The diamond in the rough story during silly season

The summer months are invariably a tough time for journalists. There is a reason it is called the 'silly season' and this year is no exception: the public has discovered the prime minister's preferred choice of potato and wheat based snack chip, become fearful of 'cannibalistic' seagulls, and laughed out loud as a 'drunken squirrel' vandalised a private members' club.

A news cycle that informs or stimulates debate between July and August tends to be as rare as a fat cat legal aid lawyer. One story, though, has generated copious copy for all the right reasons, as the true impact of the highly controversial criminal court charge comes to light in all its ugly glory.

The Howard League for Penal Reform's campaign for an urgent review of the charge - Chris Grayling's final two-fingered salute to the criminal justice system - has received widespread coverage in the local, national, and trade press as a plethora of news stories illustrate how the draconian charge is both unfair and unrealistic. These cases have put a human face on the suffering caused by an ill-judged and unconscionable diktat that puts pressure on defendants to plead to an offence at the earliest opportunity, irrespective of actual guilt.

For example, a Kidderminster woman who, having had her benefits sanction by the DWP, was so hungry she stole a pack of Mars bars worth just 75p, was issued with the £150 criminal courts charge, plus a £73 fine, £85 prosecution costs, £20 victim surcharge, and 75p compensation.

The punishment of £328.75 doled out to Louisa Sewell for the theft of a chocolate bar caused one anonymous barrister to call for the abolishment of the magistrates' courts after the Halesowen News reported the following comment from magistrate Maurice Lashford: 'We do not readily accept you go into a shop to steal just for being hungry.'

This lack of empathy led the Secret Barrister to suggest Lashford's comments were indicative of a 'closed-minded, self-righteous, vindictive, and gonad-grindingly pig-thick cockwomble', the likes of which pervade the court.

Though it would be unfair to tar all magistrates with the same broad brush - especially considering that many have or have threatened to resign unless discretion is allowed to be applied to the charge - I am reminded of a criminal law lecturer who once told me: 'If you have a client with an either-way offence, get them before a judge and jury. You don't want your client in the hands of a case-hardened magistrate.'

Unfortunately, any upheaval of the magistrates' court would do little for those who reside at Her Majesty's pleasure. While the absolute removal of legal aid for prisoners is being challenged by the Howard League and the Prisoners' Advice Service (PAS), there remains a gap in justice that garners no great sympathy with the public. That may, however, be about to change.

Launched at the Law Society this week, Bolts&Bars is a new access to justice tool on behalf of the 'voiceless'. Designed as a one-stop-shop for those interested in the incarcerated - not necessarily by court order - including immigrants, children, the elderly, and those with mental health conditions, it aims to provide valuable information about the UK's detention centres and offer a transparent forum for the imprisoned to share their experiences.

'Some people deserve to be in prison for their crimes but they still deserve to be heard,' said Bolts&Bars founder Keith Burgess. 'But there is no excuse for young children, mentally ill people, or migrants not to be able to access the law.'

One prominent supporter of the project is notable barrister Flo Krause, who successfully acted for former prisoner John Hirst in his high-profile and contentious action against the blanket ban on prisoner voting, which left David Cameron feeling 'physically ill'.

Providing specific examples from two decades of practising prison law, Krause said: 'To be truly voiceless, somebody is not only unheard but unseen. People are put away into institutions and become voiceless. The institutions subsume them. They disappear behind walls and under the weight of rules and regulations. There is no one to witness their plight and no one to record the dramas that go on behind those thick walls.'

Also speaking at the launch, Russell-Cooke partner Peter Cadman observed that even in the 'good-old days of legal aid' there was an element of abandonment of clients by solicitors after conviction. Now, with funding squeezed ever tighter, the ability for firms to provide aftercare to clients is nearly impossible.

'The timing of this venture is excellent,' he added. 'We are at a time when the public purse is not paying lawyers to assist and represent, and at a time when the cost of keeping a prisoner in prison is so astronomic that the balance between the spend and the save is just wrong.'

Cadman said he hopes the project will help offenders navigate the penal system and calm the 'ripple effect' that impacts on a prisoner's family and friends by providing them the information needed to cope with an incarcerated loved one.

Although the Howard League has benefitted greatly from this silliest of seasons, the same cannot be said for Bolts&Bars. The event, which took place within the Law Society's 'magnificent' Common Room, far from reached the venue's attendance capacity. Barring a couple of legal journalists and invested supporters it was empty, despite 'hundreds' of emails declaring an interest in the launch.

Burgess's team clearly face an uphill battle. If you cannot get lawyers into a room to discuss our rotten prison estate, what hope have you of opening up various important issues to the wider public who are predisposed to thinking prisoners should forfeit their rights upon incarceration. Maybe, as SJ's Kevin Poulter has suggested, solicitors should reflect on the ways they support access to justice, perhaps by giving consideration to the work of Bolts&Bars.

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal