The Lords continued their examination of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on Monday, starting with Clause 8, which makes provisions about when civil legal services would be made available.

Amendment 21 was moved by Lord Beecham. He said that the bill sought to make legal aid provision a matter of exception rather than of course. Instead of listing only matters that would be eligible for legal aid, they exclude everything except those matters that are contained within the clause. The amendment would reverse the way that the Government are putting matters. It was withdrawn without being put to the vote.

Amendment 22, moved by Lord Faulks, concerned Clause 8(2), which gives the Lord Chancellor the power to modify Part 1 of Schedule 1 so as to omit services from the scope of legal aid and assistance. He said that the power would allow the Lord Chancellor to remove areas from the scope of legal aid without proper debate on the Floor of the House. After debate, he said: “I very much hope that, when this matter comes back on Report, those concerns can be reflected by the Minister. In that guise, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.” Amendments 23 to 27 were not moved.

Consideration moved on to Schedule 1: Civil legal services. Amendment 28 was moved by Lord Lloyd of Berwick, one of a group of amendments concerning clinical negligence proceedings and expert reports. All the amendments were directed towards the retention of legal aid in clinical negligence cases. Lord Wigley said: “Many people involved in cases arising from clinical negligence by a public authority are among the most destitute…Considering the inequality of arms that inevitably arises, having access to expert reports is vital. To put this debate into context, there are about 1 million adverse accidents in the NHS every year.” The debate – described as “very thoughtful” because so many of those who participated had experience, either legal or medical, of cases of this kind – looked at the best way to fund the expert report and resulted in the amendment’s withdrawal pending further figures from the government. Amendments 29 to 31 were not moved.

Baroness Doocey proposed amendment 32, relating to the ability of claimants, the majority of whom are disabled, to appeal against decisions on their entitlement to welfare benefits. She said that the Bill as it stands would remove social welfare cases from the scope of legal aid. “The need for such legal aid is best demonstrated by the fact that nearly 40 per cent of all appeals against work capability assessment decisions are upheld.” After a lively debate and a robust response from minister Lord McNally, Baroness Doocey said: “I really hope that the Minister will reflect again and consider bringing back some hope at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.”

Baroness O’Loan proposed amendment 33, which sought to restore families with dependent children to the list of those eligible for legal aid and advice. She said: “Some 650,000 of the poorest people will be deprived of the access that they currently have through solicitors, CAB law centres and other advice centres…140,000 children will be affected by the proposed measures as legal aid is withdrawn from the adults who care for them, and…at least 6,000 children will be deprived of legal aid altogether.” In response to the debate, Lord McNally said: “I am not waving a white handkerchief and making specific concessions, but I take the point made by the noble and learned Baroness in closing that this has been an array of experience and expertise that we would do well to consider, and this we will do before we bring these matters back on Report. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who started this debate, whether she will now withdraw her amendment.” She did.

More to come, with day four scheduled for Wednesday, 18 January.

alt="Creative Commons Licence [Some Rights Reserved]" src="http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.gif" />   © Copyright Stephen Richards and
licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.

The creation of the post of Chief Coroner for England and Wales was at the heart of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The role was designed to introduce national leadership of the coroner service, considered a crucial step in tackling unacceptable delays, inconsistent standards of service delivery and lack of accountability.

Then, in a Commons written statement in October 2010, justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said: “After careful consideration, we have decided that in the current economic climate we cannot go ahead with plans to implement national leadership from a Chief Coroner….We have proposed that the abolition of the office of the Chief Coroner should be included in the Public Bodies Bill…and we are further considering the transfer of some of the Chief Coroner’s functions to suitable alternative bodies.” This was part of the coalition government’s plan to cull the number of Whitehall quangos. Peter Thornton QC, a senior circuit judge at the Central Criminal Court, had been appointed to the post of Chief Coroner but had not taken up his duties.

This announcement provoked widespread dismay. The Royal British Legion had welcomed the original legislation, believing that the establishment of a Chief Coroner’s Office was critical to improving the working of the inquest system in relation to military inquests. Chris Simpkins, Director General of the Legion, said: “We are concerned that the families of our fallen heroes will no longer have confidence that the circumstances of their loved ones’ deaths will be thoroughly investigated.” He added: “We believe this decision would be a deep betrayal of bereaved Service families.”

