The Mail on Sunday is pushing some vintage #FakeLaw today, with a classic reheating of some #LegalAidLies in the ongoing war on asylum seekers.
Let’s take a brief look. [THREAD]
The “scoop” is that a law firm, Duncan Lewis Solicitors, has been paid £55million in legal aid over the past three years.
Part of their work involves representing asylum seekers.
Hence the headline of “£55m for lawyer blocking deportation flights”.
But look closer.
Firstly, despite the focus in the article on the founder, this is a huge solicitors’ firm with over 800 staff and offices across the country. The headline “£55million for lawyer” implies that this sum went to one individual. It of course did not.
Lie number one.
Context is shorn. This “staggering bonanza” represents three years of turnover for a large company. It is not profit.
You are not told how many cases it reflects, what work was involved, what staff are paid, what the profit margins are. The gross figure alone is meaningless.
Despite the association between the shiny £55m figure and “Channel migrants”, buried in the article is the admission that DL’s legal aid work covers “many areas of law”.
The journalist, who claims to have figures, oddly fails to reveal how much actually went on asylum claims.
“No suggestion of any wrongdoing”, the Mail is forced to admit, yet here’s an irrelevant detail about an unpopular person the firm has represented, just to make the Mail’s readers confident that there *has* been wrongdoing really.
After all, legal aid is only for people we like.
On this “LEGAL AID SPLURGED ON BAD PEOPLE” so beloved by journalists too lazy to report on the real stories in the justice system, I refer you to my endless previous threads on this theme. Snore, I know, but as long as they print this guff, I’m going to keep reposting.
Aside from the #LegalAidLies, the Mail of course relies on the classic #FakeLaw trope that any claims against the government must, by definition, be frivolous/wasteful/an outrage, and that the Home Office would never deport people unlawfully.
*COUGH* *WINDRUSH* *COUGH*
Worth adding that 3/4 of asylum claims are granted - so the majority of people who come here are genuine refugees. And the number of claims fell last year. See the brilliant book Welcome To Britain by @ColinYeo1 for other facts the Home Office would rather you didn’t know.
Finally, the journalist leaves to the very end the rather boring fact (given in rebuttal by the solicitors rather than presented honestly by the Mail) that legal aid rates are fixed by government. The government severely restricts who qualifies and how much is paid.
So, to sum up:
🛑£55million was *not* paid to one single lawyer
🛑That figure has no relation to asylum claims
🛑A large law firm with hundreds of staff and many offices has a large turnover.
🛑Legal aid rates are set by govt below market rates
🛑No suggestion of wrongdoing
All of which makes one wonder why on earth the journalist thought this was a story worth writing. Where is the public interest? What serious point is being made here?
Heaven forfend it is #FakeLaw misdirection to whip up hatred towards asylum seekers and their lawyers.
And the inevitable plug. Buy it, borrow it, lend it, force everyone you know to read it. It’s only because of our unfamiliarity with the legal system that the government and its cheerleaders can lie to us with impunity.
Why might there be a delay in the details of a police investigation being made public?
Well, many reasons. None of which relate to a conspiracy or a “cover-up”.
Let’s take a quick look🧵👇
First there are the practicalities of modern investigations, particularly in serious and complex cases where the police are reviewing multiple digital devices, such as mobile phones and computers.
Sometimes a device is encrypted, or a suspect won’t give their PIN, which makes it more time-consuming for the police to access the device. If/when they do, a mobile phone “download” can contain tens if not hundreds of thousands of pages to review. This takes time.
Huw Edwards pleaded guilty to “making” 41 indecent photographs of a child.
The first point to note is that “making” is misleading - the offence was possessing them on a computer, rather than creating or recording the images. The law is grossly confusing in this area.
The thread offers a hypothetical of a person breaking a car window to rescue a child, only to find themselves charged with criminal damage and prevented by the judge from mentioning this critical circumstance to the jury.
Just like climate activists.
Only…it’s false.
If you’re sitting cosily for a law lecture (and who among us is not?), the issue arises from one of the legal defences available to criminal damage.
It is a defence if you believe the owner consented or *would have consented* had they known of the damage and its circumstances.
As the issue of compensation for miscarriages of justice is rightly in the news, it’s timely to note that in 2014, the government changed the law to make it all but impossible for people wrongly convicted and imprisoned to claim compensation.
Chris Grayling and Theresa May led the charge to deprive the wrongly convicted of compensation, changing the rules so that those people had to effectively prove their innocence - an impossible standard to meet.
The details are in Stories of The Law & How It’s Broken.
When this spiteful non-compensation scheme was challenged in the courts, the current crop of politicians - those who are now positioning themselves as champions of the wrongfully convicted - fought all the way to uphold it.
Can highly recommend this piece in today’s Sunday Times if you’re looking for a facile misunderstanding of what a barrister actually does.
If Mr Syed had bothered to speak to a barrister, or indulge in the most cursory research, he would have learned at least two things: 🧵
1. 90% of a barrister’s career is spent on making decisions. Advising on courses of action, of legal risk, future consequences, assessing evidence and making split-second judgement calls (both in and out of court) that can make an irrevocable decision to a person’s life.
2. It’s an obvious one, and an old favourite, but given that it seems to take Mr Syed by surprise:
BARRISTERS ARE NOT THEIR CLIENTS.
We ask questions in court and test evidence, on behalf of whoever instructs us, because that is our job.
Readers are invited to conclude that £100,000 (£100,028, to be precise) is too much to spend on this very serious case, in which an MP was murdered. A “ridiculous amount of money”, we’re reliably told by Conservative MP @nigelmills.
Well let’s see.
The first teeny, tiny point - and I really am being picky - is that, despite @nigelmills confidently asserting that the defendant “admitted the killing”, that’s not actually true. Not really.
Because the same article tells us that he denied murder and had a 7-day trial.