Things have come to a head in recent weeks with barristers withdrawing their labour. Just as with probation, the press, public and politicians don't understand, or choose not to understand, what's going on and the truth of the situation.
This set of tweets from @edwardhenry1 yesterday sets things out in stark detail and we should all be concerned, not least because it will affect us all, and clients especially. (I have made adjustments to aid clarity).
The Criminal Bar facing oblivion.
Max J L Hardy wrote perceptively that the public would get a distorted impression of our justice system because of the #WAGATHA trial. Criminal justice is in crisis. And @jimrobottom suggested the same for the mass of civil litigation.
The Tabloids don’t want to run this narrative. Clichés work. People, without wealth or financial resilience are far more likely to get dragged into a Criminal Court, a Family Court, or an Employment Tribunal.
Then, they’re not likely to encounter a ‘fat cat lawyer’ but a junior barrister and/or a high street solicitor, from a small to medium size practice. We’re not talking Baroness Shackleton or Lady Ward.
I’m not qualified to speak about family or employment but imagine that family law practitioners who do not deal with ‘Big Money’ cases are in the same position, or soon will be, as the criminal bar.
Advocates practising in crime are an odd bunch, but likeable. As a rule they like their clients, and care deeply about them. Strange as it may seem, some have been accused of caring for their clients more than their families.
It’s not hype, but reflects a brutally demanding job, which can prove to be obsessional. Like Captain Ahab pursuing Moby Dick, some advocates relentlessly chase after that tantalising fact, or issue that might turn a case. Holidays are sacrificed, as are children’s childhoods.
You are told, as I have been, that you aren’t present, even when you’re actually there, because your mind churns that case or question over & over.
You’d have to be mad to practise in crime. I tried, from 2004 onwards to discourage my pupils from continuing in it, and to transfer. Not one did. Well done btw @MaxJLHardy
My first pupil, the wonderful Jake Hallam QC, started in practice in 1998. I could see then that the GFS [Graduated Fee Scheme for legal aid] would impoverish criminal practitioners as so much was left unpaid. The rates then set never kept up with cost of living & if we aren’t 40% down from 1997 I’d be surprised.
I had more success dissuading my adult sons from following me into the Law. They saw, all too sadly, the toll it took on their childhood, their parents’ marriage & the precarious financial fortunes of a self employed individual or sole trader.
I adore my job, and have deep affection and genuine respect for my colleagues. Every pupil who disregarded my advice and went on to greatness at the Criminal Bar - and those few who sadly did not in spite of their courage, determination and flair, I deeply admire and love.
Because I know what it’s cost them. The price you have to pay whether you succeed or fail (& chance plays a part in that.) So when a Politician derides what we do, I don’t care. I know my value, & part of that is what I’m worth; & I know my colleagues’ treasured value too.
The destruction of a profession, of an Art that can be traced to the prophet Daniel, through the Graeco-Roman era to our own time is shameful. If politicians don’t want to preserve an Independent Bar, incompetence & corruption will follow. Who benefits?
Back to that odd bunch of advocates. They’ll include the brief, hot on detail with an eidetic neuro-diverse mastery of regulations, those who can recite the codes of practice, and those who can hyper focus to a microscopic degree. Then there are those who trust nothing
Not because they are conspiracy theorists, but because they’ve been told “nothing to disclose” too often when there is. Those who venerate Marx & those who espouse anarcho-libertarianism meet as one. It’s a broad church. The link? They believe in Justice & the Rule of Law.
That’s ultimately what compels them to defend, whatever the personal cost, to keep the stream pure, to hold the prosecution to account. A word here about prosecution counsel.
A very considerable proportion of Barristers prosecute & defend. That’s why the Independent Bar is of incalculable value. It’s not partisan. I no longer prosecute but I grew up in the preeminent prosecution set, renowned for its fairness.
Pros Counsel are atrociously paid, & not enough is said about it. You can prepare a case & not get paid if it’s tried at a time you can’t do. The Government’s long term strategy is a mystery. Public Defenders & Pros cost tons more than the Bar. They’re just happy exploiting us.
But it will eventually come to an end. Even altruists will be deterred. The Criminal Bar shall die. No mistake. Then what will those in the other branches of the Bar say? What a pity? Such a shame? It’s time for the Inns and the whole Bar to come to the aid of CBA [Criminal Bar Association].
The Bar Council, paradoxically, might have put on a better show, but there are always those dependable in a tight corner, & others who (despite the best of intentions) are not.
@Ed_LeveyQC has always supported the Criminal Bar & @seanjonesqc is a legend. But we need more.
This is an existential battle. If we are really one Bar, kind words about how much the Criminal Bar is admired, with wistful regrets intimated of envying what we do, will be pure guff unless the whole Bar bends its efforts & potent influence on our behalf.
