Time to overhaul the law courts?

[erebus]

Of course seeing this issue as unique, a one off, in which lawyers are the victims, is exactly the point. You have to focus on each issue as a separate matter, unrelated to any other.

 

If one stands back a bit a looks at what is happening to the UK, society is in its final phase of division, with the objective being a 2 class system, those that have adn the rest that have little left after paying essentials, in an ongoing downgrade with will last at least a decade.

 

As the NHS is dismembered, many people will suffer, and removing legal address is advisable, with the mounting claims expected.

 

We have a housing problem, in which decent / fair rents are in limited supply, and high rents rely on people being paid through work enough to survive the perpetual increases. So a window for legal address in the housing area.

 

So in a variety of areas dealing with government policy effects, as well as local council problems in which ordinary people require legal representation, which will cost both authorities to fight cases of injustice and wrongdoing can be terminated before actions starts, if legal representation is restricted. The cuts are ongoing, in all government and local government departments, thus saving money through legal expenses.

 

One has to see this as a process, in which individuals within work were once represented by unions who would back injustices at work, being dismembered, thus leaving individuals to seek legal help. The next thing is to remove legal representation for most individuals, which allows an authority to state there are no problems with the local population. If people find they share common problems and voice their concerns in public, they can be incarcerated for disturbing the peace without legal representation.

 

Removing free representation is an obvious route for any sensible authority, but it must be done through stealth so as not to raise significant concerns.

 

So the poor will not be able to complain about corporate wrongdoings or any wrongdoings, unhappy groups can be classified officially as terrorists, an enemy within, and increasingly repressive laws introduced without much trouble.

 

By the time people realise how little control they have over their lives it will be too late to do anything, and voting for political representation is already a joke, as manifestos are dumped once power is achieved, leaving the population to be exploited, and abused, as people need to be controlled. You can also now realise the benefits of constantly lowering the educational levels over time, as keeping the population ignorant and disinterested, never understanding the point is the point. The media colludes in this farce, of entertaining the people, while their values are undermined in the name of efficiency and cuts. Hail to the mantra of better management!

[L00b]

'You get what you pay for' certainly seems to be the new mantra for our times

'You get what you pay for' is a universal truth dating back aeons.

Some things should be above being bought, the law being one of them.

The law is generally above being bought (I say 'generally', because amendment/formulation of the law is what lobbyists have been paid, since the very concept of 'law' emerged, to influence. Lobbyists by and large have comparatively little pull these days. Just have a look about where and how ACTA ended up in the UK...and God knows tens of lobbying millions must have been spent on that: an analogy involving peeing into violins for trying to play a tune springs to mind, somehow ).

 

What you are talking about is access to practice of the law.

 

As with everything else in life (trades, professionals - in any field), and since the year dot, the 'better' the practitionner (at practicing for the benefit of their client, and judged on past results), the more expensive. Market economy 101. The more expensive, the richer you need to be for affording it. Swings/roundabouts.

 

'All men are equal under the law.' is enshrined in statute, but they clearly aren't, when justice goes to the highest bidder.

Justice does not go to the highest bidder, the Court decision favours the best case, within the constraints of Statutes and case law. The best case is unsurprisingly often put together by the best practitioner. Though there is never anything black-and-white about legal practice, because every case turns on its facts at the end of day.

 

Your social commentary and viewpoint is understood, but it's clearly fallen head-first into idealism. Stop charging the windmills.

[Anna B]

I can't see any recommendations here about how you would like to see it overhauled which I find strange as you pose the question if we should or not.

 

If you don't know how it needs overhauling then how do you know it needs a overhaul ?

 

You say 'after what you have learned' but even this point escapes me other than you saying if you have a better lawyer you have a better chance at justice. Isn't that the same with everything ?

If I go to a decent sandwich shop then I expect a better sandwich. All you seem to be saying is you get the representation that you can afford which is the same as everything in life, hence me going on the bus instead of being in a Subaru Impreza.

 

Surely if you pose the question you should have an idea at least what is wrong and maybe a couple of examples of how it could be improved ?

 

All I see in your post is that you don't know anything about it which is surprising seems as you started a topic on it.

 

As a layperson (in other words I freely admit I don't know much,) I'd like to see costs cut by modernising a system that seems to have got mired in tradition. Everybody is having to cut back, I don't see why this should be any different.

