AA18CR06ADD1

AS (2018) CR 06
Addendum 1

2018 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Sixth sitting

Wednesday, 24 January 2018 at 3.30 p.m.

Debate:

The case for drafting a European convention on the profession of lawyer

The following texts were submitted for inclusion in the official report by members who were present in the Chamber but were prevented by lack of time from delivering them.

Mr HOWELL (United Kingdom) – I am not sure what the point of this proposed convention is. There are many people who have a pivotal role in society. Many of them, like politicians, have been killed. I am not sure why justice has been singled out for a convention and in such a narrow way. I also think it is odd that a group of individuals have been targeted who are best able to look after and defend themselves. Of course, as the report points out, there are also examples from more troubled parts of Europe where they are not able to defend themselves, but proposing a convention is a heavy-handed approach.  

One member asked why my colleague Sir Edward Leigh referred to the UK courts. That is a question I would answer by saying that the report refers to them without any recognition of the democratic safety net provided. In my country, we have seen the judiciary criticised by a leading newspaper for its stance on Brexit, but it was easily able to mobilise public opinion and defend itself. The report also mentions two other British court examples. The first seems to criticise the British Government for adopting policies to limit legal aid. I do not accept that this is fair, and despite arguments with government over it, it does not take away the ability of the democratic process to resolve the issue.  Similarly, the case of a legal firm which acted against British service people in Iraq was mentioned. This was a legitimate subject for public debate and the solicitors were cleared.  This convention is not a good idea. It offers no use of the Council of Europe’s abilities to resolve the issue, such as monitoring, and does not recognise the level of judgment required.

Lord BLENCATHRA (United Kingdom) – Of all the reports which have come before this assembly, this must be one of the most outrageous.

The rapporteur relies heavily on abuses against lawyers in the Russian Federation, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey as an excuse for inflicting a convention to protect lawyers on all other countries in Europe when, in the United Kingdom at least, the public need protection from rotten and corrupt lawyers. In those countries, everyone is at risk of human rights abuses – journalists and opposition politicians far more than lawyers. Ordinary people without law degrees or the wealth of lawyers are the ones who need protection.

The rapporteur mentions that lawyers were under threat in the United Kingdom because the government asked the independent Solicitors Regulation Authority to investigate two corrupt firms of lawyers who had admitted to the court that they had fabricated evidence. Their lies resulted in hundreds of innocent, brave soldiers being accused of murder and torture of Iraqi civilians: all fraudulent claims. She does not tell us that the conclusion by the independent enquiry was that the lawyers were guilty of faking claims of torture of Iraqi civilians, defrauding the legal aid system, lying to the court and 20 other charges. Following that guilty verdict, I and others asked that criminal charges be brought against them for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice so that they and other crooked lawyers would get long terms of imprisonment rather than just being struck off.

That is just one recent example of the corrupt practices of some UK lawyers. Every week, I get a text message on this mobile phone telling me that I have been involved in an accident and that I am entitled to compensation. Do not worry if I have not been involved in an accident, since they will fake one for me. A few years ago, the main money-making racket amongst lawyers was false whiplash injuries from fake car accidents. Before the government tightened the rules, we saw a 32% increase in claims in one year even when accidents had dropped by 16%.

Now the new scam is getting people to claim that they fell ill with food poisoning while on package holidays. This racket really took off among lawyers, but the tour firms have started defending themselves, with the result that many claimants have been prosecuted for fraud. But these claimants are ordinary people who have been tricked by crooked lawyers into suing. The lawyers are never struck off no convicted but they are the real criminals.

I am privileged to sit in a parliament surrounded by the most noble lawyers of the highest intellect and integrity, the finest legal minds in Europe, but that does not blind me to the fact that my country has thousands of corrupt lawyers who would be protected by this convention. They should be prosecuted, not protected.