Never mind the offside rule in football.. what about real life?

Share | Obviously men of a certain age and men of a certain mindset still think of women as stay at home babysitters whilst the hunter gatherer goes to work, drinks beer and watches footy.

I don't watch football regularly. I played as a Scout many years ago and at Uni I played 5-a-side. I have been to two Premier League games. I found the racism, agression from the fans and the segregation overwhelming. I couldnt wait to get home.

I dont understand those supporters to whom I have talked who love the agression directed towards opposing fans and the officials on the pitch.

I do watch rugby union. I played it for many years. I refereed for a while. I love the atmposphere and friendliness of rugby-although I have noted a tendency by commentators and supporters to start the "blame the ref" approach one associates with football.

Two really important people from Sky Sports were recorded having a private conversation about a female assistant referee before a game had started. Apparently football is a man's game, played by men, watched by men, run by men and organised by men. That's proabably why England do so well in competitions?

Lots of girls and women play football as they do rugby and other "male" sports. I have to say that my one experience of a female rugby referee was that she was really very badly treated on one occasion by drunken young men at Novos when she took charge of a game.

I also don't like the way some women feel able to talk about "men" as if somehow we are all the same.

Imagine if I walked into a school and started ranting at the headmistress because she was a woman. Or what if I ran up the ailse of a plane-or church-and ranted at the pilot-or the Minister-that she was a "f------g stupid bitch who knew nuthin about flying bloody planes -or communicating with God and preaching".

Would it matter if I was at home, in the bath, thinking such thoughts? Is it acceptable for me to think racist thoughts, sexist thoughts, thoughts of jealousy, evny and hatred so long as I dont express them "publicly"?

Can women referee premier league football? Of course they can.

Can women referee international rugby? Of course they can.

Can women fly aeroplanes? Yes.


Is what the Sky Sports presenters said-even though it was a private conversation- wrong? Of course it is. It cannot be justified by calling it "banter" or by saying "well women say men cant multi-task".

It was outdated, bigoted, ill-considered, opinionated rubbish-that is all too prevalent still in sport, the world of business and in the legal world.

I have two daughters. I wish for them to achieve the best they can. I want them to be confident enough in themsleves to be able to do what they wish. If they wish to be a home maker then fine. If they wish to work and have a family fine. If they wish to have a career only then fine. What I don't want for them is to be subject to the prejudices, bigotry and hatred that is still directed at women.

I have a son. When he was born-after two daughters-some said to me how happy I must be to have a son. I was happy he was born. I was happy he was healthy and my wife was healthy. I wasn't pleased that finally I'd got a boy because I didnt view the girls as trial and error until I'd finally hit the jackpot. I wish for him to achieve as I wish for my daughters. I suspect his life in business or in sport would be a lot easier than that of his sisters, if they were to choose that path.

That for me is the worst about what the Sky Sports presenters said. Women are still not allowed to strive for and achieve what they wish to strive for and achieve. There are still barriers, unnecessary and arbitrary limitations. Those barriers do not make sense. They are unjustified. Comments which suggest a justification for such barriers and limitations are unjustifiable.

Neither of the Sky Sports presenters has yet apologised. That's been done for them by their employer. Not man enough to say sorry or to explain their views?

Female Liberation. History and Current Politics

Cant take it with you

Share | Sir Gerry Robinson explores the pain and emotion that making a will can cause by exploring the desires of the will maker with family and friends before the will is made.

There is a presumption in this country that children have the right to inherit their parents' property. They do not. A parent can make a will and dispose of property however he or she feels fit.

Discussing these issues before hand can alleveiate strife, anger and dispute after death. Thinking carefully about how property should be disposed of is essential. Talking about these issues (a very unBritish thing to do) should become the norm.


However, more important even than a will are Lasting Powers of Attorney. Our facebook page (see link to right of this post) provides information on this issue as does our website.


Whether its a will, an LPA or probate then Emmersons can help.




 

PC Mitchell Jailed

Share | I wont get very technical about the sentence given to this Police man but he has been given an indeterminate sentence. That means he could stay in prison for life.

