The post Humpty Dumpty: Can the King’s men put criminal justice back together again? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Love Island, the addictive reality TV show that has captured the hearts (and minds) of millions, may seem like an unlikely parallel to the solemn halls of justice. However, beneath the sun-soaked drama and spray-tanned bodies, there are striking similarities between ITV’s hit dating show and the criminal justice system.

As someone with a guilty pleasure for trashy TV — evident from my Legal Cheek feature five years ago on ‘Five reasons why students are obsessed with Love Island’, it gives me great honour to present five ways Love Island is just like the legal world.

Cross-examination

In both Love Island and the criminal justice system, the art of cross-examination is performed well. In the villa, we witness heated confrontations like the time Whitney confronted Mehdi for kissing four women during the iconic heart rate challenge, or the time Tyrique admitted to Ella that he “misses the game” not long after confessing he’s developing feelings for her.

Similarly, in the courtroom, barristers cross-examine witnesses and experts tearing down their credibility bit by bit. Whether it’s exposing hidden motives or inconsistencies, both the Majorcan villa and courtrooms show us how cross examination can be done.

The jury of public opinion

Everyone knows the jury determines whether a defendant is guilty or innocent, in the same way the public pick sides on Love Island. In the villa, the islanders’ fates will be in the hands of viewers at home who cast their votes and ultimately decide who they’d like to crown King and Queen of the villa. This is tantamount to a typical criminal case’s fate that is decided by twelve citizens that represent society. Both systems showcase the influence of the masses in shaping outcomes.

Appeals and second chances

The criminal justice system allows for appeals because it recognises the possibility of errors or miscarriages of justice. Love Island follows suit with the Casa Amor twist — this is a fan-favourite moment in the series where contestants are split into two villas and six single guys and girls are brought in to try and rock relationships or build new ones in attempts to keep their place on the show. This dramatic shake-up provides an opportunity for redemption or a second chance at love. The same way that appeals can offer hope for justice to prevail, Casa Amor presents a chance for contestants to correct their earlier decisions and find true love on the island.

Presumption of innocence

In both Love Island and the criminal justice system, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” can hold weight. The contestants are given the benefit of the doubt, their intentions questioned but not assumed. When Mehdi was still on the island, a viewer tweeted his behaviour towards Whitney (where he blamed her for making Jess cry) was “giving guilty until proven innocent” and described it as a “major ick”. Similarly, defendants in court are presumed innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise.

Drama, scandal, and media frenzy

The Love Island tea is piping hot every season. Viewers at home are glued to their screens, captivated by each explosive episode on the island. Season after season, the cast members unleash a whirlwind of drama and scandal — the boys just can’t seem to stay out of trouble! Just as the Daily Mail dissects the latest racy challenge, similarly the media delves into high-profile court cases like the defamation suit involving Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

Court dramas popularity like The People v. O.J. Simpson — American Crime Story mirrors society’s insatiable appetite for scandal. They provide us with true-story reenactments like Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile to classic films like The Lincoln Lawyer gives us cinematic moments that are built to be as tense and dramatic as possible.

Finally…

I’m sure you’ll agree that Love Island and the criminal justice system share more than meets the eye. From the art of cross-examination to the power of public opinion, the parallels are undeniable.

Both worlds offer second chances, presume innocence, and thrive on drama, scandal, and media frenzy. So, next time you find yourself engrossed in the latest island love triangle or tuning into a courtroom drama on Netflix, remember that love and justice can be found in the most unexpected places.

Christianah Omobosola Babajide (she/her) works in legal marketing at a leading barristers’ chambers in Central London. She has a degree in law and over five years of legal writing experience.

The post 5 ways Love Island is like the criminal justice system appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Using email and LinkedIn, I have been in contact with various legal professionals, authors, and philosophers to discuss the recent industrial action taken by barristers across the UK. It’s important to spell out the necessity of these strikes and how unsustainable the criminal justice system has become.

Many barristers are observing what they describe as “days of action” or a strike. Although, when discussing this with Alan Robertshaw (an author and barrister), he believed the term “strike” wasn’t necessary and stated, “it’s people withdrawing their labour unless the ’employer’ is willing to pay them properly”.

This involves barristers refusing to partake in legally aided cases. This is due to years of underpay which has resulted in a quarter of the workforce leaving the criminal profession. The average income for a criminal barrister working a 70-hour week is £12,200 in the first three years. Anyone can see that the notion a barista would likely be on a higher salary than a legally trained barrister is ludicrous.

A large problem is that criminal legal aid barrister’s fees are fixed and include all preparation work completed in the lead-up to a trial, regardless of how many hours they have contributed. To quote a figure sourced from LinkedIn, “A murder case… for which a barrister can only claim £2,575 + VAT… is likely to be years of work!” Surely, we should be incentivising full preparation and research for something with such heavy consequences?

Public opinion

My personal view is that the problem is largely caused by a lack of public understanding surrounding the criminal justice system. Many take the view that it doesn’t affect them as they ‘aren’t a criminal’ or think ‘surely less barristers are a bonus to society as it means fewer criminals being acquitted’. Furthermore, there is also a stereotype that ‘fat cat’ lawyers are already earning too much. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The disparity between pay in different areas of law is staggering. The strikes aren’t attempting to increase the pay of the civil lawyers working for wealthy corporations in large commercial contracts. They are aiming to force the government into properly supporting those who look after the most vulnerable and under-privileged in society, which it must be noted, are frequently wrongly accused.

In a discussion with Dharmendra Toor, a barrister, I aimed to verify the truth of my above claim. He supported my opinion and responded with, “We are striking for the sake of the junior juniors (those starting out) who can no longer survive. I am relatively experienced now, but barristers of all call, including those in silk, are unified in the belief that if we fail to act now, there will, without a doubt, be no sense of justice in the not-too-distant future”.

I raised this issue of poor public understanding with Stephen Davies, a criminal solicitor at Tuckers Solicitors. He said: “I think legal education amongst the public is poor. Our laws are made by parliamentarians and the courts; given both politics and law impacts on everyone within society, I remain surprised those subjects are not mandatory within the national curriculum. I suspect many people will not think about the prospect of being caught up within the criminal justice system because ‘it doesn’t affect them’, but the reality is, crime does not discriminate — you could be a victim of crime, or falsely accused of a criminal offence. If the situation arises, the public is entitled to access to justice and representation.”

“The problem with criminal justice today is that it has been cut to the bone,” he continued. “Publicly funded defence lawyers are reliant on the rate of remuneration that is determined by government. And that rate hasn’t been increased since the 1990s — but it’s worse than that. The rates have been savaged by cuts. Consequently, access to justice and the liberties of England are at risk — we now don’t have enough judges or defence lawyers. This is why lawyers are taking industrial action. This is the last stand. The backlog in the criminal courts is now so severe as a result of underfunding prior, during and thereafter the pandemic, that delay is rife — it has been baked into the system, and the only reason it hasn’t collapsed is due to goodwill from the profession, and an artificially suppressed level of activity. In other words, a reduced level of work entering the system; we simply do not prosecute anywhere near the volume of crime we once did. This means we risk miscarriages of justice on both sides of the spectrum — innocent people risk being convicted, and the guilty walk free. There couldn’t be a better time to be a criminal.”

In response to Stephen’s powerful statement, I proposed the theory that if this was an issue with the NHS, the level of public support would be considerably higher. However, it is a sad truth that the public’s legal knowledge is often inadequate and doesn’t allow them to grasp the importance of a fully funded criminal justice system in a functioning liberal democracy.

I then posed this hypothesis about the NHS to Sarah Magill, a criminal barrister and director of Azadi Charity. Her response stated: If the public knew how bad the criminal justice system had become, they would be horrified. It is painful explaining the problems and the delays to witnesses who are facing the system for the first time.” She concluded the lack of public knowledge could be at least partly because the “government’s brief and the media have historically not reported favourably about the CJS [criminal justice system] or those who work inside it”. As a result, she said, “there is public apathy towards us and a general disinterest in exploring the issues facing the system we work”.

