Owen Bowcott's article last Friday told us that the government is "trying to make the UK the world's pre-eminent destination for swiftly resolving international high-value legal disputes – and making a lot of money in the process". It is a laudable ambition to make London a "global legal centre" and it looks as though the chancery division's expensive new home in Rolls Building will indeed be a great advertisement for our legal system.
The commitment to invest in the project was made before the current financial restrictions but shows the government understanding the importance of investment and co-operation with the professions to ensure a good return.
However, it is a shame that comprehension of the value of investment in the court infrastructure does not extend to the criminal courts where the lord chancellor's axe has been in heavy and regular use. In the criminal courts that remain open, facilities are restricted: witnesses come into contact with defendants, their families collide; conference rooms are given over to storage or other use; equipment failures are too common; staff cuts are imposing increasing pressures on the long-suffering and unfailingly cheerful staff who keep the system going, while legal-aid cuts challenge the essential goodwill of the advocates who appear there.
It should not be forgotten that the reputation of British justice which the Rolls Building project seeks to exploit is underpinned by the quality of our judiciary and court system from grassroots level upwards.
The return on investment in the criminal courts may not be so immediate or tangible but one only has to look at the demand for our advocacy trainers to visit overseas and the stream of foreign visitors interested in studying our jury system to understand the esteem in which we are still held – at the moment. As for exports, how does one put a price on the contribution of British advocates to international courts and tribunals? Do not forget the earnings from court-inspired TV – Kavanagh QC, Judge John Deed and Silk, to name a few.
Back to the Rolls Building – I think it was the news that "no departmental money is available for the provision of artwork" that really caught the eye. It is upsetting to think of those delicate international businessmen and their advocates being required to consult and litigate in surroundings entirely bare of even the most modest Monet or Matisse. Still, at least they will have the use of one of the 55 consultation suites with their "range of facilities". They will also benefit from video conferencing and other aids to presentation of a quality that advocates at the coal face of the crown court can only dream about. Personally, I have long thought that some of the graffiti in the cells at the Inner London crown court was worthy of a far wider audience – perhaps we could discover a new Banksy and auction the works to help the lord chancellor balance his books.
Christopher Kinch QC is chairman of the Criminal Bar Association
