Two Tier System for Murder

The Law Commission have published proposals for a two tier system for murder.

The proposals appear to me to be sensible. Some form of codification of the law of murder would also be a good idea to include killing someone by being reckless in control of a car as there are a lot of "headlines" in the press in this area with varying degrees of sentencing which appear to upset victims families.


Two Tier System

Community Courts and Legal Aid

What is Lord Falconer up to:

Monday he informs he is creating 10 new community courts

Community Courts

Where are they ? How do they work ?

Then on Tuesday, Lord Falconer informs that he is cutting back the legal aid budget and there is potential for 400 solicitors going to have to go or merge to survive.

Legal Aid Reforms

More information about the reforms

Justice is fundamental to Democracy - so why would Lord Falconer not want to have 400 small firms of solicitors doing legal aid work.

Presumably the legal aid work is necessary in society and if you don't have it then there is always "street justice".

What is he thinking as this is a big change / reduction being proposed. More detail please!

Has he really thought out the "Jurisprudence" - what are the academics saying!!

The forecasted increase in money is to £2billion.

If there is an increase in people using legal aid then surely as an issue of Jurisprudence this shows that the problems in society are on the increase. Yet we are seeing an increase in legislation going before Parliament!! Does that correspondingly imply that Parliament is not working properly. Jurisprudence requires "balance" between the legislature and the judiciary.

Something is clearly wrong!!

Is there going to be "privatisation" of the criminal division?

Is there a need for greater "codification" of existing legislation?

If you prevent the mechanism for "equality, fairness, impartiality and justice" from occurring in society, then society becomes unjust. This is why Justice is fundamental to a Christian based democracy, because equality is also fundamental to a western style democracy. It's the Holy Grail if you like.

In 1999 and the Access to Justice Act 1999 Lord Woolf promoted proportionality, economy, expedition and although he said equality he could not deliver it in its traditional sense and I believe he meant something else which I call "contemporary equality". Lord Woolf has therefore already tried and succeeded in usurping democracy as his improvements were not necessarily beneficial to Justice.

Lord Falconer must therefore be very careful in what he is doing to society under his reductionist reforms - making society unjust by reducing basic access to the legal system - especially litigation - whilst enabling a seriously ludicrous increase in legislation - looks set for a calamatous path.

No doubt there will be an increase in "litigants in person" in the courts. And Lord Woolf saw this group of people as "problematic", ie a burden. Disputes will still exist, if he wants a reduction then:

(a) make the procedural rules in court simpler (ie remove limitation periods; remove issues such as vexatious or frivilous litigants, abuse of process, res judicata; remove ex parte preliminary hearings and application hearings; remove skeleton arguments).

(b) make all solicitors firms take cases on (a) pro bono basis; (b) no win: no fee conditional fee arrangement and if all else fails then (c) legal aid from the public purse, regardless of the size of the law firm.

(c) make mediation/ADR a profession in its own right and remove the right of lawyers, barristers and judges to process such that it "competes" with the legal profession: one applies the rule of law, the other does non-law.

Discuss.

Legal Profession and Legal Aid Bill - Stage 3

I was a little bit disappointed with this Bill because it has not gone far enough. I would like to see a Commission which is completely separate from the Law Society. I would also like to see a division between law and non-law (ie litigation and mediation) not least because ADR is the anti-thesis to law, and needs to be processed very very carefully as it has the ability to undermine the rule of law, and does create a two tier legal service when processed "within" law. I have high hopes that the Scottish Executive and Europe will see the light of day and do the "competition model" which processes ADR as a profession in its own right, such that lawyers, barristers and judges DO NOT process ADR at all. I would be happy to see the Commission process "advice organisations" which are legal and non-legal!

Well my horoscope motto for November in Harpers informed "FIND A WAY OR MAKE ONE" and "McDADE" does mean "sapienter si sincere" - wisely if sincerely!

