Britain needs a written constitution and simpler, modern laws if it is to keep pace with “seismic shifts” in society resulting from changes brought about by immigration and terrorism.
People’s lives would also be transformed by reforms to the way they buy and sell houses and to laws on divorce and privacy, according to the first straw poll of leading lawyers by The Times.
This is the verdict of the Times Law Panel, a group of 100 top lawyers spanning small firms and large, barristers and solicitors, launched today.
Lawyers help to create the laws. But which law do they themselves see as most in need of reform? The panel’s answers to this question are as diverse as its broad expertise. But a common thread is that the law must be modernised and simplified to keep in touch with the people it is supposed to serve.
At the same time, there is backing for constitutional reform, whether a written constitution, disestablishment of the Church of England, scaling back of the monarchy — or a “rewriting of the social contract” between government and citizens to ensure the correct balance of freedoms and protection against terrorism.
The legal system is broadly condemned as excessive, inflexible, complex, costly and inaccessible. Professor Adrian Briggs, Professor of Private International Law at the University of Oxford and barrister at Blackstone Chambers, says that “the law as it affects ordinary people should be written in language which they can easily understand”. Similarly, Andrew Arden, QC, barrister and social housing specialist, cites social welfare regulations: “It sometimes appears that it is positively intended that no one directly regulated by them should be able to comprehend them.”
People’s access to the law would be improved, some say, by a written constitution. Rabinder Singh, QC, a public law barrister at Matrix Chambers, says: “The UK does have a constitution but it is not easy to find because it is not written down in a single, accessible document with its own special status. Citizens should be able to point to it, cite it, debate it — literally hold it in their hands.”
City lawyers see the complexity of the law as a threat to Britain’s position as a centre of commerce. “Excessive” health and safety legislation and “absurd” employment regulations are cited. Milly Ayliffe, a rail specialist at Norton Rose, says that the law on execution of documents is “a mess” with “time and money wasted over the way that agreements are authorised and signed. We should start again with a blank sheet of paper” .
Similarly, Katherine Dandy, a pensions litigation partner at Sacker & Co, says that running pension schemes is confused by the “hundreds of regulations” passed since the Robert Maxwell scandal in the early 1990s. And John Tucker, head of banking at Linklaters, criticises the law of contract as, “clearly out of step with modern needs”.
The controversial Companies Act 2006 is cited by corporate panellists: Mark Rawlinson, mergers and acquisitions expert at Freshfields, picks the codification of directors’ duties. This, he says, leaves unclear “whether the company will continue to have interests as an entity separate from its members or whether the interests of current shareholders will always be paramount”.
The act, according to Christopher Saul, head of the corporate group at Slaughter and May, misses an opportunity to tidy up the “uncoordinated and out-of-date” laws on partnership. His colleague Elizabeth Barrett, head of litigation, picks the Extradition Act 2003, cautioning that the case of three former NatWest bankers was “only the tip of the iceberg”.
Lawyers favour Parliament taking a stronger role over the executive. Philippe Sands, QC, Professor of Law and Director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals at University College London, calls for greater parliamentary scrutiny of international undertakings given by government. Likewise, Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty. “In recent years, Parliament has too often legislated first and asked questions later and our statute book now bursts with umpteen dangerously broad criminal offences and police and government powers.”
Housing is the choice for reform at a more day-to-day level. Jan Luba, QC, a social housing barrister at Garden Court Chambers, says that the residential letting regulations are “hopelessly complex”. Unscrupulous practices such as “gazumping” and changing of minds before exchange of contracts leaves many people “scarred” by buying or selling a house, according to Jon East, European legal adviser at Samsung Electronics. Others want stamp duty land tax scrapped and “rights to light” clarified.
Sentencing is key for criminal practitioners. Simon Myerson, QC, of Park Court Chambers in Leeds, calls for a new sentencing act to create a new, more open and consultative regime. Kirsty Brimelow, a barrister at 187 Fleet Street Chambers, favours scrapping discretionary life sentences and replacing them with fixed terms.
The panel — whose members also include top names such as Martyn Day, Helen Ward, Claire Canning and Keir Starmer, QC — will boost The Times’s legal coverage, serving as a sounding board for issues and the centrepiece of our online law section which is set for further expansion this year. Alex Spence, Law Editor at Times Online, said: “We’re the only national paper with a dedicated law section and we’re now working hard to build on it with an online community.”