Could he be released? Yes
When? When the Parole Board consider that he is no longer a danger to the public, after 7.5 years.
How do they assess that? By reading reports from an Offender Superviser, Probation, other prison personnel, psychologists/psychiatrists. The reports refer to his performance on various courses, his general behaviour in prison and his mental health. His attitude to women would be assessed.
So he gets out after 7.5 years? No. That is the earliest date the Parole Board can consider him for release.
But he could get out shortly thereafter? Very very doubtful. Most IPP prisoners serve at least twice the tarriff before being released. Those who are considered a danger are not released.


If you want more information on IPP sentences then  you need look no further than our Facebook page
 

It’s those January blues again and Divorce is "very popular"!

At the start of January Tim dragged himself out of bed to go back to work after the Christmas break. He had not enjoyed the holiday period as he and his wife Sally had spent the entire time arguing. Just before he left for work Sally said that she needed to speak to him. What she said next came as a shock. She no longer loved him, she had found someone else and she wanted a divorce. She also said that he was to leave the house as soon as possible but that he could see the children on a regular basis. Reeling from this news Tim arrived at Emmersons solicitors for advice.



Tim was told that he had as much right to live in the matrimonial home as Sally. They should decide whether the house should be sold and the proceeds split between them (not necessarily in equal shares). Alternatively one of them could buy out the other’s share.

Tim was advised not to move out until these issues were sorted out. Things could become very difficult for him if Sally’s new partner decided to move in before all financial matters were settled! As far as the children were concerned, it was established that Tim had been a very hands on Dad. He was used to caring for the children when Sally was at work. He was used to taking them to school. There was no reason why Sally should decide that she should be the main carer.


Tim was asked to start collecting all of his financial documentation. This included details of his pension, savings and salary and the value of the matrimonial home. Sally’s solicitor would provide all of her financial documents. Then an offer could be put forward to settle matters.


Emmersons were able to liase with a mortgage advisor with Tim’s authority. Basic details were given, the idea being to find out how much by way of a new mortgage Tim could raise either to buy out Sally or to purchase a new home for himself.


Armed with this knowledge Tim advised Sally that he would not be moving out and that he would continue to take the children to school every day as he had always done. Sally was so desperate to be with her new partner that she moved out. She was prepared to allow Tim to buy her out. Whilst this is not a happy ending story it gives a flavour of how people can be helped with the right advice.

January is the busiest time for divorce lawyers. Christmas can be a very stressful time for couples who have been struggling to get along. They often find themselves thrown together for nearly two weeks and at the end of that time one party often feels that they can’t go on with the relationship. Anyone in this position should seek advice before making any rash decisions.

And don’t dismiss Relate as “not for me.” There are many out there who have lived to fight another day together.

What about 2011?

Share |
This year was an awful year for family legal aid solicitors and for others who had to "bid" for work. Some firms took the view that there was no point and pulled out of legal aid altogether. Others took an opportunity to bid speculatively for work in areas that they had not previously had a presence. This course of action resulted in firms established in certain geographic areas not being awarded contracts because of the might of "incomers". Those incomers then advertised for people to work for them and had to find premises. 

Some companies are used to bidding for contracts with local Government and with central Government. The process adopted by teh LSC was cumbersome and didn't work very well. It is based upon the idea that catually those entitled to legal aid are 2customers" and the LSC is a commissioning body. The problem with the tender process is that the LSC cannot guarantee volume nor-as happened with family-can the LSC guarantee that Government policy wont adversely affcet the numbers of potential clients ( egthrough changes to eligibility).

The Legal Services Commission had published the criteria so late in the day that many firms were left floudering when it came to the bidding process. It was clear that Emmersons Solicitors did not meet the criteria that had been set but published only two months ahead of bidding. We had only one Family Panel member. Why? Because there had not been nor was there any need to be a member of a panel other than to fulfill supervision requirements. There was no need for all Solicitors to be on a panel. There was no advantage to us or to the clients in having all Solicitors on a panel.

Following the initial bidding process we were told we had not been awarded a contract. Other firms in Sunderland were in a similar position.

Initially I did not care. It was a relief to be shot of the legal aid contract. It is not remunerative. It involves a lot of bureaucracy and interference from the LSC.

However I eventually got angry enough to threaten Judicial Review proceedings. I got angry because of the performance of Hugh Barrett on BBC News 


The LSC maintained then and maintains now that the criteria were well known-they were not. That they were sensible and that the LSC could rely upon them-they are not nor should the LSC rely upon them. Also the LSC maintained that actually the cull of Solicitors' firms offering legal aid was NOT a bad thing and was a good thing as it maintained client choice.


