‘New Labour bullshit bingo.’ That was one critic’s caustic verdict on Steve Reed’s speech at Middle Temple last week outlining the Labour party’s vision for justice. Harsh – though I get it. The shadow justice secretary duly trotted out the kind of tabloid-friendly tropes that might have been signed off by Alastair Campbell 20 years ago.
‘Reed speech on anti-social behaviour proposals to prevent crime, punish criminals and protect the public,’ Labour’s press release trumpeted.
Nothing wrong with that, perhaps. Good politics. ‘Retribution plays well with the Red Wall.’
Tougher ASBOs are indeed on the agenda. It remains unclear whether Labour will revive Jack Straw’s plan to force offenders to wear high-visibility ‘vests of shame’ when picking up litter in the high street.
The Mail duly assuaged, Reed’s speech became more interesting. Labour is keen on Australian-style community courts, involving ‘community leaders, social workers, school teachers and others’ as a way to tackle low-level offending. And in a rare, lesser-spotted spending commitment, Reed pledged to boost the number of Crown prosecutors by two-thirds. There were routine but welcome nods towards a more diverse judiciary and safeguarding the rule of law.
What is clear, nevertheless, is the relative paucity of Labour’s ambition. As one Gazette reader lamented, why has Labour seemingly ruled out funding justice properly from general taxation so the system can be made to work again? Justice needs proper investment most of all.
Instead, we get gimmicks, like the notion floated by Michael Gove in 2015 and Steve Reed again last week of compelling City firms to pick up the tab for the ‘left-behind’. Compulsory pro bono? A levy on profits? A family drug and alcohol court in A&O’s canteen? Reed didn’t say.
In today’s Gazette, Jonathan Goldsmith wisely suggests that solicitors need to wean themselves off the notion that government of any colour is going to pay for justice to the extent they would wish. ‘So are we like plumbers, who do not have to pay out of their own pockets for poor people to have access to sound pipes, or do we have broader social obligations to our sector?’ he asks.
Send me your answers to that increasingly urgent question and I’ll publish them: paul.rogerson@lawsociety.org.uk.
No comments yet