Class war on the poor: Abolishing Legal Aid

[Magda Hassan]

Beware Fake Radicals

January 15, 2011 By George Monbiot

George Monbiot's ZSpace Page / ZSpace

There was a time when conservatives tried to assure people of continuity. The social order would remain intact. Revolution and reform would be suppressed, disruptive change averted. As political consciousness spread, this message became untenable. They repositioned themselves, first as cautious reformers, then, under Margaret Thatcher, as Jacobins, tearing down the old establishment to release people's stifled aspirations.

They attacked the professions. They attacked state monopolies and the state itself or so they claimed. While Thatcher insisted that she was the champion of the entrepreneur, the pocket shareholder, the little man, her policies greatly enriched big business and the rentier class. She claimed she was getting the state off people's backs, but introduced oppressive laws that curtailed our freedom. She deregulated business and re-regulated citizens. Now Cameron's government and its supporters are attempting the same trick: defending the elite by attacking it.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Kenneth Clarke's assault on civil legal aid, presented to the public as a blow to greedy lawyers milking the state. The Daily Mail, which knows the script to the letter, supports his proposed cuts by blasting the "fat cat lawyers taking a fortune from hard pressed taxpayers"(1) and welcoming plans to slash their "multi-million-pound earnings."(2)

The framing has worked: hardly anyone certainly not the Labour party now dares to oppose this crude assault on the rights of the poor. One month before the consultation period for the government's green paper ends(3), there's scarcely a murmur of protest. Roll up, ladies and gentlemen, and join the campaign to Save the Lawyer.

Don't we all hate them? The tax lawyers worming through loopholes to ensure their clients don't pay. The defamation lawyers silencing people who challenge the rich and powerful. The corporate lawyers twisting the arms of legislators. The well-padded barristers thronging the benches of the Palace of Westminster - like, er, Kenneth Clarke.

But in this case the perception is false. Legal aid lawyers are not fat cats, but mangy strays. A legal aid solicitor who has been on the job for several years earns, according to the Guardian's chart of public sector pay, an average of £25,000(4). That's a lot less than teachers, town planners, probation officers and social workers, and a bit less than prison officers and sewage plant workers earn(5). I've been going through the likely consequences of the green paper with two solicitors from the legal aid practice Turpin and Miller(6). Philip Turpin, who runs a firm of 60 people, takes home £42,000 a year. These aren't starvation wages. But they are a fraction of what partners in other areas of law are paid, or almost anyone else at this level in either the public or private sectors.

The consequence of this phoney war on fat cats is a massive empowerment of the real elites. To understand what these reforms mean, don't just look at the victims; look at the beneficiaries.

John McNulty, who works for Turpin and Miller, gave me examples of cases he's working on which would no longer be eligible for legal aid. An elderly lady has just been evicted from her house, because her son forged her signature on the transfer of her property and stole the money. She's now homeless. It looks like a case of negligence on the part of the conveyancing solicitors, who had an obligation to meet her and ensure that she knew what was happening. Her only hope of redress is to sue them. For that she needs a handwriting report, which costs £2000. Today she can get one; when Clarke's reforms bite, such sloppy solicitors will walk away untouched. Who gains? Fat cat lawyers of the kind these cuts were supposed to restrain.

A woman was beaten up by police outside a pub, who then claimed that she had assaulted them. CCTV evidence shows that her account was true and theirs was false. She can't launch proceedings without a CCTV footage report. Today legal aid will pay; when the green paper becomes law, it won't. Who gains? The police, whose abuse of power will meet even fewer impediments.

A prisoner was kept inside for 14 months after he should have been released, because the probation service lost his notes. Today, he can get legal aid to pursue a compensation claim for this cock-up. After Clarke has savaged the system, he won't be eligible. Who gains? The incompetent bureaucrats who wrongly deprived a man of his liberty. So much for the government's promise to get the state off our backs.

Clarke's reforms protect landlords who have illegally evicted their tenants from being sued. As the government's Localism Bill creates a powerful incentive for landlords to change their tenants(7), there's likely to be more abuse and, without legal aid, less protection. The cuts protect businesses and public bodies which unfairly sack their workers or fail to pay their wages, as they annul the free legal advice to which the workers are now entitled. They protect schools which have unfairly excluded disadvantaged or disabled pupils. They protect any profession structural engineers, surveyors, accountants, lawyers - which can be sued for negligence. Those who are no longer entitled to legal aid will find themselves fighting, single-handed, against landlords, insurance companies and the state. Either they will clog up the courts, as cases involving litigants in person generally take much longer than cases with legal representation, or they will give up and take the knock. That's what the Tory war against elites looks like. The rich reap none of the pain and all of the gain.

