At the risk of giving this kind of #FakeLaw the publicity it craves, the reality is that thousands will read it, and I do think it’s important to put the truth out there.
So here goes.
More #LegalAidLies from the Mail... [THREAD]
So here goes.
More #LegalAidLies from the Mail... [THREAD]
1. We start as ever with a claim that the defendants “got £17,000 off taxpayer”, like they were handed a bag of swag. This is in fact the cost of legal aid set by the government. It’s like saying someone who receives a NHS heart transplant “gets” the cost of the operation in cash
2. Readers are invited to conclude that £17,000 is too much to spend on this very serious case. The journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right. Such as...
3. How much of that figure includes VAT, which goes to the Treasury?What work was involved? How many pages of evidence were there to read? How many hours, days, months went into this extremely serious case where the defendants were looking at potential life sentences?
4. £17k sounds like a lot out of context. But this is for two defendants. And the figures are gross, not net. Barristers are self-employed with staff to pay, business costs, rent, insurance, tax etc. When that is broken down, what is the actual *profit* for these professionals?
5. What is the hourly rate? How does that compare to the hourly rate of other professionals? What does this journalist suggest *should* be paid to the most highly experienced professionals in their fields - the most experienced QCs - dealing with the most serious criminal cases?
6. Because this is is what it boils down to: if you are going to run a “news” story decrying the cost of legal aid, you should be able to give full context to show why it’s too much, and what sum would have been reasonable.
Of course, The Mail doesn’t.
Of course, The Mail doesn’t.
7. The deceit.
“Expensive lawyers” - as if the defendants leafed through a catalogue and picked those with the highest rate.
“Ran up a bill”, as if legal aid lawyers charge by the hour.
The truth is that legal aid fees are fixed by the government far below market rates.
“Expensive lawyers” - as if the defendants leafed through a catalogue and picked those with the highest rate.
“Ran up a bill”, as if legal aid lawyers charge by the hour.
The truth is that legal aid fees are fixed by the government far below market rates.
8. If you want to see what top criminal lawyers can earn on the open market, well...
The Sun’s publisher News Corp was happy to pay £60m in private fees to defend five journalists accused of phone hacking.
That’s an average of £12m each, and nobody was accused of murder.
The Sun’s publisher News Corp was happy to pay £60m in private fees to defend five journalists accused of phone hacking.
That’s an average of £12m each, and nobody was accused of murder.
9. But when it comes to the public, tabloid journalists think that if you are accused of a crime you don’t deserve to have the same right to a defence as they do.
The hypocrisy would be jaw-dropping if it weren’t so depressingly familiar.
The hypocrisy would be jaw-dropping if it weren’t so depressingly familiar.
10. You may think that £8,000 for the most experienced criminal barristers in the country to represent teenagers charged with murder is a steal in comparison.
But the Mail - or this journalist - wants you to resent these youths being properly advised and represented.
But the Mail - or this journalist - wants you to resent these youths being properly advised and represented.
11. The Mail’s piece actually exposes the desultory rates paid on legal aid in most cases.
The “huge sums” include fixed rates at the police station of £208. That would in a case like this represent several days’ work for the solicitor. The net hourly rate would be a pittance.
The “huge sums” include fixed rates at the police station of £208. That would in a case like this represent several days’ work for the solicitor. The net hourly rate would be a pittance.
12. But look at that again - “despite the brutality...they were allowed [legal aid]”
Translation: these were bad people, and it is wrong for taxpayer money to be spent on ensuring that bad people are fairly convicted.
Spoiler: It’s not. It is the hallmark of a civilised society
Translation: these were bad people, and it is wrong for taxpayer money to be spent on ensuring that bad people are fairly convicted.
Spoiler: It’s not. It is the hallmark of a civilised society
13. Here’s why: because everybody - you, me, the people we fear and hate most - has the right to a defence if accused of a crime.
Everybody is entitled to a fair trial under the rule of law.
And here’s a thing: sometimes accused people are innocent. And are found not guilty.
Everybody is entitled to a fair trial under the rule of law.
And here’s a thing: sometimes accused people are innocent. And are found not guilty.
14. But even when, as here, defendants are guilty, and admit their guilt, it is just as important that they are properly legally advised, and that their mitigation is properly put before the sentencing court.
That’s how we can be satisfied they have properly been convicted.
That’s how we can be satisfied they have properly been convicted.
15. Legal representation means we don’t have to worry that these teenagers have pleaded guilty to something they didn’t do, or that there’s vital material that the court didn’t know when passing sentence. We, as a civilised society, can tell ourselves that justice has been done.
16. That’s why legal aid matters. Of course the amount paid from the public purse has to be reasonable. The average take-home pay of a criminal barrister is £27k pa. A solicitor is less. The huge headline sums, without context, distort reality.
You are not being given the facts.
You are not being given the facts.
17. So, for those at the back:
🛑Anyone accused of a criminal offence has the right to a fair trial.
🛑It’s not a fair trial if the prosecution has lawyers and the accused does not.
🛑Legal aid rates are fixed by government well below market rates
🛑Anyone accused of a criminal offence has the right to a fair trial.
🛑It’s not a fair trial if the prosecution has lawyers and the accused does not.
🛑Legal aid rates are fixed by government well below market rates
18. The reason you aren’t given any of this context for this headline is because that would ruin the story. It would be, when all is broken down, wholly unremarkable.
Instead, the reader is invited to resent the mere principle of an accused person having legal representation.
Instead, the reader is invited to resent the mere principle of an accused person having legal representation.
19. This attitude is ignorant, exploitative and dangerous. It is also prevalent. This thread is copied from responses to near-identical stories earlier this year. I make no apology for this - as long as they copy and paste trash #FakeLaw, I’ll copy and paste my rebuttals.
20. I don’t care if I am stuck on repeat. These #LegalAidLies have been allowed to flourish unchecked for years. Stories like these are like fake health cure articles - they cause irreparable damage not only to public understanding, but to people’s lives. They must be challenged.
21. The lies you are told about legal aid - what it’s for, what it costs, why we need it - are the reason governments have been able to remove legal aid from the most vulnerable in society without any political consequence.
Don’t let them lie to you.
Don’t let them lie to you.
22. And the inevitable plug. Buy it, borrow it, lend it, force everyone you know to read it. #LegalAidLies has a whole chapter.
It’s only because of our unfamiliarity with the legal system that they can lie to us with impunity.
Don’t let them lie to you.
#FakeLaw
It’s only because of our unfamiliarity with the legal system that they can lie to us with impunity.
Don’t let them lie to you.
#FakeLaw
https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1303994924787027973
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
