1) The document summarizes recent developments in the ongoing debate around legal aid reforms in the UK. 2) It describes a judicial review hearing in January and an interview where the Lord Chancellor implies that being a non-lawyer allows him to make impartial decisions, rather than favoring certain legal groups. 3) It also notes that a majority of users on a legal networking site said they would be more likely to vote Conservative if the Lord Chancellor was replaced, and that the Labour Party has pledged support to stop certain legal aid reforms.

1. Tuesday Truth 3.2.15
Progress,Politics,and Pessimists
23 December:High Court, JR proceedings.Successful ApplicationforInterimRelief.
James Eadie QC for the MoJ “It’s the usual problem at this time of year - all our staff have all fled to
the shires M’Lud. I shan’t be able to take proper instructions until 5 January”. Surely the irony was
not lost: these civil servants are regulating a 24-7, 365 day legal service. Yet they operate at 9am-
5pm for about40 weeksinthe year. The irony of catching them out two days before Christmas was
delicious.
15 to 19 January: High Court, Judicial Review hearing.
A masterclass by our entire legal team is all I will say. Incredible input from LCCSA and CLSA
members, as well as Law Society stalwarts like Richard Miller. If you haven’t read the skeleton
arguments, you really should.
21 January: ChrisGrayling’sinterviewwithConservativeHome.
Notbeinga lawyerisa positive advantagetoa Lord Chancellor,he explains:
"So you don't arrive at a decision because you're a barrister and therefore you favour the Bar, or
becauseyou'rea solicitor and thereforeyou favourthesolicitors' firms,"Thus impugningthe motives
of 400 years of his predecessors.
“Being neither barristernor a solicitor also allowsme to dispassionately play onebody off againstthe
other”. Okay, so I made that second sentence up. But it’s the sort of thing he might have said.
22 January: Jerry Hayes’ Blog
JerryHayes,a barristerand formerTory MP, wrote on his blog that Chris Grayling is “a sh*t that will
have to be flushed” once the Tories win the general election.
We appreciate the sentiment but if you really think Mr Grayling would be replaced by a
compassionate andliberal Tory,you’re veryoptimistic.Surely you have seen what has happened to
the Tories on justice,rightsof the individual,andthe rule of law recently? Just ask Dominic Grieve if
you’re unsure. Asfora realisticGraylingreplacement– apparently Michael Gove needs a job. I hear
he gets on fabulously with the profession he presides over.
23 January: The People have spoken.
Legal networkingwebsiteMootisfoundthat82% of itsuserswere more likelytovote Conservative if
Chris Grayling were replaced. Now, a word of caution here - this was clearly not a scientifically
accurate poll. We know this because it appears to be off by about 18%.
29 January: MoJ Guidance.
The MoJ publishedaneasy-to-use Court guide for those without lawyers. It includes the sentence:

2. “If you say you did not do a crime, you may have to go back to Court on a different day, to show the
Court you did not do the crime. This is called a trial”
Honestly,Igo toreal efforttothink of amusing lines about criminal law, only for some civil servant
to come out with a cracker like that without even trying! There’s no justice.
30 January: Labour Day
At the crack of dawn, the Labour Party finally declared their support. Sadiq Khan MP and his party
would stop implementation of the much-reviled ‘two tier’ duty contract system, even if the
governmentwinsthe judicial review.Labourwould also‘review’ the 8.75% solicitors’ fee cut due in
June 2015, and work with the Law Society to try to find savings elsewhere.
There wasa gasp of disbelief, mutedapplause, burstsof hope…butthenthe doom-mongerspiledin.
Those nay-sayerswiththeir prophecies of betrayal and defeat. Some of them honestly believe it’s
helpful. When it comes to politics, their typical pattern is this:
Doom-monger in 2013 – “No politician cares about legal aid. There are no votes in it, you see. They
aren’t people of principle, they only care about votes. That is why they ignore us, and always will”.
Doom-monger in 2015 – “Oh look, the Labour Party have backed the LCCSA and CLSA on legal aid.
What a bunch of opportunistic, untrustworthy vote-chasing shysters they are”.
Erm… excuse me? Could you run those two statements by me again, please?
Personally, I wouldsaytothe Brigade of Doom: if youproceed on the basis that no politician is ever
worth even a 10p phone call, then what is your plan, exactly? To spurn everyone in power, even
whentheyagree withyou? Sucha policywould make the People’s Front of Judea beam with pride.
Personally I would rather we say “Thank you Mr Khan. How about the rest of you? Lib Dems?
Greens? Plaid Cymru? Okay, even you compassionate Tories chained up in Lynton Crosby’s
basement?Can any of you match orbeat thispledge on criminal legal aid?”This is now the question
we should all be asking now. Like them or loathe them, it is the Labour Party that empowers us to
ask it.
True, eternal pessimism might suit some, but it won’t do for us. Not the 16,000 who responded to
the first consultation, nor the 4,000 who responded to the last consultation, at the rate of 200 per
day. Nor will it do for all those who’ve donated to our huge war-chest for these Judicial Reviews.
Most importantly, pessimism won’t do for our current clients, nor the wrongly-accused, the over-
charged or the vulnerable defendants of the future.
Seriously - The day of the doom-monger is done.
So, what will happen with the current judicial review? What will happen during the election
campaign?What will happen afterthat?The truthis none of us reallyknow.Butwe will alwaysknow
we were on the right side. Nearly two years into this latest onslaught, and we’re still very much in
the game. So – chin up. Chest out. Join us for the Alternative Global Law Summit march from

3. Runnymede culminating on 23rd
February outside Old Palace Yard, Westminster. All those on the
right side are very welcome.