No win-no fee cases can't fill the gap. Even now, lawyers tend to select those which are so clear-cut that the case can scarcely be contested. Clarke's simultaneous reforms to civil litigation costs, which are more justifiable, will make the real fat cat lawyers even less inclined to take on difficult cases. Nor will the Big Society pick up the pieces. Charities which help people with cases of injustice receive much of their funding from legal aid(8).

So beware rightwingers posing as heretics. Throughout government and the corporate press, the guardians of the status quo present themselves as edgy and dangerous, kicking against the system, overthrowing accepted truths. But they wage war against one sector of the establishment only to the advantage of more powerful players. They rail against climate scientists, while defending the interests of big oil and big coal. They rant about doctors, to the benefit of companies who want a chunk of the health service. They lambast "health and safety Nazis", but not the careless corporations the inspectors try to restrain. As our failure to contest Clarke's disastrous legal aid cut shows, we keep falling for it.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1330170/Legal-aid-gravy-train-ground-halt.html

2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1330028/Kenneth-Clarke-calls-halt-legal-aid-gravy-train.html

3. http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/legal-aid-reform-consultation.pdf

4. https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tD4F8×73jNXTW3Q-uhrRm9g#

5. https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tD4F8×73jNXTW3Q-uhrRm9g#

6. http://www.turpinmiller.co.uk/

7. http://www.communities.gov.uk/statements/corporate/localismbillsocialhousing

8. Eg Shelter, Citizens Advice Bureaux and legal centres.

[David Guyatt]

The law is to only be for the wealthy and the state.

Everyone else is disenfranchised.

Rozzers Plc don't even come out for a call for robbery these days. And when they do, it's only to fill in forms and file them. Policing is becoming more and more minimal.

[Magda Hassan]

The law is to only be for the wealthy and the state.

Everyone else is disenfranchised.

Rozzers Plc don't even come out for a call for robbery these days. And when they do, it's only to fill in forms and file them. Policing is becoming more and more minimal.

Well, yes, that is the conclusion isn't it?
and then there is this. Too bad if you are the victim of a crime. Likely to go unsolved with this new invovation :

Closure of UK forensics centre provokes protest

12:59 29 December 2010

Life

Science In Society


Jessica Hamzelou, reporter
The announced closure of the Forensic Science Service - a leading research centre based in Birmingham, UK - will harm research, innovation and even the justice system, according to forensic scientists.
The decision to "wind down" operations to a close by March 2012 has been met by "disbelief and dismay" by campaigners who remain wary of the UK Home Office's claim to "ensure the orderly wind-down of FSS does not impact on police service customers or the wider criminal justice system".
"The reputation of forensic science in the UK will undoubtedly diminish," Peter Gill, forensic geneticist at the University of Strathclyde, told the BBC. "The lack of research means that we will be lagging behind the rest of the world, and justice will suffer because laboratories in the UK won't be able to offer the most up-to-date techniques in order to solve serious crimes."
Mike Clancy, deputy general secretary of Prospect, a union representing over 1000 forensic scientists, agrees that the UK criminal justice system will face a blow.
"[The government's] actions will destroy a world-class body that is the envy of every police force in the world, in the name of saving a few million pounds," Clancy said.
Further concerns were voiced by a group of over 30 forensic scientists in a letter to British newspaper The Times yesterday. Alec Jeffreys, pioneer of DNA fingerprinting, was among the group who urged the UK government to reconsider the closure.
"The FSS has truly been a leader in European forensic practice as well as research," say the letter's signatories. "There can be no doubt that professional expertise cannot be maintained without continuing research and education."
Niels Morling, president of the International Society for Forensic Genetics, coordinated the letter. "So many of us have benefited from the research, development and education provided by the FSS - a worldwide network of scientists is grateful to the FSS and to British society," he told the paper.
The group concluded by urging the government to reverse the decision.

[Jan Klimkowski]

The abolition of the UK's Forensic Science Service will be complemented by a huge increase in private contractors performing forensic work for the state.

I would not be surprized if one of the consequences is that forensic evidence becomes more difficult and expensive to challenge.

An examination of the history of forensic science strongly suggests that states always have realtionships with certain pathologists and forensic scientists who are prepared to interpret inconclusive evidence as conclusive. And vice versa. According to the state's needs.

This will presumably continue but through the use of private and elusive sub-contractors who, if they follow the Private Military Contractor model, will change their corporate and legal status every few years to avoid law suits.