are the possible forerunners of what is
to be a crucial committee to preserve
sustainable access to justice for the
future with the many recent onslaughts
on public legal funding.
So where do you start if you want to
know more about the JC? Members
of the current committee have been
elected until 2020, in other words
the full Parliament. They come from
a variety of backgrounds both legal
and non-legal to give the JC a bit of
balance. And, importantly, they have
security of tenure being elected by the
whole house by secret ballot.
The way JC business is arranged
for the Parliament starts with their
Forward Programme which looks at
the sort of issue they wish to pursue.
Do have a look at the website and
read the “Formal Minutes” of previous
JC meetings listing the agenda items.
Just a quick inspection will be most
illuminating for practitioners as there
is an important public area for the
electorate called ‘consideration of
public petitions’ where there is direct
link to the voter on non-personal issue
matters including the usual suspects,
nearly always involving money.
Having said that, browsing the last
set of minutes shows the inclusion of
petitions on inquests, human rights
and burial and cremation services… so
the areas are wide and varied!
However, it is what the committee
excludes which will be of interest: the
consideration of individual cases and
appointments; the work of the Scotland
and Wales Offices and of the Advocate
General for Scotland.
The JC does examine, under the item
“main estimates memoranda” the
administration and expenditure of the
Attorney General’s Office, the Treasury
Solicitor’s Department, the Crown
Prosecution Service and the Serious
Fraud Office although again it excludes
individual cases and appointments and
advice given within government by
Law Officers.
The Justice Committee is one of the
nineteen Select Committees related to
Government Departments, established
by the House of Commons under
Standing Order No. 152. In essence
it is not party political and works to
scrutinize justice matters on behalf of
the public. The finality of their work
contains the reports presented to the
House of Commons for debate which is
where there is much bigger publicity of
what the JC actually does.
The JC’s Inquiry Work
Probably the most fascinating and
constructive area is where the JC
chooses its own subjects of inquiry
which they can initiate. It allows
for some investigatory freedom as a
committee which exercises cross-party
scrutiny. Depending on the subject,
external deadlines, and the amount of
oral evidence the JC decides to take,
an inquiry can take several months
and lead to reports to the House of
Commons. In other cases, inquiries
may consist merely of a single day’s
oral evidence which the JC may publish
without making a report.
When the JC has chosen an inquiry it
normally issues a press notice outlining
the main themes of inquiry and inviting
interested parties to submit written
evidence. It may also identify possible
witnesses and issue specific invitations
to them to submit written evidence.
Bob did indicate that the website will
be possibly reviewed to include all
relevant press notices and of course
documentation which is available to the
public.
Legal Aid in Austerity Britain
Following our interview which did
feature hot topics like legal aid and
criminal costs, Bob has raised concerns
over the “unintended” consequences
of LASPO during a Westminster Hall
debate held two days later on 15
October 2015. His view was that
legislation which “impacts access
to justice should have an evidential
basis”. He continued saying that
“access to justice is fundamental to a
system based on the rule of law, and it
is therefore important that any changes
we make to the ability of the citizen to
access proper legal advice are based
upon objective evidence.” Perhaps it
is some comfort for advocates to know
of this approach although the main
decision-making always lies with the
Treasury.
Alex Chalk MP, who is another JC
member and a barrister, has reinforced
Neill’s point that a review of the
impact of LASPO should be carried
out sooner, rather than later. A point
echoed earlier at the Conservative
Party Conference in Manchester when
ministerial assurances of a LASPO
review were given by Lord Faulkes.
To complete the confirmation, Justice
Minister Dominic Raab has replied
saying that the timing of a LASPO
review will take place at some point
between 2016-2018 when reforms
have bedded in and a “steady state”
is achieved. Rabb continued saying
that “the precise timing and the form
of the review will be guided by our
assessment of the extent to which the
reforms have reached a steady state,
as I have already indicated, and by
Government and wider stakeholder
research and evidence on the impact of
the reform.” We can take it, then, that
there will be no early change in legal
aid cuts for austerity Britain… but don’t
forget about using ‘public petitions’, or
should I remind you of this.
Criminal Court Fees
One emerging area which I raised with
Bob was the continuing and highly
controversial vexed issue of criminal
court fees. Pressure has been mounted
for reform of criminal courts charges.
the barrister Hilary Term 2016
barmag67.indd 15
15
03/12/2015 10:21