by Kennedy Graham
The Government’s changes to the legal aid system have fired up a number of those who work in the legal system. These changes have resulted in people who face lower grade charges being unable to choose whom they wish to be represented by.
The Green Party opposed the Legal Services Bill which is responsible for many of the changes that those in the legal community are now up in arms about.
The Bill was pushed through on the back of a report from a review panel headed by Dame Margaret Bazley. While the report is sound in some respects, it is flawed in relying, to some extent, on hearsay.
It is, of course, entirely possible that some dubious practices referred to in the Bazley report were occurring. It is true, no doubt, that some lawyers game the system.
But hearsay should never be enough to convict someone. And that is unfortunately more likely as a result of the Bazley report and the ensuing Act.
Legal aid lawyers throughout New Zealand, and in particular South Auckland, have been unfairly and collectively characterised as Arthur Daleyesque type car-boot legal shysters.
Many people faced with a criminal record that will blight their life will have no say, now, in who they have to represent them in court.
The Green Party believes that, where possible, people should have a say in who represents them.
A lower grade charge can have serious repercussions for someone – especially someone who has never been in the justice system and is facing their first charge for a first offence.
As the band Metallica once sang we need ‘justice for all’. Shame Minister Simon Power wasn’t listening.
Published in Featured | Justice & Democracy by Kennedy Graham on Mon, May 30th, 2011
Tags: Bazley report, Legal Services Bill, metallica
More posts by Kennedy Graham | more about Kennedy Graham
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
My experience of being able to ask the Community Law office for advice on who to have represent me in a divorce case, and then getting further recommendations from them for custody paperwork, leads me to say that randomly-assigned legal aid is likely to disadvantage women going through Family Court just as much as it does those being served on criminal charges.
Many advocates I spoke to referred not only to good lawyers, but also to those who would do me a disservice because of their own petty misogyny. These effects are particularly relevant if there are issues of domestic abuse to be dealt with. A lawyer who is prepared to leave loopholes for the abusing party to drive through will not be giving safe or valuable advice to their (mostly) female clients.
Legal Aid is there to redress the inequalities of income that would otherwise restrict parties access to representation in Court. It should not be hobbled in this way, to the detriment of the lowest socio-demographic sectors in our society.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
The change that should have been brought about might have been the Enacting of Pro-Bono Legislation as exists in Australia and the US.
This work is at the sharp end of bringing large beauracracies to order and eliminates the need for Legal Aid.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Katies and Kennedy’s position appear to overlook the issue of just who is paying for what level of service.
The state has decided that legal representation is desirable, even for those who can not afford it, and that is a laudable value to hold. Further, LLB and Bar exams stiplate/confer a minimum level of competancy of that representation.
If somebody want better-than-competant, as Katie and Kennedy appear to suggest/demand, then that person should pay for that difference, and not expect the long suffering taxpayer to pick up the tab for their choice or snubbiong of competant legal representation.
Now, if the ‘bar’ is set to low, and a lack of competancy exists, then that is an issue for standards and ethics committees: to throuw taxpayer dollars at it is hardly a solution.
In short, if Katie and Kennedy want better-than, they should pay for it. It is not for the taxpayer to provide gold-plated service.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And Misanthropic Curmudgeon has hit the nail on the head.
The state has, effectively, infinite resources to bring prosecutions, whereas defendants are almost always of limited means.
Thus the state always holds the upper hand.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
in my country, Indonesia, justice is only for the rich. they can buy justice by bribing judges and prosecutors. for the poor who can not pay lawyers to defend justice as a miracle
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In my country justice is a sick joke reserved only for the wealthy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
why am i hearing the theme for ‘the lone ranger’…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)