The Round-up: One nation justice – but will the Government pay for it?

29 June 2015 by

Credit: The Telegraph

In the news

In his first major speech as Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove this week set out his vision for ‘one nation justice’. At present a two-tier system provides the “gold-standard” of British justice to the wealthy and a “creaking, outdated system to everyone else”. The emphasis was on making use of technological developments, closing under-used courts and requiring the “most successful in the legal profession” to help “protect access to justice for all”.

Commentators have welcomed the aim of reducing inequalities, but point to a problem largely neglected by Mr Gove: the chronic lack of resources in the public system. Robin Murray in the Justice Gap argues that legal aid cuts and the “inevitable destruction” of solicitors’ firms will undermine proposed efficiency reforms. Unable to sustain the “relentless financial struggle”, lawyers are being driven out of public-funded work, writes Sarah Forshaw QC. Technological advancement is important, but not enough – “the criminal justice system, however efficient, is only as good as the people in it.”

Moreover, the notion that the richest solicitors and barristers can be relied on to plug the justice gap is “surely unrealistic”, contends John Hyde in the Law Society Gazette. There is simply “neither the will nor – most importantly – the experience in the City to pick up the slack.”

Reducing the gap between the quality of legal services for commercial litigants and the worst off in society is “a laudable goal”, writes Rupert Myers for The Telegraph. It cannot, however, be achieved unless Gove can “persuade the government to pay for it.”

In other news

BBC: The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled by a 5-4 majority that state prohibitions on same-sex marriage violate the constitution. Strongly-worded dissenting opinions from Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts make for an interesting read, and can be found here, but it is Justice Kennedy’s final paragraph that will find its way into most history books.

The Guardian: Solicitors and barristers in Merseyside have agreed to take direct action in response to announcements that legal aid fees are to be reduced by a further 8.75%.

The Royal College of Nursing has warned that new immigration rules will cause “chaos” in the health service. Under the new rules, non-EU workers earning less than £35,000 after six years in the UK will be deported. The Guardian reports.

Columbia University has launched an online global database of freedom of expression case law and court rulings. Inforrm Blog provides more information.

UK HRB posts

Supreme Court on EU and ECHR proportionality – back to basics – David Hart QC

Care arrangements for severely autistic man did not deprive him of his liberty – Rosalind English

The 50 human rights cases that transformed Britain – Adam Wagner

Asylum is a high hurdle. Can aspirants for UK try the Convention on Human Trafficking instead? – Hannah Noyce

Don’t say ‘Snooper’s Charter’: Dutch Dairy-Rooms and British Political Language – Dr Cian Murphy

Events

Justice Deferred: Transnational Lawyering and the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, 30 years on – Professor Upendra Baxi will revisit the legal aftermath of the disastrous accident in Bhopal, India. The public talk will take place on 6 July at King’s College, London. More details can be found here.

If you would like your event to be mentioned on the Blog, please email Jim Duffy at jim.duffy@1cor.com.

Hannah Lynes

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy private nuisance private use Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest rights Protocol 15 Public/Private public access publication public authorities public inquiries public interest immunity quango quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: