Category Archives: Politics

LCCSA: Do-gooders united!

This is an edited version of the guest speech given by Matt Foot at the LCCSA AGM 14/11/21

**Do-gooders of the world unite!** **Guest blog by Matt Foot**

I am very honoured to be invited to speak at the annual meeting of the British Virgin Islands Lawyers. And thank you for the £700k. Oh Sorry -wrong speech!

I am sorry to raise this after you have just eaten but we need to talk about Priti Patel….

Last year she reached the nadir in front of her Party conference when she attacked the ‘do-gooder lefty lawyers’ trying to defend migrants. Patel said the legal aid ‘activist lawyers’ were ‘defending the indefensible’ (1)

So vitriolic was she that a legal aid lawyer was attacked in his office by someone whipped up by her rhetoric, for which she had no regrets and told us ‘to get back to work’. (2)

It’s difficult to work out where this vitriol comes from, how can someone so lack empathy. I think I’ve finally struck on why it is she is so bitter….

I came to this realisation when we saw her at her happiest with a massive smile wandering around a back alley donning a police jacket on a police raid – she never looked so happy. On her lapel it said “Home Secretary” but she obviously always wanted to be… a copper!

Certainly there is no stopping Patel’s adoration for the police – her police bill would only allow protests that were silent and did not “cause unease”

So in love with the police is she that she introduced, as part of the Bill, the idea of a police covenant. As they ‘deserve special recognition’ because ‘they will always have the support of the nation’. Making it ‘a statutory duty to do more to support the police’. This would place a requirement on her to report annually to Parliament on progress with the covenant.

To help her out I’ve written next year’s annual report for her, in recognition of some of the achievements of the police in the last year:

Annual Report on the Police 2020-2021 (as compiled by Matt Foot)

1 Racism

On racism the police are maintaining a higher stop and search rate of black people than was the case at the time of the McPherson report, and particularly so under the covid rules.

This year a former probationary officer has been convicted of being a member of the neo-nazi organisation, National Action.

And in another first, the bodies of two murdered black sisters, Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry were photographed by police and passed round a WhatsApp group for their entertainment.

2 Sexism

Infamously, serving police officer, Wayne Couzens, elevated to the diplomatic corp and assisted by deployment and misuse of Patel’s new covid powers, kidnapped Sarah Everard, and then went on to rape and murder her.

3 Policing Protest

When women came out to peacefully show their respects to Sarah Everard a number of (mainly male) officers handcuffed them and manhandled them to the ground.

4 Policing the police

The police have consistently failed women who make accusations against officers of domestic violence as evidenced by Alexandra Heal’s ground-breaking work for the Bureau for Journalism, which I am proud to say won the Paul Foot award for campaigning journalism. Heal identified 700 reports against police officers for domestic abuse and that those allegations were taken less seriously than other complaints.

5 Police Corruption

This year the Metropolitan Police have been recognised as institutionally corrupt in the Daniel Morgan Panel Report. Finally, after his brother Alastair Morgan has been campaigning for the truth for 34 years.

It’s an annual report that shows that more than ever we need to have strong legal aid lawyers to defend people from an institutionally sexist, racist and corrupt police.

It’s clear that despite this report Patel will blindly continue to give special favour to the police and in so doing she will be ‘defending the indefensible’.

LCCSA -defending, Campaigning

However, we in the LCCSA have a strong history of campaigning, including a few years ago against another zealot, Mr Grayling – his affliction when Justice Secretary was asset stripping, privatising anything that he could – legal aid; probation; prisons; -anything he could he would try and sell.

We feared that an underfunded, privatised probation service would be catastrophic. The proved to be true and the probation service has recently been taken back into public hands.

Let us not forget 8 years ago – individuals, firms and lawyers associations led by the LCCSA joined together, uniting to campaign for Justice, demonstrating outside parliament, (5) and we successfully stopped competitive tendering, the “two tier” system, and staved off a further proposed cut.

That was eight years go. I know looking round we are getting older and more grey haired and I was thinking “where can we draw inspiration to defend legal aid again?” I want to look at what the do-gooder lawyers have been up to over the last year. It’s quite a contrast with the police!

I now want to read the Annual report of London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association. I think its impressive.

Annual Report of LCCSA “do-gooders” 2021 (as compiled by Matt Foot)

I have 5 wonderful examples of ‘do-gooder’ solicitors dealing with injustices over the last year, many of which have been hanging around for years:

1 Firstly, for several years all our clients have had the ignominy of having to state their nationality, before their case even starts, as if that was somehow relevant to their reason for being in court. (3) That was until LCCSA committee member, Rhona Friedman and her new firm Commons Law – got together and planned out an evidence based challenge and got rid of this racist practice forever. (4) Thank you to her and her firm.

2 When it comes to protest for several years it’s been very difficult to protest at all without falling foul of the full force of the law on obstruction of the highway. Last year at the Supreme Court there was the case of Ziegler, taken on by Raj Chada and presented by Henry Blaxland, which confirmed important protest rights that can help to protect the environment and to challenge the wrongs in this society. (6)

3 20 years ago sub post masters working hard in local post offices around the country were suddenly prosecuted and convicted for fraud. They weren’t guilty of fraud at all – it was all based on dodgy expert evidence, around the new accounting system called Horizon. Last year ex-president of the LCCSA Paul Harris represented several of those who overturned their convictions in what has been called the greatest miscarriage. He rightly said ‘what had happened was evil’.

4 Nearly 50 years ago – four black people were convicted of an attempted theft and assault at Oval tube station, and they went to prison. Last year they finally had their convictions overturned. Lord Justice Fulford made one of those classic judicial understatements : “It is highly unfortunate that it has taken nearly 50 years to rectify this injustice.”

I recommend to you all on iplayer watching ‘Black Power the British Story’. There you can see William Trew’s story – it is quite clear he was fitted up for his politics, and as he walks out of the Court of Appeal you can see him with his solicitor Jenny Wiltshire, former LCCSA committee member and vice-president. Steve Bird another LCCSA committee member also represented one of the Oval 4. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52022925

5 The last and oldest case of injustice I want to highlight goes back a hundred years – let me take you back to the 1920s. I am perhaps just little bit biased in thinking this is the most important. It involves a footballer who played for arguably the best team in the country and more importantly the best team in Devon. Jack Leslie – a black footballer who played inside left for Plymouth Argyle, was picked for England – then suddenly he was dropped because they hadn’t realised when they picked him that he was black. Former LCCSA president, Greg Foxsmith got together with his best mate Matt Tiller to set up a brilliant campaign. They raised the money for a statue at the best ground in the country, Home Park, and have gone into schools to use Jack’s story in a positive way against the indefensible racism that existed then, and in different ways today. Thank you to Greg. (7)

Going forward the biggest threat for the do gooders to continue dealing with such injustices is the chronic underfunding of the Criminal Justice System.

The hourly rates for criminal defence work have not increased since 1996. Over 25 years. 1996 was when the spice girls released their first single, and even before Jon Blacks first tweet. No other group of workers I believe have had such a cut by governments of both colour.

We don’t know what CLAR is going to do – is it going to make good the recommendations of the All Party Parliamentary Group report this month that we be paid in line with inflation by an independent panel. The CLAR report is imminent. If they don’t increase the rates we will have no choice but to campaign and take action alongside the bar.

I would like to finish on a quote of the Irish socialist Jim Larkin – ‘the great only appear great because we are on our knees. Let us rise’.

