The NLJ Column

For an early sign of the import of David Edmonds’s appointment as chairman of the Legal Services Board watch Des Hudson. If the Law Society’s ambitious chief executive announces his departure by Christmas, then it is a fair bet that he thinks the game is up for the current tripartite division of his society and a good few of its members as well.

Hudson has done well to uplift flagging morale both at the society and among a good section of his members. He has brought legal aid practitioners back into the Law Society’s fold by a combination of shrill drum-banging, lucky litigation and the shrewd personnel decision to entice legal aid guru Richard Miller from the Legal Aid Practitioners Group. It is not really his fault that Jack Straw remains determined to drive down legal aid costs and challenge the autonomy of the legal profession, or that those in charge of the society before him rolled over so easily on such matters as the external ownership of law firms.

Hudson may well figure that, in the long run, the weakest element of the society’s current trinity—his representation arm—and a lot of the legal aid practitioners that he finally brought to its support—are both equally dead.

Edmonds is a career civil servant who sharpened his skills as chief executive of the Housing Corporation in Mrs Thatcher’s 1980s. He has been chairman of NHS Direct, a telecommunications regulator, and a Legal Services Commissioner. He told Joshua Rozenberg that he was not much interested in being a “light touch” regulator. Well, that’s goodbye to exactly the model for which the General Council of the Bar has been arguing. And probably a lot else. So, keep an eye on Des Hudson for an insight of how bad he thinks it is going to be.

GAGING THE ARGUMENTS

Lord Carter has much for which to answer. As the Legal Services Commission sips from the poisoned chalice that is the “best value tendering” recommended for legal aid, the Carter bandwagon has moved on. In the process, it has left what may be an equally troublesome legacy. Sir William Gage and a small working group have to make sense of Lord Carter’s recommendation that someone investigates the value of a Sentencing Commission. This was a by-product of the main recommendation to build four “Titan” prisons to hold another 10,000 prisoners. Lord Carter thought such a commission would ease planning by making it easier to predict the future prison population.

The problem for Sir William’s group is that commissions do not, by themselves, improve prediction. To guess future prison numbers, you have to anticipate the behaviour of politicians and how they will respond to the media crises yet to break. Difficult to tell months, let alone years, ahead of a moral panic yet to form. What is more, you only get more predictable sentences if you stitch up judges so that they have little or no discretion. This is effectively what happens in the US. The working party has published a consultation paper, held a consultation seminar and is pledged to report by the summer. Watch this space with interest—especially if you think the judiciary should continue to exercise independent judgement on sentencing.

HEARING IT FOR TURKEY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Susie Alegre, former JUSTICE EU officer, made an impassioned argument at last month’s launch of a discussion paper on human rights and the future of the EU for the accession of Turkey to the EU. She also advocated a vision of an EU grounded in a strong and effective human rights framework. Alegre stressed the dangers of the EU leaving human rights to the Council of Europe or even in matters such as terrorism or asylum actively thwarting human rights. British political culture has considerable difficulty with such arguments. Indeed, the government has been all too happy to trumpet matters such as its “optout” from the EU charter of rights as showing satisfactory red lines that demonstrate its negotiating prowess to a sceptical electorate. The UK does, however, support Turkey’s accession—albeit largely to thwart French designs for a more cohesive union. The level of debate on these issues should be raised. Luckily, you can download Alegre’s argument from JUSTICE’s website www.justice.org.uk or e-mail for a copy admin@justice.org.uk.