside. Which firm would employ a bad lawyer ?
Most large institutions cry foul when poked with the reform stick, Police included, but QC's downwards are looking after themselves - how many MP's are in the legal system ? All rich beyond my dreams, the point still is cost - it needs to be kept in check.

Quite what are you arguing

firstly you want to deny people the right to be represented- having decided in advance they are not worthy of representation. most people would see that as pre determining the case. If they can represent themselves, then why not everyone else. In fact lets get rid of prosecutors and police as they are not needed either and have justice totally run by lay people.

now because 1 solicitors firm committed fraud - all are guilty? Well I hate to tell you some people on bikes (aka as cyclists) committed murder so should we lock evey cyclist up as they are clearly all murders?

You are just throwing mud. You are simply attacking all in the legal profession without discrimination.

The topic in this thread is about ACCESS to justice, not about pay rates or anything else, so why not debat ACCESS to justice? Why throw mud about matters irrelevant to access to justice?

Not denying anyone to the right to be legally represented, just the cost of that representation. If there was a set cost to each case (somehow) then would that not be fair to all ?
How typical of you to over react to what i said - you are in the legal profession, no? Protectionism ?
Look, all I'm saying is that as costs spiral a brake has to be applied - the clever bit is to find out where. Wherever that brake is applied, someone, somewhere will dispute it. You can't make everyone happy all the time. I'll settle for most. That's a democracy, what we apparantly live in...

DonDaddyD · May 2013

vitesse169 wrote:

Not denying anyone to the right to be legally represented, just the cost of that representation. If there was a set cost to each case (somehow) then would that not be fair to all ?

I am to understand that what is being proposed/implemented is that the legal representative is paid the same for a guilty plea as they are for an innocent plea.

Trouble is the innocent plea means more work for no more money.

Qucik faux-maths based on the principle that a case with a guilty plea will end quicker than one with an innocent plea:

Case with a guilty plea takes 3 months
Case with an innocent plea takes 6 months

You can get through more guilty plea cases in a year than innocent ones, which means more money to the law firm. You can take on more cases side by side if you know each accused person is going to plead guilty (there is going to be less work per case). What you are essentially doing is incentivising lawyers to encourage the guilty plea - that's where the money is.

The even more damaging factor is that we lose the right to choose our legal aid defence lawyer. So we have no choice but to place our potential civil/legal freedom in the hands of a law firm that encourages their lawyers to go out and encourage the guilty plea.

At it's worst the Government could employ the cheapest provider who gets results. However results for them is 10 guilty pleas per lawyer becaue ultimately you get paid by case and can complete more cases per year if the accused pleads guilty.

Who wants to live with a scenario like that?

You can't make everyone happy all the time. I'll settle for most. That's a democracy, what we apparantly live in...

A key foundation within a democracy is a fully functioning legal system, what is being proposed isn't that.

spen666 · May 2013

Point of Order DDD - there is no such thing in #English law as a plea of innocence nor a finding of innocence.

The plea is either GUILTY or NOT GUILTY and the findings of a court are the same

A Subtle, but very important difference between NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT exists

spen666 · May 2013

vitesse169 wrote:

....

Not denying anyone to the right to be legally represented, just the cost of that representation. If there was a set cost to each case (somehow) then would that not be fair to all ?
How typical of you to over react to what i said - you are in the legal profession, no? Protectionism ?
Look, all I'm saying is that as costs spiral a brake has to be applied - the clever bit is to find out where. Wherever that brake is applied, someone, somewhere will dispute it. You can't make everyone happy all the time. I'll settle for most. That's a democracy, what we apparantly live in...

So why are you arguing in a thread about ACCESS to justice over costs per case which is a completely and unrelated issue. Start a seperate topic about it

Oh and costs would not increase if the government(s) had not introduced so many more criminal offences since the mid 1990s and keep changing the requirements on players in the justice system - thus massively increasing the workloads on participants

As for protectionism? Not a bit of it. Abolish legal aid completely, it won't affect my income at all. In fact, I would probably benefit as the role I fulfill will become more important if you deny accused persons the right to legal representation.

