Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Long term readers of this blog, will know that I maintain a rigid policy of political neutrality, reserving the right to be even handedly offensive about the idiocies of both Conservative and Labour party policy on matters pertaining to access to justice and costs and litigation funding.
In recent years there has been much to be offensive about with the collapse of the absurdly expensive Access to Justice Act 1999 scheme with its recoverable success fees and ATE premiums, and the cheese paring myopic approach of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 which has deprived large swathes of the population from access to legal advice and an effective remedy for their wrongs.
One particular bugbear remains that after 1st April 2013 meritorious claims under the Equality Act 2010 for disability discrimination, as well as other claims in areas as diverse as sex discrimination, race discrimination and environmental nuisance have become increasingly difficult to pursue.
Reviewing my archives, I see that in October 2013, I wrote to Maria Miller, the then Minister for Women and Equalities in the Coalition Government in the following terms:
Dear Mrs Miller
Re: Access to Justice for disabled people
I am writing to you, to request that the Government Equalities Office engage with the Ministry of Justice, to ensure access to justice for disabled people.
Specifically, I would ask that you take up with the MOJ, the introduction of a scheme of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting by way of amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules, for disabled people, who wish to bring claims in the county court against organisations that have discriminated against them, in the provision of goods or services, education or the exercise of a public function.
Prior to the 1st April 2013, a disabled person could, under the scheme of the Access to Justice Act 1999, instruct a solicitor to represent them in a discrimination claim, under a conditional fee agreement and obtain protection from having to pay the costs of their opponent, through taking out a policy of After the Event (ATE) insurance.
Due to the Jackson reforms, introduced in the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, it is no longer possible to recover the cost of this policy, from the losing side to litigation.
This means these policies are no longer available, as practically it is impossible for a disabled person to pay for them.
It means that a disabled person may well be denied access to justice, as they dare not take proceedings, if there is a chance, however small, that they might not win and have to pay the other sides costs.
These might be substantial and cause the disabled person to lose their home.
A scheme of Qualified One Way Costs shifting has been brought in for personal injury claims and to protect victims of medical negligence.
A further scheme is contemplated for defamation claims.
Disability discrimination claimants are at least as deserving, as victims of defamation, engage in similarly asymmetric litigation and at the moment, unless reforms are undertaken, are at real risk of being denied justice, and the scheme of individual enforcement of rights, contemplated by the Equality Act 2010, will be rendered nugatory.
I await your reply. I am willing to travel to London, to explain matters directly to officials or ministers, as required.
I did not receive any reply.
So I sent that letter again.
Still, no reply.
It may be that the Minister had other things on her mind at the time, including the Parliamentary expenses scandal, wherein she had to make a repayment of public monies claimed by way of expenses, and then make a 32 second apology to the House of Commons later, in 2014.
Still in 2017 there is no sign that the shortcomings in the current costs regime, which is an access to justice concern, pertaining to disabled people are likely to be addressed any time soon.
Many people will wonder whether there is any point voting in the forthcoming General Election, given the current likelihood that the Conservatives will simply be re-elected to form a government with a substantial majority and in my case, I note that in the rural part of Nottinghamshire where I live, they tend to weigh, rather than count, the votes of the successful Tory candidate.
The short answer to that query is that before and after 1832 many people have gone to prison, and even died to ensure that we generally have a vote. That we can play some part in steering the course of our political fate.
That we do not have to “suffer what we must”.
For my part I shall study the election manifestoes of all the main parties to see what they have to say about the creaking justice system and what they are going to do about it. I shall cast my vote, when I have seen the evidence.
And after the 8th June, I shall redraft that letter and send it again, to whomsoever is government and then send it again, and again, until, finally, broken under the strain of persistent correspondence, I do get a response.