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.”