The leaders of the SBAs [Specialist Bar Associations] and others of titanic reputation & standing in other fields might like to reflect on what we’re all about to lose.
Edward Henry QC
The Criminal Bar facing oblivion.
Max J L Hardy wrote perceptively that the public would get a distorted impression of our justice system because of the #WAGATHA trial. Criminal justice is in crisis. And @jimrobottom suggested the same for the mass of civil litigation.
The Tabloids don’t want to run this narrative. Clichés work. People, without wealth or financial resilience are far more likely to get dragged into a Criminal Court, a Family Court, or an Employment Tribunal.
Then, they’re not likely to encounter a ‘fat cat lawyer’ but a junior barrister and/or a high street solicitor, from a small to medium size practice. We’re not talking Baroness Shackleton or Lady Ward.
I’m not qualified to speak about family or employment but imagine that family law practitioners who do not deal with ‘Big Money’ cases are in the same position, or soon will be, as the criminal bar.
Advocates practising in crime are an odd bunch, but likeable. As a rule they like their clients, and care deeply about them. Strange as it may seem, some have been accused of caring for their clients more than their families.
It’s not hype, but reflects a brutally demanding job, which can prove to be obsessional. Like Captain Ahab pursuing Moby Dick, some advocates relentlessly chase after that tantalising fact, or issue that might turn a case. Holidays are sacrificed, as are children’s childhoods.
You are told, as I have been, that you aren’t present, even when you’re actually there, because your mind churns that case or question over & over.
You’d have to be mad to practise in crime. I tried, from 2004 onwards to discourage my pupils from continuing in it, and to transfer. Not one did. Well done btw @MaxJLHardy
My first pupil, the wonderful Jake Hallam QC, started in practice in 1998. I could see then that the GFS [Graduated Fee Scheme for legal aid] would impoverish criminal practitioners as so much was left unpaid. The rates then set never kept up with cost of living & if we aren’t 40% down from 1997 I’d be surprised.
I had more success dissuading my adult sons from following me into the Law. They saw, all too sadly, the toll it took on their childhood, their parents’ marriage & the precarious financial fortunes of a self employed individual or sole trader.
I adore my job, and have deep affection and genuine respect for my colleagues. Every pupil who disregarded my advice and went on to greatness at the Criminal Bar - and those few who sadly did not in spite of their courage, determination and flair, I deeply admire and love.
Because I know what it’s cost them. The price you have to pay whether you succeed or fail (& chance plays a part in that.) So when a Politician derides what we do, I don’t care. I know my value, & part of that is what I’m worth; & I know my colleagues’ treasured value too.
The destruction of a profession, of an Art that can be traced to the prophet Daniel, through the Graeco-Roman era to our own time is shameful. If politicians don’t want to preserve an Independent Bar, incompetence & corruption will follow. Who benefits?
Back to that odd bunch of advocates. They’ll include the brief, hot on detail with an eidetic neuro-diverse mastery of regulations, those who can recite the codes of practice, and those who can hyper focus to a microscopic degree. Then there are those who trust nothing
Not because they are conspiracy theorists, but because they’ve been told “nothing to disclose” too often when there is. Those who venerate Marx & those who espouse anarcho-libertarianism meet as one. It’s a broad church. The link? They believe in Justice & the Rule of Law.
That’s ultimately what compels them to defend, whatever the personal cost, to keep the stream pure, to hold the prosecution to account. A word here about prosecution counsel.
A very considerable proportion of Barristers prosecute & defend. That’s why the Independent Bar is of incalculable value. It’s not partisan. I no longer prosecute but I grew up in the preeminent prosecution set, renowned for its fairness.
Pros Counsel are atrociously paid, & not enough is said about it. You can prepare a case & not get paid if it’s tried at a time you can’t do. The Government’s long term strategy is a mystery. Public Defenders & Pros cost tons more than the Bar. They’re just happy exploiting us.
But it will eventually come to an end. Even altruists will be deterred. The Criminal Bar shall die. No mistake. Then what will those in the other branches of the Bar say? What a pity? Such a shame? It’s time for the Inns and the whole Bar to come to the aid of CBA [Criminal Bar Association].
The Bar Council, paradoxically, might have put on a better show, but there are always those dependable in a tight corner, & others who (despite the best of intentions) are not.
@Ed_LeveyQC has always supported the Criminal Bar & @seanjonesqc is a legend. But we need more.
This is an existential battle. If we are really one Bar, kind words about how much the Criminal Bar is admired, with wistful regrets intimated of envying what we do, will be pure guff unless the whole Bar bends its efforts & potent influence on our behalf.
The leaders of the SBAs [Specialist Bar Associations] and others of titanic reputation & standing in other fields might like to reflect on what we’re all about to lose.
Edward Henry QC
I think we all of us should be concerned about the direction or society is travelling in.
