John Jackson

This paper seeks to argue that although fair trial standards are commonly portrayed as a set of minimum coherent standards applicable across a range of different legal traditions, there is a tension between those standards that accentuate the importance of individual will and autonomy and those that emphasise the importance of accurate outcome through an effective defence. This tension has been managed for the most part by enabling individuals to be represented by legal counsel who present the defence on the basis of their clients’ instructions. Human rights law has recognised the importance of legal assistance at trial and pre-trial stages of criminal procedures. Despite this certain developments in domestic and international criminal processes have led to a growing number of cases being decided without an effective defence being provided by legal counsel. Such cases have been disposed on the basis of defendants’ ‘consent’ and this supposed autonomy has held sway over any effective defence. The paper begins by tracing different dimensions of the fair trial standards and exposes a tension between the need for defendants to exercise autonomy over their case and the need for an effective defence. The paper then argues that the right to counsel has acted as a bridge between these two competing demands. Recent developments are then reviewed which have served to impede counsel from providing an effective defence in the interests of the client’s freedom to choose how her case should be handled. The examples examined are the growing number of cases that are pleaded or diverted out of court with no real examination of the strength of the prosecution case, the emergence of special advocates who do not take instructions from defendants and the increasing tendency for defendants to represent themselves in certain types of cases. The paper concludes by arguing that we need to make a sharper distinction between individual rights and procedural standards and argues for greater attention to be given to the latter on the design of criminal procedure.

This article attempts to locate the solicitor-advocacy reforms in the UK in the context of wider New Right led reforms of the welfare state and suggests that such reforms are part of a broader package aimed at weakening social democracy, encouraging the use of the market as an allocation mechanism and instilling 'efficiency' within and control over the professions. On the basis of interviews with organizational clients in Scotland, it is argued that the reforms may have a significant impact upon the junior Bar and that while they may ultimately benefit corporate clients they are likely to bring further disadvantage to individual clients who are already weak within the professional-client relationship

Does it signify morally whether a deception is achieved by a lie or some other way? David Bakhurst has challenged my view that it can signify. Here I counter his criticisms--firstly, by clarifying the terminology: What counts as a lie? Secondly, by exploring further what makes lying wrong. Bakhurst maintains that lying is wrong in that it infringes autonomy--and other deceiving stratagems, he says, do so equally. I maintain that lying is wrong in that it endangers trust--and other types of deceiving stratagems do not do so equally. Lying to patients, I contend, is an abuse of their trust. Other forms of their intentional deception need not be so, although, in our autonomy-minded culture, they are likely to be so