Tesco Law?

Tesco Law Think of legal practice and you are invariably invited to imagine highly paid men in pin stripe suits, charging their clients in the region of £150 per hour. That may, or may not, seem realistic in the real world. However, one thing lawyers have in common is that they will charge by the hour. Anyone that has ever required legal representation, particularly in a civil case, will know that legal remedy tends to take well in excess of one hour. The Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 and equivalent legislation in England has effectively opened the door for private enterprise to enter this lucrative (hitherto closed) field. You will rarely see a lawyer's practice go out of business, which obviously lends itself to anyone with means looking to further expand their business. Therefore one is led to question the future of a field I am hoping to enter in the not too distant future. Times are changing and with the new legislation, the legal service I enter 4 years or so from now is likely to be unrecognisable, compared to the way things are at the moment. This is based primarily on conjecture, however I feel that the onus is for legal services in Scotland to be proactive in terms of appealing to its customer base. The law is set to be opened up into a more consumer led practice and it appears from the outside looking in that this is something which smaller legal practices are entirely unprepared for.  My first degree is in Economics so I invite you to think of your local high street. Once they would have been filled with butchers, grocers, newsagents, book shops etc. Now, however, and this is likely to be the same the length and breadth of the Country, you are likely to go into any town centre, meet the leviathan that is the supermarket, surrounded by a sparse and depleting shopping centre.  Quite simply put, the average consumer will go for ease of access, affordability, value for money and essentially a one stop shop. The most obvious example of success in this regard is Tesco.  Law firms require clients and they need to attract clients through word of mouth, reputation etc. Tescos, on the other hand, have a captive audience. They are recession proof and they attract millions of people through their doors on a daily basis.  If a supermarket were to have a lawyer, sitting neatly between it's pharmacy and it's optometrist, is your average Joe Blawgs likely to do his shopping and then seek legal remedy elsewhere, or just pop in with an empty trolley for an openly priced, value for money service gaining access to justice in a less intimidating fashion? I think we know the answer. This is the challenge facing the legal system now. There are obvious benefits, including access to justice. From a consumer's point of view, this is likely to drive down prices of services which have hitherto been out of the reach of most people. We are talking about the revolutionising of legal process in the UK and this aspect of it is to be welcomed. However, there are obvious cons. One aspect of legal practice in Scotland is that practitioners must be independent. Let's say the Joe Blawgs we spoke of earlier has slipped on some spilled orange juice in Tesco and broken his ankle. On being treated prior to going to hospital, he notices the legal services being offered in Tesco and at a later date seeks remedy. Can the Tesco lawyer in the store raise a civil action against his employer? Can the Tesco lawyer be trusted to get the best for his client and act as robustly as may be required? Ca the client be confident that the best deal has been negotiated in "...the shadow of the law" if a lawyer advises against court action? Moreover, what of the small law firms? They may not elicit much concern or sympathy, but by and large my experience of small firms is they are run by conscientious people, motivated not primarily by money but by a love of law, an appreciation of justice and a desire to do good. There are some bad apples, and it is these people that tend to attract most attention, however 99% of solicitors in this Country are decent people motivated, like myself, to enter the law to protect the liberty and rights of people and to develop law for the benefit of people. Is a more sanitised, less justice orientated and more profit driven approach really a price worth paying for cheaper, value services from a supermarket?  I have no qualms with the quality one is likely to experience from a Tesco lawyer. It is likely to be good. If Tesco do enter the legal system, they are unlikely to do it in a half hearted fashion. They will attract the best by paying handsomely. They will attract clients. However at what cost? I believe passionately in access to justice and I believe that everyone, regardless of their means, should have access to legal recourse. I also believe that, yes, the likes of Tesco do have a role to play. However I am firmly of the opinion that the law should remain firmly in the hands of legal experts. Therefore, it is for law firms large and small to consider the means to continue to attract clients. This requires openness, it requires a more welcoming approach, it requires greater understanding of what it is lawyers do and the work that goes into a case. It requires a pricing mechanism which our consumers will not find off-putting and, yes, it needs a recognition that we are moving, quickly, into a consumer led market and it's best to be prepared. I'm coming to the end of my train journey now so I'll leave it there. I intend to further discuss access to justice, however, in my next blawg. Need for legal aid, alternatives to legal aid, third sector legal involvement, a public defence system in criminal law and other things. The next stop is my stop so that is all. 