NOTES

1 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-immigration-lawyers-migrants-law-society-bar-council-b832856.html

2 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8882165/Priti-Patel-shrugs-attack-lawyers-brands-reaction-criticisms-ridiculous.html

3 The “Nationality Requirement” https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/defendant-nationality-declarations-offensive/5063715.article

4 The end of the Nationality requirement- thanks to Commons https://twitter.com/commonslegal/status/1358732682209996802?s=21

5 Matt too mention to modest, but he was a key figure and final speaker at the 2014 demo

6 Here’s the case ref: Ziegler

7 (Note from Greg:Thanks to Kingsley Napley for backing me and backing the campaign ! ). It’s not too late to get on board- law firms supporting the campaign will get recognition on the statue plinth, and campaign website!

8 Matt also thanked the LCCSA committee in his speech: Firstly we need to thank all the committee for their hard work in keeping this very important association together, particularly Mark Troman and Kerry Hudson who have done so much in a really difficult year when we haven’t even been able to meet together in person. Good luck to nw President Hexham Puri and the committee for the year ahead.

9 How times change… a note on the http://LCCSA AGM dinner from 2015, from 2016, and the Summer Party of 2016

10 And finally….find out more about the LCCSA (and if eligible, how to join) here: https://www.lccsa.org.uk/about/officers/

Black Lives Matter-an open letter. (Guest blog by Mbombo Kaoma)

Reader beware – this is an open letter about race on both sides of the Atlantic. The truths expressed here make for uncomfortable reading, but I encourage you to read on: the time for sticking heads in the sand has long since passed.

We are all now familiar with the ongoing social unrest in the US and around the world.

Disgust and disbelief turned into anger, anger into protest, and peaceful protest morphed into disruptive civil disobedience. All in response to George Floyd’s killing in Minnesota on 25 May (and Amy Cooper’s abhorrent abuse of racial privilege in New York, and the modern-day lynching of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia, and [insert injustice of the reader’s choice…]).

For some, the knee-jerk reaction has been to ignore the peaceful protests and shift straight into condemnation of the mass disruption.

This open letter is addressed to those who continue to query why black people in the US/UK/elsewhere (and – very welcome – allies of all racial persuasions) may feel compelled to take to the streets and be (non-violently) disruptive right now; an effort to engage – respectfully and apolitically – with the ‘But why are they being so disruptive?’ brigade.

The short answer is that such disruption is the nature of protests, of civil disobedience. The very purpose is to upend the established, oppressive order; to effect change within the system being protested against.

That is said not to condone violence, but rather to justify (non-violent) acts of civil disobedience and disruption.

The factors which open the floodgates to waves of protestors, which cause them to abandon social norms and speak out, emanate from the perception that the status quo is in some way broken. That the way things have been is oppressive and must change. So protestors seek to disrupt; not with wanton abandon, nor with glee, but out of desperation to have voices heard which have for too long been passively forgotten or actively silenced.

And yes that sometimes spills over into disruption, into social unrest.

This is unfortunate, but often inevitable, and is the essence of taking to the streets to effect change. Keyboard warriors (this one included) can be ignored out of hand; marching masses cannot.

To paraphrase the stand-up comedian Kae Kurd (because dark humour gets us through dark times): ‘If the person you’re protesting against is happy with your means of protest…then that’s not really a protest, is it?’. An idea echoed by another comedian/political commentator, Trevor Noah, host of the Daily Show: ‘There is no “right way” [for the Have Nots] to protest because that’s what protest is’.

Such is the nature of every truly seismic act of civil disobedience, of every successful movement for the advancement of the underprivileged that there ever has been or ever will be.

From the 14^th century English Peasants’ Revolt, to the Suffragettes sticking it to the patriarchy in the early 20^th, to Martin Luther King proclaiming ‘I have a Dream’ in 1963, the story is the same. The Haves disregard the Have Nots until the downtrodden cause a sufficient nuisance that they can no longer be ignored.

So when a vocal minority of Haves chastise the Have Nots by saying ‘you’re being far too disruptive’, the response from protestors should simply be ‘thank you…that’s the point’.

(And for those who mistakenly believe ‘but it’s different in Britain’, remember that for better or worse what happens in the USA matters in every corner of the world in which American culture permeates. Regardless of whether we are speaking of economic shocks or social attitudes, it remains a truth universally acknowledged that ‘When America sneezes, the World catches a cold’.)

The essence of every well-functioning society is (enforced) consent to the system for the mutual benefit of all. Put philosophically, it’s the Social Contract. In today’s America we see that the Social Contract has been breached so flagrantly and so systemically for so long that portions of the body charged with policing it are now intrinsically part of the problem (but only portions; it’s important to remind ourselves that most police officers are fundamentally good people).

So the time has come to seek: a) justice (the belated charging of the other 3 George Floyd officers was a good start), and b) tangible change (at the very least, compulsory bodycams for all officers). And perhaps to seek change by means other than working within the formal institutions of the system (albeit non-violently). To March on Washington and Westminster, not to sit still and wait for yet another name to be added to the Wall of Unarmed Victims.

Perhaps more glaringly, that blight of institutional racism has become so endemic that the Amy Coopers of this world feel entitled to weaponise the To Kill a Mockingbird-style shameful truth that a white woman’s word will – no matter the circumstances – count for far more than that of a black man’s (unless someone happens to be filming). In the absence of indisputable video evidence clearing his name, I have no doubt that at this very moment there would be a man awaiting trial for the heinous ‘crime’ of Bird Watching While Black.

Bringing up the Amy Cooper example is in no way intended to diminish the suffering and anguish of the last moments of George Floyd’s life; a man has been murdered and nothing can return him to his family.

Rather, the Cooper episode highlights the uncomfortable fact that the minority of Haves who were so quick to jump on the condemnation bandwagon are – silently – well aware of the (unasked for, but nevertheless very real) privilege that they share with Ms Cooper. These people are not blind. They recognise that certain groups are marginalised and face prejudice; and yet these same people appear to expect those oppressed groups to simply weep a little, move on, and pretend that they See No Evil and Hear No Evil.

This inconsistency between outward expression of condemnation versus inward recognition of oppression faced by others was depressingly demonstrated by this YouTube clip where renowned anti-racism activist Jane Elliott (famed for her 1968 ‘Blue Eyes-Brown Eyes‘ classroom experiment) asked a predominantly white American audience in 1996: ‘I want every white person in this room who would be happy to…receive the same treatment as our black citizens do in this society…please stand’. Unsurprisingly, not one of those Americans stood (and I doubt any Brits would stand either).

Jane Elliott’s response to this inconvenient truth was incisive: ‘That says very plainly that you know what’s happening, you know you don’t want it for you. I want to know why you’re so willing to…allow it to happen for others.’

We are all fortunate that the world has – to a significant extent – moved on since those 1968 and 1996 video clips. However, the fact remains that no white American in 2020, nor in 1776, indeed no white American who has read a newspaper at any point in the last 250 years would have stood up in response to Jane Elliott’s question.

That is why, regardless of race, colour, or creed, we who believe in equality must continue to make our voices heard around the world in solidarity with the American marching masses and donate to equal rights causes where we can.

That is why we must continue to protest. That is why we must continue to disrupt.

Mbombo Kaoma, a black British lawyer at Hogan Lovells International LLP, who hopes that one day open letters such as this one will no longer be necessary, that they will have become mere footnotes to history.

NOTES

This open letter was first published in the Law Society Gazette here , and republished on this site with kind permission of the author.