I did some research. The LSC were well aware in June 2009 through the Quality Working Group that there was no evidence that accreditation was an indicator of quality. No detailed research had been undertaken on this point. So why did they use accreditation as a bid criteria? To get rid of firms.

Thankfully the Law Society undertook and succeeded in a Judicial Review, in which the LSC were heavily criticised.


The real problem is that the LSC has created a bureaucratic web that makes administering legal aid expensive. The blame for this rests with the lSC. To control costs the LSC has decided to reduce the number of Solicitors and others who provide publicly-funded advice. The LSC sets quality standards, audits files and firms, spends ages looking at how claims have been submitted. The LSC fails to recognise that it is this bureaucracy that needs to be addressed. If the systems of claiming-what is inevitably a fixed fee-were simpler and if there was no auditing by the LSC then costs would be reduced dramatically.


The Solicitors Regulation Authority regulates Solicitors. The SRA are responsible for quality. There is no need for the LSC to get involved in that.


There is no need for auditing IF a proper, simple payment regime can be created.


The LSC needs to look at how legal aid is administered and change its philosophy. 


The LSC is under pressure. For the second year the National Audit Office would not sign off the LSC's accounts. Apparently too much money was paid to Solicitors. Why? The payment sytem is disproportionately complicated when compared to the fee per case. Of course the LSC was quick to blame Solicitors.


In 2011 it would be very nice if the MoJ and LSC stopped telling me and other Solicitors why we need to do it their way and instead talked to us about how to make the system better.

The SRA wishes to introduce Outcome Focused Regulation. The main reason for this appears to be that it will make things easier for me and will be really good. The truth is that it makes it easier for the SRA to be the Regulator of  ABS's (Alternative Business Structures). OFR is unnecessary and will create chaos and disaster for clients and for Solicitors. It makes no sense. The SRA did not ask the profession if we wanted OFR. We were told it was coming and we have been consulted on delivery not principle. It is a pointless waste of time and effort.

In 2011 it would be nice if the SRA listened to what Solicitors are saying and stopped telling us how good OFR is going to be for us. 

The Ministry of Justice wishes to reform sentencing and punishment. It wishes to reform a lot of the justice systems and impose upon those who are publicly funded a requirements to use mediation to resolve divorce issues. It is with such contempt that those who receive legal aid are held that they are told what system of justice best suits them. They have no choice-unless they meet certain criteria or are prepared to pay privately.

There has been a lot of criticism this year by Judges about legislation, the Family Courts massacre and on legal issues such as enforced mediation. The MoJ, rather like Labour, does not wish to hear from dissenters. Those who oppose do so for reasons of self interest.

The MoJ and LSC know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

In 2011 it would be nice if the Government reviewed how the justice systems operate, how they are funded and how access to those systems is funded. 

My guess is that a lot of what the MoJ and Government in general proposes for Justice will not see the light of day. Towards the end of 2011 there is to be a further competitive tendering process for criminal contracts. My hope is that the ConDems realise that they meddle too much in legal aid provision and that a thorough, open and honest review is required. Competiive price Tendering is unnecessary.

I hope that the LSC/MoJ will release the research to justify the oft-made claim that England and Wales spends more per capita than any other country. One wonders if this statistic is as accurate as the data gathered on WMD in Iraq?

In 2011 I hope that the LSC/MoJ adopts an honest approach to how it conducts the "reform" of legal aid instead of lying at every cut and turn about what it aims to do and why what has been done has been done. Lying may be a strong word-but it accurately describes how the top executives of the LSC and how the civil servants in the MoJ pronounce on legal aid reform. If you watch the performance of the LSC before the Justice Committee you will see what I mean.
 
 

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

When we sit down for Christmas Dinner let us remember those people less fortunate than ourselves.

May God bless you, keep you safe and ease your trouble and help you see the beauty that there is in this world and in you.

This song may be about God??!

Ken Clarke QC before Justice Committee

Share |
Ken Clarke QC is an interesting politician. He has held high office. He appears to be "liberal" in thought and word-yet I cant help thinking his motivation is more to do with simply saving money.

