……………..We actually had Justice.

Contrary to popular belief we are all born into this life with only one right. That is the right to leave it !!  And even with that one absolutely unassailable right there exists a plethora of people, both secular and theistic, some with the best of intentions and others with more selfish motives, who cannot resist meddling, interfering and imposing rules. How we leave this life is between us and our god – and nobody else – but the law has to have its say. And that is what we have – law, law, law and yet more law; justice doesn’t enter into it. Don’t let anyone try to con. you into believing that the two concepts are synonymous - they aren’t and they never have been, and what is more to the point, they were never really intended to be. Justice has to do with a set of values; Law has to do with convenience – usually that of whoever happens to be in charge. That, of course, is not the publicised view of things – but it is how it works out in practice.

There must, I accept, necessarily be a framework of law. That law should be simple (which it isn’t), straightforward (which it isn’t), easily understood by those to whom it applies (which it isn’t), written in clear, concise, precise, unequivocal plain English (which it isn’t), readily available in printed or down loadable form at no cost – we have already paid through the nose for it, for God’s sake, as it has gone through Parliament – (which it isn’t) and, finally, kept to an absolute, necessary minimum (which it most certainly isn’t). I accept that all of this would necessarily spoil the fun of those who waste their lives and our taxes enacting most of the utter garbage that finds its way quite unnecessarily on to the statute book and of those, in the legal profession, who set out to make it all so totally incomprehensible that we need a vast legal profession to translate it all back into English for the likes of us normal mortals to understand. It is a very clever trick and they deserve a medal for it !

If you would like to consider an example of the exquisite prose of our legislators (written by lawyers without a doubt) have a look at the motion put before Parliament on 18th. March 2003, Division Number 118, which was used as the authority for taking this country to war with Iraq. Here it is:-

This House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine.
It was understood that this gave Parliamentary authority for the British army to participate in the US-led invasion of Iraq.

What we have here is a collection of 389 words, 8 semi-colons, 13 commas and 1 full stop all crammed into one sentence. Assuming that you have bothered to read it at all then it will probably rank as the most concentrated piece of pseudo-english garbage that you are ever likely to read. And, in defiance of the views of the majority of the country, we went to war on the basis that 412 of our obviously semi-literate 'representatives' voted for it. All of this, of course, largely accounts for the self evident fact that most of our law is steadfastly ignored by most of the population, most of the time, or as often as they think that they can get away with it. We haven’t got off to a very good start – have we ?  Don’t worry, it gets worse !

The law should be fair (which it isn’t). Most of our laws are riddled with exceptions and cop-outs such that the minorities in our society do far, far better under the law than does the majority. This, of course, is yet another example of the dictum that the world is ruled by minorities. The law should be accessible (which it isn’t). Access is governed by the depth of your pocket. The law should be prompt (which it isn’t). It is frequently years down the road and the legal profession accepts this as a norm. How stupid can you get?  The law should say exactly what it means, and mean exactly what it says (which it usually doesn't) so that it is not open to Judges to interpret it (which they do) or to usurp the function of parliament and rewrite it (which they do). I once recollect an MP being interviewed on Television regarding some new Act of Parliament commenting that the legislation in question would now have to go before the Courts to ascertain just what the resultant law actually was! Once again I ask - how stupid can you get ? The law should not be written to best suit the convenience of the administration (which it frequently is). I could go on and on and on but enough is enough.

We have no need to consider the making of our law here, or, indeed those who do the making, that all occupies another chapter. We will turn our attention next to those who operate our legal system. I’m not going to bother too much with solicitors. They are, after all, primarily only interpreters and the hacks of the trade. Let us take a long, cool, unemotional and, most importantly, un-overawed look at Barristers. What are the primary talents of a Barrister? Just what qualities does he, or she, need to be successful in this field? I do consider this topic in some detail elsewhere so I will be brief. Well, an extensive knowledge of the law would be very useful and to this end it would appear that an excellent memory would be a primary requirement. The law is in no way logical, frequently quite the reverse, and therefore no great intelligence is necessary – just the mundane average will do. Like any good Insurance Salesman your Barrister will need the ‘gift of the gab’ he, or she, has to be articulate and able to sell a point of view to the Jury regardless of the qualities of the ‘product’. Watching a Barrister at work one soon realises that one is, in fact, watching a performance and with this realisation comes another – that you are watching an actor at work. From this we can deduce that another required talent is acting ability – the ability to perform before and, indeed, to ‘work’ an audience. So, our Barrister needs to be a memory man, a salesman and an actor. Intelligence is largely irrelevant.

However, we have not yet quite finished. There are very, very few court cases of any description where there is not a result. Virtually always there will be a winner and a loser – almost 50% of each. We can deduce from this that at least 50% of the time someone is not telling the truth – mostly deliberately. This means that at least 50% of the time our Barrister will not be telling the truth. Now, unless we are to include in our list of required talents that Barristers should be the most appallingly inept judges of character on record then we must assume that in at least a very significant proportion of these cases the Barrister concerned is aware of this. In these circumstances our Barrister when putting the case before the court will be lying. This, then, brings us to the fourth, and final talent necessarily required to become a good Barrister. This is the ability to lie fluently, convincingly, with a completely straight face and with a complete disregard for the consequences. Barristers are, in effect, consummate professional liars.