The Jack Leslie Campaign

This blog attempt to explain what the Jack Leslie Campaign is, and how I came to be involved. Hopefully it may even inspire you to show support or get involved in this campaign to properly recognise the achievements of: Jack Leslie- who should have been the first black footballer to play for England

When Matt Tiller recently told me that the first black footballer player to be selected to play for England was a chap called Jack Leslie, who at the time was playing for Plymouth Argyle, I was staggered. (1) I was even more amazed when I found that the year of selection was as long ago as 1925. What?! First black footballer for England was surely Viv Anderson, 1974, right? Well maybe not. Although Anderson played for the full English team, Laurie Cunningham was the first black player to represent England at any level (having played at under 21 level) and in May 2013, The Football Association amended their records, so that now Benjamin Odeje holds this record, having represented England seven years earlier at schoolboy level.

All of this however was in the 1970s. So who was Jack Leslie and how is it that hardly anyone knows of his selection a half-Century earlier? (2)

Well Jack Leslie was selected, but then never got to play. It turns out that when the selection board took a look at Jack Leslie, there was an abrupt change of heart, and there is no avoiding the fact that it was the realisation that Jack Leslie was a “person of colour” that was the significant factor. You can understand why the FA are not keen to promote that fact, with the underlying prejudice that operated to Jack Leslie’s detriment at that time.

But a look at Jack’s career reveals an incredible story – how the boy from Canning Town, London ended up in Plymouth as part of an Argyle team that beat Man United and toured South America playing international sides. His stats are phenomenal. Jack Leslie is not exactly a footballing legend, even in Plymouth. But he should be.

Plymouth Argyle and the new Jack Leslie boardroom

Matt and I decided that we should try and do something to raise awareness of Jack Leslie and get some recognition of his achievements, starting at his adopted home club of Plymouth Argyle.

We managed to get in contact with club chairman Simon Hallett. To our surprise, and his credit, the club were already in the process of recognising Jack, by naming the board-room in the newly-completed grandstand after him. I’ve been to see it – it’s great, and a huge credit to the club and it’s chairman. However, rightly or wrongly despite the club’s efforts and press release which had local coverage there was little wider interest, and the Jack Leslie story remains largely unknown. There is still no publicly accessible acknowledgement of the Jack Leslie story.

(pictured above -commemorative plaque in the new “Jack Leslie boardroom” at Home Park, l-r chairman Simon Hallett, Argyle manager Ryan Lowe and myself)

A statue for Jack

So Matt and I decided to fundraise for a statue to Jack Leslie. In part we were inspired by the recently completed crowd-funded Nancy Astor statue campaign, also in Plymouth. We have since found out about other successful crowd-funded campaigns for football icons at other football grounds, so we know it can be done, although neither of us realised quite how much work would be involved. There is currently no statue at Argyle’s football ground Home Park. It would be great if Jack’s were the first.

Aims and Objectives- fighting racism and prejudice (3)

We soon realised that the campaign was about much more than just recognising Jack Leslie as a former player of Plymouth Argyle Football Club. The real significance is addressing the historical racism that denied a player of his opportunity to represent his Country. This is not just a campaign for a statue. This is a campaign that puts equalities at the front. (3)

There should be recognition for Jack Leslie from the FA to show that attitudes today are different. Jack Leslie’s family (Who are supporting this campaign) should be given the England cap that Jack should have been given back in 1925. There should be no place for racism in sport.

Kick it out? We cannot address the problems of today, if we do not recognise and correct the injustices of the past.

We cannot do it alone. We need help, advice, friends, and supporters. Please join us, and support the #JackLeslieCampaign.

NOTES

1 Matt has blogged about his own journey of discovery here

2 There has been occasional commentary, some examples here ⬇️⬇️ (please tell me of you know of other source material) :-

Inside Out (BBC Southwest) here

Article by Martin Johnes, Article on West Ham site here

Phil Vasili http://www.vasili.co.uk/history-of-black-footballers.html

3 Jack Leslie Campaign – Aims and Objectives

To raise the funding for a statue of Jack Leslie in Plymouth, where he played as a professional footballer for Plymouth Argyle. To promote the story of Jack Leslie, the first black footballer to be selected for England way back in 1925, and to use Jack’s story positively to combat racism in football, supporting the aims of the “Kick It Out” campaign.

Volunteering in the time of Coronavirus

My employers at Kingsley Napley have a strong ethos within the firm of supporting fundraising and volunteering and have continued helping charities and the local community during the COVID-19 crisis (see here for detail). My role as an advocate has understandably been affected by the CRISIS, given the lack of hearings taken place, as was my planned Easter break, so with permission of the firm I took some time out to do some volunteering. How did I get on?

1 NHS “responder” volunteer

Like so many others I signed up as a volunteer “responder” to help, if and when I could, those in need during the coronavirus #COVID19 crisis.
The app looks great! I tested the alarm-sounds like an air-raid warning! And waited…

..and waited. I completed my “profile”. I went out and acquired a mask, hand-gel, gloves. I have no symptoms or underlying health conditions. I am DBS checked. I have a car, a bike, live near a hospital, and flexible working hours. 300 hours passed…The app is clever in that you enable the maps so they can pinpoint your location and match you to somebody nearby in need. I live in Central London, and there is plenty in that category! And still I waited…AND THEN… it finally happened! The alerts sounded! 👏

I was cycling at the time (as permitted exercise) and nearly fell off my bike! 🚲 I pulled over, and accepted the call. Details followed…

And then I looked at the address, and the postcode was LS12 …that’s in LEEDS! 😳
I mean don’t get me wrong, I love Leeds. I studied at Leeds Uni and was sad when our annual reunion last month was cancelled due to #COVID19.
But travel 🚂 to Leeds to answer this call would hardly be lockdown compliant!

2 Food bank

Since #coronavirus closed the schools, my 16 year old son (GCSEs cancelled) has been doing some volunteering. So I joined him for a day at the foodbank at “brickworks” Community Centre, Hanley Crouch. To our surprise, Jeremy Corbyn was also volunteering there!

The surprising thing was that Corbyn stayed for the full 3 hour session at the food bank. We sorted food🥖 packed bags, distributed, did all the mundane stuff that goes on- running a food-bank isn’t glamorous. And then he left.

3 Other volunteering

I am grateful to have the opportunity to help out with a local mentoring charity of which I am a trustee -“Bridging the Gap Islington” -which KN have also supported, including a recent grant that allowed us to enable mentors to meet those they are helping “virtually” , and holding our trustee meeting by zoom.

I’ve also been working on the Jack Leslie Campaign – to recognise the achievements of a legendary footballer who 100 years ago should have been the first black footballer to play for England. The aims and objectives:

1 To raise the funding for a statue of Jack Leslie in Plymouth, where he played as a professional footballer for Plymouth Argyle.

2 To promote the story of Jack Leslie, the first black footballer to be selected for England way back in 1925, and to use Jack’s story positively to combat racism in football, supporting the aims of the “Kick It Out” campaign.

4 Pro-bono work

The COVID-19 crisis and the government response and regulations has created a number of challenges for all of us, and injustices for a few. We all understood that funerals had to limit the number of mourners, but Islington Council closed their cemetery (a vast site) to all, including those who used it for their daily walk and to visit loved ones. I was contacted by a grieving parent whose 17 year old son had recently died in tragic circumstances, and was now unable to undertake her visits to tend to his resting place. This interruption to the grieving process was highly traumatic, and I helped take up the case, as reported here , eventually (with the help of Cllr Caroline Russell) persuading the Council to allow the cemetery to reopen with new social distancing measures in place.

