The Times article

As academics engaged for many years in criminal justice research, we have grave concerns about the potentially devastating and irreversible consequences for access to justice if the government’s plans to cut criminal legal aid and introduce a system of tendering based on price alone are introduced.

The lawyer-client relationship is at the heart of effective legal representation, but the current proposals remove client choice, replace local services with mega-suppliers and treat advice as an impersonal commodity. Trust is especially important for the large number of vulnerable accused: lawyers who know their clients can pre-empt difficult issues, provide (sometimes unpalatable) advice which is more likely to be accepted, and help the courts run more effectively and efficiently.

Underpinned by independent research and evaluation, considerable resources have been devoted to measures that have enhanced the quality of legal advice and representation. All of this is now under threat and a small number of “suppliers” will receive a guaranteed share of the work however well or badly they represent their clients. With bids at least 17.5 per cent lower than existing average costs, the quality of legal representation will decline. Suppliers will have a strong financial imperative to do as little work as possible, and to persuade clients to plead guilty irrespective of the merits of their case.

The Minister has allowed only eight weeks of consultation on the proposals, with no intention to pilot the new contracts nor evaluate their effectiveness. The long-term effects will be devastating and the damage extremely hard to put right. Defendants, the police and the courts – and ultimately the taxpayer - will pay the price.

Professor Jacqueline Hodgson, Emeritus Professor Lee Bridges (University of Warwick)
Professor Ed Cape (University of the West of England)
Professor Ian Dennis, Professor Richard Moorhead (University College London)
Professor Nicola Lacey (University of Oxford)
Professor Tim Newburn, Emeritus Professor Michael Zander (London School of Economics)
Professor Andrew Sanders (University of Birmingham)

For long version CLICK HERE

Octavio Ferraz continues his work for the World Bank as an expert on right to health litigation in Brazil. After writing his report on this topic he will now to give a presentation on Webinar.

Dwijen Rangnekar writes lead in The Hindu

'The lesson from the Supreme Court ruling on Gleevec is that pharmaceutical multinational corporations need to focus research on genuine innovations rather than on ways to evergreen their patents' This is a landmark judgement – followed by a range of actors; feeding into WTO/TRIPS issues and access to medicine globally.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/calling-big-pharmas-bluff/article4573890.ece 

For an earlier guest post from Dwijen see link below. http://kafila.org/2012/08/21/drugs-in-3d-and-what-matters-in-the-novartis-case-at-supreme-court-dwijen-rangnekar/

Lynas, the Law and the People: What’s Temporary and Permanent about “Licence”?

(Friday, 4 January 2013)

Abstract

The ongoing saga of the Lynas Rare Earth processing plant in Gebeng may be read in many different ways. It may be viewed as a conflict between the developmental priorities of the Malaysian government keen to enhance its export earning through Foreign Direct Investment arrangements and the environmental and health concerns of local and national sectors of the population weary of such ventures into hazardous industries. Or, it might be understood as a conflict between the commercial motivations of profit and economic opportunities of a multinational company (through its local subsidiary) and the values of environmental protection. Differently, we may read the conflict as one pertaining to issues of transparency and accountability, of technical best-practice and stringent enforcement of environmental regulations, of government policy-making and public participation. Variously, these many issues may be seen to underlie the still on-going legal challenge surrounding the grant of the Temporary Operation Licence to Lynas Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

This presentation does not seek to repeat the legal arguments along the lines of conflict mentioned above. The focus of the talk will instead be twofold: first, to interrogate the ‘identity’ and meaning of the three social ‘institutions’ involved - Lynas, the law (and by implication the state), and the ‘people’ – as they emerge, find expression, and are discursively constructed in the conflict. Secondly, to explore the wider implications of the notion of ‘license’ that go beyond its limited scope in terms of the TOL dispute. What is revealed from this different reading of the story of Lynas, The Law, and The People, are more pressing questions regarding the nature of the geography and distribution of rights, responsibilities, privileges and risks associated with differentiated 'citizenship' in a globalised political economy, and on the varying consequences of the 'temporary' and the 'permanent', of located and dislocated temporality, that follow from the affirmations of 'licence', on the one hand, and the imposition of containments/bans, on the other. From this understanding of the present contexts of variegated 'citizenship', some preliminary (and perhaps provocative) thoughts might be put forward on the politics of encounter between the 'corporation' and the 'people' within globalised states.

Jonathan Garton has been appointed a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee for its Inquiry on the Regulation of the Charitable Sector and the Charities Act 2006. Details of the Inquiry, which will consider the impact and implementation of the 2006 Act, can be found on the Committee's website (http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-administration-select-committee/news/charities-iq/).