Thursday, August 10, 2006
Government attacks defence lawyers.
The Times reports here on new powers (it always is isn't it? We never here of relinquishing of power) to be given to judges to dismiss defence lawyers.
The article of course starts by giving a less alarming reason as: "if judges believed that they were unable to cope with the volume of work involved in handling a big case."
Reading on we discover: "Under the plans, judges will be given a power to order the withdrawal of a defendant’s solicitor or barrister from the case. They could do so if there appeared to be a risk of a conflict of interest with other defendants in the trial, or where judges considered a barrister or solicitor lacked sufficient capacity and that this threatened the efficient running of the trial."
Well just about anything could threaten the efficient running of a trail, the defendant will apparently have three weeks to find and instruct another lawyer although not one currently involved in the case. Bear in mind that this is aimed at complex cases and I doubt if lawyers of the calibre required, would just be sitting around twiddling their thumbs ready at three weeks notice to represent a new client.
Notice also how this is a "one way street", the prosecution can prat about as much as they want, but the judge is to be given no powers to dismiss them. The prosecution of course is run by the government.
Apparently the proposals were published six days ago by the Department for "UN-" Constitutional Affairs without any press release. So it's quite amazing that the press (without spoonfeeding) have even found out about it (a lawyer must have told them).
An ill-informed Commons Select Committee (The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee) last month appears to have concluded that because some small firms had twice the number of clients than solicitors, they couldn't have provided proper service. Quite where the logic is I don't know, what firm would be expected to dedicate all of one solicitor's time to one case? Should the same logic apply to supermarkets? Ultimately, it is a matter for the client, if they aren't happy, then they can seek alternative representation, but if they are happy, who does the government think it is to require the client to change solicitor or barrister?
My view is the government and its employees are getting more incompetent and lazier, they can't be bothered or are incapable (or both) of bringing good evidence to court and obtaining the conviction; so now they want to remove defence lawyers who might hold them to task, and replace them with ones who'll "ensure the efficient running of the trial". Wasn't there some twentieth century "government" obsessed with efficiency over justice? Can't quite seem to place it.
The article of course starts by giving a less alarming reason as: "if judges believed that they were unable to cope with the volume of work involved in handling a big case."
Reading on we discover: "Under the plans, judges will be given a power to order the withdrawal of a defendant’s solicitor or barrister from the case. They could do so if there appeared to be a risk of a conflict of interest with other defendants in the trial, or where judges considered a barrister or solicitor lacked sufficient capacity and that this threatened the efficient running of the trial."
Well just about anything could threaten the efficient running of a trail, the defendant will apparently have three weeks to find and instruct another lawyer although not one currently involved in the case. Bear in mind that this is aimed at complex cases and I doubt if lawyers of the calibre required, would just be sitting around twiddling their thumbs ready at three weeks notice to represent a new client.
Notice also how this is a "one way street", the prosecution can prat about as much as they want, but the judge is to be given no powers to dismiss them. The prosecution of course is run by the government.
Apparently the proposals were published six days ago by the Department for "UN-" Constitutional Affairs without any press release. So it's quite amazing that the press (without spoonfeeding) have even found out about it (a lawyer must have told them).
An ill-informed Commons Select Committee (The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee) last month appears to have concluded that because some small firms had twice the number of clients than solicitors, they couldn't have provided proper service. Quite where the logic is I don't know, what firm would be expected to dedicate all of one solicitor's time to one case? Should the same logic apply to supermarkets? Ultimately, it is a matter for the client, if they aren't happy, then they can seek alternative representation, but if they are happy, who does the government think it is to require the client to change solicitor or barrister?
My view is the government and its employees are getting more incompetent and lazier, they can't be bothered or are incapable (or both) of bringing good evidence to court and obtaining the conviction; so now they want to remove defence lawyers who might hold them to task, and replace them with ones who'll "ensure the efficient running of the trial". Wasn't there some twentieth century "government" obsessed with efficiency over justice? Can't quite seem to place it.
Tags: justice, liberty, rights, freedom
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
