Operation Crumbling Edifice - Why legal aid cuts imperil us all

London is in the midst of a huge emergency services training exercise defiantly codenamed Strong Tower complete with firemen wearing those terrifyingly outlandish Nuclear, Biological and Chemical suits.  With a modern twist the training even has its own hashtag #999exercise.  Apparently the training has been in the offing for months, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33315691, and its occurrence in the immediate aftermath of the terrible massacre in Tunisia is completely coincidental.

There are obviously three purposes to such training exercises.  First it is essential that the emergency services and soldiers are ready for a city based attack and it is necessary that they be trained in a city for such a purpose.  Secondly such a public show of preparedness is intended to act as reassurance to us that the authorities are ready and properly equipped and lastly it is a deterrent to any ‘lone wolves’ and groups inclined to launch an attack.

The fact this training does not occur in the middle of the night when negligible disruption would be caused is the clearest possible indication that the latter two purposes are firmly in the government and planners’ minds.  To some extent this is a massive public relations exercise.

As a member of the public it is very hard to know whether one should be reassured or alarmed by such a show of strength.  We are by now all familiar with the terrorism threat levels on display at the entrance of most public buildings:

• LOW means an attack is unlikely.
• MODERATE means an attack is possible, but not likely
• SUBSTANTIAL means an attack is a strong possibility
• SEVERE means an attack is highly likely
• CRITICAL means an attack is expected imminently 

By way of reminder the current threat level is Severe.  Since 2006, when the threat level was made public for the first time, the level has never been anything lower than Substantial.  Pause for a moment and reflect whether your anxiety or fear relating to the imminence of a terrorist attack has fluctuated in any way with the changes to the threat level since then.  What is the purpose of this grading and what is the purpose of making it public?  Ostensibly it is to encourage public vigilance but without the revelation of any of the intelligence or material upon which the security services base their assessment of the threat level.  In other words we are being told that a terrorist attack is potentially imminent but without being told why.

Engendering unfocussed and diffuse anxiety on the part of the populace is at best pointless and irresponsible.  At worst it produces a rationale for the government to trample yet more intrusively on our private lives.  We must be careful to subject any government led incursion into our civil liberties to the most careful scrutiny and testing.

That being said, as the great political philosopher Ronald Reagan observed, a government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.  There can be no doubt that discharging this duty is an extremely onerous undertaking  that has become vastly more complicated since the turn of the millennium.  Equally it would be extreme folly to assert that the government should be obliged to make public all information and intelligence that falls into its hands.  Up to a point we have to trust that the government is fulfilling its first duty to us without demanding a right to call for evidence that it is doing so.

Where however evidence is not only called for but is central to the proper scrutiny of the conduct of the state in its protection of us is in criminal proceedings.  The people charged with ensuring that evidence comes to light and is properly considered are lawyers.  In the first instance it is the role of prosecutors to receive evidence from the police and other investigators in order to make charging decisions.  It is the equally important role of defence lawyers to call for evidence that rebuts the basis for charging decisions and to test such evidence as the prosecution relies upon in criminal proceedings.

If there are no lawyers or, just as dangerous a situation, such lawyers as there are can’t properly perform these essential tasks then evidence goes ungathered, unpresented and untested with miscarriages of justice the result.  We are in the midst of nothing less than a full blown legal aid crisis and the imminent action of many legal aid lawyers is about to precipitate a massive stress testing of the criminal justice system.  This exercise is no less important that Operation Strong Tower except in this case it would more aptly be named Operation Crumbling Edifice.

The next few weeks will be worth watching extremely closely because what legal aid lawyers are saying by their actions is that the criminal justice system is on the point of collapse.  Suppose for a moment that today’s training exercise was a real attack with suspects apprehended.  How is the government protecting us in circumstances where the criminal justice system is malfunctioning so badly that no safe convictions could be obtained?

The worst kind of police officer is that which believes that arrest of a suspect is the end of their responsibility in a case.  In reality everybody involved in the criminal justice process bears a responsibility for ensuring justice is done and the resolution of that process is a jury’s verdict not arrest in a street.  What legal aid lawyers up and down the country are saying is that they can no longer fulfil their roles in advancing the criminal justice process and the reason is that the government is failing us all in its first responsibility to us and that is our protection.

Sing the Unsung Song & Search for the Hero Inside

We all know what a hero looks like and if we’re in any doubt Bonnie Tyler is on hand to remind us that he’s gotta be strong, he’s gotta be fast and he’s gotta be fresh from the fight.  But without intending any disrespect to Bonnie it is probably about time that the concept of heroism be revisited.  This is because heroism as a martial concept should be over and heroism as an exclusively masculine quality is also now redundant.