Now, in another government u-turn, the proposal to abolish the office has been dropped from the Public Bodies Bill currently progressing through Parliament. This is largely thanks to the strong opposition by the Lords. A year ago the Lords decisively rejected the Government’s plan to abolish the position of chief coroner by a majority of 112. Last Wednesday the bill was again before the Lords for consideration of amendments and minister of state Lord McNally bowed to the pressure by withdrawing the proposal to allow progress on the bill. He assured “Noble Lords that this appointment will go ahead with all due speed.” The concession was, as Lord Bach said: “At the 59th minute of the 11th hour. They deserve credit, but as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will recognise from his position at the Ministry of Justice, there is an analogy with someone in the dock who does not deserve the credit that someone who makes an early admission of guilt deserves.”

Baroness Finlay, one of the main campaigners for the post, said: “I know that this means an enormous amount to those people who have been bereaved, who have had bad experiences, and who have campaigned tirelessly in spite of their overwhelming grief to try to ensure that others do not suffer.” Baroness Fookes, president of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, said: “Its members know above all others what it is like to suffer the loss of loved ones and to go through military inquests. Over the years, they told me in no uncertain terms how difficult it was if a coroner was inexperienced in dealing with inquests, the nature of the war scene and the military ethos. To put it bluntly, the Ministry of Defence could pull the wool over the eyes of coroners not experienced in wartime matters.”

Outside the debate, Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “Saving the office of the chief coroner…can improve standards and reduce unacceptably long delays for all bereaved families including those waiting for years to know how and why a loved one died in custody whilst in the care of the state.”

On Monday the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill came before the Lords for its second reading. In eight hours there were over fifty contributors to a high quality debate.

Part 2 (litigation funding and costs) and part 3 (sentencing and punishment of offenders) did not feature greatly in the exchanges, and were largely approved. Overwhelmingly the debate concerned part 1 of the bill – legal aid. And overwhelmingly the contributors opposed the government’s proposals.

Baroness Scotland said: “Justice should be available in times of good and ill. In times of ill, it is more necessary than ever.” She quoted the late Lord Bingham when he argued “that one of the ingredients of the rule of law itself was that ‘means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide disputes which the parties are unable themselves to resolve.” Lord Bingham went on to say that “denial of legal protection to the poor litigant who cannot afford to pay is one enemy of the rule of law.” Lord Pannick looked back to the speech of Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney-General, when he introduced the Legal Aid and Advice Bill in December 1948. He said: “His concern and the concern of the Labour Government in those days was that the doors of the courts were in theory open to ordinary people, ‘just as the grill room at the Ritz Hotel is open to all’, but obtaining and acting on legal advice were ‘luxuries which were beyond their reach’.”

Viscount Simon was concerned that taking clinical negligence out of the scope of legal aid will prevent vast numbers of people ever having their case properly investigated. “Because the vast majority of clinical negligence victims are harmed at the hands of a state body – the NHS – there is a strong moral argument that the state should ensure that these people have access to justice,” he said. Baroness Gould said: “The Bill is discriminatory and will entrench inequality for women, people from minority ethnic groups, disabled people and other groups facing discrimination, all of whom will be disproportionately affected.” Drawing on some 25 years’ experience of legal aid litigation, Lord Clinton-Davis said: “The real trouble with this Bill is that there will be no savings: indeed, the very reverse. Unrepresented persons will appear before courts and tribunals and many, through no fault of their own, will make false and incoherent points. Time will be wasted.”

Baroness Kennedy expressed concern that “having ready access to a lawyer will be replaced by a telephone hotline, a sort of call centre. We all know the problems that we have with call centres in every other area of our lives; imagine it when you are in distress and in need of decent legal advice.” Lord Elystan-Morgan asserted that “unless a Government of the future pass a one-clause Bill to abolish legal aid completely, the contents of this Bill and the proposals surrounding them must constitute the most savage and most deadly attack upon the institution of legal aid in the 62 years of its existence.”

