The `Cab Rank Rule`: - London College of Legal Studies (South)
Transcription
The `Cab Rank Rule`: - London College of Legal Studies (South)
International and Comparative Law Journal (ICLJ) POINT OF VIEW The ‘Cab Rank Rule’: Required or Redundant Maliha Ahmed1 Every legal system around the world entails principles established solely for the protection and in the interest of the defendant (accused) in any case. One such prominent principle would be the presumption of innocence that regards the defendant to be innocent until proven guilty. Entitlement to legal representation is yet another right of the defendant aiming at securing a fair trial (Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights). Amongst these rights arises the notion of the Cab rank Rule that describes the significantly important relationship between a professional client (solicitor), acting on behalf of the defendant, and a barrister. It is widely believed that this Rule too serves in the interest of the defendant than the barrister and is fundamental to law and access to justice, a belief we wish to explore. Historically, the Cab rank Rule derives its name from the tradition by which a Hackney carriage or a black cab driver at the head of a queue of taxicabs is supposed to take the first passenger requesting The author is a student of LL.B.(Hon’s) under University of London at the London College of Legal Studies (South). 1 81 82 International and Comparative Law Journal (ICLJ) a ride. In the context of English law, this Rule has been a defining feature of English Bar for several hundred years and given official recognition by the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the regulatory body for barristers in England and Wales. According to Section C, Part 2: Code of Conduct of the BSB Handbook, a self-employed barrister must accept instructions given by a professional client (solicitor) taking into account his experience seniority and/or field of practice irrespective of the identity of the client, nature of the case, whether the client is paying privately or publicly funded and any belief or opinion he may have formed as to the character, reputation, cause, conduct, guilt or innocence of the client. Although subject to exceptions, this definition at its outset seeks to, principally, protect the client from being unjustly judged and ensuring he has a counsel in court. The judicial acceptance of this Rule can be found in the speech of Lord Irvine, Lord Chancellor in the year 1999, where he was of the view that the cab rank Rule is one of the “glories of the Bar” (contrary view by Lord Steyn and Lord Hope in Arthur J Hall v Simons [2002]). However, contrary views by various legal organizations have been expressed on many occasions. In 2010, the Law Society of England and Wales questioned whether the Rule remained a necessary and proportionate rule for the Bar at a time when there is increasing competition for advocacy services. More recently, in 2013, the Legal Services Board published a report called The Cab Rank Rule: Its Meaning and Purpose in the New Legal International and Comparative Law Journal (ICLJ) Services Market by Professor John Flood (University of Westminster) and Professor Morton Hviid (University of East Anglia) which argues that the rule is no longer relevant. The report questions any operative purpose that the Cab rank Rule serves holding that it is better described as a professional principle preserving values than a Rule which is redundant and virtually unenforceable. Its authenticity is assured by the interviews from the key players (including regulators, government officials, barristers, solicitors, barristers’ clerks) in addition to an analysis on the economic and socio-legal aspect. One of the many arguments resorted to by this report is the limited group of lawyers, namely self-employed barristers instructed by solicitors to whom this Rule applies (statistics). Moreover, an apparent simplicity of the Rule is underpinned by the exceptions that it is subjected to (also available in Section C of the Code of Conduct). On an essential note, even though the Rule, as strongly believed by the BSB, is supposed to protect the defendant’s interest, it does not apply to the relationship between public access clients and barristers. For instance, the Rule only states that barristers must accept the brief without specifying the level of effort that has to be put in it. This directly counters the aim of the Rule which is to improve access to justice. The report also does a comparative analysis with other jurisdiction, such as US, where a lawyer’s autonomy is given greater respect and importance whereas in case of English lawyers, his personal definition of morality is under challenge. 83 84 International and Comparative Law Journal (ICLJ) With respect to future reforms, the report considers three viable options which are firstly, to let it remain intact, secondly to abolish it entirely and thirdly to apply it to all providers of legal services than exclusive groups. Despite strong arguments, the report does not conclusively decide the outcome of the Cab rank Rule, an action appreciated by Chair of the BSB, Baroness Ruth Deech. In response to the report by Legal Services Board, she said, the BSB commissioned an independent report to evaluate whether the Rule was still relevant. The findings of the report distinctly varied from the former uncovering evidence that not only does the Rule protect interest of the consumer it also protects barristers from the wrath of the community and the social stigma that might arise from representing an unpopular defendant. It also argues that the Rule prevents major consumers of advocacy services from putting barristers out of circulation by making them unavailable for others or by means of payment to agree not to take any action against them.