Access to free legal advice and free representation in all courts is as much the ordinary citizen's right as free health care and free education — without this, the better-off will always be able to afford more justice than the poor. Every day countless people have their rights trampled-on, but unaware of their rights, intimidated by the complexity of the legal system and fearing a massive legal bill at the end of the process, they just endure the injustice. Yet even though often unable to enforce their own basic legal rights, ordinary people and small businesses today increasingly live in fear of frivolous or malicious prosecution, knowing that even though they may have done nothing significantly wrong, they might still find themselves faced with a ludicrous bill for legal expenses or damages, a bill that might remain unmet in part or whole even if they qualify for legal aid and have legal expenses insurance. What kind of justice is this ? The law of the land must also no longer be a patchwork of 'grey areas' or the private preserve and plaything of lawyers (who benefit most from the law remaining one big 'grey-area', that no-one can understand except themselves) — every day individuals and businesses need to know what the law says on all manner of subjects and they should not have to pay exorbitant prices in order to obtain such basic information. For too long the law and legal system of this country has been fashioned according to the professional self-interest of those working within it. Radical change is needed to ensure that the legal system is placed firmly AND PERMANENTLY into the hands and service of the wider general public, who look to it to protect them from criminals and tyrants great and small, and to grant them the justice they need and deserve.

The Legal Profession Nationalised Like The NHS

This would see all solicitors and barristers working for a new National Legal Service employed on a similar basis and pay-scale to doctors and dentists working within the NHS. All legal representation in court would therefore be free — consigning the ludicrous legal bill to the rubbish dump of history.

The Law Codified And Grey Areas Removed — Bringing Simplicity and Certainty To The Law of The Land

This process, starting with the areas of the law of most interest to private individuals and businesses would see all past laws and cases reduced to a single, area-by-area listing. Much of the current law could simply be jettisoned as after centuries of evermore legislation, personal and business life is suffering from regulation overload. The code would explicitly include the specific scenarios and acts affected by each particular law and anything not explicitly excluded would be legal.

As each new case is decided, any unprecedented aspects of its ruling or the scenario addressed by the case would be added to the code beneath the relevant heading and sub-heading — the aim being to make it possible to find all legislation regarding a particular area of law in a single place within the code, making life for law-student, solicitor, private individual and businessman a whole lot easier.

Grey areas within the law would be relentlessly rooted-out and clarified — as they serve only the interests of the lawyers (paid to sort out the confusion) and the crooks (looking to exploit loopholes) not the general public or justice.

A Statute of Limitations Established For All Offences Other Than Terrorist Offences and Serious Offences With Incontrovertible DNA Evidence

The recent spate of dubious 30 year-old sex offence trials against famous politicians and celebrities have surely established the need to set a time limit on criminal action in the absence of incontrovertible DNA evidence. Terrorist offences — as essentially war crimes — should be exempt from this limitation however.

Obsolete Laws Abolished and Unreasonable Bylaws Prohibited

If respect for the law is to be encouraged, rather than undermined, it must be reasonable and rigorously and impartially protect rights and enforce responsibilities, not merely 'send messages' and make token gestures. Yet many civil laws against minor offences such as littering, underage smoking etc are never enforced — bringing the law into disrepute by encouraging the belief that the law can be broken with impunity. Reforms should abolish all such laws and retain only those that government has the ability and intention of rigorously enforcing.

Similarly, many local councils like to erect public signs declaring ludicrously severe penalties for minor local civil infractions, ostensibly to deter wrongdoers. Yet these penalties are almost never applied — such as £1,000 for leaving a level-crossing gate open — and it is just as well they aren't, for they are fundamentally unreasonable. Such laws should not be on the local statute book in the first place. The government should abolish all such laws, impose a cap on the maximum fines local councils can apply for each type of offence and require councils to either rigorously enforce or abolish their local bylaws.

Unjust 'Eggshell Skull Rule' Replaced With Liability Limited To What Was Likely and Reasonably Foreseeable

Incredibly, out current legal system pronounces offenders guilty and liable for ALL damage that results from their actions, taking no account whatever of how likely that damage was to occur. This is unreasonable and unjust. It can lead to disproportionately large payouts for damages in civil cases and create grievous injustice in criminal cases — for e.g. recently highlighted 'one punch kill' cases, where a single punch that inadvertently and unforseeably leads to a death in a fist fight can be treated as manslaughter or even murder.