It is so easy to start talking about outcomes as a tool by which to measure success. Imagine if that happened in health care where hospitals only got paid if a patient survived, or in eduaction where teachers only got paid or schools funded if a certain percentage of pupils got certain grades.

Why is criminal justice and sentencing any different?

On the other hand addressing issues through intervention stratagies that work makes sense. There would be no point having Probation courses for sex offenders that involved cleaning out canals. The core problem related to offending by the specific offender must be addressed-the problem is some don't want to be changed-so is that the fault of Probation?

Enough!

Here's Ken Clarke QC, Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary of England and Wales before the House of Commons Justice Committee.

Courts to close

Share |One of the great joys of English and Welsh Justice is the connection that a community can feel with its Magistrates' Court. Local people can apply to become magistrates and dispense local Justice in both criminal and family cases to those whpo appear before the Court.

Now some 140 Courts are to close.

Is this a bad thing? Yes. Was it inevitable? Yes, with this Government. Why? Because it is clear that price is much more important than worth. One cannot easily place a price tag on value.

The fact that people will have to travel further, that soem jobs will be lost, that the local connection will disappear is of concern. It also seems to conflict with the idea of the Big Society.

On the other hand the numbers of people coming to Court were reduced through Government policy (that is of the last Government) by allowing cautions and conditional cautions and Penalty Notices for Disorder to be issued on people who would have in the past appeared at Court. Allied to this is a reluctance-again as a result of Government policy-to charge people to Court unless they really are guilty. People who may in the past have pleaded or who may have been found guilty are not even charged with an offence. Too many people in the CPS are scared to make decisions that go against policy. Is this Justice?

Add into it the desire to reduce the numbers in custody-quite correctly-and I wonder how long it is before the ConDems start getting attacked by all sections of the community and media.

 

Justice Committe ask the MoJ Mandarin some questions on costs and legal aid

ParliamentLive.tv 
click on the Title or ParliamentLive .tv link to view the session. Better than the "X Factor"!!

Share|

A very interesting committe examination of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice by the Justice Committee.

1 hour 15 minutes may seem like a long time out of your life but if you are interested in legal aid, wish to get a glimpse into the thinking of the Permanant Secretary and his staff and understand how MPs view the MoJ and legal aid then it is worth watching.


If you are a mediator, an advice worker, a barrister or a Solicitor then it is of interest to you.

What would also be interesting would be to see the research that the MoJ has undertaken/reviewed to show that England and Wales spends £38 per head and countries such as Australia and New Zealand on £7-£8 per head of population on legal aid. Hopefully it will be disclosed.


The question was asked is it a question of volume or value. The answer seems to be that alternatives such as mediation in family cases will save money.


So family solicitors bid for contracts in relation to which the plan is to cut eligibility and to limit solicitor involvement.

A guide to ABS's

If you can get by the lengthy and noisy intro this is an interesting Introduction to ABS's provided by Birmingham Law Society and the threat that ABS's MIGHT pose to Solicitors. Whether they will pose a real threat or not is unclear. The full extent of the activity of ABS's is more limited than some would have you believe.

Well worth viewing

Please BLS, less pyrotechnics in the next one and get straight to the point.

Someone you know may need our help

Share | Does your relationship feel like a 5-1 defeat?

It can be difficult-especially at Christmas-to leave partner, children, home and start anew. You may not have to.

We encourage all clients to think about Marriage/Relationship Counselling.

If the relationship has ended that does not mean you should be cut off from your children. You can mediate, you can negotiate and, if necessary, you can litigate.
Men especially are put under a lot of pressure to keep the kids out of it and to agree with whatever contact the ex allows. In fact this behaviour by the ex-unless of course the contact is reasonable-is putting the children right in the middle of the dispute as weapons to punish and control the former partner.

Many men go along with it whilst goodness knows what is being told to the children. We have had situations where men have been so compliant with the ex partner's demands that they were unaware that the children were being told that Daddy no longer cared.

If it is at all possible both adult parties should agree contact that allows the children equal access to both parents.

Children need their parents-both parents. They too can suffer terribly if the divorce is conducted like  some horrific PS 3 war game.

“Where did it all go wrong?”

Share | Those were the words of Christina who came to see us recently. Her husband had told her that their marriage was over and that he was leaving her. She had thought that they had a strong relationship and she was very happy. Roger however, had told her that he had been unhappy for a long time.


