Justice and the Paparazzi

One requirement of an aspiring barrister is to gain experience of the profession through 'mini-pupillages'. These involve shadowing barristers for a period of time (usually a week) when they go to court. This week I am completing a placement at a criminal chambers in London. Today I was despatched to the City and Westminster Magistrates' Court to witness a basic drugs case. All very ordinary, you might think.

Little did I know that the City and Westminster Magistrates' Court happened to be the venue for the latest episode in the most high-profile litigation in the UK.

I arrived at the court expecting to encounter the usual bunch of over-worked lawyers and weary criminals. What I actually saw was a flock of photographers and journalists surrounding the entrance. When I asked someone why there was so much commotion, she muttered something about there being a famous person in court that day. After more enquiries I soon realised that the famous person in question was none other than the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange.

Mr Assange is the subject of extradition proceedings being conducted by the Swedish Government. He is wanted in Sweden in connection with a series of sexual assaults. Supporters of Mr Assange have claimed that the allegations against him are bogus and merely designed to facilitate his eventual extradition to the United States, where there are calls for him to be prosecuted in relation to his role in exposing a huge number of confidential diplomatic cables.

Outside the court, his followers made their views clear. While I was waiting in the queue in order to see the hapless drug offender receive his sentence, the assembled press went crazy as a number of B-list celebrities arrived to support Mr Assange. Firstly, the wealthy socialite Jemima Khan arrived on scene. She was followed by the film director Ken Loach and the veteran journalist John Pilger. All of these noble-minded spirits offered to help Mr Assange with the costs of any bail conditions to the tune of £240,000.

Mr Pilger declared the charges against Mr Assange as 'outrageous' - a curious statement given that he was not present in the bedroom when Mr Assange is alleged to have assaulted these women. Mrs Khan said that she was there to support the 'human right to freedom of information', which does not exist and even if it did, has no application to the case.

Sweden does not appear to have any particular interest in the Wikileaks saga. In order for the critics to be right, therefore, the Swedish Government must be acting as lackeys of the US. This was certainly the implication given by the protesters outside the court, parroting the usual view that the US is the root of all evil in the world. In my opinion, this is clearly absurd. Sweden is no more likely than the UK to extradite Mr Assange to the United States. Even if he was extradited, it is highly unlikely a prosecution would succeed across the pond given the very strict approach taken to freedom of expression. Also, I'm not aware of any particular special relationship that would lead Sweden to deliberately falsify charges to suit the political objectives of the US.

Not that any of this rationality bothered the press, of course.

It's not every day that suspects accused of sexual offences get such vociferous public support. Personally, I find Wikileaks to be an arrogant and counter-productive organisation, which has no concept of long-term public good. Others see it as a revolutionary exponent of corruption and lies at the heart of government. Whatever view one has, however, the fact is that Mr Assange has been accused of sexual offences against a number of women in Sweden. He ought to be made to answer those charges, just as any other suspect being brought before the City and Westminster Magistrates' Court should.

Why he deserves the backing of people like Peter Tatchell or the representation of top human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC in this matter is questionable. These advantages were - needless to say - not extended to the defendant in the case I witnessed. There is a lesson here to criminals everywhere - undermine democratic governments and gain the support of activists, lawyers and celebrities. Doesn't matter what you may have done.

No Ifs, No Buts - A Reaction to the Student Fees Debacle

Walking through Westminster this afternoon it was possible to appreciate a very real feeling of anger. Anger at broken promises. Anger at the rich. Anger at western society. The outcome of the vote held earlier today, in which the fees for attending university in England were raised to a limit of £9,000 a year, will be one of hostility and outrage. One only has to watch the pictures from the student protests (which at the time of writing are still taking place) to observe this.

My feeling, by contrast, is one of profound sadness. Sadness that politicians really cannot be trusted to keep a promise. Sadness that politicians are incapable of doing the right thing even at the last moment. Sadness that a politician with a real connection to young people could sell out so quickly. Sadness that educated young people react with physical violence after failing to persuade others of their view. All of this requires explanation.

The Causes

Proponents of the hike in fees have justified it by making reference to the underfunding of British universities. Compared to private institutions across the Atlantic, for example, this is certainly true. Even wealthy iconic establishments like Oxford and Cambridge are dwarfed in financial terms by the Ivy League. It begs the question, where should the money come from?

The coalition has come to the view that the money should overwhelmingly come from the individual student. Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Business Secretary, has pushed through an 80% cut in the university teaching budget. Others, particularly the National Union of Students (NUS) are of the view that the money should principally come from the state.