Any Under-Enforcement Or Partial Enforcement Of The Law Due To 'Minority Cultural Concerns' Will Be Rectified

The should, AND MUST, be enforced without fear or favour — to do otherwise is unjust, culturally divisive and brings government itself into disrepute. As full and valued citizens of this country, ALL members of ALL minority racial or cultural groupings will be expected, AND REQUIRED, to conform their behaviour to the laws of the land just like everybody else. In particular, laws prohibiting child abuse will be enforced EQUALLY against one and all.

A Review Of Areas of The Law Where Widespread Public Dissatisfaction Exists

On this basis, the following areas will be reviewed :

- The law relating to Power of Lasting Attorney as many couples' money is made inaccessible to one partner when the other becomes incompetent

- Divorce Law Thoroughly Reviewed — To Ensure Justice and A Fair settlement for BOTH parties

Divorce Law Thoroughly Reviewed — To Ensure Justice and A Fair settlement for BOTH parties

Many fathers feel that the current divorce law unfairly penalises them when couples divorce — particularly when divorcing couples have children.

A thorough review will therefore be undertaken in this most important area — with a view to removing any destructive incentives that the system may create for a woman to prematurely leave a difficult relationship in hope and expectation of receiving an unduly favourable settlement (and simultaneously be able to impose an unduly unfavourable one on her husband).

No-one benefits from an imbalance in power when couples divorce, least of all the children. In the long-run any imbalance that exists damages women too, by deterring men from getting married in the first place, further damaging children and society as a whole.

With our proposals for a state-funded legal service, couples divorcing will also no longer be stung by an obscene legal bill to add to their woes at a time of great trial.

An Online Legal Database and 24/7 Phone Line

With the law codified, it would be straightforward to place it online in its entirety — allowing private citizens and businesses to know immediately what the law is on any given subject.

All Judges Politically-Appointed From Experienced Barristers

Much is usually made of the 'checking' effect an independent judiciary can have on preventing politicians becoming overly powerful, yet the independent judiciary in this country didn't stop politicians transferring control of the entire country to an entirely different set of legal institutions based in an entirely different country ! An independent judiciary together with law-making transferred to supra-national institutions (such as the European Court of Human Rights) has, however, allowed for the disgusting anti-democratic spectacle of unelected judges over-ruling laws and sentences nationally-elected politicians have just imposed (as in the tragic James Bulger case). In some circumstances, an independent judiciary can even result in judges pursuing their own law-making agenda from the bench without a vote to their name.

With a truly democratic political system in place, the only necessary and best safeguard against politicians' excesses is the ballot box — as the check on politicians will then be their need to obtain the genuine consent of the people for their grand schemes and not merely the quiet acquiescence of a small group of like-minded judges. All judges should therefore be appointed by the government, enabling each new government to implement its manifesto unhindered by intervention from, or buck-passing to, the judiciary.

Judges To Be Mere Appliers of the Law and To Retire At Age 70

In future, the judges should merely apply the law to the evidence, decide innocence or guilt and select within a pretty narrow range of sentences — to preserve political accountability by avoiding situations where elected politicians pass laws which are then given unintended or even deliberately different interpretations by judges.

Each piece of legislation to have guidelines appended to it written by the government and minister responsible. Where there is genuine uncertainty as to the intent of legislation, these guidelines are to be consulted and obeyed by the courts. The judges must NOT be makers of the law, mere appliers of it.

Any judge deciding judgments or implementing sentencing not supported by the legislation will be removed from office on the third offence. All judges to retire at age 70 — like everyone else.

The Sentencing Powers of Judges Reduced, And Judges To Only Try Cases Within A Narrowly-Defined Area Of Their Expertise.

Recent years have seen many cases where the judge seems to have imposed a penalty all of their very own — sometimes for serious serial offenders. With no accountability for such actions and victims often with no further rights of appeal, an otherwise fair and robust tariff of sentences can be undermined by such 'creative sentencing' from the bench. In a democracy, this situation is not acceptable. The right of judges and magistrates to determine the length or nature of punishment and sentencing will therefore be restricted, with standard punishments and minimum sentences specified for most offences — by democratically-elected, and democratically-accountable, politicians.