I also challenging the bizarre decision of the Council to close fruit and veg stalls, rather than assisting traders to managing social distancing in selling their wares. This time I was able to deploy the assistance of the local MP – having raised the issue with him at the food-bank (see above)

CONCLUSION

The much-flaunted Responder App was a disappointment and remains so, and appears to have been deployed as part of the Government’s media strategy deploying “we are all in this together” war-time rhetoric. I did enjoy however having the chance to do some voluntary work locally. I have to be honest- it was good for me personally, as I like to keep busy and was struggling to adapt to “lock-down” and having no work. But it also good to help out the incredible voluntary sector, a part of a diverse community that feels like a family, and where others far more worthy than me give their time commitment and resources regularly. It was a humbling experience.

Charter for Justice- for a Fair Justice System

Charter for Justice- for a Fair Justice System- guest blog by Raj Chada

Just 5 months ago, we welcomed the “Lammy Review” into inequality of outcome for black and ethnic minority defendants, but questioned whether it could change the landscape. .
We know that nothing has changed, but that the whole criminal justice is close to collapse.

Justice on the cheap means no real justice for any community – but it will always, and indeed has, affect most those that are discriminated against , those with limited means , those with no voice at all.
That is who we must consider in a Charter for Justice.
David Lammy was comissioned to prepare a report (an ‘independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic individuals in the Criminal Justice System “ in response to the over -representation of BAME individuals in the criminal justice system.
You are 17.5 times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black
45% of those in youth custody are from an ethnic minority – a higher percentage than the US.
I borrow from the LCCSA response to Lammy – If you are a defendant in the Crown Court (and certainly should you reach the Court of Appeal) you can expect white Judges, mostly men and often still an all-white court room. Imagine roles are reversed. Imagine if you are white appearing in an all-black courtroom where you believe you have been harshly treated. Later you might read of higher sentences for white people, or that white deaths in custody never result in any prosecution. That white youth are disproportionately stopped and searched. You may imagine a lack of equality in the criminal Justice processes.
Think of that role reversal when you ponder why Lammy said that there was a trust deficit ; and then ask ourselves how that is not top of the agenda for Justice Secretary, every minute of every day of every week of every year that he or she is in office.
Think of that when you consider that the real trend is abolish any pretence of establishing a system with balance and checks, professionals exercising judgement from experience and training. With legal aid fixed cases cut to the bone, and a pressure to plead guilty, there is insufficient time to develop relationships with clients ; to consider, review, analyse the papers, and to properly advise clients. The MoJ response to Lammy pointing out the lack of trust for BAME is not to re consider how fixed fees operate ; not to look at the absurd rates of pay in police stations, to demand at how the professions train and recognise the needs of the communities that they serve….
but to welcome the development of an app that can be used to explain people rights in custody.
The MoJ rejects the idea of accountabilty for the judiciary by feedback from users – lawyers, defendant or victims as if it will mean those that are aggrieved by decisions will use it as a complaint mechanism.
The MoJ offers nothing new about how to increase diversity of judiciary, – of the senior judiciary 81% went to Oxbridge, 76% went to fee paying schools and half went to boarding schools.
Enough already.
We need concrete action ; not the luke-warm response to the genuinely innovative idea of deferred prosecution for youth offending that will allow youngster not to have a criminal convictions on an agreement of behaviour in future. Good enough for a multi national company caught defrauding millions of pounds – not good enough for the balck defendant in Brent that was caught shoplifting for £50.
Of course I know that the solution to this is wider the CJS It requires us to help individuals through support and intervention, to hold individuals to account through community mechanisms and to develop that individual so that he has sense that he or she belongs and has a stake.
The solution as to why so many BAME youths do not feel they have that stake is political not legal: An active well-funded state that exists to help all its citizens, not just one section would benefit everyone, not just BAME communities. It is why we must make common cause across civic society with Trade unions and others…
We must start with CJS. This is not just about pay for us – it is about our participation in a public service, with our own roles to play and that the same system of justice should exist no matter what the social status, race or means of the victim, no matter what the social status, race of the defendant.

If we don’t have that now, we should be prepared to fight to achieve it.

That is why striving to achieve a fair Justice system must be part of the #Charter4Justice that we must all fight for.

Raj Chada, (Partner, HJA,). 26 March 2018

The above is the text of a speech given by Raj at the launch of the Charter for Justice, 26 March 2018 (edited by Greg Foxsmith)

Notes

See also blog “Lammy- we must not be silent”

Lord Chancellor David Lidington-a review

On 11 June 2017 PM Theresa May in a post-election re-shuffle appointed David Lidington as Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. He replaced the hapless Liz Truss, who had herself been appointed by May in a post-election re-shuffle less than a year before. Lidington was himself replaced as Lord Chancellor in Theresa May’s botched reshuffle on January 8th 2018. Lidington was the fourth consecutive non-lawyer appointment- his predecessors were Liz Truss, Michael Gove and Grayling (widely regarded as the worst Lord Chancellor ever).

This blog reviews Lidington’s performance over his brief term of office.

Background

David Roy Lidington CBE PC (born 30 June 1956) has been MP for Aylesbury since 1992. He was Minister of State for Europe from May 2010 to July 2016, and Leader of the House of Commons.

He was educated at a public school, before studying history at Cambridge (appearing on University Challenge)

He was given a CBE in Cameron’s widely criticised resignation honours list.

Expenses scandal In May 2009, it was revealed Lidington had claimed £1,300 on expenses for dry cleaning. He also claimed for toothpaste, shower gel, body spray, vitamin supplements and a second home allowance. He repaid the claims for toiletries, saying: “I accept that many people would see them as over-generous.” So although he eventually came clean, you paid for his soap

Record in Parliament pre-appointment (Justice issues)

Lidington voted in favour of repealing the Human Rights Act, restricting the scope of legal aid and limiting fees paid to solicitors in no-win no-fee cases. The “they-work-for-you” website says Lidington generally voted against equal gay rights, and his record on cutting legal aid is here.

First six months

The new Lord Chancellor was sworn in on 19 June. In the in-tray? Read anopen letter to Lord Chancellor from Joshua Rozenberg

Sort out the prison crisis! read these recommendations from the Howard League

His first official pronouncement, following the Grenfell tragedy, was on availability of legal aid in housing cases- and he got it wrong (see here)

There was then a period of calm, in a political period dominated by Brexit, we heard very little from or about the Lord Chancellor until the Party Conference in October when there were apparently conciliatory noises on LASPO reform

Prisons

The crisis within the prison service has shown no signs of improvement under Lidington. The shocking number of suicides by vulnerable prisoners, murder and violent assaults by against prisoners and staff remains at high levels in crumbling, under-staffed, unsafe failing prisons. The extent of this is too great to record in this blog, and can be charted elsewhere (see eg Howard League) but of the many scathing, shameful reports I include this one from the Independent Monitoring Board into Aylesbury Prison -it is in Lidingtons constituency, so the shameful record has happened “on his watch” as local MP and Justice Sec.

