Public Law Solicitors

A recent case of Chelmsford County Court v Ramet – Re: committal to prison [2014] EWHC 56 (Fam), highlights the growing concern among the Judiciary and the profession in respect to litigants in person, and proper administration of justice.

As the President of the Family Courts, Sir James Munby makes clear proceedings before the Chelmsford County Court were proceeding as normal, judgement was being handed down in a family case, concerning contact with a child, when Mr Ramet, a litigant in person, appears to have snapped and attacked his former partner, occasioning actual bodily harm, and also assaulting the clerk to the Court when he intervened.

It is clear from the judgement that nobody is suggesting that incident would not have happened at all if Mr Ramet was being represented. What is clear though is that the litigation has been ongoing since 2003 and, on the judge indicating that she did not consider that he had engaged with the evidence, frustration overflowed into violence. That violence was inexcusable, but “he may, to some extent, be forgiven for feeling that the system had failed him.”

It is clear from the judgment that, as to be expected from a litigant in person, he was unable to separate himself from the emotion of the case. His evidence as a litigant in person was described in these terms:

"he made no reference at all to the overwhelming mass of evidence, which was critical of his own conduct … [he] has focused on his own feelings … and finds it very difficult to see any fault on his own part."

Whereas his former partner who was represented was described as:

"I found [her] to be sensible, reasonable and thoughtful. I have read the older reports, and it is clear to me that she has listened to much of the advice she has been given."
It is clear from these two extracts of the judgment of the family court that this litigant in person clearly struggled to separate himself from the emotion of the case.

It is of course the position that litigation is inherently stressful and, especially in this type of case, emotions can be expected to run high, but the chances are that if you are represented with a third party giving you their view of the matter objectively, you will be better able to understand the process.

The problem comes when that third party is the judge, and the objective view arrives at the point that the case has concluded. With the withdrawal of legal aid, it appears that it is time to bite the bullet and move away from the traditions of England and Wales to the European system of inquisition.

This is not a cheap option, but without properly funded advocates as a minimum, there is no other option. The law will need to be simpler, and large swaths of our developed legal system swept away to allow the lay person to understand not just the criminal system, but all of the civil system.

No doubt the standard of justice will fall, and the rich litigants from overseas who currently see fit to litigate in the UK will choose to take their business elsewhere. As the Executive in successive governments have made clear, it is the interests of the British people that takes precedence over anything else such as the economic interests of the country, that money from outside the country brings.

It is perhaps ironic that one of the industries that is exporting its work well in the UK and bring resources in, is being undermined just as the other manufacturing industries have been in the past to the determent of the UK.

On the flip side to having to reduce costs by withdrawing legal aid under civil cases, there have been numerous reductions in the costs paid to the non-lawyers within the Courts, again causing conflict between the parties. This is especially so when some of these parties are not legally aided, and are being forced to shoulder additional burdens.

Reducing the costs at the coal face will have other costs, both in money and also in other ways, which cannot be calculated by the Ministry of Justice, pie charts. It appears to have been anticipated that there would be more parties brought before the Court for contempt, through disobeyment of orders.

Hence the change in funding to bring it within the criminal regime and available irrespective of merits and at least within the High Court without means assessment. This fundamental change in funding was brought about by LASPO 12, as noted in the judgement of King's Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Bunning (Legal Aid Agency interested party) [2013] EWHC 3390 (QB).

This is a judgment worth reading for all that have to represent clients in a criminal case arising out of civil proceedings.
The complexity of the issues of funding and that of contempt of court continue to rage, and specifically there will continue to be unjust cases due to these complexities.

In particular in the Ramet case, it appears that the Honourable Sir James Munby, has erred in the reasons for granting funding to that Defendant, although not the outcome. The Defendant was it appears charged with an offence of contempt in the face of the Court, as such funding was criminal but was to be provided under s.14(g), not (h) as noted in the judgment.

The only outcome it appears to this error is that funding was a lot more obvious under s.14(g) than it has been under s.14(h) due to the clear nature of the wording of a primary offence of contempt in the face of the Court.

The cost of imprisoning litigants in person appears to only advantage those private companies running the prison service, to the individuals and particularly the children of those individuals this is a heavy price to pay for government cost cutting.

In figures realised on the 27 January 2014 , the MOJ showed that the costs of dealing with punishment were in the region of £4 billion and that the legal aid for all criminal cases including those that did require further costs to punish was £1 billion. A further £1 billion was spent on looking after the MoJ headquarters and another £94 million on administering the LAA. Just under a billion was spent on civil legal aid, and £1.7billion on the court system both criminal and civil.

The MoJ has identified that it will cut 6% from its two biggest spenders, prison and the Court system, but intends to take 20% from other areas of front line service. Where the magical additional savings will come from is unclear but the legal aid budget appears to be about to take another hit for a successive year.

What is clear from the figures is that as usual with MoJ figures, they are doubtable as to the extent of their truth. According to the paper crime has fallen by 50% since 1996, whilst the expenditure on legal aid has risen in real terms by 10%. What real terms means in this context is anyone’s guess. It is astonishing that in 1996 with double the crime we only locked up 55,000, in 2012, with half the amount of crime we are now locking up 86,000. In real terms the prison population has therefore increased by 313%. What real terms in this case means is also debatable.

Maybe it is the case that all the petty criminals have been killed by the more serious offenders as such reducing the overall crime rate, but justifying the higher prison populations. Who actually knows the truth is still debatable, it certainly does not appear to be the MoJ, maybe also known as the Ministry of Juggling (Statistics).

*The Judicial Working Group on Litigants in Person: Report

Para: 26

LEGAL AID UPDATE, Monday 27 January 2014

* Prison Population Statistics - 29 July 2013