Who is Luke Bozier?

At around 11pm (or thereabouts) on an otherwise quiet, uneventful Sunday evening, I logged onto Twitter to catch the odd bit of political/football/legal gossip before going to bed. Procrastination extends beyond the realms of academia for me and I’m loathe to go to bed early on a Sunday night as it leads quicker into the inevitability of a Monday Morning -  by far, my least favourite time of the week.
 
Unbeknownst to me, however, was that I was about to log into a “Twitter storm” as a relatively unknown (and I certainly don’t mean that in a disparaging sense) erstwhile Labour activist announced to his followers that he was leaving the Labour Party and joining the Conservatives.
 
Allow me, firstly, to qualify my use of the term “relatively unknown”. Amongst politicos like myself, he is well known, but take the name Luke Bozier outwith the realms of the neo-politico and you’ll likely be met with a blank face.
 
That is not to say, however, that this defection is any less significant. Looking at this objectively, I am forced to ask to what extent the reasoning of this intelligent man is reflected throughout the country. It is easy, as prove to be the case given the level of opprobrium brought upon him as a result of his announcement, to descend into mockery and abuse.
 
What purpose does that serve? Luke’s reasoning was sound, well articulated and by and large replicated my own feelings about how things are working out. It would be remiss to laugh off this defection as an isolated affair by a disgruntled, until now clandestine Conservative. The length and breadth of the country, potential voters are forming an opinion on the electability of Labour. Many are coming to the same conclusion as Luke and they have far more power than any of us.
 
History dictates that a party that has been in office for a mere 30 out of 110 years of existence cannot afford to lose its brightest and its best. Nor can it allow itself to dismiss a swathe of people on account of the fact they are “Blairites”. Labour is at its best and most electable when it is a genuine coalition of people, fighting on the centre ground of British politics and speaking the language of aspiration and wealth creation.
 
Yes, people may be entitled to ask “who is Luke Bozier”. However on an objective viewpoint that would miss the point. The question I am asking today is how many more people in the wider general public share the salient views expressed by Luke on his decision to leave, and how many are coming to the same conclusion?

Moving on.

I’ve been thinking about how to tackle this blog both in the immediate short term and over the course of the next few years. What I’ve decided not to do, at the moment at least, although this may change, is to launch into a lecture by lecture regurgitation. I think that would quickly become stale and even more uninteresting than I intend it to be. So, periodically, it’s my intention to update this hallowed blawg with my amateurish insights into the Scottish Legal System, pertinent in this semester Scottish Criminal Law and Scottish Legal Methods. This will, of course, be in addition to anything that happens to catch my eye in current affairs, sufficient to annoy me enough to rant about it on here. I call this the Warsi principle.

We’re now in week 3 and I’ve just come back from my 3^rd lecture on Criminal Law. I’m not sure I can speak for every student of law in this regard; however I have to say that the subject matter at hand is sufficiently fascinating to ensure that the lectures fly by. Already we’ve covered acts which should and should not be covered by criminal law (the harm principle, morality etc), the actus reus (the criminal act), mens rea (the behavioural element), defences, strict liability, crimes against property and art and part liability.

One thing that’s caught my eye thus far is how dynamic criminal law in Scotland can be. Scots Criminal Law is governed not primarily by statute, but by common law. The most obvious crimes (and by that I mean crimes which are clearly criminal in themselves – ‘mala in se’ – such as murder, fire-raising, theft etc) are not primarily governed by statute (by acts of parliament) but have been developed through case law over many years through setting precedent.

