Death by a thousand cuts

So it seems all are expecting The Lord chancellor to replace plan a with inevitable plan b, cuts. 

Does no one up there see the reality of what is going on down here in the trenches? 

An example at the same time they have published the quasa fee structure. That is how much every criminal solicitor will need to pay to practice in the mags. Isn't that why we pay our practising certificate fee  and duty scheme fee?

If you want to practice as hca there are more fees. The feeling is we are being bled dry. 

Cuts to fees and increased costs plus rising inflation followed by reducing volume , doesn't take an accountant to work out the inevitable. 

Too thick to pick

Our non lawyer but Lord Chancellor has deemed those clients of criminal firms too thick to pick their own lawyer. Instead he wants the state that is prosecuting you to choose for you. 

The state will squeeze those solicitors by price competitive tendering into offering only an adequate service. Is that one asks to reduce the chance of the state losing a case? Irrespective of whether they are guilty or innocent. 

It's strange but mr Grayling seems to forget that these clients are also able to pick an mp and the political party they decide are capable of running the country. The ones we have spoken to in relation to the pct proposals are telling us that not only are they not too thick to pick but they shall be picking at the next election and it won't be you mr Grayling or you Mr Cameron Mr Clegg they feel that having looked at the market they will exercise their right to choose a party and an mp who is not destroying their rights. 

You have misjudged the public feeling about the guardians against the state there is still time to stop this disaster and to support the big society by safeguarding what the public see as their right to choose a lawyer to protect them against the state and to provide them fair funding to allow that to be done. 

Why do we need criminal lawyers?

The most asked question we get is how do you do it representing the guilty? 

The first thing is not everyone is guilty. The police do get it wrong. 25% are innocent. The cornerstone of our system and why we are held out as the best justice system in the world is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Why? Because it is better that a few guilty walk free than one innocent man goes to prison wrongly. 

However that is not the end of it because yes we do represent guilty people. Firstly we only know they are guilty when they accept it and instruct us so. Secondly even guilty people need to be treated fairly. The prosecution have the resources of the police and will be represented by the Crown Prosecution Service. Literate often degree level and beyond educated, experienced and trained. We have always believed that a defendant guilty or not should not be disadvantaged by their lack of training,education or experience. We simply provide our clients with access to someone with the same level of skill as the prosecution.

Most of my clients are illiterate. Unable to read the papers let alone formulate questions to ask in an articulate way during a trial. Nor could they present their mitigation in line with the guidelines. Even the literate struggle to do so and all lack the training or experience.

Why so important ? We do not want an increase of miscarriages of justice. No more Sally Clarkes or Guildford four, Birmingham 6 the list is endless. 

We know the public purse is not bottomless, but justice is the cornerstone of a civilised country. Legal representation without choice using the cheapest bidders who are from the same companies that are also running the prisons, probation, transport to court and any other arm the moj can sell off, is no justice at all. We will end up like America where the rich pay their way out of trouble and the poor cant afford representation so are given a poorly paid public defender who is only interested in moving the case off their desk. 

We all want the system to work but not cut price that destroys it and allows the creation of a police state. Exaggeration? A weak defence will lead to erosion of protection of the innocent and the police will take more and more ground until it will be guilty unless you can afford a proper defence.

Law society fit for purpose?

After Des Hudson's failure to grasp the truth behind Graylings threats to the bar and his planned removal of client choice as an extinction level event, one has to ask is the law society fit for the purpose of protecting our criminal justice system.

Every criminal solicitor I have spoken to is opposed to pct and standing firm with our bar friends. They all know that Graylings proposals will create a two tier justice system where the rich will be more likely to be acquitted than the poor. Think oj Simpson.

Will criminal solicitors give up like the law society or band together to fight for our clients, the justice system and ourselves?

Failed new world #grayling

Yesterday represented a client have known for 12 years, he presents well but has post traumatic stress disorder as result of his upbringing which he can't talk about with new people.

Under new system will get a faceless defender he doesn't know and who has no idea of his complex background and won't find out about it given his mental health problems. Likely would have gone to prison and as solicitor not know would likely have harmed himself or worse.

Under the old system he selected the solicitor who has represented him for years. All the relevant information is given to court . Non custodial sentence passed client happy and alive.

What guards?

Who guards the guards?
I have always believed that a strong criminal defence solicitor is the guard against a police state and miscarriages of justice. Thus allowing the public to know if the state turned its might against them wrongly then there would at least be someone to protect them.

This government has now put forward the removal of the defence. Accused will no longer be able to choose who defends them. If you earn between you and spouse more than £37k you will have to pay, oh and even if you win you can't get your money back.

The rate of pay is to be so low that there will not be any firms left able to pay for quality advocates. We will end up with a copy of the American two tier system where the rich choose who they want and receive a rolls Royce service. The poor will get a public defender allocated to them and the rates so poor they will be lucky if they get a robin reliant service.

We know most people have little to no sympathy with criminals but perhaps you should know that 25% of people charged with an offence are Innocent!

I have represented teachers, doctors, dentists, nurses all alleged to have committed a crime when in fact they had not.

The government call us fat cats and talk of those earning Upto £500k a year. Ironically the only such people are to be excluded from theses changes. This will affect grass roots firms that in reality are working unsocial hours at the police station and courts for rates that have been frozen for 20 years and reduced in the last few years till we are on less than plumbers mechanics and many others.

We don't do this job for the money, if we wanted that we would have become commercial solicitors. We do it as a vocation, we are the guards. Don't let this government destroy the last safety net before decent into a police state.