I see little, if any evidence that Barristers are at all interested in justice. They are interested in results. Results pay the mortgage. Your Barrister is judged by his, or her, results. Successful Barristers are successful because they win cases. It is supremely irrelevant, in this context, whether or not the cases were actually decided correctly. In this situation it matters not whether the innocent are found guilty or the guilty innocent. Justice does not enter into the equation at all. I sometimes wonder whether there is anyone at all in the legal profession who could define the concept of Justice or even recognise it if they tripped over it unannounced. If it will further your Barrister’s career to send an innocent man to the gallows – so be it; and this has, quite literally as the records will show,  happened all too often. The guilty have frequently escaped their just deserts and the innocent have too often gone to the gallows. It is an interesting, if unedifying, quirk of human nature that the careers of the Barristers concerned do not seem to have suffered unduly as a consequence of getting things, sometimes tragically,  wrong. The world at large seems to be totally mesmerised by the performance – and its outcome in terms of success or of failure.

I am sure that your average Barrister could come up with a choice of words and arguments to refute and overturn what I have written. But remember, their arguments do not have to be true – only convincing. That is what we pay them for; that is the bedrock of their success – being convincing. Truth is expendable, Justice is expendable – the Career, and the success thereof, is paramount. With these talents is it surprising that so many Barristers become M.P.s ?  Ah, but that’s another story!!

So much for Barristers !!  What about Judges ???? Well actually, once again, it gets worse not better ! ‘Good’ Barristers (in terms of the parameters outlined above) eventually, when they become senior enough, could well become Q.C.s. This, in practice,  would mean that they are especially good at utilising the talents which I have described and have become particularly successful. Judges tend to be selected from amongst the ranks of the senior Q.C.s……………………….If Barristers are to be regarded (as we have already determined) as professional liars then Judges must inevitably qualify as elevated (as in promoted) particularly brilliant professional liars !

It is an observable fact of life that new law is enacted umpteen times as fast as obsolete law is repealed . In the eyes of those doing the legislating this will, of course make good sense. There is, quite obviously, absolutely no mileage in repealing old law – only a lot of undesirable work. As a result of this the statute book is full of obsolete law the enforcement of which would cause total chaos. However, Judges sit up there, in their big armchairs, and pontificate to the effect that the law is the law and must be obeyed.  In all the circumstances how stupid is that? Judges also sit up there, in their big armchairs, and pontificate that we cannot be allowed to select which laws to keep and which to ignore. In the circumstances just how stupid is that? In practice, in order to avoid absolute mayhem somebody, of necessity, is doing just that - who are they; and how are they selected; and by what right do they do it? And since, of necessity, it is being done - why can’t we all do it? We must inevitably be compelled to the belief that our Judges are stupid. It doesn’t auger at all well, does it ?

Now I regret this state of affairs as much as you do. I sincerely regret having to be so unkind to our Solicitors, Barristers, Q.C.s and Judges but I find the logic irrefutable. However, I regret the state of the system they operate even more. We are back with that primeval calf in Sam Foss’s poem; precedent rules; precedent is all important; logic is irrelevant; in fact, to a considerable extent, people are irrelevant. The game, and to them it has every appearance of being a game, has to be played according to the rules. The actual reason for playing the game, the promotion of Justice, takes about 26th. place in the order of priorities. We universally operate a system of confrontation : The Queen v. Bloggs or Bloggs v. Bloggs etc. In most other walks of life it has long been realised that confrontation, from international war to classroom dispute, if it produces results at all does not usually produce a sensible outcome. But in our Courtrooms we still fight it out in an atmosphere of winner takes all - and the truth is the first casualty. The only advantage of the system is in the fat profit it makes for the bullfighters in the ring and for the referee. As the recipients of this profit perhaps, after all, Barristers and Judges are marginally more intelligent than I initially gave them credit for being !

We have established that we have far too much law, much of it obsolete, most of it written in gibberish, slanted to give preference to all of the minorities going, and ignored as far as is humanly possibly, most of the time, by most of those to whom it is supposed to apply. In application it is prohibitively expensive, unrealistically time consuming, based on confrontation rather than a quest for the truth, founded on the mentality of the primeval calf and benefiting only the apparent greed of those operating the system. It really has to stop. It has got to the point where we should be seriously thinking of scrapping the entire statute book, starting again and doing the job properly. That actually begs the question of whether we have the personnel in the legislature and judiciary capable of doing the job properly – and here, for the moment, I’m saying nothing !  There are however some things that really must be seen too.

Our laws, if we expect them to be noted, must be written in clear English and they must be applied absolutely universally. All obsolete legislation must go.  If our legislators wish to continually flood the country with more and more legislation then access to the courts must become universal and free. We need a free National Law Service with no private practices. All members of the legal profession, who after all ‘sow not, neither do they spin’ should be paid at national minimum wage rates. After all, they actually produce nothing at all of any constructive use and in any sane and sensible society that is just about what they would be worth. Our courts should be run on a 24 hour 3 shift system at least until the backlog is removed and thereafter a reasonable time limit must be place on all litigation procedures and court time made available as necessary. At the moment the convenience of the Courts takes precedence over that of the individual. This is inherently wrong. Our Courts are a tool and should be used as such.

We must get rid of the confrontational element of our court proceedings and opt for an investigational one. Judges must start judging the parties involved in the hearing instead of judging the performances of the Barristers. We must re-educate our  ‘Primeval Calf’ mentality and revitalise our court procedures. We must actually practise the old saw “Not only must justice be done, it must be manifestly seen to be done” instead of just paying it lip service when publicity concerns make it desirable. We must make Justice, accessible, cheap and prompt. I am not arguing that any of this will be easy or painless but it, or something like it, has to be done. If it isn’t, and soon, then the whole creaking edifice is going to collapse.

I have to accept that the chances of much, if anything being done are very, very slim. When the inevitable follows we shall once again hear those immortal words – “ we must make absolutely certain that nothing like this ever happens again”. I’m knocking on a bit now, so with a bit of luck I shall miss it !!