Interestingly the song also name checks both Hercules and Superman who, it hardly needs pointing out, are not real people. Neither of course is Achilles (pictured above as a monument to the Duke of Wellington's defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo 200 years ago).  Achilles as a template for heroism does have one major virtue and that is his fallibility.  If heroism is to have any currency as a modern concept it must admit of fallibility.

Lauren Laverne recently wrote persuasively in The Pool that heroes need not be men, or even people, citing as some of her own heroes Miss Piggy and Mr Toad.  I certainly don’t cavil with her central premise that we should not feel constrained in selecting who our heroes are and the virtues they embody simply by reference to their gender or existence.  I do however feel that a compelling argument can be made that there is a genuine benefit in identifying real life living heroes.

If you’re ever lost for small talk or are phobic to it an often intriguing insight into any person’s personality can be gleaned by asking them who their heroes are.  We are used, preposterously, to games players being cited as role models but are these really the heroes we need or deserve?  The public eye and the public’s voice as expressed by the media fails miserably with the concept of modern heroism.  Celebrity is the currency of our age but as a model to young people or a template for how life should be lived its emptiness is profound.  The media, when it does articulate heroism, does so almost solely by reference to military conflict and this, I believe, is problematic.

There is no question that jumping onto a grenade to save your comrades’ lives is a heroic act according to any definition of heroism.  But when one reflects that the Afghanistan conflict cost 453 UK military lives is there not a benefit in considering what the cost of martial heroism is?  If heroism remains confined to situations in which its definition entails exposure to serious risk to life or limb then what chance does heroism have of informing every day lives?

Edith Cavell shot at Dawn by the German army for treason on 12^th October 1915 for helping injured soldiers escape Belgium, renowned for her assertion that ‘Patriotism is not enough’, and Maximilian Kolbe a Catholic priest killed at Auschwitz on 14^th August 1941 when he volunteered himself for death in place of another camp inmate are good examples of civilians who manifested heroism by way of the ultimate self-sacrifice.  Again however these actions occurred in the midst of wartime and their actions are of a nature that though we believe we might be capable of we in reality, thankfully, are extremely unlikely ever to find out.

What we need is a definition of heroism for 21^st century peacetime: a cadre of people to whom we can look up to not just because they were sacrificed for politically motivated conflicts with nebulous outcomes.  A helpful exercise if you don’t have a personal Valhalla at your fingertips is to take a moment to reflect on people you know in the public eye who you regard as heroic.  They are of course, like Achilles, permitted their flaws: these are, after all, real people and the notion that heroism should be synonymous with perfection should be banished.  Just consider for a moment what we now know about Churchill and his private life and whether he would have withstood one day’s scrutiny by the modern media.

Consider also what heroism means to you.  For me its selfless action motivated by love for others without expectation of reward.  In short if what you’re doing is well remunerated it is unlikely to be heroic.  By this token any one of the Ebola nurses and doctors should be a paradigm example of a modern hero and yet how many of them can you name? What medals have been struck for them or parades through central London arranged?

Once you have populated your own personal Olympus a good starting point would be to tell that person why they are a hero to you.  Then do what you can to publicise their achievements.  It is long past time that a popular narrative of heroism achieved greater prominence.

I would suggest as somebody who deserves much greater prominence for his endeavours than he typically receives is Clive Stafford Smith who fought tirelessly for condemned mean on death row in the United States and latterly has been fighting for the rights of those still shockingly detained in Guantanamo Bay.  If you share my admiration for this man and his work you may want to donate your money or your time to his laudable charity Reprieve.

 

Film’s desperate flogging of the superhero dead horse encapsulates the young and not so young’s yearning for escapism from a difficult and complicated world but the truth is there are heroes all around us and once they are given their rightful prominence you can set about the most important task of all and search for the hero inside yourself.

Wellsprings of Wellbeing - Watery wellness when all around is maelstrom

                                                           

One thing of which I was proud as chairman of the Young Barristers' Committee in 2014 was providing a platform at the Young Bar Conference to a session on Wellbeing at the Bar.  A survey was conducted in October quizzing barristers about the their working lives and levels of stress.  Over 2,500 members of the profession responded providing the Bar Council with a broad and clear and detailed view of what is going on in barristers' lives.  There will be a session at this year's Bar Conference and a seminar on managing stress is being conducted by the YBC later this summer.

