The
case for the prosecution has been hastily prepared and presented to you by a TV
producer without any experience or qualifications in law and with a record of dubious
expense claims, before absenting himself from the court for most of the
argument.
Junior
counsel, another with a woeful absence of qualifications and who has allegiances
that swing from one part of the political spectrum to another with almost monotonous
regularity, has enthusiastically but rather ineptly taken the baton to carry it
forward. His bumbling attempts to argue
the case exposed a lamentable ignorance of the facts and his inadequacies often
led him to resort to scurrilous and at times libellous denigration of a
respected profession in desperate attempts to support his position.
Their
pupil, who has at least some qualifications in the legal profession but has an undeclared
interest, has presented some supporting arguments with half-hearted enthusiasm
and has often appeared uncomfortable with the case.
Much
of the evidence presented has been discredited for lack of providence or accuracy. Arguments that have attempted to demonstrate
a financial imperative have not been supported by a) a well presented business
case for change, nor b) accurately demonstrated a significant deficiency in
existing arrangements. Little evidence
appears to be available to show that the proposed new arrangements would be
able to provide consistent quality of service or indeed would be able to
provide a service at all in some remote areas.
Leading
Counsel has demonstrated a total unwillingness to meet with recognised experts
in the field to discuss alternative solutions to a perceived need to save
money. A similar disinclination has been
demonstrated to examine inefficiencies in existing arrangements that might
achieve the savings as have been reported to be required. The irrational preference shown for handing services
over to huge corporate organisations with no experience in the field, must lead
one to suspect an ulterior motive.
Support
for the prosecution case has only so far been voiced by three people outside
prosecution team, two tabloid journalists one a failed barrister and another who
has an established reputation for writing right-wing gibberish; the third a Member
of Parliament who has made vociferous but misleading arguments in the house.
The
case for the defence has been eloquently presented by acknowledged experts from
all branches of the law (including the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar
Association, the Law Society, and the judiciary. Even the government’s own Attorney General and
the Treasury Council) have spoken against the proposals) These objections have been made in a passionate
yet measured manner without resort to personal abuse (although it must be said
the subject has provoked many questions regarding the parentage and sanity of
leading counsel by some supporters of the defence). The proposals have been roundly condemned as unjust
and dangerous.
Convincing
arguments contradicting the evidence given by the prosecution have been made, and
incontrovertible rebuttal evidence placed before the court.
Existing
practitioners have expressed a willingness to discuss alternatives but understandably
refused to engage in negotiations that would ultimately lead to the destruction
of their profession (one might say that turkeys don’t vote for Christmas).
A
back-bench debate in the house almost with one voice expressed dismay at the
proposals with members from all parties speaking strongly against them.
Interested
parties from peripheral professions have widely condemned the proposals and a
petition demanding a debate in the House about it has attracted over 100,000
signatures.
Media
interest has focussed on the more sensational aspects of the case and most of the
general public have exhibited a typical disinterest born out the mistaken
belief that it won’t ever affect them.
So
members of the jury consider your verdict how shall you decide? That’s a really tough one.