As chief prosecutor, Lord Macdonald had seen the extent of the scourge of domestic violence, its impact on those who suffered it, who were mainly women, and its impact on the children, who usually witnessed it. He said: “An inevitable consequence of the Bill’s approach to domestic violence is that more people – again, mainly women and children – will be trapped in more abusive relationships with no succour at all from our law. I venture to suggest to noble Lords that that is a situation that would bring shame upon our entire legal system.” On means testing at the police station he said: “Are we really to say that no interview is going to take place before a means test is considered, no charge may be preferred until the financial forms are filled out and passed – mortgage payments, rents, wage slips, debts, assets and all the rest of it? It is – I choose my words carefully – a foolish notion. Who is going to calculate the cost of this in wasted time and disruption to the forensic process?”

Replying to the debate, minister of state Lord McNally said: “It is not true that we brushed aside the Law Society’s wonderful ideas for saving the money in different ways. We considered its proposals very carefully…A great deal of its proposals were shuffling responsibilities and costs around Whitehall or producing new taxes, which is not the same as making savings.”

The Bill was read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, on a date to be arranged. That’s when the serious business of attempting amendments to the bill will take place.

Clause 12 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill provides that advice in the police station in future could be subject to a means test. This would drive a coach and horses through the universal right to representation by a solicitor at a police station, enshrined in section 58(1) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in response to a series of serious miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 80s involving unrepresented defendants.

During the debate on the second reading of the bill Ken Clarke was asked to consult carefully about the practical implementation of proposals to limit legal aid for advice and assistance in police stations. The justice secretary said: “We will consider the issue and no doubt my hon. Friend or others will return to it in Committee. I realise that there has been some concern.” It was indeed raised again in Committee, when justice minister Jonathan Djanogly admitted: “The practicalities are the greatest stumbling block, and the costs could be significant.”

But when the bill returned to the Commons at Report stage last week clause 12 was unamended, and, on Wednesday, means testing was the subject of considerable debate. Mike Crockart (Lib Dem, Edinburgh West), drawing on his experience as a serving police officer, stressed that the presence of a lawyer not only protects defendants from police abuse but protects the police from false allegations by defendants. He asked: “Who will ask what someone’s earnings are, or how much their mortgage is? Those questions will have to be asked in extremely stressful situations. Will the Minister explain how the proposals will work without the whole process becoming extremely unwieldy?” Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionydd), said: “As anyone who has practised criminal law will know, the first couple of hours in custody can be crucial…Most people, when facing a police interview, particularly for the first time, are unable to think clearly and may not be cognisant of their best interests.”

Karl Turner (Lab, Hull), who has practised criminal law as a solicitor for many years, and whose wife is a qualified criminal duty solicitor, said: “I firmly believe that everybody should be entitled to free and independent legal advice while in a police station. It is a fundamental right in a democratic society, and to remove it would be a huge mistake.” Jenny Chapman (Lab, Darlington), said that applying means testing in the police station would inevitably introduce delay in the process and prevent the police from proceeding as quickly as they would wish. “Clients who are in police custody will not have access to documents with which to verify their entitlements, and clients who do not pass the means test are in no position to instruct the solicitor of their choice on a private basis.”

Justice minister Djanogly was at the Despatch Box for the legal aid section of the bill, though at the very beginning of the debate he had to make a statement about his insurance interests. In response to the means testing debate he said: “Having heard what has been said and having considered the issue, I appreciate that there are many deeply held concerns across the House and more widely on both the principle and the practicality of means-testing for advice and assistance for those in police custody and in relation to the concept of contingent legislation…I can confirm that we will, therefore, carefully review our approach to these clause issues as the Bill goes through its stages in another place.”

Seem to have heard that before.

As justices of the supreme court express fears that legal aid cuts will cause a courts logjam, a Manifesto for Family Justice has been published by an alliance of organisations which represents the rights and needs of women, children, families and victims of domestic abuse.