ReplyDeleteAll avenues to challenge the State have been curtailed.
The Attorney general, Suella Braverman, is the latest to try and silence opinion and democratic reasoning.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/30/braverman-orders-government-lawyers-to-offer-solutions-to-legal-challenges
'Getafix
Couldnt agree more, Getafix. It is really hard to know what to do to keep positive and to do something to counter this awful slide into facism. And a thousand curses on the heads of all and any who tell me to "look after my wellbeing", "take a more positive attitude" and so on. This gaslighting (a word which has popped up here a lot recently) is doing my head in. Planet is burning, all of us bar any readers here who are multi millionaires are getting poorer, the poorest are desperate, the winter is going to be hideous, country is ill governed and falling to rack and ruin. The UK is on the verge of breaking up: whether you feel this is a good or bad thing will depend on your ideological stance, but right now doesnt seem like the best time for more upheaval, although these sorts of times are oft what is required to generate change and upheaval. The slow cogs of democracy may find a way out of this for us, but I fear not.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p0ckgf41
ReplyDeleteAdam Fleming explores the life and career of Boris Johnson with people who've known, watched, worked or dealt with him - from boy to man to prime minister. BBC Radio 4. Nine episodes.
DeletePaywall, but the headline says it all.
DeleteI find it very disturbing when the State start taking control of judicial process.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/01/dangerous-prisoners-blocked-release-new-minister-powers/
'Getafix
https://www-theweek-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.theweek.co.uk/news/law/957528/should-ministers-have-powers-to-stop-early-release-for-prisoners?amp=&_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16595204686150&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theweek.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flaw%2F957528%2Fshould-ministers-have-powers-to-stop-early-release-for-prisoners
Deletehttps://twitter.com/TweetForTheMany/status/1553851038704308224
ReplyDeletestatistics worth looking at
"A paedophile [aged 23 years] jailed in 2020 was trawling the internet to ask schoolgirls for sex within weeks of his release from prison... The latest offending was exposed thanks to the work of two volunteer paedophile hunter groups who deployed decoys posing as girls aged 13 and 14... The profiles he clicked on featured photos of girls who were clearly around that age but they were decoys, set up by the citizen-run groups called Team Shade and Book of Exposure [who the prosecutor described as] activist parents are concerned about adults who sexually groom children online... the Recorder said that it was a matter of “considerable regret” that [the def] was not given help to address his sexual interest in children while he served the custodial part of his three year jail term... [Defence barrister] said that a recent psychiatric and probation reports were helpful, and revealed that the defendant has a low IQ and that he was suffering from ADHD, unstable emotional personality disorder and a degree of autism."
ReplyDeleteOutcome?
"The judge: “You knew perfectly well that you have no business doing what you did”... imposed two years custody and said that [the def], who was recalled to prison to complete his earlier three year sentence for eight child sex offences, will be on the Sex Offender register for a decade."
Cases like this raise many questions such as:
* are vigilante organisations now contracted to work as online police?
* no work done to address risky sexual harm behaviour during previous prison sentence
* what are the chances any such work could be done in prison?
* given the "helpful reports" advising presenting complexities of defendant, why simply repeat the previous sentence - which evidently had no impact?
* What might the Chief Turncoat & Lickspittle think about probation staff submitting reports that the defence barrister described as "helpful"??
* Good job it wasn't a Parole Board matter...
*** What is the point of our justice system?
Despite the fact that "no work was done to address his sexual offending", I also find it shocking that (presumably in his case, as it is for virtually all I have worked with with similar issues) absolutely nothing was done to help him to manage/understand his ADHD, unstable emotional personality disorder and autism. We put people into the "ARMS" checklist boxes, but in my view treating his other conditions were highly likely to be far more important to helping him manage his risk of re-offending sexually.
DeleteWon't be long before we send everyone to smart prisons where they are healed (see 'A Smart Future')
Delete* we simply cannot act to avoid risk without clear information about the existence of risks, what the risks are, and the contexts in which the risks are greatest.
ReplyDelete* for people to take responsibility for reducing their risk they need to know what they can do to mitigate risk and how effective those actions are likely to be.
* just telling people about threats without explaining how they can be dealt with is disempowering; it often generates fear and can lead to fatalism or denial.
* people cannot “act responsibly” if they do not have the resources to do so.
* individuals live in social and work environments that can act either as barriers or enablers of behaviours to reduce the risk
* the exclusive focus on individual responsibility neglects the crucial importance of social responsibility.
Sounds reasonable enough to me. The source?
https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o1903
Our public health system is just as broken as our criminal justice system, i.e. not providing clear information about risks, using threat & fear to highlight risks, failing to provide resources to mitigate risks, not enabling social construct or shared vocabulary to mitigate risks, and negating collective social responsibility by apportioning blame to individuals: “You knew perfectly well that you have no business doing what you did”