Careers for the wealthy

This lack of funding has resulted in the criminal justice system becoming a career for the wealthy. Only barristers with other sources of wealth (such as wealthy parents) will be able to sustain their career. If not resolved, we will continue to see droves of junior barristers relocating to other careers that they don’t carry the same passion for. However, who can blame them? Barristers’ incomes have decreased on average by 28% over the past two decades, with devastating consequences.

I asked Oliver Kirk, a barrister at 5 St Andrews Hill, about this notion of criminal law becoming a playground for the wealthy. He said: “I do agree with this. There is already a two-track system where those with the means to pay for their own defence have a better chance than those who rely on legal aid. However, with defence fees for solicitors and counsel effectively frozen for the last quarter of a century, there is now a real risk of injustice as the defence simply do not have the means properly to investigate and present their cases.”

This is clearly a far from sustainable method of maintaining a functioning criminal justice system. Conclusively, if we wish to ensure that the innocent are rightly acquitted and the guilty properly punished, then there need to be changes in the legal aid scheme and its level of funding. Having spoken to many of the barristers partaking in the days of action, I can assure you they don’t enjoy doing this. However, they also understand the necessity of these strikes to ensure the future of the criminal justice system. I end on a quote by a personal hero of mine, Martin Luther King Jr. “Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Jakob Fletcher-Stega is a third year law student at Liverpool University, creator of the Jakob Student Advice blog, and an aspiring barrister. He can be found on LinkedIn.

The post Criminal justice: A system on its knees appeared first on Legal Cheek.

At the death of George Floyd, the world stood in silence and solidarity. Social media plunged into darkness. The scorn of racial injustice confronted us once again. Every few decades a prodigious three-word slogan is born, protests erupt, and leaders rise to the challenge of addressing racial inequality. There is no doubt that we have come a long way but still, not quite far enough.

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned […] except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.”

Article 39 — Magna Carta, 1215

The Magna Carta although intended for English nobility paved the way for our current laws on human rights and equality. Almost a thousand years on and the social landscape of the United Kingdom has changed tremendously and despite our achievements, several challenges are yet to be overcome. Laws have been passed, reports written, and commissions established yet the idea of utopian equality remains out of reach.

The problem

The purpose of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 is to “avoid discriminating against any persons on the grounds of race, sex or any other improper ground” and since its passage successive governments have published data on ethnicity and the criminal justice system.

In 2017 David Lammy MP published the Lammy Review, an independent review of the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) individuals in the criminal justice system.

The Lammy Review found evidence of bias and discrimination against people from ethnic minority backgrounds in the justice system in England and Wales.

In 2019 a Black person was 4.3 times more likely to be stopped and searched, over three times more likely to be arrested, three times more likely to be prosecuted, 2.8 times more likely to be convicted and 3.3 times more likely to be given a custodial sentence than a White person.

Statistics and facts from the police

The Lammy Review found: “In particular, Black men were more than three times more likely to be arrested than White men, whilst Black women and Black boys were also significantly more likely to be arrested than White women and boys” and “those from BAME groups were three times as likely to be stopped and searched as those who are White. In particular, those who are Black were over six times more likely to be stopped.”

Consequently, cases progressed through the police, CPS, courts and prison system are skewed unevenly from the first stage of the process — with the police. The alarming stop and search statistics and arrest rates around the UK have been apparent for years and the improvement of trust in the criminal justice system requires change at the stage of police investigation.

Black people are clearly pursued more by the police than their White counterparts. This leads naturally to more arrests, more convictions and more custodial sentences.

A solution to the problem is to scrutinise the apparent over-policing of BAME communities. The Independent Office for Police Conduct which oversees the police complaints system in England and Wales has pledged to launch “race discrimination as a thematic area of focus to establish the trends and patterns which might help drive real change in policing practice”.

Currently the majority of complaints about the police are dealt with by the police force itself. The IOPC intends to investigate more cases where police forces are alleged to victimise BAME people but the IOPC will not be able to independently assess the nearly 32,000 complaints a year. These complaints should be dealt with independently to effectively discourage discriminatory practices and ensure accountability.