Here is my efforts for Stage 3:

Legal Profession and Legal Aid Bill - Stage 3

Another Lawyer Joke

DEMISE OF A PARTNER

One day while walking down the street a highly successful partner in a law firm was tragically hit by a bus and she died. Her soul arrived up in heaven where she was met at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter himself.

"Welcome to Heaven," said St. Peter. "Before you get settled in though, it seems we have a problem. You see, strangely enough, we've never once had a law firm partner make it this far and we're not really sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," said the woman.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have higher orders. What we're going to do is let you have a day in Hell and a day in Heaven and then you can choose whichever one you want to spend an eternity in."

"Actually, I think I've made up my mind...I prefer to stay in Heaven", replied the woman.

"Sorry, we have rules..." And with that St. Peter put the law partner in an elevator and which slowly descended to the depths of Hell.

When the doors opened, much to her surprise, the woman found herself stepping out onto the putting green of a beautiful golf course. In the distance was a country club and standing in front of her were all her old friends -- including lawyers that she had worked with who had passed away -- and they were all dressed in tuxedoes and evening gowns and cheering for her. They ran up and greeted her warmly, and they talked about old times.

After an excellent round of golf, and at night they went to the country club where she enjoyed an excellent steak and lobster dinner. She met the Devil who was actually a really nice guy (kinda cute) and she had a great time telling jokes and dancing. She was having such a good time that before she knew it, her day was over and it was time to leave. Everybody shook her hand and waved good-bye as she got on the elevator back up to Heaven.

The elevator slowly rose, and eventually opened back up at the Pearly Gates, and she found St. Peter waiting for her. "Now it's time to spend a day in heaven," he said. So she spent the next 24 hours lounging around on clouds and playing the harp and singing. It was very soothing and peaceful, and she had a great time. Before she knew it, her 24 hours were up.

St. Peter came and got her and said, "So, you've spent a day in hell and you've spent a day in heaven. Now you must choose your eternity."

The woman paused for a second and then replied, "Well, I never thought I'd say this, I mean, Heaven has been really great and all, but I think I had a better time in Hell."

St. Peter escorted the woman back to the elevator and again she descended to Hell. When the doors of the elevator opened she found herself standing in a desolate wasteland covered in filth. Her friends were burning in towers of flame, as demons prodded them with pitchforks. The Devil came up to her and welcomed her back.

"I don't understand," stammered the woman. "Yesterday I was here, and there was a golf course and a country club and we ate lobster and we danced and had a great time. Now all there is a wasteland of filth, and all my old friends are miserable."

The Devil looked at her and smiled. "Yesterday we were recruiting you; today you're an associate.".

More Judge Jokes

How many judges does it take to change a light bulb?

Just one; but two lawyers have to explain him how to do it.

CROSS-EXAMINATION REVISITED

"Now, your youngest son, the twenty-year old, how old is he?"
"Were you alone, or by yourself?"
"Were you present when your picture was taken?"
"Was it you or your younger brother who was killed in the accident?"
"Did he kill you?"
"How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?"
"You were there until the time you left, is that true?"
"How many times have you committed suicide?"

HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY BUT INSANTITY IS THE BEST DEFENCE

A prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grandmotherly, elderly woman, to the stand. He approached her and asked, "Mrs. Jones, do you know me?"

She responded, "Why, yes, I do know you Mr. Williams. I've known you since you were a young boy. And frankly, you've been a big disappointment to me. You lie, you cheat on your wife, you manipulate people and talk about them behind their backs. You think you're a rising big shot when you haven't the brains to realize you never will amount to anything more than a two-bit paper pusher. Yes, I know you."

The lawyer was stunned. Not knowing what else to do he pointed across the room and asked, "Mrs. Williams, do you know the defense attorney?"

She again replied, "Why, yes I do. I've known Mr. Bradley since he was a youngster, too. I used to baby-sit him for his parents. And he, too, has been a real disappointment to me. He's lazy, bigoted, he has a drinking problem. The man can't build a normal relationship with anyone and his law practice is one of the shoddiest in the entire state. Yes, I know him."