The treatment of young people in custody has also remained dire and dangerous under Lidington’s watch – see this report of November 2017

Legal Aid and funding

Under this Lord Chancellor, there was no improvement in funding for the MoJ in general or legal aid in particular, as it was revealed the department will have suffered a 40% cut in budget by 2020 (as reported in Gazette in November here)

Conclusion- a summary of Lidington’s tenure

Lidington has been the silent chancellor- we heard very little from or about him. In a Government divided by over but dominated by Brexit issues, this Lord Chancellor kept his head down. There is much to be said for that, preferable at least to failing Grayling or hapless Truss, but a failure nonetheless to tackle the big issues in his department- the chronic underfunding of the Justice system, and in particular legal aid and the prison estate. He left everything without comment to MoJ apparatchiks, who have continued with their pet projects including pilot projects on extended Court hours. He remained silent on the “disclosure scandals” that have thrown a spotlight on the sorry state of our justice system, and prisons and young offender institutions remain as overcrowded, dirty and dangerous as when he took over.

His department did however find the money to pay fat-cat consultants to advise on “digital transformation”, leaving solicitor Matt Foot to assess his legacy with this tweet “Justice Minister Lidington’s only contribution was to cut criminal legal aid by £30 mn, given to PricewaterhouseCoopers (650k profit per partner) instead“

Lammy Review-We lawyers must NOT be silent

Colour-blind justice? – the long-awaited review by David Lammy MP on race and the criminal justice system released in September 2017 concluded that the system discriminates against black, Asian and minority ethnic people.

We already knew that. The disproportionality in outcome between different ethnic groups in the Criminal Justice system been known of and remarked on for as long as I can remember. Nothing meaningful has been done.

Young black people are nine times more likely to be locked up in England and Wales than their white peers, The report delivers some recommendations on how to fix this, some better than others. (See this Summary in the Law Soc Gazette)

The report also noted that because black defendants distrust the system, they tend to plead not guilty in court – disqualifying themselves from the reduced sentences that can come with an early guilty plea. Lammy calls for deferred prosecutions where suspects can have charges dropped by completing rehabilitation; basing criminal responsibility on a suspect’s maturity rather than age; and wiping the slate clean earlier for young offenders who rehabilitate, so they can get on with finding employment. Lammy, writing in the Guardian, calls for urgent action to implement his recommendations which require political support and legislative action.

But what can lawyers do within the system to combat the ongoing systemic imbalance? The discrimination which underlies these stark statistics is institutionalised, but covert, and as it is never openly expressed remains unchallenged.
We all know what the problem is, but what are we going to do about it?

Usually, the answer do the question “what can we do?” is “nothing”.
We need new answers.

There is already a “trust deficit”. To win back trust, we need to deserve that trust. #WeMustNotStaySilent

We have to talk about Discrimination. Prejudice. Racism.

We have to challenge why some parts of our profession have race inequality https://www.thetimesbrief.co.uk/users/39175-the-brief-team/posts/28590-white-students-dominate-bar-pupillage-intake

We have to challenge the Police about their charging decisions.

We need to raise the issue of sentencing disparity in Court. The Magistrates need to hear it, and our clients need to hear it.

We have become complicit in an unfair Justice system.

To stay silent is no longer good enough.

There was an event for Lawyers to discuss his report on 2 October 2017 at Kings College which David Lammy attended and I chaired. (Panel: Sir Anthony Hooper, DPP Policy Advisor Sara Carnegie, Sandra Paul of KN, Courtney Griffiths QC of 25 Bedford Row and Judy Khan QC of Garden Court)

A review of the event is here or you can watch a video of whole thing here

The Lammy Review equips us with the evidence and the stats to challenge injustice, particularly prevalent in the Youth Court.

When appearing in the Youth or Magistrates Court representing a young black defendant, dare we say to the bench in our closing submissions “my client is worried that statistically he is more likely to be convicted, and when convicted sentenced higher, than his white contemporary”?

Traditionally we would not raise that directly, for fear that we may be thought to be accusing the bench of bias. It is time to stop being afraid. if we don’t call it out, if we ignore the problem, we are part of the problem.

Lord Chancellor Liz Truss-a Review of her Term of Office

On 14th July 2016 incoming Prime Minister Theresa May appointed Liz Truss as the new Secretary of State for Justice (also known as Lord Chancellor).

She lasted less than a year, being demoted by May on 11th June in the re-shuffle that followed the “mandate” election.

Truss took over from Michael Gove, sacked for his disloyalty and failed leadership bid rather than his performance in post (Gove had replaced the hopeless and reviled Chris Grayling, widely believed to have been the worst Lord Chancellor in living memory)

Truss was the third consecutive non-lawyer to be appointed to the post. Did that matter? Read the Secret Barrister blog.

This blog reviews Truss’ time in office.

Background-Pre-Justice Secretary

Truss was previously at DEFRA, and perhaps best known for her widely ridiculed Conservative Party conference speech about French cheese and British Pork (footage enjoyed on this clip from Have I Got News For You ) This was followed another much ridiculed Conference speech (October 2015) when she called for a return to “giving animals their proper names”

She co-authored a book (“Brittania unchained“) which accused British workers of laziness :”The British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor. Whereas Indian children aspire to be doctors or businessmen, the British are more interested in football and pop music.”

Critics who have attempted to engage with her, (according to George Monbiot in The Guardian) have said she is “indissolubly wedded to a set of theories about how the world should be, that are impervious to argument, facts or experience.”

Background

Born: 26 July 1975, in Paisley, Renfrewshire
Constituency: MP for South West Norfolk since 2010
University: read PPE at Merton
Before politics: 10 years as a management accountant, economics director at Cable & Wireless; deputy director of Reform (education think tank)

Truss and Criminal Justice (pre-appointment)

Truss was a member of the Justice Select Committee between March 2011 and November 2012, but apparently only ever spoke about justice issues three times in parliament,one of which was to strongly support cutting the legal aid budget.

On Home Affairs she consistently voted for a stricter asylum system and stronger enforcement of immigration rules; for the introduction of Police & Crime Commissioners, and for requiring the mass retention of information about communications. She spoke several times during the committee stages of LASPO (transcripts here)

Comments and initial reaction on her Appointment

There was initially mixed disappointment and scepticism from legal aid lawyers, largely due to Truss’ record of continuously voting for Legal Aid cuts. Her priority should have been to sort out and protect Legal Aid, said the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Legal Aid, as reported here in the Solicitors Journal. Concerns were also raised about her views on prisons (eg here in the Justice Gap, July 2016)

Lord Faulks, justice minister under her two predecessors, resigned his post because he felt that the inexperience of Truss could put at risk the standing of the judiciary and courts. Anna Soubry QC turned down post of No. 2 to Truss (according to this piece in Legal Cheek)

Much of the commentary focussed on Truss’ gender, and her being supposedly the first female Lord Chancellor, but critics of Truss denied misogyny ( eg Lord Falconer here in the Guardian)

Lord Pannick pointed out that contrary to some reports she is not the first female Lord Chancellor – that was Eleanor of Provence, who filled in for her husband Henry III in 1253. He added that at the time “there was probably a 13th-Century Lord Falconer complaining Eleanor hadn’t been trained as a lawyer”.

The CLSA released a statement welcoming her appointment.

Peter Oborne writing for the Mail on Sunday had this observation:-

I greatly enjoyed seeing Ms Liz Truss, the new Lord Chancellor, in her majestic Tudor-style robes of office, redolent of old England, tradition and deference.

It is amusing to recall Ms Truss’s radical anti-Monarchy speech to the Liberal Democrat conference in 1994 (she was once on the national executive committee of that party’s youth and student wing) when she proclaimed: ‘We do not believe people are born to rule.’ Her target was the Queen.

