Smile you're on camera, and in court!

At the moment there are two high profile cases going on in the United States. One involving Amanda Knox, and the other involving the Doctor of Michael Jackson. I know this not because I'm interested but because it is on the news every morning.

Now allow me to be clear of this from the start, I don't care. Michael Jackson's death was unfortunate. But all that is necessary is a single report at the end of the trial to the tune of 'he did it' or 'he didn't do it'. I'm at a loss as to why I need to know what each security guard, every aid and Doctor saw heard and thought/thinks. Why does it matter? I isn't my place to decide and largely the case has no relation to me.

The Amanda Knox case has slightly more interest, but only really because I have a small and highly likely and unfair thought in the back of my mind that a US Court may care slightly less about the murder of a British national than an American. I know, that is prejudice, but I guess my thoughts are partly sponsored by the retarded response of the American people to the BP oil spill. "Oh those Brits have ruined out country and are going to get away with it!" When actually the truth was "a multinational company ruined your country" and largely that makes no difference to what happened any more than if it was an American company, especially since those working on the platform in question were likely to be American themselves.

The American ability not know know who their allies and their enemies are is always slightly worrying so I'd like to think that if there is a lot of coverage of the case at least that means the UK is watching for any obvious errors.

But if it wasn't for that one angle, we would be back in the situation where I don't know why the matter is being reported all the time. In fact there is an entirely separate rant of mine regarding why we need crime reported nationally anyway... but that is for another day.

But this rather obvious American trend of broadcasting Court cases has some rather worrying support of here, in the UK.

Now I don't know what the numbers are, it could be that 99% of people would oppose such a move and it is only the 1% who are, I assume, snorting something illegal, that actually think it is a good idea. But the BBC managed to find one lawyer who thought it was a good idea.

So here goes the simple logic of why allowing videos in Courts is a dumb idea:

1. Where to start? How about with the fact that putting it on TV will give people the chance to act up. But it will give many people the chance to act up so I'll break it down further:

a) the Barristers.
Right now we have a system, the Barrister does the talking, he knows the system, the Judge does the listening, he knows the system, the solicitors draws up the paper work, they know the system. The Client largely does very little, because they know crap all about the legal system. If they were to get involved in likelihood they would make a monumental mess of it. Common sense tells you this, as does experience (if you ever see small claims trial where the parties represent themselves and you'll know what I mean). However with the addition of a camera all of a sudden you have a huge new presence. The people watching who don't know the system. All of a sudden there is a temptation for the lawyers involved to start acting. After all it could be good for business if you start to give yourself some sort of character. It may not help your client's case (chances are acting up would actually hurt it, but who cases if it is a pretty duff case anyway) but it could start to make you look like the 'Doctor House' of the Court room, or 'Rumpole of the Bailey'. No solicitor would buy it, as they know that you would be damaging your case, but to those outside the court room, it is basically free advertising, and as we know about advertising, often, it doesn't have to be good, it just has to be memorable.

b) those on the stand
Once on the stand the Defendant, Claimant, whoever could be tempted to play up. Maybe the Defendant knows that they are going down so they are going to try and bring out some 50 cent bravado in the process, or maybe they just want to put on the best performance for the cameras.

c) victim
Err, would you want to have to go through an account of attempted murder with a huge audience watching? What about rape? What about anything like that? No didn't think so.

d) witnesses
Person A saw that the murder was done by someone else, but the reason they knew was because they were visiting a prostitute at the time... you think that they are going to stand as a witness at the trial? ................... Nope, me neither.
Person A saw the mafia gang leader shoot the victim in the face... you think they are going to stand witness? ...... Two for two.
Of course there are ways of protecting these witnesses, but I'm not sure how effective they would be, especially since in my experience video link evidence isn't quite as effective as in person.

e) idiots
For how long has Big Brother been running now? Years. How long has Jackass being going on? One thing I think we can say we've all learned is that:
I) idiots love being on TV
II) plenty of idiots will do plenty of stupid thing just to be on TV
III) TV executives seem to believe that what the public want to watch is basically all the weird freaks mixed in with the truculent and cantankerous with maybe one of two normal people thrown in for fun.
In my opinion, the last thing we should do as a society is add to the number of ways that morons can get publicity. Society works best when those who work hard and do well are known best.

This is why programmes like dragon's den is very good. It is why programmes like.... ok I'm struggling here, I'd say the apprentice, but since the contestants are chosen they too probably have the assorted mix of morons in, which isn't exactly meritocracy. You can't imagine being taken on at a firm because they think you're particularly argumentative arrogant and they think that it will lead to plenty of fights. But I bet they do that with Apprentice candidates.

But anyway, you get my point, if the courts could be televised then chances are people will want to get on TV and it will draw morons. People will want to be witnesses in trials because they want to be on TV not because they know anything useful. Who knows maybe people will commit crime just to get one TV. I wouldn't put it passed people, especially when you consider the link between publicity and shootings (I mean the ones where someone walks into a school or shopping centre and shoots a load of people for no reason).

Urghh.. that is a depressing thought, moving on.

The only counter I can think of is that it will add to the 'transparency' of the law. But I have a problem with that. Criminal cases are already open to anyone who wants to attend. If it matters that much, chances are people have no problem with attending. If they don't, then why do they need to watch the trial? There are a few instances where I can see someone may want to know what happens but can't (a fraud trial that involved someone who bankrupted their company, but they can't leave their new job to watch) but they are few and far between. Generally if anyone has a real reason to watch, they already can. Those whom it doesn't really involve, can't. Frankly, that sounds idea.

Finally, will it really lead to greater transparency? I mean most people don't understand the law or legal procedure. Ask most people and they don't understand the difference between civil and criminal courts. So how are they going to interpret what goes on? Probably, wrongly.

I'm not saying this with condescension. If someone was broadcasting a surgical operation, would I know what was going on? Nope. What if someone was broadcasting an accountant going through the accounts of a department without explaining? Not a clue. I doubt I'd know what a plumber of BT technician was doing all of the time either. So why do we think it would be any different with the law?

The only people in favour of this are surely the TV companies themselves (perhaps maybe one of two of the already famous Barristers) and frankly, they can go and make their own entertainment. Isn't that what they are there for?

Now you've gone and destroyed the bar....

When they told me the bar was dying, I thought they were joking.

Ho ho ho, I thought to myself. That just means that if you become a Barrister these days you won't earn £200,000. Instead you'll have to survive on a mere £120,000 instead. That is what I thought, how wrong could I be? Answer: incredibly wrong.

What got me thinking about this was when I saw a guy driving around, who studied at Oxford before going on to the same law school as me. He had got pupillage in a local set (a highly respected one) and was working in the independent bar. He was still practicing, I knew this because he had the White book on his parcel shelf.

So what was he driving? "A Porsche of course! He's a barrister after all! He went to Oxford, he worked his butt off, he is minted!" You're thinking. But no. Not a Porsche, or an Aston martin. Not even a Mondeo or a BMW 3 series. He was driving a banger, no seriously a real banger. Something that would probably cost between £500 and £1,000. Worse than that, I first noticed his car (when he wasn't even in it) because it was tucked away on a side street with the hazards on.... that is to say, he was dodging having to pay to park.

This is a fully qualified barrister, pretty much the top of his class in everything and after 3 years of working he can't afford to pay for parking in a city centre and this isn't in London, this is in a provincial city. "This is taking the mick" I thought to myself. So I decided to do more investigation.

I started talking to other people who also went to law school with me and started working out what the wages were like. The answer: the bar is dead. Well, ok, not dead, there are still people working as barristers, but basically if the bar was a man, he would be stumbling toward the guillotine wondering why he has not been put out of his misery.

