Report comment

I remember years ago watching a film- The Fall of the Roma Empire. Alec Guinness was the star, and he uttered a line to the effect, that the fall of the empire was essentially a process, which did not happen overnight.

Is the Bill really a vehicle to achieve a much-needed modernisation of justice, or is it as I suspect it to be, it a mere cloak, to disguise over a period of several years, a reduction in access to justice, and a dumbing down of something, which quite often cannot be simplified?

Life is often complicated, and pretending that “click justice” will provide a viable modern alternative to what we have now is naïve.

How does a battered wife in the South of the country seek justice via a remote regional call centre? How do barristers detect subtle changes in evidence via a computer screen? Interlocutory proceedings can have a profound effect on justice outcomes, and separating judges from crucial management of a case has injustice written all over it.

If an overpowering Executive wants to disrupt on “modernisation grounds” the fine balance which currently exist,s between the various elements of a credible Rule of Law, then the Law Society and others must decide, whether they will be mere bystanders, or whether they will put up some sort of resistance, and carry out an audit of the implications for justice of any Bill.

The haemorrhage of resources from the justice budget by successive governments makes me deeply suspicious as to what is happening here, and the Law Society and the Bar must break the habits of a lifetime and unite, to stop any further decline in our legal system.

Perhaps the time has now come for a “digital Magna Carta” to define the principles of a legal system in a digital age?