Judges will also only be able to sit in judgement (on the lives of others) in narrowly-defined areas of the law — enabling them to quickly become thoroughly acquainted with all the relevant issues and laws involved. This would enable faster, fairer decisions in the courtroom.

Prison Governors Given The Power To Adjust Sentences By 1/3

Prison governors should be granted the power to increase or decrease the sentence imposed by the judge by 1/3, enabling them to maintain discipline within the prison environment and reward those offenders actively seeking to rehabilitate by participating in work or training programmes etc. From day 1 of their sentence, every prisoner would then have a powerful incentive to co-operate and change their ways.

Temples, Lodges, Inns and Medieval Wig-Wearing Abolished

The archaic and positively other-worldly titles, terminology, rituals and oaths that have dominated the institutions of the legal profession should all be abolished. The absurd practise of wig-wearing by judges, barristers and court officials must also be consigned to history. The judges — alone — to reflect the importance and solemnity of the role they are called upon to fulfil, could perhaps wear a black, plainly styled school teacher-type gown.

Minimum Age For Barristers Increased To 30

Barristers deal with and represent people going through potentially life-reshaping ordeals in the crucible of a court of law. Such a role is no place for young or inexperienced barristers just finding their feet. All barristers should therefore have to be fully qualified solicitors and have 5 years post-qualification experience before even starting to train to be a barrister. Barristers would be employed by the new National Legal Service so trainee barristers would no longer need to find the £30,000 + from their own resources in order to complete their training.

A minimum age of 30, will mean that from day 1 in court, barristers will have a little more natural gravitas, as befits their significant role in other people's lives.

Client-Confidentiality Abolished

Currently, the client-confidentiality oath prohibits lawyers from telling the whole truth about their client in court. With the replacement of the adversarial with an inquisitorial system the all-out focus of a court case would be to arrive at the truth. Such oaths are incompatible with this approach so would be abolished. Instead lawyers would take a policeman-like oath that states they have a duty to divulge in court any aspect of the case revealed to them by their client. If suspects want a lawyer to stand-up publicly and defend them then they would have to level with that person. This would help encourage honourable people back into the legal profession — possibly currently deterred by its current amoral mouthpiece-for-hire culture.

Compensation Culture Abolished

The present 'No Win, No Fee' system has provided an incentive for solicitors and barristers to take trumped-up cases in hope of a percentage of damages. This in turn has:

• produced a court system clogged-up with bogus 'compensation culture' claims (delaying justice for genuine victims)
• means councils across the country now pay out millions each year in compensation to people simply tripping on loose paving slabs or driving through pot-holes
• seen local education authorities paying substantial compensation for pupils being hit by cricket balls
• and led to school trips across the land regularly being curtained or cancelled through fear of some minor incident provoking a court case and a school-busting compensation claim.

The constant threat of litigation and the subsequent award of unreasonable levels of damages has also :

• made it possible for people to be prosecuted unsuccessfully in criminal court due to a lack of evidence, but then find their lives ruined anyway by a bank-busting settlement resulting from a civil lawsuit for the same offence
• fed into a culture of cover-up prevailing across the public sector, with no-one daring to admit to even simple honest mistakes for fear of career-ruining, budget-busting litigation
• resulted in private individuals, schools, charities and business owners havliving their lives in fear of falling foul of some obscure piece of legalese that against all justice and common sense lands them with an undeserved bill for legal expenses and damages (that is not subsequently met by any legal insurances they may or may not have) — requiring them to adopt an overly-cautious approach in all they do.
• resulted in private individuals, schools, charities and business owners curtailing desired and helpful activities for fear of falling foul of some obscure piece of legalese that against all justice and common sense lands them with an undeserved bill for legal expenses and damages (that are not subsequently met by any legal insurances they may or may not have) — for e.g. deterring first aiders from offering potentially life-saving assistance, preventing train station and office staff from offering to help move luggage or office furniture, deterring volunteers from coming forward to lend a charitable hand, and causing the cancellation of school field-trips and holidays.