'Access to Justice' (Review)

296 Public Law least we have new tools to examine whatever rises from the deepest constitutional strata. Daniel Davison-Vecchione School of Law, University of Surrey Charlie Eastaugh School of Law, University of Surrey Access to Justice: Beyond the Policies and Politics of Austerity, by Ellie Palmer (ed.), Tom Cornford (ed.), Audrey Guinchard (ed.) and Yseult Marique (ed.), (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2016), xix + 311pp., hardback, £40, ISBN: 978-1849467346. It might be thought that it requires a certain level of masochism for a legal aid practitioner to want to read a book which details the recent cuts to the justice system. Nonetheless, there are a growing number of recent publications that can be described as falling into the category of “misery lit for legal aid lawyers”. From Steve Hynes and Jon Robins’ concise but forceful 2009 polemic, The Justice Gap, and 2012 follow-up Austerity Justice, to the more recent publication of Access to Justice and Legal Aid by Asher Flynn, the spotlight is finally being shone on the effect of austerity on access to justice. The latest contribution to this growing sub-genre is Access to Justice: Beyond the Policies and Politics of Austerity. It comprises of a series of papers from both academics and practitioners, which collectively aim to address the central question of whether “the absolutist approach to the dictates of austerity and the promise of new technologies that have driven the Coalition Government’s policy, can be squared with obligations to protect the fundamental right of access to justice, in the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom” (p.ii). Resolving the tension between the public spending and ensuring that justice remains available to all those who have need of it, is not a new issue: “I have especially in mind those persons who, for no reward, spend a full evening one or more times a week after a busy day, on a hard chair, in an ugly room, in an inaccessible neighbourhood, listening to stories of everyday tragedies and follies and bringing relief to harassed minds by their sympathy and kindness” (Matthew, “Legal Aid and Legal Advice in England and Wales: the Rushcliffe Committee Report” (1946) 7(1) Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 39). It is easy to imagine these words as just another one of the empty commendations so often given to those who do publically funded legal work, usually said by some junior minister or other, before the inevitable reminder of the need for swingeing cuts to the legal aid budget. But these words were spoken in 1945, by the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Theobald Mathew. He was addressing an audience at the Howard League for Penal Reform on 20 July 1945, in the wake of the Rushcliffe Commission’s report, which was to establish the basis for the modern legal aid system (Report of the Committee on Legal Aid and Legal Advice in England and Wales (HMSO, 1945), Cmd.6641). [2017] P.L., Issue 2 © 2017 Thomson Reuters Professional (UK) Limited and Contributors Book Reviews 297 It was precisely the inadequacy of pro bono provision, which had led to a situation where, in the words of the report, where “it would be impossible to expect any extension of gratuitous professional services, particularly as there appears to be a consensus of opinion that the great increase in legislation and the growing complexity of modern life have created a situation in which increasing numbers of people must have recourse to professional legal assistance”. Ever since the modern legal aid system was introduced by the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, there has been pressure on the government of the day to reduce public spending to a minimum. In the foreword to Access to Justice, Sir Stephen Sedley refers to legal aid as “the political Achilles’ heel of legal services” (p.vii). The legal aid budget faces a harsh political reality that there are no votes to be found in defending criminals and helping people resolve private disputes. Attacking the public funding of legal services is easily converted into an attack on populist proxy targets like immigrants and criminals. It is against the backdrop of this challenge that Access to Justice seeks to provide concrete policy answers. The book is focused around three parts. The first deals with the theoretical, legal and policy background to the access to justice as a concept. The second part them sets out the current pressure points on the justice system today. Finally, the third part looks at some potential alternative approaches for the funding of legal services. The book benefits from having been conceived out of a series of ESRC-funded seminars across 2011–13, a vital period for the austerity agenda, which saw both the debate and implementation of the much maligned Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Part one of Access to Justice sets out to cover the theoretical, legal and policy