"No, you're wrong, I've read about a barrister who charges £200 per hour!" I hear you say. Well thats nice for them, but who cares, of course newspapers are going to focus on the 30 barristers who earn more than £2,000,000. But lets face it the best of any profession is always going to be paid far more than the rest of them. And if we're going to take the highest salaries of the job why not talk about the board of Barclay's Bank who are paid over £8,000,000? The best footballers are paid £30,000,000 but these are always the freaks, the unusual amounts, that is why they are getting reported, if they were getting a normal wage, it wouldn't be in the news.

It was reported not long ago that a man called Paul Dalton charges £5,000 to wash cars. There are usually cars worth a fortune in themselves and cannot be trusted to some chump with a sponge. Now to look at the top barristers and think that all are well paid is to look at Paul Dalton and think that if you get a bucket and sponge you can have £5,000 in your pocket by lunch.

"Fine, but I still know a Barrister who makes £80-100,000." Really? Do you? I guess that sounds like a lot of money but lets put this in perspective, if you are the manager of a Tesco Extra you get £100,000 p/a and a company car. Now lets compare the lifestyles, if you are the manager of Tesco and you make a mistake the tomatoes have to be thrown away and you have to bring in new ones. If you make a mistake as a barrister then someone may lose 15 years of their life when they shouldn't, a man will never get to see his own children again or a murder will walk the streets once more. I don't know about you, but I know which one I'd rather have on my conscience; rotten tomatoes all the way.

"But £80,000 is still a good salary", well first of all, you don't earn £80,000. You start off earning £10,000-£15,000. That is about the same as what you earn while you're working in a shop full time. There are people who work at factories who earn similar amounts and they don't have to pay chambers fees or pay for the fuel to get to court 50 miles away. Some people in Criminal sets (the worst paying) in London, don't even make a profit for the first few years, that is to say their wage does not even cover the cost of living. Which means only those whose parents are going to sub them for the next 3-5 years can even attempt to work as a Barrister.

Does it even pay later on? As I was investigating I found out about one barrister excited at the prospect that by the time they were 40 they may be making £40,000! Wow, how good would that be? Except if you're any good at what you do you could be making £50,000 working for a company.... and if you're not any good then you really shouldn't be working at the bar.

The fact is the only thing left at the bar is the reputation. The latent respect for a profession once filled with intelligent, wonderful people who could use words in ways so brilliant that they alter the mind of the person to whom they speak: persuasion. This one strand of dignity remains in the bar, it means that when you tell someone you're a barrister you receive instant respect. I dearly hope that this gets destroyed sooner rather than later. Why? You ask. Simple at the moment the best people are drawn to law, and then they leave realising it is an empty shell of what it used to be. Those who remain do so either for the faux status or because they are incompetent and they get a good living for an incompetent person. Either way if this is striped away people will start to realise that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

There does need to be reform in the law. I think, this may already be on its way. I worked for a advocacy company and as a starting wage (because I moved) I was earning a decent wage. This was far more than the £10,000 that one gets for their pupillage year. I was doing the same work, I was getting paid more and I was hired on merit by a firm, not on neoptism by chambers. This it appears is far more sensible.

It could well be that some of the bread and butter of the junior bar, £60 applications for this and that, have now been usurped by advocacy companies and therefore there isn't the critical mass of work to sustain a junior member of the bar like there used to be. If there was much more working going around previously I can imagine a day when a junior used to make a decent wage. But not any more.

The problem is, Chambers have made them almost impossible to defend. Advocacy companies can provide (albeit infrequent) work to those people who are based outside of the cities with chambers. They can also dedicate staff to recruitment and essentially they hold little sway for neopotism.

It appears that the advocacy companies take on more people than they can actually provide with sufficient work. Then those who can last and succeed do and those who don't leave, leaving you with those who have lasted.

This system isn't perfect, it means that many advocates don't have much money. But then, how is that different to the rest of the bar? In fact the only thing that should change is the name. Why is a trained barrister who does a barristers work said to be 'not practicing' just because the got into a firm instead of chambers?

But the benefit of this system is that people are taken on and those who want it badly enough can stay around. It isn't glamourous, it isn't well paid but it is a bit more fair.