JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A SIGNPOST

Having enjoyed or perhaps experienced my longest time overseas for over forty years the trickle of news I allowed to invade my quieter moments enabled my inner rants to coalesce in my mind even when the attractions of literally spending Christmas day gazing at palm trees and exploring the many concoctions that can be produced by mixing unknown fruits and well known  alcohols were all around.  Subsequently these incoherent abstractions permitted me to spend some of the long hours flying home  in trying to prepare the rant that follows.  

Since 1997 it has become increasingly difficult to sustain the comforting fiction that the weakening of the justice system is the responsibility of one political party alone. The evidence instead points to a prolonged period of bipartisan consensus that has steadily emasculated the machinery of justice. Decisions taken, defended and often renewed by both major parties have left the courts diminished in capacity, authority and public standing.

There is no shortage of areas where this consensus can be identified. Court reductions and closures have proceeded under successive governments of different colours  justified by efficiency arguments that rarely survive contact with reality. Disputes over judges` pensions and financial restrictions on the use of crown courts are current.  The loss of half the country`s  magistrates courts has not merely inconvenienced users of the system; it has weakened the principle of local justice itself. Longer delays, increased travel and overburdened remaining courts have become the norm rather than the exception.

Legal aid has suffered a similar fate. Both parties have accepted its contraction as a regrettable necessity despite mounting evidence that its erosion undermines fairness and efficiency alike. Litigants in person clog court lists, hearings take longer and outcomes become more erratic. A well-honed justice system is not an optional adornment of democracy; it is one of its load-bearing structures. When justice becomes slow, inaccessible or inconsistent, democratic legitimacy quietly drains away.

What is perhaps more corrosive than any individual policy is the degree of agreement between government and opposition. When opposition parties largely endorse the justice agenda of those in power the electorate is left with little meaningful choice. In such circumstances it is hardly surprising that growing numbers of voters turn to fringe parties or protest movements seeking improvement where the mainstream has demonstrably failed to deliver. This is not healthy pluralism; it is a symptom of institutional stagnation.

The broader deterioration in political standards only reinforces this dynamic. The failure not only to exclude an openly Jew hating Egyptian individual from citizenship but to opportunistically associate with or excuse elements of his support base is a stark illustration of how principle has been subordinated to political convenience. That this behaviour is observable across party lines speaks to a deeper malaise: a shared indifference to the moral and legal consistency upon which public trust depends.

Recent revelations concerning the Tel Aviv Maccabi football match affair and the conduct of West Midlands Police add a further troubling dimension. The exposure of misleading statements and internal manoeuvring has fuelled the perception that civil institutions are increasingly anxious to appease rather than apply the law impartially. Critics argue that this reflects a growing tendency to kowtow to Islamist pressures particularly in cases where political sensitivity intersects with public order concerns. Whether or not every such criticism is fairly made the damage to confidence is undeniable.

This issue cannot be dismissed as marginal. The Muslim population of the United Kingdom is currently estimated at approximately 3.4 million and respected demographers project that figure could rise to around 13 million by 2050. These are not alarmist numbers; they are mainstream projections. In a diverse and democratic society such change demands robust, impartial institutions capable of applying the law consistently without fear or favour. The perception that policing or justice policy is being shaped by apprehension rather than principle risks entrenching division rather than cohesion.

Against this backdrop, proposals to resolve systemic failings through headline-grabbing recruitment targets appear particularly hollow. The suggestion that the magistracy can be expanded by 2,000 individuals within a single year borders on the fanciful. Previous recruitment initiatives have struggled, not through lack of publicity, but because the role demands time, resilience, employer support and a willingness to operate within an increasingly strained system. Training capacity, mentoring and courtroom availability are already under pressure.

Magistrates do not function in isolation. Their effectiveness depends upon properly resourced courts, experienced legal advisers, realistic listing practices and a political culture that respects the seriousness of summary justice. Increasing numbers without addressing these underlying deficiencies risks weakening rather than strengthening the bench.

Democracy depends on more than the ritual of elections. It depends on institutions that are trusted, resilient and visibly committed to fairness. A justice system treated as a budgetary inconvenience or a political afterthought cannot fulfil that role. 

The lesson of the past quarter-century is unambiguous: when both major parties agree to manage decline rather than reverse it they invite disengagement, cynicism and the rise of political alternatives that thrive on grievance rather than governance. Rebuilding confidence will require not consensus but courage above all; the courage to place the rule of law back at the centre of democratic life.  

Western democracy is not embedded in our genes.  It is a relatively new manner of governance incorporated into our political system from a parsimonious beginning at the turn of the 20th century and refined post 1945.  The enormous swings in the 2019 election [overall Tory majority of 80] and in 2024 [overall Labour majority of 174] should have been a clear indication for we non  psephologists that something was amiss. There is absolutely no certainty or god given assurance that our democratic institutions will outlast this century.  Between now and 2029 the foundations of our future lives and those of our children and grandchildren are being laid. The state of the justice system is a signpost to our future.