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.