Report comment

Sir Ernest appears to be trailing a shift away from adversarial trials, which begs the question of who will conduct the inquisition? He states it is the Respondent in the Social Entitlement Chamber, who is, of course, independent. It may be the case that some claims of some types are misconceived, and a fuller explanation of whatever a claimant sues about would settle the claim. There is existing provision for RFI, although goodness knows how a (supposedly mistaken) claimant LIP could frame the right questions. Is it really the case that questions should be framed by the Defendant/Respondent?

The plain truth however s that we will not, under this Government, see a return to old ways. I don't believe them to be wicked or corrupt, as some posters (elsewhere) have insinuated, just hopelessly optimistic and naïve.

My father, a long serving Tory councillor, characterised Tories as optimists, believing that left to their own devices most people will behave honestly and fairly; socialists were pessimists who considered folks need to be coerced/persuaded/required to behave fairly.

As a former civil litigator I have perhaps seen more of the dark side than many, but in my life experience the socialist characterisation carries more resonance.

But since none of the old way of doing things is likely to return during this Parliament, or the next one, or the next one, what sensible suggestions can be made to ensure as fair justice as possible on a shoestring budget? The Government may reconsider aspects if persuaded that in fact the cuts will cause longer term expense to Government (e.g. the slow withering of English law and the consequently declining contribution made to the Exchequer by the legal profession), but there will be no Danascene conversion.