She found out soon afterwards that Oxford graduates in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, such as herself, are indeed born to rule, and it doesn’t much matter which party they are in. I’m sure she’ll enjoy the many conversations with Her Majesty she’ll now have, thanks to her new high office”

First days in post

The Annual HM Inspector Of Prisons report was published (19 July) and once again showed a prison service in crisis- violent, over-crowded and full of drugs with few opportunities of rehabilitation. Truss response below:-

On 21st July Truss got to dress up in black and gold robes, and was sworn-in as Lord Chancellor. The ceremony can be viewed on this YouTube clip.

First Three Months

After a long pause to master the brief, Truss gave her first interviews and indicated she was planning to introduce a Bill of Rights. No such bill was introduced. It was initially unclear whether we would be keeping or scrapping the Human Rights Act.

Truss also indicated the Government would not be proceeding with “Problem Solving Courts” (previously announced by Gove) although it was later clarified she actually meant they were still considering them, and a week later confirmed the Government were in fact proceeding with them.

After a Summer break, Truss attended a meeting of the Justice select Committee, (07 September) where to the astonishment of all those attending or following, she could not confirm any planned legislation, merely saying everything was under review (Guardian report here ) Private Eye was also unimpressed:

On 03 October Truss was all trussed up again in robes, together with a “train bearer”, to attend her first “Opening of the Legal Year” service. Her speech here.

On 04 October Truss gave her first Conference speech as Lord Chancellor. It was a more assured performance than the infamous “cheese speech” (see above) but failed to mention Legal Aid or Access to Justice. She spoke of prison reform, announcing £14 million additional investment (although it turned out this was funding already announced by Gove). She did not acknowledge the then topical high suicide rate in prisons, but promised that “ex-soldiers” would be recruited as prison officers. The rest of the speech was a series of platitudes. In. Very. Short. Sentences. Text here. Quentin Letts’ summary “How could so jellyfish and unformed a political personality have been made lord chancellor? I have known ping-pong bats less wooden, CBeebies presenters more statesmanlike.”

November-Failure to Defend the Judiciary

On 03 November, the High Court ruled in the case of Miller that Brexit via article 50 should require a vote in Parliament. In an outpouring of outrage in the tabloids there was open hostility to the judges who were described on one front page as “enemies of the people” The LC, whose oath of office is to uphold and defend the Independence of the Judiciary, would be expected to speak up in defence of the rule of law. Instead, for a long period, silence. #WheresLizTruss? was trending on twitter. Read more here. Then, belatedly a half-hearted statement as reported here. Criticism continued to grow, with an attack by some Tory MPs, as well as lawyers (see this summary as reported in the Guardian)

Truss later managed a half-apology, but the criticism never really died away and (in March 2017) the Lord Chief Justice piled in here.

Prisons Crisis

The effects of the drastic cuts implemented by Grayling led to a crisis which continued to escalate during Truss’ term of office. There was an escalation of assaults on prison staff, suicide and self-harm of prisoners, a “strike” by officers, violence, drugs, escapes and riots. How did Truss cope? Poorly is the general consensus – see eg here

PI Reform

Truss achieved better headlines for her “crack-down” on whiplash claims. But these “reforms” , badged as reducing insurance premiums supposedly over-inflated by dodgy claims and the “compensation culture” will in fact not help consumers, but harm those suffering genuine injury, and offer a bumper pay-out for insurance companies. See this article for the detail.

Six months In

In December Truss appeared in the Commons to announce that “barking dogs” would tackle the problem of drones being used to courier drug deliveries. Seriously. Read this article and play the clip where Truss announces this (to laughter). Could they? See the Guardian Pass Notes

Happy Christmas!

Liz Truss extended a special message to hedgehogs. Happy Christmas hedgehogs!

2017

February–slammed by lawyers following another “car-crash” TV Interview

First bill (23 February 2017) – the Prisons and Courts Bill (2017) covering four main areas:-

1 Prison safety and reform – described as a “new framework and clear system of accountability for prisons” It will “enshrine into law ” that a key purpose of prison is to reform and rehabilitate
2 Court reform: -another commitment to victims and the most vulnerable, as well as improving the system by digitisation. (But see here for critical commentary)
3 The judiciary – a better working environment for judges, modern court facilities + better IT
4 Whiplash compensation – new fixed tariffs capping whiplash compensation pay-outs

The bill has not yet been enacted.

April By April, Truss appeared out of her depth, and reports indicated she does not have the confidence of the Judiciary OR cabinet colleagues.

See this summary of her tenure, by Frances Crook (Howard League) . Meanwhile, with the election called, pundits predicted she would not last a full year -see eg this Legal Cheek piece by Joshua Rosenberg They were right.

May-June and the General Election Truss was largely absent for most of the General election campaign. But she did visit Wibsey!

Goodbye Truss, hello David Lidington

So Truss has left the full cabinet by being demoted to first secretary to the treasury, replaced by David Lidington. Lidington is the 3rd new lord chancellor in little more than two years. It used to be a job that the recipient would fulfil for a decade. He is also the fourth consecutive non-lawyer to have held the post. Read more about Lidington here.

Conclusion

If Truss had showed even half the enthusiasm for justice that she has for cheese, she could have really made her mark in an area crying out for reform. As it is, Truss lasted just 11 months in the job, the shortest tenure since the post was created, and has now been demoted.

Truss was not the worst Lord Chancellor in recent time (Grayling set a high standard for that) but she fell far short of what was required. She never appeared to be on top of her brief, abjectly failed to tackle the prison crisis, failed to stand up for the Judiciary, and does not appear to have a solitary positive achievement she can point to from her term of office.

Speech at CLFS Conference, May 13 2016

Intro

I am now all that stands between you and the Friday evening drink, and all that stands between you and the weekend. I therefore hope to be brief.

Although probably not as much as you hope that I will be brief.

I have been asked to speak on the topic of “the victory”, or the “win” by which I think is meant the climb-down earlier this year by the MOJ in respect of two tier contracting.
I have to say that this was very much a Pyrrhic victory, and although there was much relief, there was only muted celebration.

Much time, energy – and money – had been expended on tortuously difficult tendering documents, much anxiety hanging on the results. Firms had closed or merged in anticipation of the outcome, or planned mergers. Solicitors changed firms- only some voluntarily.

Some were bidders, some not, some “winners” some losers.

Then when contracts were awarded, those unfairly left out were minded to challenge the outcome, potentially in conflict with those awarded contracts.
What was Two Tier ?

Accompanying another 8.75% fee cut, yes the follow up to a the first 8.75% cut we had already absorbed, TT was the controversial contract-tendering procedure which would restrict the number of law firms permitted to do duty legal work.

It was hatched by the MOJ and initiated by Chris Grayling, the previous Injustice Secretary. It was supported -encouraged even- by some firms in the BFG.

It threatened to wreak havoc on a supplier base acknowledged to be fragile, and for comparatively modest savings.

This proposed enforced consolidation of the profession would have been effectively forcing many solicitors’ firms to merge or close.

This, despite an acknowledgement that over the last parliament annual spending on legal aid was reduced from £2.4bn to £1.6bn.

What went wrong?
TT was wrong in principle, but to add insult to injury it was ultimately botched in application.

Contracts were awarded, and a whistleblower revealed the marking had been carried out by unqualified temps from a recruitment agency.

So unsuccessful firms took legal action against the MOJ….

Take the example of EFBW:-

In October EFBW were informed by the LAA that they had been narrowly unsuccessful in their attempt to obtain a legal aid contract for duty solicitor work in Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets. EFBW brought legal challenges (represented by Bindmans) against the results of the procurement process in all three areas. Almost 100 other firms brought similar challenges.
The LAA then admitted that it made a basic transcription error in scoring at least one of EFBW’s bids, and that consequently EFBW should have been awarded a contract in Hackney.