 

First I'd cap salaries at £100,000 by taxing anything above that at 95 - 98% ( but I'd do that across the board for all professions. (Awaiting the howls of derision...) Cut costs for things like circuit judges dwellings and expenses. (What's wrong with a travelodge and a butty?)

 

I'd cut back on pomp and ceremony to make court cases shorter, and ensure plain, understandable English is used. Streamline everything so there wasn't so much hanging around and time wasted. (People can wait days on expenses to see if they're going to be called for a Jury, surely there's a better way of doing it?)

 

I'd make court hours regular, 8.30am - 6.00pm, 1 hour for lunch and include Saturdays, even possibly evening sittings to cut waiting times. Make sure all courts are in use the majority of the time.

 

Use video conferencing much more. eg. rather than transferring prisoners in vans for short appearances, witnesses from abroad etc.

 

Extend small claims court procedings to cases to of higher monetary value, and make it available for other cases should people opt to use it.

[Obelix]

As a layperson (in other words I freely admit I don't know much,) I'd like to see costs cut by modernising a system that seems to have got mired in tradition. Everybody is having to cut back, I don't see why this should be any different.

 

First I'd cap salaries at £100,000 by taxing anything above that at 95 - 98% ( but I'd do that across the board for all professions.

 

Welcome to the brain drain - you will end up with all the top talent in every profession going overseas.

 

No tax revenue for the country, no one for the junior practitioners to learn from, a fall in the perceived "worth" of UK PLC for such talent and a further reduction of income for the country and loss of tax revenue....

[L00b]

As a layperson (in other words I freely admit I don't know much,) I'd like to see costs cut by modernising a system that seems to have got mired in tradition. Everybody is having to cut back, I don't see why this should be any different.

Have you looked at the CPR I pointed you to, yet?

 

The Patents County Court, recently re-branded Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, has statutory cost caps. £50k max for costs (beginning to end), £500k max for remedy (this is chump change, compared to 'traditional' patent litigation costs in the High Court). And now a small claims track as well, specifically designed for lay persons to self-represent. No costs recoverable, £5k max for remedy.

 

It is one example I know of, I'm sure there are many others, and/or developments which have severely curtailed legal cost bases in a same manner (I'm thinking e.g. the recent ban on referral fees for insurance claims).

First I'd cap salaries at £100,000 by taxing anything above that at 95 - 98% ( but I'd do that across the board for all professions. (Awaiting the howls of derision...) Cut costs for things like circuit judges dwellings and expenses. (What's wrong with a travelodge and a butty?)

You'll not get a howl from me, I'll just do an Obelix above. My skills are very readily and easily transferrable to non-capped jurisdictions, and in very high demand currently. It won't be the first time I've done it, either.

I'd cut back on pomp and ceremony to make court cases shorter, and ensure plain, understandable English is used. Streamline everything so there wasn't so much hanging around and time wasted. (People can wait days on expenses to see if they're going to be called for a Jury, surely there's a better way of doing it?)

Do you undertand the many merits of procedure and due process? It's what sets us apart from more, erm, "expedient" justice systems like, say...Russia, or Zimbabwe, or <etc.> (I'm sure you catch my drift )

 

etc.

 

Do you know what your posts look like Anna? Someone who just took a snap-glance at bewigged judges and barristers, imagines them and anything/anyone to do with law and its practice to be riding on a solid gold gravy train, grabs their (usual for you ) hate-the-establishment googles in a huff, and stops any further attempt at any amount of comprehension or learning stone dead.

 

I've tried, but know when to recognise a porcine educational dead end, so I'm about done.

[redfox]

1. Circuit Judges do not stay in lodgings, they live at home. There are no expenses paid for travel for example for a Judge who lives in Sheffield who is appointed to sit at Grimsby Crown Court. You do the mileage.

High Court Judges who travel around the country to deal with the most serious cases do stay in lodgings, they are being sold off and yes the day is fast approaching when it is suggested a judge stays at the travel lodge. As he or she presides over a terrorist case/murder etc !

Do you want the best people to be the Judges dealing with these cases ? They earn great sums of money when in practice - why give that up for the travel lodge and a butty ?

 

2. Pomp and ceremony went a long time ago. The punters behave as though its a day out - there are many who feel the impact of having to attend court and know it is important/serious has long since gone.

 

3. Prisoners are dealt with via tv link from prison to avoid the expense (to those private companies contracted to transport them) of bringing them to court. Pleas and sentence can now be dealt with over the tv link.