At the Bar Council meeting held this morning Robin Allen Q.C. provided a snapshot of the results of that survey and sadly but not surprisingly some of the responses illuminated the real despair some of our colleagues feel.  I am extremely pleased that the Bar Council is taking seriously the peril of stress and anxiety within the profession.  Other major institutions and companies have long been alive to the virtue of Mindfulness within the workplace and the importance of making available really effective and accessible pastoral care to employees and its about time the Bar Council followed suit.

Robin spoke of a concept the name of which I had not heard before but which which will be immediately recognisable and that is Cognitive Renewal.  Every barrister knows that this is no nine to five job and that anxieties about cases can easily pervade every waking, and when things are really bad, sleeping moment.  Furthermore no clerk in history ever suggested to a barrister that perhaps the time was ripe for them to take a holiday and yet it is only through a proper detachment from court, chambers and the papers that a beleaguered whirring brain can be properly nourished, calmed and restored.

That being said in our day to day lives there are so many things that we can do that provide even an essential moment's release from Bar fatigue.  You may have all manner of activities and mechanisms in your own life which fulfil this purpose and, for the avoidance of doubt, I am obviously not talking about alcohol.

For me that escape is swimming.  Not ploughing relentlessly up and down in some chlorinated roped off pool and certainly not neoprene wrapped triathleting but just being in water outdoors under the sun, the sky, the rain and the clouds; in and of nature.  I prefer to do this in the Serpentine (above at sunset) where membership of the Serpentine Swimming Club is £20 per year or the princely sum of 5 pence per day.  It is open to all, the facilities are almost non-existent, there is a unisex windowless changing room about the size of a beach hut, the showers are cold, the water is (obviously) unheated and untreated and yet it is paradise to all who swim in it.  And they know it too.

Even in Winter...

Hampstead Heath's three swimming ponds have forever been the North Londoner's favoured alternative to the Serpentine and South London has long enjoyed England's largest freshwater pool at Tooting Bec Lido.

However for those of us for whom aquatic angst annihilation provides an essential release London is on the brink of leading a world beating swimming revolution.  Within days the King's Cross Pond Club will be fully open to the public and I was fortunate enough to sample its delights at its grand opening on Friday evening.  Harassed commuters swarming on and off their sardine cans at St. Pancras and King's Cross now have on their doorstep an idyllic hillock based oasis cleaned naturally by reedbeds.  It has been evocatively described by Jenny Landreth in her Guardian review, a review because not only is it a swimming pond it is also a work of art! 

Most excitingly of all though is the prospect of being able to saunter out of the Embankment gates of the Temple in swimming trunks and have within yards the Thames' first swimming pool.  An inspired trio of young men are looking to construct, just meters upstream of Thomas Heatherwick's Garden Bridge, a floating lido of filtered, heated Thames water.  On 22nd May a Kickstarter campaign to raise £125,000 towards the Thames Baths closes and you can help them over the finish line here.

Whatever your escape is make time for it, never give it up and lifelong wellbeing will be your reward. And very cold feet.

The Wages of Sin - Making Criminals Pay?

It is difficult indeed to elicit much outrage or public sympathy at the news that one of Mr Grayling’s last acts in office was to introduce a ‘menu’ of court charges for convicted defendants.  On the face of it most would think it perfectly reasonable that those convicted of criminal offences should pay a contribution towards the costs of administering the criminal justice system.  However this is a classic example of where political PR and grim reality come into direct conflict.

Most criminals are poor people.  Poor people don’t have much money and criminal poor people are disinclined to hand over such money as they have.  Compelling criminal poor people to hand over money costs money and if the ultimate sanction of imprisonment is deployed it costs an enormous amount of money, almost always vastly more than the sum that is owing.  The effect of all of this is that any sensible person hesitates before imposing financial obligations upon defendants, even more so when they are imprisoned the result of which, of course, is that they are unable to earn any money to discharge their financial obligations.

In 2007 the then Government introduced the Victim Surcharge a statutory levy applied at sentence in all cases on a sliding scale:

£15 Conditional Discharge

£20-£120 Fine

£60 Community Sentence

£80 6 months or less custody or Suspended Sentence less than 6 months

£100 6 months to 2 years custody or Suspended Sentence between 6 months and 1 year

£120 More than 2 years custody 

Many judges in my experience affect ignorance of which sum applies because the whole thing smacks of issuing a parking ticket and in a serious case can seem a farcical and demeaning exercise.  However the absurdity of the Victim Surcharge, never more prominent than when applied in relation to ‘victimless’ offences, pales into insignificance when set against the Criminal Courts Charge: ( https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/336085/fact-sheet-criminal-courts-charge.pdf )

This obligatory charge must be imposed by all courts when a case ends adversely to a defendant, from the magistrates’ court to the Court of Appeal.  Interestingly it does not seem to apply to unsuccessful appeals to the Supreme Court, possibly a tacit acknowledgement by those responsible of the utter indignity of the highest court in the land charging the defendant a Ton or a Monkey for having the temerity to bother them.

