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.
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.
posted by Lesley McDade at 9:30 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home