General Thread for the election (old Electioneering starting early thread from Local News)

[Raffles]

I disagree, I believe there should be more blanket sentencing rather than people getting shorter sentences on the basis of personal issues or having a better lawyer.  The entire justice system needs a massive overhaul, as currently it only benefits the rich and the lawyers. The current system of ex lawyers becoming deemsters is plain wrong as well.

I also believe that everyone should be entitled to the same level of defense, regardless of their financial status. So I would advocate (lol) that all lawyers are govt prosecutors/defenders and are assigned to cases. Those they are assigned to can be means tested following the conclusion of their case, and billed for their lawyer's time if appropriate. So no more private lawyers or ambulance chasers. Basically everyone gets Legal Aid.

[John Wright]

29 minutes ago, Raffles said:

I disagree, I believe there should be more blanket sentencing rather than people getting shorter sentences on the basis of personal issues or having a better lawyer.  The entire justice system needs a massive overhaul, as currently it only benefits the rich and the lawyers. The current system of ex lawyers becoming deemsters is plain wrong as well.

I also believe that everyone should be entitled to the same level of defense, regardless of their financial status. So I would advocate (lol) that all lawyers are govt prosecutors/defenders and are assigned to cases. Those they are assigned to can be means tested following the conclusion of their case, and billed for their lawyer's time if appropriate. So no more private lawyers or ambulance chasers. Basically everyone gets Legal Aid.

For most criminal cases defendants do get legal aid, and the same level of defence.

At the police station it’s not means tested and all the good criminal law advocates are on the police duty rota. The rota is 24/7/365.

For first court appearance and any adjournments the court duty advocate rota provides the same. That’s 95%+ of all sentencing.

Theres a huge issue of confidence if government undertakes investigation, prosecution and defending citizens as they pass through the system. There’s no evidence that a public defender system would be any better, or cheaper to run, than the current system.

As we don’t have no win no fee, conditional fee, or share of damages agreements there isn’t ambulance chasing here.

[Raffles]

Yes, but defendants with money can hire better defence. Also, civil cases have a great disparity if you're up against someone with bottomless pockets.

I know we don't have ambulance chasers here due to our laws, but was talking generally. 

[John Wright]

1 minute ago, Raffles said:

Yes, but defendants with money can hire better defence. Also, civil cases have a great disparity if you're up against someone with bottomless pockets.

I know we don't have ambulance chasers here due to our laws, but was talking generally. 

But as all the criminal defence advocates are on the duty advocate and legal aid panels you get the best anyway, unless it’s one of the exceptional, and they’re truly exceptional, instances when an English barrister may be allowed. That is so rare.

Civil cases, if you qualify for legal aid, then you also get the best.

I still do both duty advocate rotas and I’m still doing, the odd, civil legal aid.

Thats generally.

Im the senior practising Manx Advocate on the 4 legal aid panels. Not, I appreciate, that that makes me any good, but I’m in my 40th qualified year. I think I’m the 2nd most senior advocate in private practice. Not that I check that.

Coming back to your “blanket sentencing” would you distinguish between 1gm or 20gm of personal use cannabis, or 1 obscene paedo photo or 1000, or 5 photos at copine 1 or 4, or producing 1kg cannabis or 500kg.  Each pairing would be charged the same.

Or personal characteristics. First offence, 10th offence? Or the parent who steals food because the kids are hungry and the person who steals the same items with £1000 in their pocket? Or the killer who kills in pre planned cold blood in a bothched robbery or the seriously mentally ill 16 year old, hearing voices, who kills because of his health? They’re both murder. They both need a minimum sentence setting ( actually not true, the mentally ill defendant will get a formal not guilty by virtue of insanity verdict and a non time limited hospital order - but you get the idea? )

[Raffles]

Ever tried to get legal aid? It's very difficult to find a lawyer who will even take a (civil) case. Try calling a few firms on the list and you'll be told no space as soon as you mention legal aid. If you are lucky enough to find one, you're stuck with them even if they're crap or uninterested. Those who can afford to choose representation have no such issues. Which makes the system unfair.

Re blanket sentencing. I take your point. The examples you give are all factors that need consideration and should affect sentencing. But there is an issue with those perceived to have money, position, privilege etc,who do seem to receive lighter sentences. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, Raffles said:

Ever tried to get legal aid? It's very difficult to find a lawyer who will even take a (civil) case. Try calling a few firms on the list and you'll be told no space as soon as you mention legal aid. If you are lucky enough to find one, you're stuck with them even if they're crap or uninterested. Those who can afford to choose representation have no such issues. Which makes the system unfair.

What John has probably assumed you know, is that there are comparatively few Manx advocates who do any criminal work.  The Law Society have recently altered their website so you can't use it to find out about individual members or how to contact them directly using that information (an interesting change in itself) but in September I pointed out:

One of the odd things about the Isle of Man legal system is that, despite there being 242 practising advocates (by my reckoning) on the Law Society website, the vast majority only do commercial work and won't touch criminal stuff.  There's only 16 of them who are police station duty advocates for example [...]

So the vast majority aren't interested because they don't deal with that sort of work (and might be pretty useless if they tried).

[John Wright]

33 minutes ago, Raffles said:

Ever tried to get legal aid? It's very difficult to find a lawyer who will even take a (civil) case. Try calling a few firms on the list and you'll be told no space as soon as you mention legal aid. If you are lucky enough to find one, you're stuck with them even if they're crap or uninterested. Those who can afford to choose representation have no such issues. Which makes the system unfair.

