I am dismayed that Ken Clarke’s modernising proposals for criminal
justice have been shelved – if only the subject could be aired in a civilised
and rational way, preferably with a gagging order on the Daily Mail, it might have
stood a chance. But perhaps even more serious, are the proposed cuts to the
Legal Aid budget which might save the Treasury £350m, but it will impoverish
the country way beyond that saving. http://www.guardian.co.uk/housing-network/2011/jun/22/legal-aid-cuts-slap-ordinary-families
The Justice Secretary says that legal aid will still be
available for claims where people’s life or liberty is at stake, where they
are at risk of serious physical harm, or immediate loss of their home, or where
their children may be taken into care.
That’s certainly reassuring, but let’s just imagine a few other
scenarios where it won’t any longer be available:A woman goes into hospital for a routine hip replacement, contracts gangrene through the hospital’s negligence, which then requires further operations to rectify, resulting in a much longer recovery period, with considerable loss of earnings, and possibly a permanent disability requiring extra care and support, not to mention months, or years of further pain and suffering.
A building firm fails to erect its scaffolding properly and a worker falls, breaking his arm. He’s an independent contractor, so if he can’t work, he isn’t paid. It takes him 3 months to get fit to return.
You’re a plumber and were contracted to do a lot of work on
a flats conversion project. You’ve been
engaged in it for the best part of a year.
None of your invoices have been paid, you’ve been fobbed off with excuse
after excuse and now you’ve had enough.
You threatened to take him to court and now the builder turns round and
says your work was substandard.
There are thousands of scenarios like this, and more
controversial ones – cases involving immigration, race, sex, disability
discrimination, family cases where parents are locked into disputes over the
children.
Assuming you don’t have the money to take the case
to court, you will have two choices – just put up with the injustice you’ve
suffered, or try to do it yourself. And
this is where the proposals really fall down.
Countries that spend less on legal aid, spend considerably more on the
court system, providing supporters, assistance and guidance to litigants in
person to help them through the process. That doesn’t happen here. Litigants up till recently have been
represented by someone who knows that they are doing, who speaks the language
and understands the processes. Litigants
in person require a huge amount of hand holding. Some judges will be prepared to help these
people, but the net effect will be even more of a backlog, less certainty on
timings, a clogging up of the system, which will, of course mean more costs. Judge’s time doesn’t come cheap.
But the biggest loss will be to the moral and ethical foundation of the country; the UK will become a place where only the wealthy can enforce their rights. The victims of these cuts are ordinary people
to whom bad things have happened, out of the blue, through no fault of their own. They
are not scroungers, they aren’t greedy, self-serving representatives of the litigation
culture who will claim a few quid for stubbing their toe on the pavement, and we must not let the government, of the Daily Mail, persuade us that they are. Think again, you Tories. This is a crazy mistake.
No comments:
Post a Comment