In society's interest

Hot on the heels of the Queen's speech, Janet Paraskeva outlines the government proposals that the Law Society supports and the legislative changes that it will continue to lobby for

A recent article in The Financial Times suggested that the Law Society - along with the Bar Council and the judiciary - has become the new government opposition.

Of course, this is partly a jibe directed at the political circus, but as the Society responds to the proposals for reform of the law in last week's Queen's Speech, it is encouraging to know how seriously our contributions to public debate are received - even if The Financial Times did not get it quite right.

The Law Society actually agrees with the government on a number of issues.

Criminal justice is at the heart of the government's new legislative programme and, as expected, there is an array of proposals for change.

It goes without saying that modernising and promoting confidence in the criminal justice system is a concern we share with government and all those involved in the legal process.

Most of the measures proposed had already appeared in the White Paper on criminal justice, and we were pleased to note that the government appears to have listened and responded to many of the concerns raised by the Law Society and others during that consultation process.

In fact, a number of the government's measures receive the Law Society's full backing.

We support, for example, widening of eligibility for jury service, removing the right to be excused and vigorously preventing non-attendance by jurors.

We also endorse reform of the sentencing framework - in particular, its emphasis on rehabilitation and constructive community penalties.

But there are also some important proposals which the Law Society will vigorously oppose - such as the government's plans to allow previous convictions to be routinely disclosed.

Many of the other proposals are steps in the right direction, but they suffer from going too far - or not far enough.

The position on jury trial, for example, is complex.

We welcome the government's decision to retain the defendant's right to jury trial in the majority of cases and we support the proposal that defendants should have a right to elect trial by judge only - provided that such a decision is taken only after receiving legal advice and that it remains a decision for the defendant alone.

However, we oppose the proposal to abolish the right to elect jury trial in serious or complex fraud cases.

We are also unhappy with the plans to remove the right to elect jury trial in cases involving children and young people.

The Law Society will press the government to drop these proposals.

The Law Society also supports measures to ensure the safety of all participants in criminal proceedings, including witnesses and jurors.

Intimidation, bribery or any other perversion of the course of justice or contempt of court are extremely serious matters, and should be fully investigated and prosecuted.

However, we do not believe that the government proposal to allow judges to decide whether jury trial should be allowed, where there are concerns about intimidation or bribery, is workable in practice.

We are concerned that the judge's role here might undermine the defendant's right to a fair trial.

On double jeopardy, the Law Society recognises that the rules need to be updated to reflect modern scientific developments.

We consider that the safeguards contained in the White Paper - such as the requirement that the Director of Public Prosecutions gives his approval for a re-investigation - will go a long way towards providing the necessary protection against abuse of process.

But it is important that the Criminal Justice Bill should not seek to make any change to the law retrospective and that its provisions apply only to the most serious offences.

In these circumstances, the Law Society would not oppose change.

Away from the criminal justice agenda, our relief that the government did not mention the Mental Health Bill in the Queen's Speech was short-lived, as ministers have now made it clear that a Bill will be introduced.

The draft Bill was fundamentally flawed and unworkable and we will continue to work with other professionals concerned with mental health issues.

We will also continue to campaign for parliamentary time to discuss much needed legislation to protect those who suffer from mental incapacity.

Finally, the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

Tackling 'yobbish' behaviour has been the subject of much debate.

It is obviously an important quality of life issue.

However, in our view, the measures proposed need careful consideration rather than knee-jerk endorsement.

For example, the Law Society would have serious concerns about the types of offence to which fixed penalties would apply and who would have the power to issue and enforce them.

Similarly, giving social landlords increased powers to evict would simply move the problem to a new community and exacerbate homelessness and child poverty.

The new legislative programme addresses many challenges, and we will engage energetically and constructively with government in an effort to ensure that the changes enacted are carefully formulated and properly grounded in the best interests of society.

Janet Paraskeva is chief executive of the Law Society