In a special report on the workings of the supreme court, the ‘Guardian’ outlined the concerns of some of the justices. Lord Hope, deputy president of the supreme court, said that as a product of the absence of legal aid the court of appeal is being deluged by litigants in person, which creates a logjam in itself. Lord Dyson, another supreme court judge, said he was very worried about access to justice for those who wanted to take judicial reviews or challenge tribunals. He added: “There are some very good litigants in person but there are an awful lot who, understandably, don’t know what they are doing. They feel frustrated, angry. They are not lawyers. They take masses of bad points. They waste a lot of the court’s time. And it’s a growing trend.” Lord Mance said that he couldn’t comment on the particular governmental policy, but added: “One way or other, we have to take very seriously the question of access to justice.” Lady Hale, the only woman justice in the supreme court, said that the judges worry about the extent to which denying people access to legal representation and legal advice will “change radically the role of the court in seeking to do justice.”
In its manifesto, sent to all MPs, the alliance of organisations has called upon the Government to protect vulnerable women and children; to listen to the experienced practitioners who work in family justice and who understand that mediation will not resolve a significant number of cases; and to consider with care whether the decision to remove legal aid from private family law cases will save the Government money or, in fact, cost more and lead to poor outcomes.

The chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, Stephen Cobb QC, said: “We have come together as a broad cross section of organisations deeply concerned by the consequences of the government’s proposals. The civil legal aid cuts will be bad for children, bad for women and bad for families. We are facing a disturbing new landscape in which 600,000 people will no longer receive legal aid, 68,000 children will be affected by the removal of legal aid in family cases, 54,000 fewer people will be represented in the family courts annually and 75% of existing private family law cases will no longer attract legal aid. We face the very real prospect that many children and women who have been victims of domestic abuse will have to endure the further trauma of being cross-examined by their alleged perpetrator, who will not be eligible for legal aid.”
The manifesto criticises the narrow definition of domestic abuse used in the bill, which will limit legal aid to victims of certain types of abuse. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said women and children were “bearing the brunt of this government’s actions.” She added: “Denying victims of domestic violence legal support, or increasingly making victims endure cross-examination by their assailants, will remove the vital protection many vulnerable women depend upon.”

The alliance comprises the Association of Lawyers for Children, the Bar Council, Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse, the Children’s Commissioner, the Family Law Bar Association, Gingerbread, Liberty, the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, Resolution and Women’s Aid.

The legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill, which will save £350m a year from the legal aid budget, has completed its committee stage in the Commons and will be debated on the floor of the house next week.

Unnecessary legislation

One of the commitments in the Coalition Agreement was the repeal of unnecessary or outdated legislation. The government is now consulting on a bill to implement this commitment.

The Ministry of Justice is collating suggestions for repeal based on the following criteria:

  petty restrictions;
  government over-interference in people’s lives;
  unnecessary criminal offences;
  unnecessary regulations;
  obsolete laws;
  excessive layers of law;
  duplication;
  laws that inform or guide rather than impose an obligation;
  EU and health and safety gold-plating, where gold-plating can be identified;      bye-laws that impose unnecessary restrictions on people’s lives.

The Law Society wants to know what legislation you believe should be repealed or retained, and why. The Society says that it is in a position to have a significant impact on the bill’s shape and content, and would like members to play a role in this process. It is anticipated that the bill will be published in 2012. Members are encouraged to suggest:

  specific proposals for legislative repeal, including both primary and secondary     
  legislation;
  further potential categories of repeal;
  views on the suggested categories/structuring of the bill.

The Law Society asks you to send your views to:

consultationresponse@lawsociety.org.uk

At meetings of the Public Bill Committee considering the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill on 6th and 8th September opposition amendments were comprehensively rejected.

Opponents wanted to return the large areas of law that the government has sought to exclude, including welfare benefits, clinical negligence, disability, education and housing law, into the scope of legal aid. Shadow justice minister Andy Slaughter told the Commons committee that the amendments went to the heart of their opposition to the Government’s strategy of restricting legal aid. He said: “Legal aid was devised to allow those who are impecunious and cannot afford access to legal advice to get their cases into court to reach a fair resolution, to be put on a level peg with those who have such resources…The Government’s intention [is] very clear: to be as restrictive as they can possibly get away with being in the provision of social welfare legal aid and to allow exceptions only where they believe it is untenable not to, either for public relations reasons or for reasons of simple morality. Otherwise, they will do their level best to close down those options for legal aid that have grown over time.” 

