Report comment

Joe and Joanna public don't see the application of justice in the same way lawyers do: only outcomes they personally endorse result in 'justice' and anything else is a 'miscarriage of justice, they believe so they want to choose a lay-judge, not a lawyer because they also assume that judges apply their own moral standards to help further their personal beliefs, which result in a specific outcome. In other words they haven't a clue what 'justice' actually means or what a miscarriage of justice is either. Although I am better informed that many people, applying justice involves a lot more than simply hiring a lawyer who knows the law and personal beliefs are neither here nor there.

If I were to instruct a solicitor or feel confident in a barrister to argue for me in court I would still want one that (a) could see things from my point of view so as to argue the case convincingly along with demonstrating a robust knowledge of the law to underpin their assessment and arguments (b) was willing to exercise sufficient energy into the case to dig deep to uncover winnable points and not take too much for granted (e..g, the lazy assumption that the CPS has decided to prosecute so you must be guilty and the other side has a strong case by default, so you had better plead guilty. (c) tell me very early on that my case was hopeless to prevent me racking up unnecessary legal costs and string out the case with unnecessary paperwork, letters, revisions etc. to swell the coffers.

I think the legal professionals must be niaive if they assume that lawyers do all three all the time. We know that they don't, as I learned to my own cost when I appealled and won as a ProSeLit, and this sort of in-built bias can also erode justice every bit as much as choosing a lawyer who hold personal views and apply them to a case. With civil law, only the pocket book counts. Many worthy litigants can't get off the ground owing to lack of funds to pursue their case. Is that justice? Nope.