Christina did not know where to start, she did not know where she stood legally and she now sought legal advice.Christmas can be a very stressful time for people if their relationship is already difficult. Often a couple will find themselves together for nearly two weeks when usually they do not spend much time together at all. This can exacerbate problems. In some cases one person has been having an affair and they decide to leave after Christmas. January and February are the busiest months for divorce lawyers.

If you find yourself in Christina or Roger’s position do not panic. It may be that relationship counselling will work for you as a couple. If however, you have concluded that your marriage or relationship cannot be saved then seek initial advice. We have included a list on the family pages of our web site (emmersons-solicitors.co.uk) which is designed to help you. Your solicitor will need basic financial information from you in order to give you advice in relation to a financial settlement. Different rules apply depending upon whether you are married, in a civil partnership or cohabiting.

Many people come to see us thinking that everything has to be sorted out immediately. This is a normal reaction to what is often a huge shock. My advice would be to seek initial information from a solicitor so that you will have an overview of your position. Then consider giving yourself some thinking time. If your spouse or partner is demanding that you leave the house or that the house be sold this does not have to happen today or even this week. The decisions you make now could have long term consequences. As a solicitor I see my job as being to help a client plan as far ahead as possible. Eg. What will your pension provision look like ten years from now?

If you want to know where you stand legally see a solicitor before you make any decisions especially in relation to leaving your home.

Life is a maze-sometimes you need help to get through it.

Jacqueline Emmerson
Senior Partner

The Justice Secretary's view on sentencing and rehabilitation

Share | I like these proposals. They are fresh and challenging. The truth about prison is that it is a very good place to keep people out of society-away from potential victims. The truth about that is that prisoners dont feel part of society.
For many prisoners simply trying to get to grips with the idea that someone else matters is a big deal. Many lack empathy-that's why they persistently commit crime. The most important person in their world is them. They are in fact their entire world.
Giving a prisoner a conscience, making them empathise with others will reduce offending-that and addressing issues such as not being able to read and write, drug addiction and alcohol abuse. Many prisoners I have met are angry. That needs to be addressed.
There are too many prisoners who require access to resources in prison who cannot access them fully because resources are limited.

I have heard people describe prison as a holiday camp. I have been in the prisons of the North East and in Belmarsh, London. I cant describe any as a holiday camp. What do people mean by that? I guess the feeling is that if prison is an awful place people wont wish to return. The last thing any person committing an offence thinks about is the punishment.

Recently on FiveLive when the sentencing of offenders was discussed one caller described how a person he knew and had visited in Notingham Prison viewed it as a "holiday camp". Its not a horrible place but HM Inspectorate's latest report doesn't describe a holiday camp.

In the Green Paper questions are asked as to how sentencing can be explained better to the public. Apart from organising visits to prison for those who would like to feed the animals I guess more documentaries that accurately show what goes on in prison would help.

I have also heard people saying that prisoners have more rights (or more human rights) than the victims-what does that mean? How can a person in custody have more human rights than someone not in custody? Prisons are cramped-prisoners spend lots of time locked up unless they are lucky enough to have a job and violence and the threat of violence along with drug abuse is rife.

One of the reasons that Labour introduced IPP sentences is because they wanted to be seen to be tough. They wanted to put the victim first. How IPP sentences affect families of offenders is of little concern to most people but if what IPP sentences does to offenders and families (as set out in an article on Guardian online by Charlotte Rowles) was taking place abroad there would be uproar.

The whole point about the criminal justice system is that the defendant is at the centre of it. Efforts to move the focus to victims or to introduce "punishment" so as to placate the editors of UK tabloids (without properly assessing the worth of the proposals or properly funding the processes) has created a mess. The Green paper addresses IPP sentences.

This is the start of a consultation-well worth taking part in.

