Legal Battle – Lawyers Strike Needs More Attention

All too often the media is accused of making a mountain out of a molehill, looking for stories where one does not exist, or even distorting and exaggerating the facts to sell newspapers.

However, sometimes the media goes in the wrong direction and gives barely any coverage to what are vitally important stories.

One of these has cropped up today in the form of the lawyers “strike”. Just for the record the quote marks are because this is not technically a strike as it might break contractual obligations to the Legal Aid Agency.

The walk-out will affect cases in most major cities, including the Max Clifford trial, and could include up to 3,000 barristers, who have been threatened by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with the deprivation of state prosecution work.

So what is it all about and why does it need more coverage?

The main basis for the “strike” is substantial cuts to legal aid, essentially resulting in lawyers being paid a lot less for work for those who cannot afford to pay for someone to represent them.

It would be easy to argue lawyers, like bankers, make large sums of money anyway so why would a reduction in their fees from those who cannot afford them anyway make any difference.

This argument, though valid in a prima facie evaluation, completely misses the point.

Unfettered access to a lawyer, the notion of innocence until proven guilty and a robust appeals process are not only vital in the application of the law, but essential for a country to uphold even the most basic of democratic principles.

Most people cannot afford to hire a lawyer for extended periods of time, but the whole concept of legal aid was to subsidise those who have legal case to answer and was designed so the law was not subject to corruption and discrimination based on money.

For example, take a person on an average income who wants to bring action against a large corporation.

Without legal aid the case would undoubtable side with the large corporation purely because they can afford to prolong the case and pay the legal experts to protect them.

Everyone in this country is entitled to a fair and free trial and, repugnant as it maybe when you see lawyers representing the likes of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, this cannot be a selective process.

Just because you cannot afford to hire a lawyer does not mean you should forsake your right to have your case heard by a judge and jury.

For those of you still having doubts about this argument then ask yourself one question.

What would happen if you were wrongly accused of a crime? Would you be able to afford a lawyer and would you still feel some people are not entitled to representation?

This problem, however, goes deeper than just your entitlement to representation.

If lawyers are not going to get paid to do this work then people are firstly going to think twice about entering the legal profession and secondly likely to think twice about representing state sponsored clients.

The terrifying scenario is those people who cannot afford to pay full legal fees will end up with either no representation, or even more worryingly a really bad lawyer.

An unbiased application of the law is a founding principle of everything we believe in as a free and democratic people and this must include access to qualified and competent lawyers regardless of your economic situation.

In the age of austerity there are many controversial budget cuts and an argument can be made about most eroding the founding principles of this country, but when we are talking about peoples access to a fair trial this idea cannot be overstated.

Without legal aid this countries legal system could very quickly regress to the Victorian age when the depth of your pockets meant more than the validity of your arguments, or, even more troublingly a boom in ‘Ambulance Chasers’ who promise clients the world only to disappoint them at every turn with no course of action for their clients to take.

As citizens in this country we are entitled to a fair trial regardless of our circumstances and this issue demands our undivided attention to ensure this basic right is never taken away from us.

Perhaps it was Aristotle who said it best “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”