He went on to say: “We are saying through these amendments that we wish to stay potentially with the status quo. That does not mean things should not be reviewed. On the contrary, the point I am making is that if we want to constantly review what is and is not appropriate, we should not set up a system so restrictive that it will give little justice to anybody who is seeking that in any of the areas currently in scope.”
Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly responded that: “The amendments are contrary to the basis of our whole programme of reform and would increase the cost of legal aid dramatically at a time when we are seeking to focus it on the highest priority cases.” The voting was always close, usually by 11 or 10 to 9, but sufficient to leave the relevant clauses unamended. Any hopes that the two Liberal Democrat members of the committee might be persuaded to vote against the government were dashed.

According to the ‘Law Gazette’, speaking out of committee Andy Slaughter said: “Reading out pre-prepared scripts in response to every amendment and failing to answer questions undermines the ability of the committee to properly scrutinise this legislation and insults lawyers, advisors and volunteers in the sector that are watching us and hoping their voices are heard.” The Parliamentary timetable provides for the third reading of the bill next month before it is passed on for debate in the House of Lords.

“It seems staggering to us that up to three-quarters of probation officers’ time is spent on work which does not involve direct engagement with offenders and we call on NOMS (National Offender Management Service) and individual trusts to increase the proportion of their time that probation staff spend with offenders. It is a concern that probation trusts have laboured under a tick-box culture, and we call on NOMS to provide trusts with greater autonomy.”

So said the Commons Justice Committee in the report following their review of the probation service, published at the end of last month. The committee found that the rest of the probation officer’s time is split between computer activity, drafting correspondence and reports, meetings and dealing with other red tape. The MPs took evidence from one chief probation officer who said that a routine offender in the middle of their probation order might be seen for only 10 minutes, but a serious violent offender who was coming out of prison would mean several hours a week contact time. The review said: “It is unacceptable that sentencers’ hands are tied by the unavailability of certain sentencing options because of inadequate resources. This makes very clear the urgent need to focus scarce resources on the front-line and to continue to bear-down on inefficiencies and unnecessary back-room functions.”

The Carter review of correctional services in England and Wales, published in 2004, proposed the creation of a National Offender Management Service to break down ‘silos’ between prison and probation and the use of providers of prison and probation from across the public, private and voluntary sectors which, it was felt, would lead to a more effective delivery of services.

The Justice Committee said that the creation of NOMS had been described to them as a takeover of the probation service by the prison service and has not led to an appreciable improvement in the ‘joined-up’ treatment of offenders. Its handling of the community payback exercise has not inspired confidence and it has not proved itself proficient at running effective national contracts. The Committee recommended that the MoJ should commission an externally-led review of NOMS and be prepared to take radical steps to redesign its structure and operation.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said he was staggered after reading the report and vowed to end the “tickbox, bean-counting culture” of the probation service. Regarding NOMS, he told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme: “We knew it was a problem, I’ve already started addressing this. We have reduced the number of targets, we have streamlined the national standards, we have said we are going to give probation officers their professional discretion. What I want to measure the probation service by is what works, what output are they producing,” he said.

The full text of ‘Justice Committee – Eighth Report – The role of the Probation Service’ can be found at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmjust/519/51902.htm

You’ve probably seen the press adverts already. They ask if you will be silenced by cuts to Legal aid. “The Government is planning cuts that will deny millions of people access to justice. Don’t let this happen. Sound Off for Justice.”

Sound Off for Justice is a campaign aimed at ensuring that the most vulnerable and needy in society continue to have access to justice and legal aid. “We aim to put pressure on the Government to reconsider the proposed cuts that will deny millions of people with significant legal problems access to legal representation. Legal Aid support in cases of medical malpractice, employment and education are just some of the areas to be taken out of scope should the current proposals be taken forward in legislation expected later this year.”

The campaign recognises that the economic climate means that tough decisions need to be made and draws attention to the Law Society’s alternative proposals that will save £384 million from the legal aid budget. This is £34 million more than the government wants to save. The difference drawn is that the Law Society’s proposals will continue to protect the members of society who cannot protect themselves. Their proposals for the positive reform of legal aid would make the necessary savings whilst retaining the key areas that the current government plans want to remove. “This offers the government a very clear alternative to the proposals they have on the table at the moment.”