The LSC before the Justice Committee 30/11/10

On parliament.tv I watched recently the quizzing of the LSC hierarchy by the Justice Committee.
The LSC still maintains that it indicated that membership of a panel would be an important criteria of the family tender process. It doesn’t seem to matter to the LSC that at no point before Feb 2010 when the tender documents were published did the LSC mention that caseworkers would have to be members of an accreditation panel. This was the real reason along with the lack of time to prepare that the Administrative court decided for The Law Society and against the LSC (something the LSC seems to wish to ignore).
What has also been ignored is the fact that the LSC and Resolution and The law Society and others knew in June 2009 that accreditation was not an indicator of quality. How then the LSC felt able to rely upon membership of an accreditation panel as a bidding criteria is also unclear.
Extract from QWG minutes

Accreditation Research
AS (Avrom Sherr of IALS) gave a very brief update on the result of the research carried out to find whether there was a correlation between accreditation profile and peer review results.
257 family providers were sent a questionnaire and 18% of them returned it. AS said that the questionnaire was too detailed and slightly confusing, which he thought had affected response rate and data quality. Analysis of the results indicated that there was no correlation between the number of accredited advisers working at a firm and the peer review score. However, the proportion of fee earner time spent on legal aid work did correlate with a higher score at peer review. AS stated that accreditation had not yet been proved a meaningful measure of quality.
In response to points made about the low number of Below Competence scores in peer review, AS commented that it appeared that practitioners did understand what peer reviewers, who are themselves practitioners, were looking for when reviewing files. This meant that Peer Review had an effect more generally than just on those providers reviewed.
AS said that a more formal report on the outcome of the accreditation research would be made available to the group.

No “formal report” has been provided to QWG or if it has been provided it has not been disclosed. What is there to hide? That Accreditation is a waste of time and merely a money-spinning exercise for those who accredit Solicitors? A robust and meaningful system of CPD and assessment (aligned to a pro-active education programme in relation to business management, marketing etc etc and Ethics) is far better than accreditation and re-accreditation, in my view.
What is most worrying about the Judgment against the LSC is the fact that Sarah Kovac Clark was found to have made an unjustifiable assertion concerning approval by The Law Society and others to the criteria for caseworker accreditation

“By January 2010 the LSC still did not know what the selection criteria were to be, and they had not yet been announced. But there is controversy as to whether the representatives of the Law Society, at a meeting on 15 January 2010, were asked to endorse the selection criteria which it was proposed to adopt.
70. In her statement dated 13 September 2010, Eleanor Druker, an employee of the LSC, states that the purpose of the meeting was to seek the views of the representative bodies on the proposed criteria. Sarah Kovac Clark goes so far as to say that the approach of awarding points for panel membership and experience was endorsed by the Law
Society, Resolution and the LAPG (see paragraph 47).
71. This we reject. We can only attribute this unjustifiable assertion to the pressures of urgency in the preparation for this litigation imposed on LSC's officials. The contemporaneous document that has been produced by Mr Miller in his third statement at paragraph 34 (an e-mail in November) shows that what was proposed was an
informal workshop-style session to review the terms of the tender documentation (see paragraph 34 of Mr Miller's third statement).
72. Ann Graham, a policy adviser in the legal aid team at the Law Society, describes in her statement how the documents containing the criteria were circulated at the meeting and had to be handed back at the end of the meeting. There was no possibility of consulting
those for whom the Law Society was responsible, since neither advance sight of those documents was given, nor could they be taken away. It is difficult in the light of the process described by Ms Graham to see how it could have been called an endorsement.
73. Further, the meeting of 15 January demonstrates what we were told during the course of argument by Mr Lewis QC, frankly, on behalf of the LSC that the final decision as to the criteria had not even been made then. On the contrary, at that meeting there was
still a possibility that scoring would allow of experience to count as highly as accreditation by panel membership (see Graham's statement at paragraph 16 (and in relation to domestic abuse experience and accreditation see Druker at paragraph 22).
74. Moreover, as the e-mail of November 2009, quoted by Mr Miller, indicates, apparently a decision had been made not to publish the criteria and scoring in advance of the announcement of the tender. That, it was pointed out by Ms Druker in her e-mail, would give an unfair advantage to those who were consulted who themselves proposed
to tender (see Druker at paragraph 18). It is difficult, in the light of those factors, to describe any reaction at that meeting as being "approval on behalf of a representative body".”
The Judgment