I have seen some embarrassing and shaming scenes in court but few more excruciating than a Lay Bench at Harlow magistrates’ court ordering a trio of likely lads in the dock to jump and down to hear if they had any coins on them to bump up the sum they would pay on the spot towards the fine imposed on them.  Of course this kind of thing is popular with some but populism does not mean something is right.

Increasingly judge’s sentencing remarks are released in full following sentence in the most serious of cases.  Devastating homicide cases resulting in whole life sentences for the defendant and ruined lives for the bereaved will now conclude with the judge ordering the defendant to pay £1,200 towards the expense of trying him.

In a tiny concession to realism there is of course a get out for impecunious criminals as the Criminal Courts Charge states:

‘If after 2 years you have: made best efforts to keep up with the payment terms of any other financial impositions and the criminal courts charge and; you have not been convicted of any other criminal offences during that period you may apply to the magistrates’ court for consideration to write off the criminal courts charge.’

Accordingly it will not be long before a whole life tariff murderer gets a day out of prison to waste the time of the magistrates and public money for the hearing in order to state the obvious, which is that being banged up was something of an obstacle to finding the readies to discharge the Order.  It is little exaggeration to imagine a future where there will be meters on police cars and cell tariffs at Booking In.

Sentencing is a solemn affair and rightly so.  It is perhaps the point at which the dignity of justice must most vigorously be preserved.  Turning judges into traffic wardens demeans victims, the defendant, judges and justice itself.  These charges are wrong in principle and will be costly in practice.

Incitement to Racial Hatred - A little Reminder

Incitement to racial hatred is not an especially commonly prosecuted offence.  It is what is known as an inchoate offence (inchoate being one of those extraordinary legal words that is almost never encountered outside the courts), that means that it is the potential effect of the defendant's behaviour on others that is of interest.  It has been a specific statutory offence for nearly 30 years since the Public Order Act 1986 which, by virtue of section 19, created an offence triable either way:

19.— Publishing or distributing written material.

(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

(2) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for an accused who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred to prove that he was not aware of the content of the material and did not suspect, and had no reason to suspect, that it was threatening, abusive or insulting.

(3) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.

Triable either way means it can be tried in the magistrates' court where the maximum sentence is six months' imprisonment or the Crown Court where the maximum sentence is seven years' imprisonment.  When the case first comes before the magistrates' court the magistrate/s will decide whether the maximum sentence that can be imposed there is sufficient in deciding whether to accept or decline jurisdiction.  Alternatively the defendant has an unfettered right to choose trial by jury in the Crown Court.

The CPS website contains full guidance on racially aggravated offences part of which I set out below (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/):

Incitement to racial hatred

This offence is committed when the accused person says or does something which is threatening, abusive or insulting and, by doing so, either intends to stir up racial hatred, or makes it likely that racial hatred will be stirred up. This can include such things as making a speech, displaying a racist poster, publishing written material, performing a play or broadcasting something in the media.

One of the first things we have to prove for this offence is whether the behaviour is threatening, abusive or insulting. These words are given their normal meaning but the courts have ruled that behaviour can be annoying, rude or even offensive without necessarily being insulting.

We also have to consider whether the offender intended to stir up racial hatred or whether racial hatred was likely to result. Hatred is a very strong emotion. Stirring up racial tension, opposition, even hostility may not necessarily be enough to amount to an offence.

Sometimes it may be obvious that a person intends to cause racial hatred, for example, when a person makes a public speech condemning a group of people because of their race and deliberately encouraging others to turn against them and perhaps commit acts of violence. Usually, however, the evidence is not so clear-cut and we may have to rely upon people's actions in order to infer their intention.

If we are not able to prove that someone intended to stir up racial hatred, we have to show that, in all the circumstances, hatred was likely to be stirred up. 'Likely' does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. We therefore have to examine the context of any behaviour very carefully, in particular the likely audience, as this will be highly relevant.

