Richard Edwards on the whiplash debate

Ken Clarke is making the important problem of fraudulent whiplash claims unnecessarily complicated.  The answer to the problem is not only staring the government in the face it is positively jumping up and down and screaming at it.  The ban on referral fees will have a substantial impact, provided the unlawful activities highlighted recently are not allowed to continue under the guise of alternative business structures. The government should also ban cash and other inducements.  It need not, however, take my word for that, this problem was identified by Lord Young in his report of 2010, endorsed by the Prime Minister.

The director of Argent Rehabilitation (part of the Parabis Group) has provided his solution to the problem, namely that accident victims should receive physiotherapy and no compensation rather than the cost of the physiotherapy and compensation. Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?   

I read recently that Direct Line is valued at between £3-£5 billion and Aviva £8.7 billion. The sheer financial clout of these companies makes them one of the most powerful and effective lobbying groups in the land and perhaps the effect can be seen in the different approach the government takes to the opposing sides in the debate.  For instance insurers were recently invited to a cosy meeting with the Prime Minister at number 10, although I haven’t heard it suggested that Peter Cruddas helped with the arrangements. Meanwhile not even the junior minister Jonathon Djanogly could be bothered to keep his engagement at the APIL conference recently, and chose instead to send a civil servant along in his place.  Listening to only one side of the debate leads to bad policy.

At its core this is not just a battle for influence with the government but for the hearts and minds of the premium paying public. The sheer scale of the problem of insurance fraud and the manner by which it is fuelled means that claimant lawyers who don’t pay referral fees or offer unsustainable incentives will find it difficult to get their message across.  For this reason I say the SRA is asleep at the wheel.

Although the problem of fraud in personal injury work is a serious issue the solutions are simple and the government should introduce them with haste.

An edited version of this letter was printed in the Law Society Gazette follow the link here:

 http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/letters/tackling-fraud

Richard Edwards on the Queen's Speech 2012

Perhaps it’s the nature of coalition politics but this government often seems to act like it’s run by Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde. Take for instance last week’s Queen’s Speech. Simultaneously it heralded measures to increase transparency in courts (the crime and courts bill) and steps that will enable courts to consider sensitive information under closed procedures in civil proceedings (the justice and security bill).

The procedures would permit the government to argue it should not be required to disclose sensitive material to a litigant. On behalf of the litigant a special advocate will be appointed to argue in favour of disclosure, but the litigant will be shielded from the material and the proceedings; a Kafkaesque nightmare.

On the other hand the government has caved in to pressure from broadcasters and intends to extend tv recordings of legal proceedings beyond the Supreme Court in limited circumstances. For now we’re told this will be restricted to hearings in the Court of Appeal and whilst “there will be no filming of victims, witnesses, defendants or jurors” an extension into the crown court is envisaged. Potentially the thin end of a worrying wedge.

Strong arguments have been made in favour of each of the conflicting proposals, but they carry great dangers that I hope will be fearlessly aired in Parliament.

An edited version of this piece appeared in today's Liverpool Daily Post, follow this link:

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local/2012/05/17/the-queen-s-speech-shows-the-government-s-two-faced-nature-99623-30983976/

Richard Edwards on the limitations of the Leveson Inquiry

Lord Justice Leveson’s Inquiry in to the culture, practice and ethics of the press has thrown a spotlight on the relationship between politicians and media organisations, in particular Rupert Murdoch’s News International. One claim is that the Tories entered a ‘Grand Bargain’ with the media mogul who, in return for providing the backing of The Sun, was assured of support for his attempt to seize full control of BSkyB. Although denied by David Cameron, a special advisor to Jeremy Hunt has lost his job for appearing too close to the Murdochs and the hunt for the Culture Secretary is still very much on.

LJ Leveson has stated it is not his responsibility to determine if Mr Hunt has breached the ministerial code, but his terms of reference include examining the relationship between the press and politicians. LJ Leveson’s task is immense and goes to the very heart of our democracy. Striking the right balance between a need for robust regulation on the one hand and freedom of speech and investigative journalism on the other will be difficult, yet achievable. I doubt even Lord Leveson, however, believes he can come up with a viable solution that will see an end to politicians climbing in to bed with press barons and, as Murdoch put it, making love like porcupines.

An edited version of this was printed in the Liverpool Daily Post on 3^rd May 2012, follow this link:

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local/2012/05/03/what-the-leveson-inquiry-tells-us-about-politicians-and-media-organisations-99623-30885663/