background to the book’s main theme. Tom Cornford’s contribution to the book takes a closer examination of the idea of access to justice on a conceptual level. He aims to deal with a criticism that is often levelled at concepts like access to justice, or the rule of law, namely that they lack sufficiently precise definition. Cornford defines access to justice as a right that “entails a right of equal access to legal assistance for every citizen” (p.39). In Cornford’s analysis, access to justice is a state of grace towards which we must aspire. Austerity is represented as just another obstacle to achieving true access to justice. The ways in which austerity has highlighted and emphasised those obstacles to achieving access to justice, are set out in part two of the book. This is perhaps the most depressing side of the book, and the eight chapters pull no punches when it comes to the impact of austerity. It is well-trodden territory, but the varied approaches from the theoretical to the practical, makes for a more interesting read. Lorna Reid’s chapter setting out the effect of austerity over the last 13 years, from the point of view of Islington Law Centre is a particular highlight. Taking a longer view has the benefit of allowing Reid to set out her experience of practical ways to work within the constraints of austerity. Her perspective of local small-scale initiatives, such as the Three Advice Projects launched in 2012, provides an example of how targeted delivery of advice to the most vulnerable people, can have both a positive and measurable impact on their lives. [2017] P.L., Issue 2 © 2017 Thomson Reuters Professional (UK) Limited and Contributors 298 Public Law The final section of the book sets out a range of policy responses for alternative approaches to funding. It compares the situation in England and Wales with how policymakers have approached austerity in Scotland and France. This is the section which would perhaps have benefited most from expansion, to include other international models of access to justice. A comparative approach is especially important in light of the insistence of the Ministry of Justice in using comparative models in their repeated (and highly contentious) claim that Britain has one of the largest legal aid budgets in Europe. The impression is left of a missed opportunity to explore genuinely alternative funding approaches, from crowdfunding of public interest litigation, to the potential for insurance-backed models of funding provision. Overall however, Access to Justice gives much food for thought, even if that thought is not always positive. In recent years, the system has allowed the political austerity agenda to take priority over protection of the fundamental right of access to justice. Theresa May has often expressed her disdain for the ECHR and her desire to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a British Bill of Rights. The contributions in this book go a long way towards making the case for including a right to access to justice in any future British rights instrument. Thom Dyke Barrister at 9 Gough Square (Chambers of Andrew Ritchie QC) City Power: Urban Governance in a Global Age, by Richard Schragger, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), xi + 322pp., hardback, £19.99, ISBN: 9780190246662. This is the age of the city. Around the world policy-makers are recognising that cities matter. They are the drivers of economic growth. In the European Union cities of 250,000 inhabitants or more account for 59 per cent of the population, provide 62 per cent of all employment and generate 68 per cent of GDP. In the United States the largest 100 metropolitan areas sit on only 12 per cent of America’s land mass but are home to more than two-thirds of the population and generate 75 per cent of national GDP. In cities productivity is higher; employment is greater (and of higher quality); and the labour market is richer. Political theorists write of how mayors should “rule the world” (Ben Barber); economists describe “the triumph of the city” (Edward Glaeser); and think-tanks hail a “metropolitan revolution” (Brookings’ Bruce Katz). In the UK, city regional devolution, metro mayors, George Osborne’s Northern Powerhouse and Theresa May’s Midlands Engine are but echoes—welcome if belated—of moves long since made in Canada and Australia, France and Germany, Italy and the US. The RSA’s City Growth Commission, which reported in 2014, Philip Blond’s ongoing work at ResPublica, and the Centre for Cities are just three of the vehicles through which international best practice as regards city governance is being translated into British government policy and action. Amid this blizzard of activity and innovation, the silence and inattention of academic lawyers is extraordinary. Neither city deals nor local enterprise partnerships nor even the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 have [2017] P.L., Issue 2 © 2017 Thomson Reuters Professional (UK) Limited and Contributors