I see it’s the official season of trashing Legal Aid. Like clockwork.
The arrogance of some of that criticism is breathtaking.
A thread.
Anyone (I really do mean anyone) can be accused of a crime at the drop of a hat. It might happen when you least expect it. Sometimes things go wrong. Sometimes humans hit other humans with their cars. Sometimes people make allegations that are true / false / somewhere in between.
Sometimes money goes missing at work & fingers start pointing. Sometimes you might have to use violence to defend yourself and you might be accused of going over the top. And sometimes, frankly, your behaviour may fall short. It may be criminal. You can end up in the dock.
Lawyers cost money. They aren’t a charity and they aren’t your friends. They’re highly trained professionals who have chosen to work with those accused of crime. If you are rich then you will probably pay the best lawyer you can. Lucky you.
But what if you aren’t rich? What if you have a modest salary or have no salary at all?
Legal Aid means you will get a lawyer. A proper one. You might have to contribute a bit or nothing depending on your circumstances. That lawyer will advise. They will represent you at trial if you maintain your innocence. They will represent you at sentence if you plead guilty.
Lawyers don’t get to decide if you’re guilty or not. Or walk away if they think you are. That’s what the trial is FOR. That is the whole point.
What if you are never accused of a crime? Well, as a tax payer, lawyers SAVE you money. Proper advice can lead to guilty pleas when appropriate. Proper representation means trials run smoothly and are cheaper.
You, very sadly, might be the victim of a crime. Lawyers mean any trial is run professionally and with courtesy and efficiency. That is in your interest. It is in everyone’s interest.
And if you don’t think you’ll be accused of a crime, don’t think you’ll be the victim of a crime and don’t care about your taxes then the lottery of life means you still might be a juror or a witness. Trials with D’s self-representing can take forever and can cost a fortune.
Legal aid rates are, at best, very modest. At their worst, barristers can work long hours for less than the minimum wage and, sometimes, do certain tasks for free. Just to keep the show on the road and the wheels moving.
Headline legal aid figures “awarded” to criminals are misleading. They can represent years of work across several professionals (solicitors, paralegals, barristers, expert witnesses). The trial might be long and complex. It might include appeal work.
And finally - if you are still banging the “ANYONE ACCUSED OF CRIME DOES NOT DESERVE A LAWYER” drum then consider this. A well-trained, expert defence Bar helps to populate well-trained, expert prosecutors.
And I bet my bottom dollar you like those.
So, next time you read a headline or an article trashing legal aid, take a deep breath. Read @BarristerSecret ‘s book. And reflect how lucky you are not to be at the wrong end of an allegation. Because, one day, you might be.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As we sail ever closer to the abyss of losing jury trials for thousands of citizens - I’d like us to examine something difficult.
Sexual assault.
🪡 🧵
Remember Ministers telling you people who pinch bottles of whisky shouldn’t get jury trials? Well. Like death by careless driving before - here comes another rock hard example of David Lammy’s proposals in action.
Spoiler: it’s more than whisky.
Sexual assault is an offence contrary to s3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It carries a max sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
Offenders often end up on the sex offenders’ register for a length of time.
Have you heard David Lammy MP and Sarah Sackman MP talking about people stealing bottles of whisky and swiping mobile telephones as examples of people who should not get jury trials?
Well. I’d like to tell you a story.
🪡 🧵
I would like you to imagine it’s nighttime. And you are about to go out there now, in the dark, in the rain, in your car.
I want you to imagine you turn the key, you put the windscreen wipers on, put your lights on, click your seatbelt in, and off you go.
You’re alone in the car. Your phone is plugged in to use the sat nav, out of habit more than anything else. But you don’t touch it.
You look ahead at the road and concentrate in the dark.
Hello, you rascals. Off you pop to vote on restricting jury trials for thousands of folk. What a day, eh? Betcha don’t recall THAT in your manifesto. That’s because it wasn’t. HEY HO on we march, into the abyss.
We can see you on your phones, so, some tips👇🏼
I know lots of you won’t vote against your own party today & the whips have been whipping. I get it. It’s politics. But.
You have the elegant option to abstain.
Remember who you are & why you entered politics. Your leader is temporary, but what you stand for is forever.
First, they are (obviously) saying this is about victims. Well. I’m saddened to see this use of a sympathetic group but - don’t be fooled.
You don’t serve victims by moving a portion of them to another queue.
You don’t get to cheer one group of victims whilst relegating others.
Suggesting that Judges decide verdicts in thousands of cases is Peak Starmer.
Lawyer MPs recommending that other lawyers decide things under the leadership of a lawyer leader.
Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers.
Above ordinary people.
Well, let me tell you a secret about lawyers… 🧵
They aren’t special.
Not at deciding facts.
On the contrary, they can be ill-suited to it.
Jury trials have some law, and the judge directs them on that.
But the trials are often about what happened in the nightclub queue, the pub throng, the pitch invasion, the night bus.
The facts might involve a food bank, or a second-hand market. The facts might turn on the precise meaning of an emoji. The facts might involve the detail of a dating app, a Snapchat filter or a TikTok trend.
And lawyers, well. Um. Not all of them have direct experience of those.
David Lammy is doing a ‘true or false’ exercise with his court reforms.
We can all play that game.
Let’s start with this one: if you are falsely accused of sexual assault with a sentence threat of 18 months in prison, you will still have the safeguard of a jury?
They are keeping the automatic right of appeal (re-hearing) from the Magistrates’ Court as a safeguard for speedy summary justice and also to recognise that lots of those appeals are successful?
FALSE
They are ramping up the possible powers of Magistrates (lay people with some training but most of them without any legal qualification) to TWO YEARS IN PRISON.
Hello. Welcome to my theory about judge-alone trials. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. I’m not mad. Promise. It is what I consider to be the likely practical impact of the legislation being proposed.
And I don’t like it.
I don’t think you, or your MP, will like it, either.
We are about to go on a journey together.
I want you to imagine you are accused of a burglary. (Just pretend, I know you’re not naughty).
And pretend you are not guilty and you want a trial.