Another proposed solution to the problem was a more diverse and representative police force. In 1999 the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (also known as the Macpherson Report) was published. It set targets for police forces around the UK to have the same proportion of BAME officers in their ranks as the communities they serve. Over two decades later the police is nowhere near reaching those targets and BAME people remain underrepresented in the police force.

Statistics and facts on sentencing profiling and the legal profession

More than 13% of the general population in the United Kingdom identify as being from a BAME background, yet BAME people account for a quarter of our prison population (Lammy Review, 2017). There are several reasons for this; one of which is the often-reported lack of trust BAME people have for the judiciary.

Only 8% of judges in the UK are of a BAME background, and with a BAME population of around 13% in the UK, the judiciary has repeatedly been slammed as being unrepresentative of society. A diverse judiciary brings equality of opportunity, democratic legitimacy and a substantive difference to decision making. An unrepresentative judiciary undermines the trust in our justice system. This is especially so when prison sentences for BAME people are 240% higher than their White counterparts for drugs offences (Lammy Review, 2017).

In order to promote judicial diversity, there is a need to support applications from a wide and diverse pool of well-qualified candidates from the legal profession. Steps are being taken to increase diversity such as the Judicial Work Shadowing Scheme which offers eligible legal practitioners, who are considering a career in judicial office, an insight into the work of a judge.

The legal profession which comprises both barristers and solicitors is the major source of the judiciary of the future. Currently, the proportion of BAME practising lawyers in law firms in the UK is estimated to be around 17%, far higher than the percentage of BAME people in the UK (13%) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) expects this to translate into increased diversity in the judiciary.

The MoJ should endorse measures such as publicly-stated targets for selection bodies, with monitoring and reporting on progress to the Justice Select Committee and time-limited quotas as recommended by the Lammy Review. The Judicial Diversity Committee was established to ensure greater diversity and the judicial office is working with the Judicial Appointments Commission to review and improve selection processes.

Further to current measures, there is a need for sustained training on both conscious and unconscious bias in the judiciary to reduce disparities in sentencing. Currently, judges and magistrates do receive training and guidance in unconscious bias from the Equal Treatment Bench Book concerning all minority groups.

Possible solution: ethnicity pay gap reporting

Gender pay gap reporting is now mandatory under the Equality Act 2010 and is having a gradual impact on decision making and career progression.

Ethnicity pay gap reporting should also be a mandatory requirement as data suggests BAME people currently hold just 4.6% of the top management roles. Greater diversity in the top positions will be a natural consequence of diverse recruitment however change in the senior parts of professions will take time. The top positions in many fields including the criminal justice system remain unrepresentative of society.

Possible issues with mandatory reporting

Mirroring an approach such as gender pay gap reporting presents its own issues. Firstly, there are currently no penalties for failing to report gender pay gap data and companies with less than 250 employees are exempt. Attempting to ensure diversity in the majority of law firms and chambers would be difficult if organisations with less than 250 employees are to be exempt.

Secondly, there could be some trouble in setting target figures given BAME populations aren’t evenly distributed geographically. This could be overcome by establishing specific targets by area or location.

Finally, ethnicity is largely self-reported and the term BAME is a wide term which encompasses a huge variety of people from many different ethnic backgrounds. Effective reporting of specific ethnicities would be difficult and introducing mandatory ethnicity reporting to the Equality Act 2010 would have its challenges. Legislating on this issue could be extremely effective in improving equality but it can equally be drafted so lazily as to be obsolete. Regardless of the challenges it is proposed to be a necessary step towards greater diversity in the criminal justice system and in society generally.

Increasing diversity, ensuring thorough education throughout the criminal justice system about the harms and effects of racial bias, improving social diversity and effective accountability are all necessary solutions.

The problem is circular, racial stereotypes drive inequality and inequality fuels and helps entrench stereotypes. Solutions can only be properly effective if the problem is confronted from more than one direction.

Fighting inequality is an uphill battle. The statue of Lady Justice stands above the Central Criminal Court in London, she is the personification of justice and fairness in the UK. She doesn’t (like her counterparts around the world) wear a blindfold. Her message is clear: justice, fairness and impartiality should not require closed or covered eyes.