There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to this form of law making. There is an argument from a political point of view that it is in itself undemocratic. However, I see the lack of immediate political input as an advantage.

Politicians are likely to complicate matters and often make matters unintentionally worse. With common law, legal experts are able (free of outside interference or fear of backlash) to honestly and impartially judge each case on the facts and make a judgment based on the evidence and the context of the case in front of them. They are then able to set guidelines based on the case in question which can be used in guidance for future cases similar in nature.  

However, the High Court in Scotland has a rather controversial (if very rarely used) power to declare an act as criminal – known as the ‘Declaratory Power’. Technically, (and I say technically as it’s a power last used in 1838 and now contravenes Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights) the High Court has the power to declare an act which was not hitherto criminal, a criminal offence and deal with it accordingly.

Whilst this power to retrospectively declare an act a criminal offence was, as I mentioned, last used in the case of Greenhuff (1838), Lord Cockburn’s dissenting view is of great interest in that he stated that the Court should not declare a new criminal act, but to judge whether a criminal act had been committed in a new way. Thus, years later ‘joyriding’ was not a new offence when cars became more commonly used (and stolen and left in fields), but was recognised as coming within the remit of the crime of theft.

To wind up then, why is any of this of any importance? Well it offers the basis of my understanding of Scots Law and how I aim to progress. The wonder of law is how dynamic it can be, the great debates that are had, the differing legal perspectives in judgments and how the courts play such a vital role in allowing the criminal law to remain effective when new scenarios are brought in front of them. Contrast that with the rigidity of a system which would try cases on the basis of a laid out set of criteria which had no scope for deviation.

I’ve not touched on everything I’ve learned thus far. In fact the intention of this post was to ramble on about art and part liability – but that can wait. Overall I think I’m getting a grasp of what is an entirely new discipline and I’m enjoying it thus far. Over the course of the weeks ahead I’m hoping that I can offer more of an insight into my thoughts of how my understanding fits with more pertinent events as they come up.

Any advice on how I should progress this blawg would of course be welcome, so too the pointing out of any glaring inaccuracies. :o)

A new beginning!

Today I began a new, and hopefully fruitful, chapter of my life as I attended the LL.B induction at Strathclyde University. I decided to walk to the University (about an hour’s walk from my house) as I wanted to clear my head and think about what lies ahead, not only over the course of the day, and over the course of the next year, but beyond.

It’s fair to say at this stage that my aspiration is to be a Solicitor. Now there are numerous avenues of law in which to practice although on my walk this morning I was thinking more along the lines of Criminal Law. Doesn’t everyone? It is probably the most reported area of law in the media and numerous television shows and movies have been made about courtroom dramas. However, I thought about the other areas in which I’m likely to be interested and the more I thought, the more I got excited. Whilst this is undoubtedly going to be challenging and incredibly time consuming, like everything else, if the work goes in then the rewards are boundless.

That said, I think it’s fair enough to suggest that my feet are well and truly on the ground in terms of my ambition and what I expect. My own financial outlay is considerable and therefore I feel more effort has to go in, in order to justify this expenditure. It’s a good focus point. Anytime I feel I may procrastinate I might just dig out the invoice! My social life is also going to take a hit. However, in the immediate short term (at least) it is my intention to keep a Saturday evening free. I work Monday to Friday and my classes are Tuesday and Thursday (6-8) together with Saturday tutorials. I’m not expecting (nor do I want) an easy ride.

So with all these thoughts twirling around in my head I entered Strathclyde University for the first time as a registered student and I was impressed. I was impressed by the staff, the dedication of the people who will teach me and mark my work. 

Thereafter, I left a lot more encouraged than I was before I arrived. That isn’t to say that I expect it to be easier. Far from it. However I am confident that as I put the hours in, the rewards in terms of grades will come naturally.