Some people will be sympathetic to the coalition. A plumber, for example, who has never had the benefit of a university education may find it hard to understand why he should have to pay through his taxes for the tuition of an investment banker or a corporate lawyer. The NUS would counter that higher education is beneficial for society more generally. As such, the argument goes, the funds should be found through taxation.

My personal view is that there should be a partnership between the individual and the state. The terms of this partnership should depend on the advantages an individual draws from higher education. Thus a corporate lawyer would pay back more than a teacher, care worker, or charity manager. I believe that the status quo is about right. There should be a base rate of £3,000 for every student. Above that, any repayment should be contingent on ability.

The Proposals

The coalition would argue that this partnership model is reflected in the reforms. It is true that aspects of the plans are more progressive in this sense. Students earning more will be liable for higher repayments through interest on loans. The net effect of the proposals, however, is a hugely damaging blow to notions of fairness and social justice.

Students now will be facing repayments of up to £27,000 for a three year degree. Add in living costs of £4,000-£5,000 per annum, the total cost of attending university could well reach £40,000. This is a massive increase in student debt, whatever gloss the government tries to put on it.

It is true that no-one will have to pay unless they earn over £21,000 per year. But those social workers and public servants earning £21,500 will be liable for a sum of money that could take them the rest of their working lives to pay back. This is wrong for two main reasons.

Firstly, a university education is a good thing for individuals. Learning by itself gives people a tremendous capacity for human development. I happen to think that it is fantastic that working class children can go to university and debate poetry, philosophy and politics. It gives them the ability to reach for the stars and understand the world in which they live. For me, it is these concepts that justify the claim that education is a right not a privilege.

Secondly, a university education is a good thing for society. The economic benefits of producing graduates have been well-stated. In a world in which we are competing with China, India and a range of countries that produce first-class graduates, it is imperative that we keep pace. Furthermore, there are huge social and cultural advantages to increasing university enrolment. A better educated society has a lower crime rate. It is more creative and more equal.

For these reasons, it is deeply regrettable that the coalition have decided to cut the teaching budget by 80% and load the cost onto students.

The Consequences

Economic

The economic consequences of the reforms could be very problematic indeed. I do not believe that the proposals will lead to a shortage of university applicants. One only has to look at the number of unsuccessful applicants last year to conclude that interest will still remain high. However, there is likely to be a serious problem with personal debt.

Placing a £40,000 liability onto the balance sheets of middle earners already coping with mortgages, taxation, and the costs of raising families hardly makes economic sense. It is likely to discourage enterprise and risk-taking. I think it is very probable that the amount of people defaulting on their student loan repayments will increase dramatically.

It is ironic that in the name of deficit reduction, the government are encouraging more people to assume potentially unmanageable levels of personal debt.

Social

While I do not believe that the proposals will reduce the total number of applicants to university, there is a very real risk that they will discourage those from disadvantaged backgrounds from doing so. A freedom of information request this week has shown the appalling racial enrolment statistics for Oxbridge colleges. There is clearly a problem that needs addressing.

Those from impecunious homes will find it hard to justify to their parents going to university and assuming huge levels of debt when they could be out earning money on the labour market. Young people from social groups who are unrepresented in higher education will more readily come to the conclusion that university is 'not for them' and something only accessible to wealthier families.

As the numbers of ethnic minorities decreases, bright aspirational applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to turn their backs on higher education. The consequences in terms of inequality, crime, and prejudice may be devastating.

Political

As someone with a keen interest and belief in the power of politics for social good, I was massively disappointed by the decision of the Liberal Democrats to renege on their pre-election promise to vote against any increase in fees. When I reveal my interest in politics to people, the most common reaction I get is that 'they are all a bunch of liars' and 'you can't trust any of them'.

If a prospective parliamentary candidate personally signs placards pledging not to do something if they receive votes, it creates a legitimate expectation on the part of the public that they will honour that promise. When they then - after receiving the votes and gaining office - go back on their words, the consequence is a critical and irreparable blow to trust in politics.

Mistrust in politicians is bad for so many reasons. It makes it less likely for people with ideas and energy to enter the political sphere. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion that makes injustice possible. Significantly also, it gives ammunition to extremist parties like the BNP, where people can be sure that promises will not be broken.

Conclusion

As a result, my mood when walking past the protests in Westminster was sombre. It is a sad day when a generation of people can be let down by a man they put faith in. It is a sad day when people feel so angry that they lash out in hurtful ways. Most of all, however, it is a sad day when any trust a young person may have had in politics evaporates for ever.