Amongst those supporting the campaign is Sadiq Khan, Shadow Lord Chancellor & Justice Secretary. He said: “I accept that there should be savings, but I disagree passionately with the way this government is going about doing it, especially in relation to the cuts in social welfare and those who are the most deprived in our community. The unintended consequences of what they are doing are going to be quite severe. What Ken Clarke needs to do is think again – this isn’t the way to do it.”
Lord Bach is calling for a full debate in parliament and society about legal aid before the cuts are rushed through. He also warns about the unintended consequences in cutting social welfare laws: “Social welfare law ensures that families and individuals with legal problems can have them solved before they get much worse and lead to much greater expenditure on behalf of the state.” Lord Bach continues: “Sound Off  for Justice is a sensible, realistic proposal for cutting the amount of legal aid that we spend. What is the point of a legal aid system that does not protect the most vulnerable in our society?”

So what is a Sound Off? According to the campaign’s website it is any action that supports their campaign. You can join them on facebook or twitter. You can sign their letter to Ken Clarke or leave a voicemail for him. And you can lobby your MP. The campaign’s rallying cry is: “For 800 years the UK has taken pride in being a fair society where justice is for everyone – not just those who can afford it. The Government must not be allowed to play havoc with this ancient right when it is their responsibility to protect and uphold it. Join the fight to protect your right to legal aid and justice. Sound Off for Justice. Don’t be silenced in court.”

The campaign’s website can be found at:
soundoffforjustice.org

Home Secretary Theresa May went to the House of Commons on Wednesday to announce the results of the counter terrorism review which was one of the main commitments of the coalition government. The headline announcement was the proposal to scrap the very controversial control order regime.

Control orders are to be replaced by “a new package of measures that is better focused and has more targeted restrictions,” to be known officially as terrorism prevention and investigation measures (T-PIMs for short). There will be the removal of those aspects of control orders that most resemble house arrest. Curfews will be replaced by an overnight residence requirement. Forcible relocation will be ended and replaced with the power to order more tightly defined exclusions from particular areas. There will be the power to prevent foreign travel. Individuals will have greater access to communications, including to a mobile phone and to a home computer with internet access. They will have greater freedom to associate and will be free to work and study, subject again to restrictions.

The review accepts that the normal maximum period of pre-charge detention should be 14 days but recognises that in exceptional circumstances this might need to be temporarily increased to 28 days. Draft primary legislation will be drawn up to be introduced for parliamentary consideration only in such circumstances. On the use of section 44 stop-and-search powers, the Home Secretary said: “I have concluded that the current provisions, which were found unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights, represented an unacceptable intrusion on an individual’s human rights and must be repealed. We therefore propose to repeal section 44 and to replace it with a tightly defined power that would allow a senior police officer to make an authorisation of much more limited scope and duration for no-suspicion stop-and-search powers to prevent a terrorist attack where there is a specific threat. This targeted measure will also prevent the misuse of these powers against photographers.”

On the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Mrs May promised implementation of the commitment to prevent the use of these powers by local authorities unless for the purpose of preventing serious crime and unless authorised by a magistrate. She expressed concern at “the use of counter-terrorism legislation by local authorities in respect of matters that clearly had nothing to do with counter-terrorism, such as dog fouling and whether or not children had the right to go to a particular school in a particular catchment area.” Surveillance will only be authorised for offences that carry a custodial sentence of at least six months.
Writing in the ‘Guardian’, Lib Dem MP Tim Farron said: “The ridiculous, heavy handed and easily abused powers brought in by the last Labour regime trampled over centuries of British tradition and liberty. That’s why the Liberal Democrats and other civil liberties campaigners fought to prevent them and railed against them once they were imposed. And that’s why we should all be proud of the steps taken by the coalition government today.” Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, was less fulsome. She said: “We welcome movement on stop and search, 28-day detention and council snooping, but when it comes to ending punishment without trial, the Government appears to have bottled it. Spin and semantics aside, control orders are retained and rebranded, if in a slightly lower fat form. As before, the innocent may be punished without a fair hearing and the guilty will escape the full force of criminal law.” On ‘This Week’ last night, former Home Secretary Charles Clarke called it “a complete fudge” that endangered national security.