The possibility of such an error was identified by Bindmans in October, but was not addressed by the LAA in pre action correspondence and a formal offer of ADR was not taken up.

The LAA sought to resist disclosure to other firms, and a Court order had to be requested.

Even after disclosure, the LAA ignored requests to settle EFBW’s claim and proceeded to file a defence that admitted the error but failed to acknowledge the consequences. Only later did they acknowledge that if the error had not been made, EFBW should have scored higher than at least one of the purported successful bidders, and therefore should have been awarded a contract.

The LAA still refused to settle the claim despite the fact that it should never have had to be brought, and summary judgement was sought.

So, increasingly firms involved were confident of victory, but the case rumbled on.
The Announcement.

In January the SoS for Justice, MIchael Gove announced that the plans for two-tier contracting and the cuts of 8.75% to legal aid fees for duty criminal solicitors were to be suspended.

This was a policy U-turn which followed many others, as Gove re-planted the scorched earth of the Grayling period.

Announcing the about-turn in a Commons written statement, Gove pointed out that awarding a limited number of “dual contracts” – under which solicitors take on duty legal aid work at police stations and magistrates courts as well as represent their own clients – would lead to a less diverse and competitive market.

WE COULD HAVE TOLD THEM THAT!

(WE DID TELL THEM THAT!!)

We had pointed out that natural consolidation was already taking place in the criminal legal aid market, as crime reduced and natural competition took place.
Gove also accepted his department had already made substantial savings.
Secondly,as he said:-

” it has become clear, following legal challenges mounted against our procurement process, that there are real problems in pressing ahead as initially proposed. My department currently faces 99 separate legal challenges over the procurement process, which has required us to stay the award of new contracts.

In addition, a judicial review challenging the entire process has raised additional implementation challenges. Given how delicately balanced the arguments have always been … I have decided not to go ahead with the introduction of the dual contracting system”
So ultimately it was the lawyers wot won it, using the only effective tactic in our armoury- the law.

We can celebrate the acts of those in the litigation that argued the tendering process was fundamentally flawed. There was also support even from those not directly involved:

big firms and small, private and legal aid,

two-tier contracts, single-tier contracts and lots- of -tears no contracts.

History of Campaign

Before the “victory” there were other battles in the ongoing war, with many skirmishes along the way. By ongoing war, I mean the continuing battle for legal aid lawyers to be properly paid.

First there was a consultation, or bearing in mind it was from the MOJ a NONsultation.

That was flawed, and had to be re-run.

Then there was the tendering procurement scheme itself, and the JR in which we argued the whole scheme was irrational.

The LCCSA was proud to have fought that battle, together with CLSA and TLS.

We lost.

And it was expensive.

We campaigned and fundraised.

Many of you contributed – thank you.

Counsel’s fees from a leading Admin set totalled around £150k (which goes to show why we should practice admin law not crim law)

That meant, despite generous donations, we depleted our reserves and gave our treasurer sleepless nights.

So the fact that we have survived as an Association, with membership steady, and in a period of consolidation, is a victory of sorts.
But campaigning had started long before the litigation

For example:-

On May 22nd 2013 the LCCSA organised a demo which generated national coverage

On the afternoon of the same day there was a national meeting attended by 1000 solicitors and barristers.

On 4th June (the closing date of the first consultation) another demo organised by solicitors outside the MOJ again with considerable national publicity.

By March the following year there was a day of action, a withdrawal of services from courts, called in some quarters a “strike”.

We had No Returns.

We had a protocol where firms agreed to sign up no new legal aid cases. Only a small minority breached that, some reluctantly for vulnerable own clients only, and fewer still took an opportunity to clean up or profit.

We learned solidarity, and began to trust each other.
But the truth is so far as funding is concerned, for years we have endured a slow death by a thousand cuts, a sustained attack, and only belatedly we learned to fight back.

We campaigned, protested, demonstrated, withdrew services, and went on strike.

We battled the most odious and incompetent of Lord Chancellors, the infamous Chris Grayling.

To be perfectly blunt, he was a bit of a

difficult man to engage with.

Grayling, known by all as “failing Grayling” was described by JH as a “turd that couldn’t be flushed”.Grayling didn’t like lawyers, and the feeling was mutual.

So, we rallied in Parliament square, outside Westminster Magistrates Court, the Old Bailey and MoJ HQ, and we walked from Runnymede to Westminster.
And we took legal action against the MoJ, with our JR at the High Court.
Much of this achieved little at the time, so maybe the “win” in January is something we should cherish.

The New Legal Aid Landscape

Right to legal aid is ‘basic human right’, Jeremy Corbyn told a Justice Alliance meeting at the start of this year.

Whether you area Corbynista or not, the fact that the Leader of a Political Party – the leader of the opposition no less – not only mentions legal aid but does so in a supportive way is a significant development.

Labour have initiated the Bach review into Legal Aid, and Gove has said that he is convening a committee or forum to discuss legal aid in a constructive way.

There was nothing constructive about relations/negotiations with Failing Grayling, so the political landscape has certainly changed.

Unity
Two years ago, Paul Harris spoke about the need for unity.

At that time, relations between leadership of the criminal bar and solicitors had reached a low point. Last year Greg Powell again spoke on the theme of unity. This followed a slightly fractious period- relations between solicitors and our friends at the bar had become strained. Like an old married couple, we were bickering, but I think we are living comfortably together again now.

At least until the next row!

We are working constructively on proposals for AGFS and litigator fees to try and make sure we are all properly paid for the work we properly do.

We can learn from what happened when Grayling successfully sought to divide and rule.

The lesson of unity is a simple one, especially where we have a common enemy.

United we stand, divided we fall.
Current Campaigns

There is always some horror lurking around the corner.

Currently, during this quiet period when Michael Gove has become the SoS for Brexit, our friends at the Sentencing Guidelines Council are consulting on the amount of credit for guilty pleas- and with some alarming proposals out there to reduce the incentive if the client didn’t cough and confess at point of arrest.

If not before.
BCM/ DCS/ PTPH/CJSM

Yes its acronym time – Bloody Case Management, Dire Case Systems and Pressure to Plead Hearings.

A good idea in principle- less hearings, less paper.

But the underlying problems have not gone away -inadequate disclosure, late disclosure, lack of legal aid, problem getting prison visits etc.

The LCCSA and CBA have worked hard to try and help this work, at a series of meetings, from the National Implementation Team (NIT) to the London Implementation Team (LIT)

Thankfully there hasn’t been further devolution to the Central London Implementation Team, or the South Hampstead Implementation Team, the anacronym of which may best sum up the whole mess.
Gove

Gove didn’t just abandon two-tier tendering.

He had already reversed many of Grayling’s money saving initiatives, including

-the ban on prisoners receiving books from their families

-the equally detested criminal courts courts charge, (the mandatory payment of up to £1,200 imposed on all convicted defendants irrespective or means or ability to pay

He forced the government to cancel a £5.9 million contract to advise the Saudi Arabian prison system.

He scrapped the commercial wing of the Ministry of Justice after human rights concerns.

And Gove abandoned plans to build a £100 million “secure college” for teenage prisoners.
But where is he now?

Missing in Action
He popped up at HCMC at the start of this year on a day where I also happened to be there, and as he was meeting everyone but the defence I ambushed him with a letter requesting a meeting, and he agreed.

We are still waiting.

But perhaps no news is good news.