Jalal Chohan is an aspiring barrister and a paralegal in criminal law. He graduated in law with management from Aston University and is now studying the bar course at The University of Law in London.

The post How should we respond to racial bias and stereotypes in the criminal justice system? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

Following weeks of endless pleas from criminal practitioners, jurors and witnesses alike Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice, finally put a temporary stop to all new jury trials and hearings held in the Crown Court on 23 March.

This announcement came on the very same day the Prime Minister announced an end to freedom of movement until further notice. Long before this announcement was given, the government guidance had been for the pubic to practise ‘social distancing’ before being told to stay at home unless venturing out is absolutely essential.

So why is it that the criminal courts had been encouraged to go on as “normal” in direct contrast to the government’s own advice? Why was the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) so readily prepared to risk the health of court attendees by allowing trials to proceed? Why only now, at this time of crisis, are criminal practitioners among those regarded as ‘key workers’?

These are all questions which circle back to the importance both of the criminal courts and the criminal bar. One theory behind the potentially life-threatening decision to keep the criminal courts’ ball rolling is that the Ministry of Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice are all too aware that the criminal justice system was already on its knees, unable to take yet another heavy blow.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen that the MoJ has been willing to gamble with the health of the public, court staff and lawyers — urging them to attend unhygienic and ill-equipped court centres to keep the criminal justice system afloat that little bit longer.

How did it come to this?

Before this pandemic was even a twinkle in the eye of the United Kingdom’s foresight, crown court trials, in many cases, were being listed over a year after defendants chose to enter a not guilty plea. Where trial backlogs had reached unthinkable lengths, we can justifiably question whether the criminal justice system can survive further setback in the wake of COVID-19.

In reality, it is impossible to pinpoint the precise cause of the current wreckage that permeates through all crevices of the system, but here a few of the more major problems:

The dramatic reduction in court sitting days over the past decade

Crown court sitting days have been cut by 15% in the last year alone, meaning that despite there being empty courts available for use, benches are not able to sit. A drastic and immediate increase in the number of sitting days is essential to tackle the ever-increasing delays.

The approach of the government angled towards being ‘tough on crime’

Where efforts are channelled towards punishment, rather than prevention means that more and more individuals are prosecuted for crimes, imprisoned, released and re-offend. This is frequently referred to as the ‘revolving door’ within the criminal justice system. The prevalence of knife-related offences is a prime example, having risen by 34% between 2015-2019. Despite the proven success of a focus on prevention and rehabilitation in Scotland, England and Wales are yet to follow suit.

The failure of the MoJ to increase fees for legal aid work

Despite recent criminal legal aid proposals set out by the MoJ to bring about new or increased payments to criminal practitioners in respect of large amounts of prosecution evidence, cracked trials and the review of unused material, these changes are simply not enough to rectify the economic instability of criminal practice.

As many junior practitioners know all too well, brief fees leave little to enjoy post-travel expenses and chambers fees. So where does COVID-19 and the halting of criminal hearings leave those individuals? The ones who often struggle to make ends meet, as so many young criminal barristers do, entirely dependent on the funds that come from their daily court appearances. A payment hiatus might just be the last straw for young criminal lawyers and a mass exodus from the career is now an increasing reality.

Will we sink or swim?

It is too early to fully comprehend the extent of the damage COVID-19 will leave behind but what we do know is that the criminal justice system is already crumbling. If there is to be any chance for survival after this pandemic there must be huge injections of funding to all keystones of criminal justice — the courts, practitioner fees, the police, the CPS. A piecemeal approach will simply not suffice in the current climate.

Amongst the doom and gloom perhaps one positive may flow from these strange and unprecedented times. Following the Lord Chief Justice’s statement of 23 March, “all hearings in the Crown Court that can lawfully take place remotely should do so”. This move towards utilising technology for criminal hearings may well be just what the criminal justice system needs to relieve pressure on the courts in life after COVID-19. It may be a solution forced upon us sooner than expected but could act to mitigate delays, save money and court time.

The post COVID-19: The toll on criminal justice appeared first on Legal Cheek.