Letters roundup: 22 April 2022

MoJ must listen to those who know

The Ministry of Justice is eager for everyone to believe that it is doing all it can to address the courts backlog. Those of us who go to the magistrates’ and Crown courts know this is a fiction.

The main problem is that those who work in the MoJ think they know what the answers are because, presumably, they have asked consultants to tell them.

For years I have urged HM Courts & Tribunals Service, the MoJ and Legal Aid Agency to speak directly to solicitors at a local level. Unfortunately these organisations have entered their silos and there is no communication. They seem content with protecting their own image and being able to prove to parliamentary committees that they are ensuring the taxpayer of value for money rather than making the justice system work better.

Here are a few ideas:

1. Do not be so precious about the use of Cloud Video Platform (CVP). Let defendants use CVP to appear in court wherever they may be in the world. Unless a defendant is going to jail is there really any need for them to be in court in person? The Parole Board has adopted CVP and telephone for hearings and has massively increased the throughput of cases. The Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR) allow for this.

2. Get the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to comply with the CPR in relation to disclosure of Initial Details of the Prosecution Case. How many times have I looked in hope to see if CCTV is disclosed or asked for it and been ignored. It is imperative that defence advocates see the evidence and have an opportunity to discuss this with the client. Serve the disclosure early. Serve CCTV/dashcam and body worn video before the hearing date.

3. I wish HMCTS would recognise the fact that the buildings they occupy are public buildings. It has a role as custodian of those buildings to ensure that the public and professional visitors are welcome, and are able to visit without risk of getting wet (leaky roofs) and where proper functioning toilets are the norm. Access to the internet remains an issue which could be solved through the installation of ethernet cable and sockets. HMCTS makes changes to how courtrooms and buildings operate without any consultation. Presumably this is because it believes it owns the building and can do what it likes, when it likes. Yet in hard times it and the MoJ and LAA are quick to ask for the help of professionals to make the system work.

4. The MoJ and HMCTS must recognise the fact that access to justice is a right, not a luxury. It is not a gift of the state. The role of HMCTS and the MoJ is to ensure access to justice in a timely, safe and appropriate manner. HMCTS and the MoJ regularly fail in that regard. The CPS regularly fails in its duty to make proper disclosure in accordance with the CPR.

5. Train police officers on the rules of disclosure. Do not leave this to police forces. Get people who know what the rules are to undertake the training. Monitor disclosure to ensure it is done properly.

Come out of your silos and speak to the professionals who visit your courts and tribunals like we are partners. Even if you really do believe that solicitors and barristers are your opponents, you could save yourselves a fortune on consultants and actually create a system that works.

Arthur Michael Robinson

Director and solicitor, Emmersons Solicitors Ltd, Sunderland

Super-exam exemptions make no sense

As a solicitor and a multi-disciplinary lawyer in three jurisdictions, I feel obliged to express my concerns about announcements regarding the exemptions given by the Solicitors Regulation Authority to lawyers qualified elsewhere.

Recently, the list of countries for the eligibility of exemption from the Solicitors Qualifying Examination has been updated by the SRA. Currently, there are 15 countries that do not meet all requirements but, with additional supporting documents, they may be eligible for an exemption. In other words, the candidates need to prove ‘past qualifying experience’ to obtain an exemption from the SQE2 assessment. This past qualifying experience means that these candidates have been in practice post-qualification. However, they have been practising in their own country in their native language which has no similarity or connection with English law.

I find it hard to understand how a foreign-trained lawyer may be granted an exemption from passing the SQE2, which tests the practical skills, functioning legal knowledge, and ability to render legal services in England and Wales in English. They may therefore be eligible to be admitted to the roll by only passing the multiple-choice exams of SQE1 (although in some instances, exemption is given for SQE1 too).

This constitutes a high degree of injustice and unfairness with regard to fellow members of the Law Society (it can be argued that the title of ‘solicitor’ is now being gifted) and exposes the SRA to a potential increase in the risk of non-compliance and complaints involved in regulating the legal profession. The absence of training, education and the non-existence of practice experience in the UK will increase the risk of malpractice and eventually cause harm to the public.

Every jurisdiction has its own legal system, procedural rules and differences in application of the rule of law. Therefore, an attorney needs to meet the necessary requirements and obtain training for their specific jurisdiction to be admitted to the bar. Remarkably, the SRA has facilitated access to the roll by granting exemptions to foreign-qualified lawyers who have no prior experience in the UK and/or practice experience in English elsewhere.   

I am having difficulty understanding the underlying reasons for the SRA granting exemptions based on the information provided. It gives privilege to foreign-qualified lawyers without obliging them to undertake proper exams to determine whether they have the necessary knowledge, capacity and ability to advise the public as a solicitor.

If the SRA’s main goal is to give access to everyone who wants to become a solicitor, then I would expect every applicant to be assessed extensively by the same system of SQE, regardless of the amount of qualifying work experience they may or may not have accrued in the past.

Name and firm withheld on request