Letters roundup: 24 June 2022

Don’t discredit human rights pledge

Professor Richard Ekins has accused a judge of the European Court of Human Rights of ‘a disgraceful intervention’ and ‘a remarkable abuse of judicial power’ when requiring the UK government to defer the removal to Rwanda of an asylum seeker pending a final decision of the UK courts on the legality of such removal (Gazette, 15 June).

The judge was concerned that if the removal was later found unlawful, the applicant would have suffered unjustified hardship. Though UK courts have declined to defer removal in other comparable cases, the government had already accepted that several other planned deportations should be deferred or cancelled, making the costly planned flight to Rwanda no longer viable in any event.

Professor Ekins makes no secret of his hostility to UK adherence to the European Convention, as does the organisation he represents, and he doubtless sees this case as an illustration of its damaging impact on British sovereignty. Disagreement about the correctness of the decision is legitimate but using it to advance a campaign to discredit our longstanding commitment to the European Convention and the international protection of human rights is not.

The true source of the problem here is the government’s hasty decision to press ahead with deportations to Rwanda in the face of widespread public concern without waiting for the outcome of plausible challenges to its legitimacy.

Geoffrey Bindman

London

Bringing gender debate to the table

I read with interest your article on the gender gap in the legal profession (Gazette, 17 June). I am proud to be a partner of a progressive high street law firm with 10 partners, of whom six are women. I was therefore dismayed to then turn the page and see a group photo of commercial litigators for your roundtable discussion, the vast majority of whom are men. Clearly as a profession we must try harder. I include the Gazette in that.

Rob Parker

Lamb Brooks LLP, Basingstoke

Editor’s note: The Gazette’s work on supporting gender equality is well documented and indeed has been formally recognised – but you raise a legitimate point. The upper echelon of commercial litigation is one area of the law that remains heavily male-dominated, as the directories show. In issuing invitations to roundtables, we endeavour to avoid such imbalances. However, the final composition of roundtables can be affected by late cancellations. We are also dependent on law firms deciding who is available to attend on the day.

Bemused by Law Society on SLAPPs

Am I the only one left slightly bemused by the Law Society’s formal response to the government’s consultation on SLAPPs? It is all well to say – as it does – that is it ‘not aware of any current evidence of professional misconduct… in terms of disciplinary outcomes coming through the SRA and SDT data’. Did the Society not think it relevant to consider the abundant evidence that did not happen to pass through the portals of those particular institutions? Or did it not occur to it that after going through the emotional and financial wringer of holding off a SLAPP action, the last thing a bullied and exhausted defendant needs is to then get involved in a contested SRA hearing against those same bullies? (I am certain, incidentally, that every one of us could reel off the names of two or three of the main suspects.)

Indeed, one needs to look no further than the pages of the Gazette to appreciate the reality of the problem. As recently as the 24 May issue, a Law Society Council member (no less) wrote that ‘more and more people are raising the alarm over the use of London law firms for improper purposes, such as the suppression of free speech’. The 29 November issue reported on a conference which heard ‘outspoken criticism from lawyers about their own colleagues’ role in this business’, followed by a quote from a City partner that ‘there are definitely firms out there overstepping the mark’.

There may well be, as the Society claims in its response to the consultation, ‘robust professional conduct rules already in place’, but if these rules are not being applied or enforced, what use are they?

Peter Bolwell

Hastings

Putting patients first

The ongoing debate about the cost of the NHS’s compensation bill often focuses on what is sustainable for the NHS, with little thought about what is ‘sustainable’ for injured patients.

The cost of clinical claims under the Health and Social Care Committee’s proposed ‘administrative scheme’ would be up to 13 times higher than the current cost, according to APIL’s calculations. The only way to make it sustainable would be to make token payments to injured patients and then leave them to do their best in our creaking social care system.

The same committee has recommended that the NHS should restore the health of patients it has injured, rather than allowing them access to private care and the incredibly valuable, and timely, rehabilitation that affords. Such a move would put additional burden on to the NHS, which is already struggling to cope, and force injured patients back into the hands of the very institution which injured them in the first place.

In its consultation about fixed costs for clinical claims, the Department of Health and Social Care’s proposal that fixed costs should apply to vulnerable adult patients is also a serious cause for concern. The needs of people who lack the mental capacity to litigate are varied, complex and changeable. Representation must be tailored to their needs. It is therefore entirely inappropriate to restrict their access to justice by their inclusion in a fixed costs regime.  

Reducing patients’ redress after injury does not tackle the patient safety crisis – it misses the point. We continue to have widespread failures in care. Current approaches are not bringing change quickly enough. The goal must be to save lives and livelihoods – cost savings will follow. We need a Patient Safety Commissioner with a broad remit, to create a meaningful connection between patients, regulators, healthcare providers and policymakers.

Suzanne Trask

Vice president, Association of Personal Injury Lawyers