My conclusion is that the LSC is willing and prepared to say anything but the truth to advance the policy of the MoJ in “reforming” legal aid.
What this also shows (see para 74 above) is that there were some firms and groups who had been consulted about the criteria who had an advantage in that they could have surmised (correctly as it turned out for the tender process) that accreditation for all staff and the office cat would be worth pursuing to gain an advantage.
My suggestion for reform of legal aid is to scrap the LSC. Court and Tribunal based legal aid should be granted and controlled and paid by HMCS. Non Court based legal aid should be granted by The Law Society and scrutinised by the SRA. In one fell swoop we could rid ourselves of an unnecessary level of bureaucracy that adds nothing to the delivery of publicly funded advice and representation to those who need it. As MoJ sets the policy then MoJ can set the legal aid Regulations and Funding Code.
The MoJ needs to look at the Justice systems and consider how they are funded and how access to those systems should be funded. They should have no pre-conceived ideas or pathways or any other pseudo-biz speak notions and should consult openly with Solicitors and other participants in the systems.
An understanding of what legal aid is should be reached: is it a benefit (as with Income Support) available to consumers of legal services direct for them to spend (that would sort out eligibility) or is it a method by which those who cannot afford to pay for legal advice are able to obtain that legal advice at no direct cost to them with the provider of legal advice or representation being compensated directly by the State. This distinction provides a different emphasis with the “consumer” becoming a client (again) of the Solicitor and with remuneration coming from the State.
The problem at present is that the LSC, as a Commissioning body, believes that Solicitors’ clients are in fact their consumers and their responsibility-hence a huge and disproportionate bureaucracy.
Does the State have an obligation to ensure quality legal advice is provided or is that a job for the Regulator? This discussion has not yet been started-it must be. All the past and current chatter about legal aid reform is spume on the sea of justice reality.
There is a huge gap between the LSC’s desire to ensure that only those entitled to legal aid should have access to legal aid and the need of those seeking advice-who cannot afford to pay for it-to have access to legal advice. This deficit is acknowledged in the way that the CLA delivers publicly funded legal advice by telephone. In those circumstances the documentary evidence that Solicitors offering face to face advice must obtain do not apply. Anyone can get two hours free legal advice from the CLA without adducing evidence of means-the same does not apply to Solicitors giving advice to a client. The LSC would say that in an emergency the requirement for documentary evidence does not apply. The truth is that upon audit an LSC auditor will find any reason to go behind the reasons given by the Solicitor for giving emergency advice and demand repayment. To ensure there is no recoupment Solicitors demand the documentary evidence from clients who are desperate for advice. All this for about £60.
The point is that Solicitors are paid fixed fees. One would have thought that this would mean reduced bureaucracy but no, the bureaucracy increases with demand for greater certainty of entitlement for relatively low fees.
The other great lie is that spending on legal aid has increased. In fact inflation accounts for the increase and legal aid spending has actually fallen. Fees paid for work have been reduced and bureaucracy and red tape and form filling and rules have increased.

“Following questioning from former City solicitor Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Djanogly conceded that the legal aid budget has not doubled over the last two decades, as he has frequently claimed in justification of the government’s proposed budget cuts.
The minister said the £2.1bn budget had doubled in ‘absolute’ terms, but he could not contradict Phillips’ assertion that in ‘real’ terms that amounted to a ‘significant shrinkage’.
Djanogly said the budget had shot up and then evened out over the lifetime of the last government, with a big change when personal injury work was taken out of scope.”
The Gazette 2 December 2010

What is worst of all is that those charged with criminal offences are means tested and have to fund their defence before guilt is established. A fairer system would be to ensure that those convicted of an offence pay for the defence costs and the prosecution costs. In that way the State funds the process and those who are guilty repay the State’s loan to them.

England lose-again!!

It was a bit like South Africa all over again. One hell of a lot of anticipation. The English bid was well and truly talked up and criticised in equal measure before the final presentation was made.

Will the media play the blame game-Prince William should have worn an England football shirt, Beckham shouldn’t have sniffed so much or will they blame underhand Johnny Foreigner for winning the right to hold World Cup 2018?

It was a competition and England lost.

It might have made more sense if Northern Ireland had bid for it or Wales. That would have been a huge opportunity for the World Cup to become a lot less commercial and a lot more about football. It would have helped regenerate the poorer parts of the UK. Northern Ireland’s football fans have won awards for how they support their team and behave when abroad.

Never mind. The Rugby Union World cup is in England in 2015. Something to look forward to that won’t cost the country a cent and will attract foreign visitors and their much needed spending money.