By District Judge Paul Waterworth (Ret’d)
We are often told, except by those who believe they have suffered an injustice, that the British justice system is “the best in the world”. Lawyers equipped with enquiring and critical minds, essential tools to the proper professional practice of the law, whilst recognising the strengths of the delivery of justice in this country, know that there is no room for complacency.
No political point is made but it is the reality that the virtual elimination of legal aid for family and civil proceedings and the inability or unwillingness of individuals and many businesses to afford the perceived high costs of legal representation, are two of the catalysts that have led to the now well known phenomenon of the large increase in self-representation, both in court and in non-contentious legal business e.g. probate.
It is no coincidence that the judiciary, the legal professions and administrators and help organisations, particularly from the charity sector, have turned their attention to how the provision of legal services can be improved to make the system more accessible and user friendly to those not represented by a lawyer. From being seen as an irritant, a presence which does nothing but slow the progress of justice, the apparent unstoppable rise of those without legal representation in many legal transactions, is now viewed as a factor that must be addressed if justice is still to be achieved and viewed as being fair to all.
The justice system in a democracy espousing the primacy of the rule of law must be fit for that purpose. Any such system which is shrouded in incomprehension in its procedures and which too often results in anxiety and apprehension in its use, is a system which has failed and which will soon lose respect.
Therein, of course, lies the rub. The law is often complicated. Even those parts of the law with which people come into contact the most frequently, such as, for example, family law and procedures, are, for many people, difficult to comprehend and access.
Which lay person, for example, talks at home about a “child arrangements order”, let alone is able to complete all the forms necessary to enable them to approach the court for such a species? Who understands the technical requirements involved in applying for a domestic injunction or can apply the “section 25 criteria”? These phrases and concepts flow from the lips of family lawyers but are as Chinese to many people whose lives are to be critically affected by their application.
Lawyers understand the need for precision in the law, precision which lay people sometimes mistake for pedantry. Lawyers appreciate the need for rules of evidence and for carefully crafted preparation procedures which are part of our system of ensuring that trials are fair. It is telling, however, that even the President of the Family Division recently described the Family Procedure Rules as being “not fit for purpose”. Meanwhile, judges in all disciplines complain regularly about failures to comply with the requirements of rules.
If the law and its procedures are difficult to grasp for many lay people, the problems are even greater for those whom we now recognise to be “vulnerable”. It can certainly be argued that we have come late in the day to a recognition that, even when represented by lawyers, there is a proportion of society which faces additional difficulties, usually not of their own making, when faced with having to deal with legal issues.
The manner in which the law is administered in and out of court is increasingly becoming the subject of legal, judicial and administrative control. The purpose of such changes is, of course, to ensure that the system is as fit to produce justice for the unrepresented and vulnerable as it is for those without those characteristics.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Re W (Children) (2010) UKSC 12 on the topic of children giving evidence in court was a lodestar moment on that issue containing, as it does in the brilliantly straightforward judgment of Lady Hale, a searching but common sense and comprehensive analysis of the steps and precautions that can and should be taken to protect that particular group of “vulnerable” persons.
There are others who fall into the same category of being regarded as vulnerable because of a need for assistance on the grounds of age (old or young), incapacity, learning difficulties, or fear, anxiety or distress. In some cases in only takes a little forethought and preparation to make their experiences of facing the law more comprehensible, bearable and satisfactory.
It is not only in court that society now recognises how such vulnerability can be better supported. In the legal profession, solicitors must comply with legal, procedural and professional obligations to ensure they provide a proper service to clients who display a need for special requirements, not only physical but also intellectual. Why would it not be right for a solicitor, taking instructions from a grandmother, to ensure that she does not have to climb three flights of stairs when it can be seen that she has difficulty with walking? Who would doubt that checks should be made on the ability of an apparently confused person of any age to understand instructions for a will or a witness statement, when embarking on a legal process which may have profound consequences?
These are not new problems. The change is that, quite apart from being questions of common decency and client service, which the vast majority of lawyers would regard as commonplace, such considerations now fall within the ambit of professional regulation and scrutiny under the general law. As such, such regulation is of relevance to those providing both contentious and non-contentious legal services.
These are areas which I shall be exploring in a detailed analysis of the issues in a lecture for DASLS in Exeter in November 2016.