Re blanket sentencing. I take your point. The examples you give are all factors that need consideration and should affect sentencing. But there is an issue with those perceived to have money, position, privilege etc,who do seem to receive lighter sentences. 

Of course I’ve tried to get legal aid, for clients, not as you mean.

Perhaps the problem with legal aid is that in the late 1990’s there was a report on Legal Aid and appropriate rates, which, by then had been frozen, 10 years. CoMin didn’t publish it for 5 or 6 years. Then issued a CoMin response and negotiated with the law Society.

Treasury recognised that the figures were correct, but wouldn’t introduce them at once. The offer was that the increase would be phased in over 4 years, with regular reviews thereafter After 2 of the 4 increases CoMin and Treasury reneged. There have been no increases for 12 years.

The rate we are on is still £20 an hour below what was accepted as an appropriate remuneration for 1999. Factor in 20 years inflation and its 50% of what was accepted, in real terms, as an adequate sum.

Its hard work to run a legal aid practice and make any money. Rent, rates, professional insurance, IT, library subscriptions, membership of the law society, wages etc. I’m only working part time. No claims record of 20 years. I pay over £10k in PI premiums.

[John Wright]

15 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

What John has probably assumed you know, is that there are comparatively few Manx advocates who do any criminal work.  The Law Society have recently altered their website so you can't use it to find out about individual members or how to contact them directly using that information (an interesting change in itself) but in September I pointed out:

One of the odd things about the Isle of Man legal system is that, despite there being 242 practising advocates (by my reckoning) on the Law Society website, the vast majority only do commercial work and won't touch criminal stuff.  There's only 16 of them who are police station duty advocates for example [...]

So the vast majority aren't interested because they don't deal with that sort of work (and might be pretty useless if they tried).

The specialisms page was out of date, it’s off line for updating.

Yes, there are only 17 of us on rota, and I’ve been off rota for 12 months because I’m clinically extremely vulnerable. But I start back in February. I don’t need to do it. I choose to.

When I qualified 40 years ago there were 25 of us. 16-20 did crime. Since I initiated the duty advocate schemes 20+ years ago we’ve varied between 15-25 across the rotas. 

[TheTeapot]

My legal aid lawyer had been on the gin, 9.30 in the morning. 

[John Wright]

4 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

My legal aid lawyer had been on the gin, 9.30 in the morning. 

Some clients can have that effect on some lawyers.

Joking aside, I hope you complained to the advocate, the Deemster High Bailiff or Magistrates, the Law Society and the Advocates Disciplinary Committee

[TheTeapot]

I probably should have, but I was a bit nuts back then, they probably wouldn't have believed me. I can't remember her name, or what I was even in trouble for.

[Raffles]

18 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Of course I’ve tried to get legal aid, for clients, not as you mean.

Perhaps the problem with legal aid is that in the late 1990’s there was a report on Legal Aid and appropriate rates, which, by then had been frozen, 10 years. CoMin didn’t publish it for 5 or 6 years. Then issued a CoMin response and negotiated with the law Society.

Treasury recognised that the figures were correct, but wouldn’t introduce them at once. The offer was that the increase would be phased in over 4 years, with regular reviews thereafter After 2 of the 4 increases CoMin and Treasury reneged. There have been no increases for 12 years.

The rate we are on is still £20 an hour below what was accepted as an appropriate remuneration for 1999. Factor in 20 years inflation and its 50% of what was accepted, in real terms, as an adequate sum.

Its hard work to run a legal aid practice and make any money. Rent, rates, professional insurance, IT, library subscriptions, membership of the law society, wages etc. I’m only working part time. No claims record of 20 years. I pay over £10k in PI premiums.

Sounds like the lack of increases could well be a factor. If all legal work was on the same par then maybe it wouldn't be. Not suggesting that increases aren't needed btw, just that for the end user (the public), the system is currently unfair. People are having to go to court unrepresented, as they cannot get legal aid lawyers nor afford private. I feel like having ex lawyers as deemsters etc also means that unrepresented parties in civil cases are less likely to win their case, as it reflects badly on the lawyer if they lose a case against an unrepresented party. The deemster knows that. So has unconscious bias against the unrepresented party. 

[Roger Mexico]

15 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

My legal aid lawyer had been on the gin, 9.30 in the morning. 

This is what John means about the decline in fees.  In the old days it would have been the best brandy.

[John Wright]

2 minutes ago, Raffles said:

Sounds like the lack of increases could well be a factor. If all legal work was on the same par then maybe it wouldn't be. Not suggesting that increases aren't needed btw, just that for the end user (the public), the system is currently unfair. People are having to go to court unrepresented, as they cannot get legal aid lawyers nor afford private. I feel like having ex lawyers as deemsters etc also means that unrepresented parties in civil cases are less likely to win their case, as it reflects badly on the lawyer if they lose a case against an unrepresented party. The deemster knows that. So has unconscious bias against the unrepresented party. 

Every Deemster I know bends over backwards to assist an unrepresented litigator. First by encouraging and assisting them find representation. Then by guiding them to areas of importance and relevance.

Ive sat as a Tribunal Chairman for 25 years. That’s what I’ve always done. In some areas I’ve campaigned for legally aided non means tested representation.

If I feel it’s a case where the appellant was unrepresented and the issue important enough I’d even ask AG’s to sort out a lawyer to advise the court. 

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

This is what John means about the decline in fees.  In the old days it would have been the best brandy.

Have you seen the price of craft gin nowadays?