The UK’s justice system has a reputation worldwide for uncompromising rigor and fairness, but cost cutting exercises by successive Governments are putting it at risk.
This is the view of the Law Society: the independent body representing solicitors, providing services and support to practising and training solicitors, and providing expertise on law reform.
Its President, Jonathan Smithers, is concerned that changes designed primarily to reduce costs are restricting access to justice and compromising equality before the law.
He would like to see a dramatic shift in the way policy-makers approach the UK legal profession, particularly with regard to court costs.
“I think at the moment we are still going in the wrong direction,” he says.
“As the Lord Chancellor said in his Legatum speech recently, there is a two-tier justice system. I took that as a very significant acknowledgement that there was an issue. It hasn’t started going in the right direction yet because we are still having these consultations about even greater increases to court costs.
“Let’s have a proper grown-up debate. It seems to me that for far too long Governments have seemed to look at the sector and impose a solution on it. There is enormous expertise in the profession that they can and should draw from.”
Acknowledgement of an issue is a first step, but the industry is hoping the Lord Chancellor Michael Gove’s admission indicates there may be a reversal of some of the more unpopular measures introduced by his predecessor.
Among the most controversial, as Mr Smithers highlights, is the criminal court charge, the impact of which is currently being reviewed by the Justice Select Committee.
It imposes an automatic charge of £1,000 on defendants who pleaded not guilty but are then found guilty in a magistrates court. This is regardless of their ability to pay or the nature of the crime committed.
But this is not the only area in which charges are compromising outcomes, according to Mr Smithers.
He says: “If you are making an application out of court in a civil matter the fees are absolutely enormous. They have gone up in some instances by more than 600% in March this year and the Government is putting them up even further. The ordinary citizen, man or woman in the street will not be able to afford to take court action.
“You might say, ‘well that will stop them going to court and that is a good thing,’ but actually it changes people’s behaviour. For example, in a personal injury matter if the insurer knows you probably haven’t got the cash to pay the court fees, they are not going to make you a decent offer. So, people are really disadvantaged by that.”
Further disadvantages are being created by the proposed closure of 91 courts.
The Law Society questions the Government's motivation.
“In some cases there has been underinvestment for years and years and where a building hasn’t been maintained it might just be closed down. For me that is not the right direction of travel.
“We need to look at what is needed and how can we best provide that and then ask if we can afford it. Whereas the Government has been starting from; how much does it cost?”
Reducing costs was also at the heart of swingeing cuts to legal aid; a policy which Mr Smithers says has slashed claimant numbers by 600,000, but has also had worrying consequences.
“These are people who now have to go to court without any advice and they don’t get a fair outcome. You only get a fair outcome if you know what you are doing and you have been properly advised. So, what we find is more people have to go to court. This is because they have had no legal advice to inform them about their options, which in some circumstances would involve advising them to settle out of court.
“We have seen this really graphically on the family side. When legal aid for families work was cut the Government seemed to assume that everyone would go to mediation. But mediation only works if you understand what your outcomes should be. So, people don’t go to mediation because solicitors don’t send them there.
“The job of expert practitioners is to explain to people what they can reasonably expect. If people go to court and they haven’t had that advice, they are often in a difficult position and they don’t get proper justice. So, people are being forced into do-it-yourself justice and it is not fair.”
For Mr Smithers, this erosion of access to legal expertise puts at risk an industry which makes vital, and often unacknowledged, contribution to the UK economy.
The sector accounts for 1.4% of GVA, directly employs over 300,000 people and adds around £2bn to the UK’s balance of payments.
This is reliant, Mr Smithers suggests, on an impeccable international reputation.
“We are absolutely known throughout the world as the fairest jurisdiction. Justice means fairness and we are seen to be fair. I am not saying our system is absolutely perfect, there are always ways in which it can be improved but it is perceived as fairer.
“We have absolutely the best judiciary in the world because it is absolutely free from corruption and absolutely free from government influence, which is almost unique.
“And we are seen to have an enormous history of knowledge. Our common law has built up what is acknowledged to be the best system. When people want to come and litigate, they come here. That is extremely important.”
With this at stake, Mr Smithers has a clear message for Government: “Listen to the experts and collaborate with them.
“See the profession as a friend and not an enemy. We won’t always agree and ultimately Parliament will decide. But if those ethical barriers are respected I think the Government will have much better information.”