These offences appear in the Public Order Act 1986, which is generally designed to prevent acts of violence, disorder, harm or threats. Although it will often be present, the risk of commission of a criminal act of this nature is not essential to prove the commission of an offence of stirring up hatred on the grounds of race.

When people hate others because of race, such hatred may become manifest in the commission of crimes motivated by hate, or in abuse, discrimination or prejudice. Such reactions will vary from person to person, but all hatred has a detrimental effect on both individual victims and society, and this is a relevant factor to take into account when considering whether a prosecution is appropriate.

It is essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are able robustly to exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, we have to balance the rights of the individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others.

As these decisions involve questions of public policy, a specialist team of lawyers based at CPS Headquarters reviews the police file in all such cases and decides whether there is enough evidence. In addition, a case of incitement to racial hatred cannot be brought without the permission of the Attorney General, who is the senior Law Officer for the Crown.

The law only covers acts that are intended, or are likely to stir up, racial hatred. Whilst the definition of what constitutes "race" or "racial" is wide, it is clear that it does not cover "religious" hatred.

Incitement to Racial Hatred - Part III Public Order Act 1986 

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] allows freedom of expression save in certain limited circumstances. These circumstances include the offences contained within Part III of the Public Order Act 1986 (ss 18-23). 

Additionally, Article 17 of the Convention states: "Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention." Relevant case law includes Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v Netherlands 18 DR [1987] and Kuhnen v Germany 56 DR [1988]. 

For an offence to be committed under any of these sections of the Public Order Act 1986, there has to be one of the acts described therein: it has to be "threatening, abusive or insulting", and it has to be intended to or likely in all the circumstances to stir up racial hatred. 

The words "threatening, abusive or insulting" are to be given their ordinary meaning and case law dealing with other provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 can assist with this. 

Racial hatred is defined in section 17 of the Act. The prosecution must prove that hatred was intended to be stirred up or that it was likely to be stirred up. Likely does not mean that racial hatred was simply possible. We therefore have to examine the context of any behaviour very carefully, in particular the likely audience, as this will be highly relevant. 

These offences appear in the Public Order Act 1986, which is generally designed to prevent acts of violence, disorder, harm or threats. Although it will often be present, the risk of commission of a criminal act of this nature is not essential to prove the commission of an offence of stirring up hatred on the grounds of race. 

When people hate others because of race, such hatred may become manifest in the commission of crimes motivated by hate, or in abuse, discrimination or prejudice. Such reactions will vary from person to person, but all hatred has a detrimental effect on both individual victims and society, and this is a relevant factor to take into account when considering whether a prosecution is appropriate. 

It is essential in a free, democratic and tolerant society that people are able to robustly exchange views, even when these may cause offence. However, we have to balance the rights of the individual to freedom of expression against the duty of the state to act proportionately in the interests of public safety, to prevent disorder and crime, and to protect the rights of others. 

All such allegations are by their very nature highly sensitive. For that reason, and to ensure a consistent approach, any allegation under this legislation, must be referred by the relevant CPS Area to the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division (SCCTD). Referral means the submission of a report which is sufficient to enable SCCTD and the Area to have an informed discussion about where the responsibility for the case should lie. 

When an Area becomes aware of such a case, it should be referred to SCCTD within seven days. If it is decided that the case should be prosecuted as an offence of incitement to racial hatred, SCCTD will take over the conduct of the case from the Area. If SCCTD considers that it is clearly a case where incitement to racial hatred does not apply, the case should be returned to the Area within seven days of that decision being made. 

If SCCTD decides to deal with a case, the file is held there and dealt with there. Thereafter, cases can only proceed with the consent of the Attorney General. 

The law only covers acts that are intended, or are likely, to stir up racial hatred. Whilst the definition of what constitutes "race" or "racial" is wide, it is clear that it does not cover "religious" hatred.

One of the more recent leading cases on the section is R v Sheppard [2010] 1 Cr. App. R. 26 which concerned the prosecution of two men for publishing racially inflammatory material in which material casting doubt on the holocaust and containing abusive racial remarks had been published on the internet.

Thinking About Feeling

A million words have already been written about how the 21^st century has killed privacy.  The rigid demarcation between public and private so instinctively understood and assumed by our forebears is as alien and bizarre to the Selfie generation as the typewriter or the pen as a means of communication.  However an irony inherent in this tsunami of self-publicity is that the masks that society enjoins us to wear are as oppressive as they ever were even if they are not so clearly understood or limited in number.  It is for good reason that Facebook has no dislike button. 