We have had enough of diktat and pronouncement by highly paid civil servants at the MOJ , and we have had enough of cuts.

We cannot take any more.

The sustainability of the justice system relies on proper preparation and presentation of cases.

We all play our parts- barristers and solicitors.

Brothers and sisters in arms.

So yes we had a victory in January, but let’s not be fooled- that was a battle, and so far as legal aid is concerned there is an ongoing war.

At least we no longer have Grayling, who managed to combine total war with Cold War.

But depending on the outcome of the Euro Referendum, we may not have Mr Gove much longer, and who knows who will succeed him?
The LCCSA had virtually -and by necessity- re-invented ourselves as a campaigning organisation.

Thankfully, we have put the banners and t-shirts away, at least for now , and gone back to our core business- training events, representing criminal lawyers in London whether doing legal aid or not, and of course our famous social events.

Which presents me the chance to do my one “plug” – the LCCSA Summer Party, July 8th!

So it’s a half- cheer for the Victory in January, and a relief that we can get back to our day jobs.

Some of us will always remember where we were on the day when we heard the news of Gove’s announcement abandoning two-tier.

I certainly remember going to the pub to meet fellow lawyers to celebrate the victory.

Unhappily, I was in “dry January” and celebrated without the assistance of alcohol.

That bleak month has long passed, and I promised not too keep you too long from your drinks.

So I hope to see some of you in the pub- Steve has the details- and let us raise a glass to justice, celebrate solidarity, drink to the health of legal aid, and share a toast -to Victory.

Cheers!

Greg Foxsmith

President, LCCSA

Hillsborough Inquest – a lawyer’s perspective (guest blog by Anna Morris)

Dedicated to the memory of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster who died on 15 April 1989.

On 26th April 2016, I hugged two of my clients with elation after a jury of 6 women and 3 men set the record straight after 27 years about what happened at Hillsborough stadium on 15 April 1989. Moments later, they looked at each other and said, without missing a beat, “so, what do we do tomorrow?” They hadn’t dared to believe there could be a day when they would not have to fight for justice, to fight to clear the name of their loved one. This had been a life-defining fight for a generation of children, wives, parents and siblings of those 96 men, women, boys and girls.

The jury’s conclusions finally saw their families achieve something they recognise as justice. Much has rightly been reported about their tenacity, commitment and patience. But I want to say something about their humanity.

The families have endured the longest jury case in English legal history. 319 days of witnesses, evidence and submissions. For many of the families, attending Birchwood business park had become a full time job. Employers who asked, “haven’t you got over it yet?” had to be negotiated with, child-care had to be arranged, health problems had to be managed, life continued to be put on hold. But when they could be there, they were there. Sitting, listening. Waiting.

At the start of the process, many approached with caution after decades of being let down again and again by lawyers, judges and politicians. They had no reason to trust us, their lawyers but as they sat there in our conferences, polite but knotted tense with questions and anger, their thoughts were never just of themselves; “who will look after the jury?” “What about the survivors, who speaks for them?” “How do I find the man who helped our brother, I want to thank him?” We could only tell them, “we will try and get these answers for you. We hope we can”.

Most of the families had an encyclopedic knowledge of the papers disclosed as part of the Hillsborough Independent Panel. As their lawyers we had to be able to call up documents at the click of a finger to answer the broad and complex questions that troubled them. More than one set piece of witness examination conducted by our team of advocates was centered on a document recalled through the mists of time by one of our clients, tracked down in the 250,000 plus pages of disclosed material. In fact, one of my clients, when she presented 10 neatly typed pages of devastatingly precise and searching questions to Operation Resolve, the Coroner’s Investigation team, was (with only a hint of humour) offered a job as an investigator. We all had to be at our best. No one wanted to let these families down.

But on many occasions, it was our clients looking after us, using their 27 years of pain to help us navigate our way through the sea of changing emotions. From flasks of pea-whack soup served from the boot of a car, to cups of tea in their homes, we were shown such warmth and respect that it was truly humbling. I took great strength from one client who, when I asked her how she kept going through all the lies being told about her brother, about him being a drunken hooligan who caused his own death, she simply smiled broadly and answered, “eyes and teeth, eyes and teeth”. I have repeated that mantra many times since that day.

During the inquest I was the mother to one young boy and pregnant with a second. I was representing the family of boys who were 15 and 19 when they died and I was incredibly moved by the loss of so many young boys’ lives. I couldn’t imagine them just not coming home one day. One client, on the morning of her young son’s inquest, presented me with a bag full of hand knitted baby clothes specially made for my son. It absolutely floored me that this woman could even think about anyone else in the circumstances, let alone extend such deep kindness. I have a drawer full of beautiful blankets and clothes, made by those strong women of Liverpool. Nothing could make me prouder.

When my youngest son finally made his first trip to Birchwood, he was passed from mother to mother, bounced on knees and fussed over as if he was one of their own. It only struck me later, like a tidal wave, that I had been swapping teething, sleeping and feeding stories about children who would never grow old.

There are many small moments that made the Hillsborough Inquests more than just an inquiry into the circumstances into how 96 people died that day. Moments that might have started in the court room but resonated far wider. The pen portraits that painted the real pictures of 96 cherished loved ones who attended a football match and never came home with humour and dignity. The vigorous handshake in the corridor between a father and the off-duty Metropolitan Police Officer who pulled his son from the pen, the damp-eyed slap on the back for the fellow fan that carried someone’s brother on a stretcher and wished he could have done more. The sympathetic words for colleagues who also lost loved ones during the months of the inquests. The jurors who when discharged when court concluded that final time, were each hugged by the families, each thanked for their commitment. The families in their grace never left anyone un-thanked. I hope that those witnesses, relieved of their burden after 27 years were the lighter for it.

Every day of the inquest we shared tea and tears with those who traveled to that grey box on a business park. On the some of the most difficult days of evidence, the families would always be able to find a joke, a smile and a hug for each other. Willing each other on. Someone was always in charge of making sure there was milk for tea and the biscuit tin was always full.

They are the best in all of us. It could have been any of us in their shoes whose brother, father, sister or son went to that match. They have defied the state’s attempt to define them by gender, geography, class or type. We can all aspire to their dignity and strength. It has been a privilege to walk with them on a small part of their journey.

No one can now deny the success and the power of the families’ campaign for justice all these years. They are the reason that 96 verdicts of ‘accidental death’ were quashed. It is their demands that ensured the truth has now been heard. We should never be in doubt that this is the reason why families should be at the heart of the inquest system.

Anna Morris, May 2016

NOTES/LINKS

Hillsborough Independent Report: http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk (disclosed materials and report)

Inquest Charity: http://www.inquest.org.uk/

Michael Mansfield: “Hillsborough families were my rock ” (Liverpool Echo)

A full if harrowing account of the evidence, the inquest and the outcome reported in the Guardian here.

Why the police “apology” was neither sincere or believable explained by Mark George QC.

Call for a rebalance of the justice system and equality of arms at Inquest hearings (reported here in the Guardian May 2016)

Another Hillsborough Lawyer, Elkan Abrahamson, interviewed here in the Liverpool Echo.

And don’t miss this survivor’s account by Adrian Tempany. Powerful and moving.

About the author

Anna Morris is a barrister at Garden Court chambers. Anna’s practice focuses on criminal justice and civil liberties and encompasses criminal defence and appellate advice, inquests into deaths in custody, civil actions against the police and public law. A human rights specialist, Anna has extensive experience of successfully representing clients whose cases challenge public policy and promote civil liberties. Read full profile on Chambers website here.