Moving on then, what awaits me over the next Semester? Well on Tuesdays, accompanied by a 169 page handbook) I’ll attend Criminal Law lectures. The details are on MyPlace and, geek that I am, I’ve already done some basic reading in preparation. I’m really looking forward to this course and just can’t wait to get started – although ask me about this in a month’s time! On Thursday, it’s Legal Methods.  I’m also looking forward to this class.

Overall then, I’m positive about this. I think I’ll learn a lot, not just about the law but also about the discipline of studying law – which is as much a motivating factor for me as anything else. I’ve always been struck by a lawyer’s attention to detail and their analytical mind. This is something I aim to learn and develop over time. I am also hopeful that I will acquire a more critical mind, but more than anything else I hope I build on my current skills and start to “think like a lawyer”.

Finally, the workload doesn’t frighten me or put me off. In fact I embrace it. I remember an episode of the west wing in which President Bartlett spoke of throwing a cap over an insurmountable wall – forcing yourself to either climb it or lose your cap. This is how I feel. Any procrastination or slacking will be ruthlessly exposed and I’ll fail – deservedly so! So I’m throwing my cap over the big wall and getting ready for a new, but exciting challenge in my life. I look forward to the new found knowledge, the experience and the new friends I hope to make along the way.

I hope you’ll share my journey with me, in the form of this blawg! :o)

A personal, therapeutic post.

Growing up, I had two dads. Both the same person, but still, I had two dads.

Sadly, I grew to like the unhealthier, weaker role model of a dad better than the sober, stern father I disliked as the authoritarian, clandestine alcoholic suffering withdrawal symptoms, harsh and irrational (although never violent)! I’ve grown, even still, to facilitate the former. I’ll come back to that. Like all father and son relationships – it’s complex.

Much of my peer group from my adolescent years are dead. By peer group I mean friends of my dad. Succumbed, one and all, to the demons of their own personal illness. Some may say weakness, some addiction, there are numerous definitions. Me, I see illness. An illness which pervades society irrespective of social class, personal strength, employment status or whichever label those of their own bias attribute to it. It’s an illness!

The reason I write this blog is that, for the first time in my life, I have had to reconcile myself with the fact that I will lose my dad prematurely. I will lose him through alcohol. It will likely be on a random day in which I least expect it – called to a hospital and, if I’m lucky, I’ll  have a chance to say goodbye. He’ll never cure himself, he has no genuine desire to. There are always obstacles, there always new “friends” dragging him down, there is unemployment (a state he’s been in most of my life) but there is just simply the fact he is an alcoholic and he’s not wanting to be cured.

Well he has, he’s tried, I’ve seen it and I’ve liked the dad I got to know, briefly, when he was completely sober. Alas, in my 31 years, I make the record of complete sobriety to be about 8 weeks. Heart-breakingly, the last time I saw him sober for any duration was this time last year. I liked him. I liked the dad, the real dad, the one I never actually got to know – or ever will. I’ve surrendered myself now to this, make what I can of what I have, for I’ll always be the son of two dads – never the third.

Never the third I liked immensely and who would have been a pleasure to grow up with as a positive role model. That’s not to say I don’t love them all, I do. Even the stern dad is one I can understand. I never could as a child, but I can now.

I write this for therapeutic reasons alone. Sometimes it’s good to get thoughts on a bit of white paper and let your thoughts take you where you may not otherwise go. I’ve tried tough love.

Once I told my dad all this. I told him that I never really got to know him, as usual he had a drink in him. I’ve come to realise that’s his most natural state. However I did tell him I love him. I can’t do tough love. He is what he is. I can only be a son and I can only hope, as unlikely as it is, that one day he will realise he needs help and goes wherever he needs to go, and that they can help. I can’t, we can’t as a family. I, we, are part of the problem. I/we facilitate. As I say, I/we can’t do tough love.