 

4. Every possible effort is made to avoid jurors hanging about not least to make sure that those waiting do not get totally fed up. As for the expenses they claim it wouldn't keep many in shirt buttons.

 

5. The language used in court is now simple and easy to follow - the idea is to make sure the jury, if that is your audience, understand what your saying - you can't do that in any court using fancy words.

[Mr Clowning]

I've tried, but know when to recognize a porcine educational dead end, so I'm about done.

 

I think your doing the right thing, I have read nothing from Anna to suggest she know what she is talking about.

[Anna B]

I think your doing the right thing, I have read nothing from Anna to suggest she know what she is talking about.

 

I said that from the start...

 

The case I had experience of was the starting point. And for all your pontificating I'm still very unhappy about it. No one's said anything to make me one bit less unhappy.

 

The couple were in the right.

They had an open and shut case,

They won the case.

They ended up £20,000 out of pocket and lost their business.

The other party got away scot free.

 

That's not justice however you want to wrap it up.

 

And I would have thought that anyone else who finds themselves in that position (which they easily might) would share my concerns, but apparently not - until it happens to them. All this stuff about being free to go to court and defend yourself without a barrister etc is just a smokescreen. Do that, and you haven't a chance of winning even if you are in the right. A layperson isn't able 'to put the best case' if they're up against a barrister, so they'll lose.

 

From that I got dragged into how the system should change.

How the hell should I know?

But when a justice system fails to deliver justice then something is wrong with it, which suggests change is needed.

 

Over and out.

[Obelix]

I said that from the start...

 

The case I had experience of was the starting point. And for all your pontificating I'm still very unhappy about it. No one's said anything to make me one bit less unhappy.

 

The couple were in the right.

They had an open and shut case,

They won the case.

They ended up £20,000 out of pocket and lost their business.

The other party got away scot free.

 

That's not justice however you want to wrap it up.

 

And I would have thought that anyone else who finds themselves in that position (which they easily might) would share my concerns, but apparently not - until it happens to them. All this stuff about being free to go to court and defend yourself without a barrister etc is just a smokescreen. Do that, and you haven't a chance of winning even if you are in the right. A layperson isn't able 'to put the best case' if they're up against a barrister, so they'll lose.

 

From that I got dragged into how the system should change.

How the hell should I know?

But when a justice system fails to deliver justice then something is wrong with it, which suggests change is needed.

 

Over and out.

 

They didn't get away scot free as you yourself said! They had to agree on a settlement and they paid that, the alternative was bankruptcy. That's not "scot free" however you cut it.

 

The issue of costs, or rather lack of control of them was a seperate matter to the original one.

[Mr Clowning]

I said that from the start...

 

The case I had experience of was the starting point. And for all your pontificating I'm still very unhappy about it. No one's said anything to make me one bit less unhappy.

 

The couple were in the right.

They had an open and shut case,

They won the case.

They ended up £20,000 out of pocket and lost their business.

The other party got away scot free.

 

That's not justice however you want to wrap it up.

 

And I would have thought that anyone else who finds themselves in that position (which they easily might) would share my concerns, but apparently not - until it happens to them. All this stuff about being free to go to court and defend yourself without a barrister etc is just a smokescreen. Do that, and you haven't a chance of winning even if you are in the right. A layperson isn't able 'to put the best case' if they're up against a barrister, so they'll lose.

 

From that I got dragged into how the system should change.

How the hell should I know?

But when a justice system fails to deliver justice then something is wrong with it, which suggests change is needed.

 

Over and out.

I have to hold back from swearing here, what do you think the lawyers ect are there for ? They get paid because they spend years learning their trade, you don't have to use them but when you lack of experience and knowledge of the law lets you down it is your own problem.

Its that or you pay your way and get the best representation that you can afford, that's how it works.

 

Now as you have appear to have just started a topic to bitch about it and not actually suggested anything how it could be better, I am going to leave you to it shortly, your obviously bitter and you will have to deal with that, I doubt starting a topic on here will go very far in that respect.

 

Seriously though, do you think that we should have courts and lawyers ect and it all be free ?

 

Or, do you think (which I'm sure your actually suggesting) that no one should be able to have representation and we all just stand before one judge and represent ourselves ?

 

That would lead to anarchy, clog up the system - taking ages to get through a case and have unjust conclusions.

 

Good by and good luck.