At this point, the judge rapped the courtroom to silence and called both counselors to the bench. In a very quiet voice, he said with menace, "If either of you asks her if she knows me, you'll be jailed for contempt!"


Taking his seat in his chambers, the judge faced the opposing lawyers. "So," he said, "I have been presented, by both of you, with a bribe." Both lawyers squirmed uncomfortably. "You, attorney Brian, gave me £15,000. And you, attorney Anne, gave me £10,000."

The judge reached into his pocket and pulled out a cheque. He handed it to Brian ... "Now then, I'm returning £5,000, and we're going to decide this case solely on its merits."!"


A judge and two friends, a Rabbi and a Hindu holy man, had car trouble in the countryside and asked to spend the night with a farmer. The farmer said "There might be a problem; you see, I only have room for two to sleep, so one of you must sleep in the barn."

"No problem," chimed the Rabbi, "My people wandered in the desert for forty years, I am humble enough to sleep in the barn for an evening." With that he departed to the barn and the others bedded down for the night.

Moments later a knock was heard at the door; the farmer opened the door. There stood the Rabbi from the barn.

"What's wrong?" asked the farmer.

He replied, "I am grateful to you, but I can't sleep in the barn. There is a pig in the barn and my faith believes that is an unclean animal."

His Hindu friend agrees to swap places with him. But a few minutes late the same scene reoccurs. There is a knock on the door.

"What's wrong, now?" the farmer asks.

The Hindu holy man replies, "I too am grateful for your helping us out but there is a cow in the barn and in my country cows are considered sacred. I can't sleep on holy ground!"

Well, that leaves only the judge to make the change. He grumbled and complained, but went out to the barn. Moments later there was another knock on the farmers door. Frustrated and tired, the farmer opens the door, and there stood.... the pig and the cow.

Commission and Legal Aid Reform Bill - going before Parliament

The Justice 2 Committee got around to discussing the Commission and Legal Aid Reform Bill last week. Whilst I have now had a cursory glance over the 4 marshalling documents to see if any of my suggestions have been taken up (published responses below), you might like to take a look for yourself. From my responses you will note that I think it is a good idea to have a legal complaints bureau separate from the Law Society, I was therefore very positive about this Bill contrary to most of the published responses which were in the negative - oops! Am I right?

Website publishing draft Bill

Hmmm - the new draft Bill (Stage 2)

Verdict: Not as good as it could be - still needs work doing to it!

Think I can see reference to:

- delay;
- publicity;
- Police Acts;
- Data protection and confidentiality;
- Human Rights; and
- "advice organisations" (ding) might mean "mediation"
- "complainer" rather than "client" might include whistleblower

Not much reference to experts who work in association with lawyers and their potential misconduct; or
jurisdiction of Commission and others involved in client file who may be from other jurisdictions; or
Mention of Serious Fraud
Not much in the way of protection of "complainer"
Not much in the way of one complaint needing investigation of more than complaint, ie issue over several client files
Not much in the way of corruption within Commission

However, I need to print off a copy and do a proper comparison, then figure out what a citizen does next!


600 + published responses

Is this jurisprudence and democracy in action? Has the separation of the powers between law and politics occurred?

Discuss.

Corruption Bill update

The Corruption Bill did not make it to its second reading in the House of Commons. It has been dropped.

I am currently lobbying my MP to find out the reason and have asked whether it was a timing issue.

I sent the Bill Team virtually a legal tome, so they had a lot to think about. Issues raised were (a) perversion of the course of justice; (b) bringing judges before Parliament; (c) contemporaneity and (d) a few other bits and bobs to sharpen it up a bit.

Criminality or Tort

CUNNINGHAM RECKLESSNESS

Inadvertently taking an obvious and serious risk

CALDWELL RECKLESSNESS

Knowing that the obvious and serious risk when taken was wrong to do so


(Concerning academia, Lord Woolf and the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the current draft of the Directive on Mediation is Cunningham recklessness).

(Professor Richard Susskind, Anne Molyneux and Siobhan Cross and others fall into Caldwell recklessness in my two litigations).

Equality