Other than acting the Bar is in many ways the ultimate mask wearing profession.  It is interesting that the number one question criminal barristers face is: How does it feel to defend someone you know is guilty?  Almost no barrister ever answers that question as phrased.  We reply that the Rule of Law entitles every accused person to a defence and our duty is to present that defence without fear or favour leaving our feelings about a case to one side.  As a result it is possible to progress through an entire professional lifetime leaving our feelings to one side.  We rarely wonder, let alone discuss, whether such studied detachment is a good thing for us as individuals.

Barristers, like soldiers, firefighters, police and doctors, see and hear some horrible things.  Emotional self-preservation and dispassionate professionalism demand that our feelings when confronted with such horrors are silenced or contained.  Humour rarely comes darker than in conversations that take place every day in robing rooms up and down the country in a bid to draw the sting from the grimness of the day’s work about to start or just concluded.

An unspoken assessment that occurs in interviews for criminal pupillage is whether the candidate is emotionally robust or detached enough for the work in the years to come.  A thick skin and a fine mind are the qualities sought: can this person suppress their feelings.  As a consequence many barristers appear exceptionally capable of mastering or masking their feelings.  So much so that when the Bar Council announced last year its backing for an investigation into Wellbeing at the Bar (http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/for-the-bar/wellbeing-at-the-bar/)  there was some, thankfully isolated, dissent to the effect that this was a wishy washy waste of money far removed from the proper remit of our professional body.

Something that I have learnt recently however is that attempting to master your feelings is a Sisyphean task.  It is not like learning to play the oboe or speak German because feelings are always there no matter how deaf one tries to be to them.  Of course one can choose to mask feelings but this is a certain road to inauthenticity and estrangement from oneself.  No career is worth this and no profession should demand it.

Of course the vast majority of barristers are emotionally grounded people more than capable of leaving their professional mask safely packed up with their wig in its tin at the end of the day and I know that I can only speak for myself but the truth is a time came when I felt in danger of becoming not the man I am.

Thankfully for me I discovered that it is possible to learn how to feel, absurd though that might sound, and I learnt that during an astonishing week long course called the Hoffman Process.  Others have written much more eloquently than I can as to the benefits it can bring and I don’t propose to describe its methods and means here.  However if you also think you can think but think you can’t feel you might just want to think about it. 

You can find out more here: http://www.hoffmaninstitute.co.uk/

 

Or you can ask me about it directly: maxhardy@hotmail.com

'To Anyone Will We Sell Justice' - The Repudiation of Magna Carta

This morning the Lord Chancellor trumpeted Magna Carta as one of Britain’s greatest exports.  In one word the failure of the Global Law Summit (GLS) authentically to celebrate the legacy of that seminal document was encapsulated.  English law and its attractiveness as a commercial commodity is what this Summit is all about not the genesis of the Rule of Law and fundamental principles of fairness before the courts.

If England processed foreign defendants through its criminal justice system at a price you may be sure that the GLS would be thronged with criminal lawyers.  But of course any and every country’s conception of sovereignty entails retaining responsibility for administering its own criminal justice system.  And so criminal lawyers and other publically funded practitioners are not welcome at this jamboree because we are a cost, a drain; not an asset susceptible to pricing and selling to the highest foreign bidder.

UK PLC does not profit from trying French thieves, Spanish swindlers, Belgian burglars or Russian robbers.  Because we can’t flog our criminal justice system the Government has no interest in celebrating it.  What the Government is extremely interested in is welcoming the moneyed of the world to litigate in London at vast expense no matter how unconnected their disputes are to this jurisdiction.

You may think though that when you sell something that it is extremely important to know exactly what you are selling.  Of course oligarchs are intimately interested in the incorruptibility of the judiciary sitting in the Rolls Building.  But it is short sighted in the extreme to pretend that the integrity of the Bench sitting at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court and the quality of the justice they dispense conversely is of no interest.  England is still, mercifully, a country in which people do not randomly disappear from their streets or their homes.  Defendants are not detained without trial and even now those that require representation are entitled to it.  None of those things are enshrined by Magna Carta but they are an important part of the reason why the money of the world has flooded into London in the last decade.

It would be an immensely foolish minister or civil servant that assumed that the Commercial Court matters and the Crown Court does not when foreign litigants engage in forum shopping.  It is lamentable to characterise the dissemination of the principles of Magna Carta around the world as an export as though a price can be placed on it like a crate of bananas or a container full of cars.  Especially because exported commodities and goods are usually fated for consumption and using up.  The day that the Rule of Law is used up in England is the day that we shall have to export ourselves.