This has not been an easy, or eloquent post. However I hope that in some way there may be someone, somewhere like I was 10 years ago, who can see beyond the “shame” of an alcoholic father and realise that not only are you not him, but that you should never fear being defined as your parent. My Mother is the finest, most upstanding and honourable person I know and yet I see myself as my Dad – or as the potential to be him. All things said, I’d never deny him, he’s in all forms a good man, but he is defined by his weakness. He allows himself to be.

I can only hope, yet may fail, that I remain the person I was in my adolescence that saw the negative role model I had and chose to lead a different life. Time will tell. That’s not to say I am not thankful for the role he’s played in my life, there have been numerous kindnesses and a lot of love. I’m just now at the point I feel desperately sad for I feel this is now an illness that I can reconcile myself with in terms of how he is, but sadly, he never will. If I’m right, well this will be his eulogy.

I pray, still, that I am wrong.

Complaint to the BBC

A copy of my complaint to the BBC, regarding their slur on the Celtic Support during the Scottish Cup Final programme on 21st May 2011.

I would like to complain, in the strongest possible terms, about comments made by Rob McLean and Pat Nevin during half time in the Scottish Cup Final programme, pertaining to alleged "sectarian singing" by a section of the Celtic Support.

This allegation was baseless and unsubstantiated, yet was afforded a full discussion, effectively tainting the Celtic Support with unfounded accusations of sectarian behaviour. I would ask, under what authority Messrs McLean and Nevin commented on alleged singing, which they admit they didn't hear. McLean himself mentioned "reports from outside the ground". Is it BBC editorial policy to comment on and give credence to uncorroborated reports with no right of reply?

I also note that in response to previous complaints on alleged sectarian singing from the Rangers Support in the CIS Cup Final, made available to me, your department averred that  "...it is not and has never been custom and practice for our commentators to offer opinions on chants from the crowd. They are there to describe the game."

I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of the editorial change to those guidelines - or clarify if they were in fact changed on a whim by a commentator. If the latter is true, I believe this calls the impartiality of said commentator into question.

I believe that the BBC, this season, are open to the allegation of having acted openly and clearly to an anti Celtic editorial line, devoid of any notion of neutrality. This allegation, given the above, was given further vindication during yesterday's programme.

As a licence fee payer and a Celtic Supporter, I would ask that Messrs McLean and Nevin apologise for clearly deviating from their remit as commentators and bringing your guidelines into disrepute. I would, further, request that a clear and unequivocal apology is offered to the Celtic Support for this groundless slur as a matter of urgency.

I look forward to your response.

A personal tribute to David Cairns, MP

I’ve debated whether or not to post a blog on the premature and tragic death of David Cairns, MP for Inverclyde. However, as a former constituent and someone who previously campaigned alongside him, I feel it may be therapeutic to get some thoughts on paper.

A lot has been said of David, and it is to his eternal and deserving credit that he has been universally recognised as a man of great intellect, humour and undoubted integrity. Many of us on Twitter have lost a man of great and cutting wit. I can say that, in what I knew of David, his twitter account was reflective of his personality and that has been corroborated by those who knew him most.

Moreover, the universal praise being bestowed on David is awe inspiring. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, his colleagues and friends from all parties have united in one to praise a good man, who was in politics for the right reasons.

All of these things, from the various times of having met him, I can testify to. However I would go one step further. David never took the voters for granted. He genuinely believed he had to work for every vote – however he did that, not just in campaigning at election time, but by being an MP that any constituent would be proud to have. He made it a point not only to say that he represented all of his constituents, regardless of how they voted, but consciously and assiduously did so!

David held the safe seat of Greenock and Inverclyde from 2001, with a majority consistently around the 13,000 mark – increasing to 14,000 in 2010. A personal endorsement of the man!

He will, to varying degrees, be missed by a great number of people. I am one of them.

Rest in Peace, David – the bhoy from Broomhill Court who became a Minister of State.