So rather than protectionism, I am arguing for a system that will actually harm my job prospects

bompington · May 2013

spen666 wrote:

Point of Order DDD - there is no such thing in #English law as a plea of innocence nor a finding of innocence.

The plea is either GUILTY or NOT GUILTY and the findings of a court are the same

A Subtle, but very important difference between NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT exists

Thanks for clarifying that for us, it's exactly that sort of thing that makes it so worth while spending money on lawyers...

Escadrille Ecosse · May 2013

These are very long replies, don't you people have jobs to do?

tailwindhome · May 2013

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spen is right.

The core of his point is this:

EVERYONE has the right on EVERY charge to a fair trial and to be properly represented.

From what I've seen, no one has yet to sufficiently argue against this point. More to the point, I never want to lose this right, ever.

Define 'properly represented'.

Is it the best representation money can buy, competent representation or somewhere in between?

rick_chasey · May 2013

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spen is right.

The core of his point is this:

EVERYONE has the right on EVERY charge to a fair trial and to be properly represented.

From what I've seen, no one has yet to sufficiently argue against this point. More to the point, I never want to lose this right, ever.

Define 'properly represented'.

Is it the best representation money can buy, competent representation or somewhere in between?

By a professional with appropriate qualifications would suffice and be reasonable.

rick_chasey · May 2013

It's odd really. The jury system is plenty more expensive than legal representation for everyone to the wider economy, but we bare the cost in the interest of a fair judicial system.

Can't see why that isn't extended to legal aid.

DonDaddyD · May 2013

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spen is right.

The core of his point is this:

EVERYONE has the right on EVERY charge to a fair trial and to be properly represented.

From what I've seen, no one has yet to sufficiently argue against this point. More to the point, I never want to lose this right, ever.

Define 'properly represented'.

Is it the best representation money can buy, competent representation or somewhere in between?

But your just pointing out the issue in another way.

Who defines proper representation?

Is it the State who will simply select someone (qualified) to argue for your contested legal right - whether that be guardianship of your child or your continued freedom.

Or is it the individual through having the freedom to choose who they feel is the appropriate candidate to represent them properly - within the boundaries of lawyers providing legal aid.

Now in any scenario I would want to retain that choice, and this, I feel, is added to by the fact that the guilty plea is incentivised.

vitesse169 · May 2013

Rick Chasey wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Spen is right.

The core of his point is this:

EVERYONE has the right on EVERY charge to a fair trial and to be properly represented.

From what I've seen, no one has yet to sufficiently argue against this point. More to the point, I never want to lose this right, ever.

Define 'properly represented'.

Is it the best representation money can buy, competent representation or somewhere in between?

Competant representation is better than the CPS who have difficulty in prosecuting a guilty plea - you would then be better off with a defence being chosen for you...!
By a professional with appropriate qualifications would suffice and be reasonable.

vitesse169 · May 2013

^ not sure how this happened, the first 2 lines are mine...

DonDaddyD · May 2013

Competant representation is better than the CPS who have difficulty in prosecuting a guilty plea - you would then be better off with a defence being chosen for you...!

That makes no sense to me.

Unless you're making an observational point (as oppose to a factual one) that the CPS have failed to sufficiently prosecute those that plead guilty.

vitesse169 · May 2013

my experience of the CPS is less than good... I'm also poking fun at them, also my point about good and bad lawyers. Just a few years ago my CPS prosecuter didn't want to run a case, despite all the witnesses turning up. My skipper 'convinced' him to at least try... well, whaddayah know - found guilty...! Not the only example of the CPS - 'forgetting' to supply the defence with copies of all evidence - case thrown out by the bench (rightly so). However I have had a prosecuter take on a bit of a winger and pull the rabbit from the hat - good and bad lawyers.

E-petitions: Save UK Justice

Comments

Categories