Unlike many other law bloggers, who no doubt have more refined tastes than moi, I've enjoyed the whole series of The Barristers and particularly tonight's episode. There was a little something for everyone in this last episode, from the standard run of the mill Crown Court case right up to the House of Lords.
Iqbal re-appeared in order to be called to the bar, talk about his new job and to also appear as a litigant in person at his local County Court, which I'm pleased to say he won, not least because the embarrassment caused by losing in front of an audience no doubt consisting of 99% bar students, practising barristers and other related legal sundry would have been just too cringeworthy to contemplate.
Kakoly was put through the mill and had to justify her recent tenancy in front of her Chamber's panel, which I thought was extremely cruel given that she was at the time appearing in her first solo Crown Court trial. It's a pity that having gone through that ordeal of effectively being interviewed and accepted for tenancy twice, she couldn't have had the luxury of saying "you know what, stuff your bloody tenancy, I'm off to Much-Better Chambers around the corner, the money is better, the coffee less bitter and I won't have to pretend to actually respect and like the people I work with."
The cement case left a nasty taste in ones mouth, or perhaps that is just the dust from the said factory wafting its fumes over our homes? The campaigner is left with a £170'000 bill for the 'privilege' of having her case decided in the ultimate domestic court, rough justice indeed. It didn't show the Lords in the best of lights and no doubt the general public will wonder why our legal system is supposed to be the best in the world when challenging a public body can result in such a severe 'sentence'. I myself wonder if there is perhaps a European challenge to be had out of the case, or whether that's it for the poor woman. There really isn't much that our domestic courts can offer with regards to cheesed off residents who have to suffer the ills of inconsiderate planning consents and ignored environmental wrongs. I'm getting on my soap box with this one, so best leave it at that...
I do believe that the public will have a more 'rounded' image of what the job of a barrister entails, that's if any of them bothered to tune in of course.
13 comments:
The HL footage was a bit skinny and some more of it would have been good. It is hard not to feel some sympathy for our lady campaigner, particularly as the poor cow not only had to foot the bill but was, moreover, the last to know the outcome of her case. I was encouraged to see that the Law Lords, when delivering their judgments, couldn't be arsed to button up their jackets and, horror of horrors, one even crossed his arms. So much for decorum and defensive body language; they wouldn't stand a chance at Stalag Holborn !
Yes, I also noticed that at the bar funding meeting there wasn't much in the way of crisp, clean advocacy/dialogue going on, just lots of um's and er's and vague statistics.
Why shouldn't she pay the costs? You can be sure she would have wanted to recover hers if she'd won.
It looks like yet another of those cases in which someone was pursuing a case on a supposed point of principle and wasn't prepared to listen to anyone who suggested they might not succeed. You get them in all civil courts. There would be several times as many if they knew they were only at risk to the extent of their own costs.
Like you I rather enjoyed it.
No FB I cannot agree with you on that particular point. There should be some sort of cost effective way for the public to be able to challenge the decisions of public bodies.
Perhaps her case didn't have merit, who knows, however there must have been some substance to her argument for it to have reached the HoL's. To be saddled with a £170'000 bill for her legal challenge is penal in nature and goes against what the modern civil tribunal is supposed to provide - a fair, proportionate and accessible system for all.
So what if the civil courts are littered with people who think they have had a raw deal against a public body. The family courts are littered with people who are too childish or bitter to reach agreement between themselves, the criminal courts are littered with pepole who just won't stop offending, doesn't mean that they don't deserve a fair hearing.
I think, here, the issue is with the development of the administraive law and, in particular, the merits of judicial review and whether it is adequate as a means of delivering justice to us, poor downtrodden scrotes.
Aside from that, it is not as though the lady didn't know she was at risk of picking up the costs. It is a bit iffy to complain after the event.
Well yes, Judicial Review is considered to be a very ineffective way for public law to be administered. I remember it well from LLB days and it was a nightmare to navigate.
I think my gripe with regards to this particular case was the sheer number of barristers who were representing the other parties, so much for the CPR stating that the law should have regard to both the financial position of each party and the fairness of proceedings, bit of a David and Goliath really when it was seen just how many barristers were representing the other side and that is why I don't think that she should be made to foot the whole bill. State bullying at its worst.
On looking at the judgments (paras 66 & 77 refer) I wonder whether the actions of the appellant's brief may have had something to do with the costs order and, if so, whether she might have a cause of action against Mr Smarmy at Matrix ? In short, did he get up the Lords' noses and they stuck her with all the costs for good measure. The costs hearing was separate and I don't know how to source it and, whether it would shed any light on the issue in any event ?
No doubt once someone invents a more cost effective way to challenge public bodies,it will be adopted. In the meantime the challenge is put and answered and someone decides which side of the argument carries more weight. I can't think of anything better. It takes time and people have to be paid to do it, it costs what it costs.
As for the amount she will be required to pay the successful party, the court will assess the amount according to fairly well established criteria. If the winners brought in too many people the cost of the unnecessary ones will not be allowed. But if winners were put to additional expense because of the way she approached certain issues she is likely to have to pay all or almost all of the actual costs incurred on those issues.
It is by no means the case that loading your side with more people will get you more money in costs if you win at the end of the day. I've dealt with hearings before Costs Judges in which the successful sides were disqualified the whole of their silks' fees and only a proportion of the junior's because the Costs Judge felt it only needed someone of 12 or 15 year's call not a silk and a senior junior. They can be a very tough tribunal.
No matter how oleaginous some might think her barrister was, his job was to present her case as well as he could. Sometimes that requires you to take obscure or possibly weak points to test the judicial waters.
An old trick of the lefty Bar in politically motivated cases is to take every conceivable point in a Gatling gun approach. It makes the simple minded clients happy because all their half-baked ideas are aired in court, so they feel important (a vital cog in the radical litigant's wheel). This approach further delights the punter who can report back to Lefty HQ that all the really important points were dismissed out of hand by a fascist reactionary court of public school bullies. This guarantees more hopeless idealistic causes for the radical barrister to pursue in the future thereby enhancing both his bank balance (the most vital cog in the radical lawyer's wheel) and his street cred among the raffia munchers.
The great thing about appearing against radical lawyers is that they have absolutely no sense of humour. You can have a whale of a time if you play it right.
I didn't mind seeing Smarmy Matrix Lawyer lose - sometimes even the best colour schemes can't satisfy the Lords it would seem...he's probably not thrilled, in hindsight, to have drawn the public's attention to a case which a. he lost and b. was widely reported as an authority on abuse of process because of his side's actions...:)
Sounds interesting, I wonder what the abuse of process entailed?
The judgment records, as a postscript, that when the Lords' draft judgments were released for review, the appelant (i.e., Mr Smarmy) made a further 30 page submission which, contrary to the relevant practice direction, attempted to re-argue the case. This is the abuse of process, which was why I was thinking the Lords didn't cut the appelannt any slack on the costs. It does also tie in with what Mr Bigot says above.
I've never heard of the term 'raffia muncher' before but it made me smile, just wish I knew what it meant? I suppose it's a veggie?
Post a Comment