Fake Law: The Truth About Justice in an Age of Lies

Product Information

I don't believe all the #Metoo stories. For example, sex with Weinstein was in exchange for fame, for becoming a film star. Some of them were really forced and some of them, going up to his bedroom suite in a hotel for what is essentially a job interview and knowing his reputation, knew exactly what might happen. Some of them did te famous and stayed quiet for a long time. Some of them didn't and got compensation and stayed quiet. Some of them were molested and raped without any prior knowledge that the man might do such things to them. I'm going to start off by saying I am someone with an A in A level law (hold the applause). While yes this is part smugness, it is also to explain that I approached the book differently to most, so when I claim that the actual law explanations were on law I was somewhat familiar with and I found I was wanting more in depth academic discussions, note the position of approach and my understanding that it was written for the lay person. Most of the middle chapters in the book describe procedural legal concepts, leaving the reader to decide what, how and where fake law is more prevalent. Parts of the book were beginning to show simplicity in its analysis of fake law, and I began to think if this book, although the earlier chapters were enlightening to read, began to reflect something like ‘Fake Law for Dummies’. It was at this point I began to skip large sections due to them being repetitive and intellectually tiresome.

One particular law that really baffled the nation, was the law against holding a salmon under suspicious circumstances, with two-thirds (65%) of those surveyed believing it to be fake, when in fact it is a real law that has been in place since 1986 under Parliament’s Salmon Act . Johnson doesn’t care about victims of sexual violence. Or victims of any crime. Or people accused of crime. Or witnesses. Or the public whose safety depends on functioning criminal justice. His only interest is getting cheap headlines. The Secret Barrister takes many high-profile news stories from the UK press and breaks down the hype the media generated compared to the legal reality in the courtroom. This is done in a comprehensive and easy to understand manner, with elements of humour to grease the wheels along the way. As the title states, this book is about fake news relating to our justice system that mask the ‘cries of those truly betrayed or failed by the law’. This book gives us ‘snapshots of how the stories we are told about justice, corrupt and warp our understanding’ of our justice system.

Of interest to readers of this review will be Chapter 6, ‘Our Access to Justice’, as this looks at the fake news stories and facts that were used to soften up Parliament and the general public in accepting huge cuts to the legal aid system that has denied children and adults, some of whom are the most vulnerable in our society, e.g. victims of domestic abuse, from fully accessing our justice system and therefore denying them protection under the law. The Secret Barrister argues that the reduction on legal aid and its resulting denial of justice has resulted in:

So a case goes to court unchallenged by any but the most junior of lawyers since high profile clever ones can't afford to screw up their careers taking it, and the police just load up the killer, the rapist, the burglar, the stalker, whatever, with all the other cases that he failed a polygraph on, or other evidence points towards him, or people came forward and said they were victims. And meanwhile the real killers, rapists, stalkers, burglars, traffikers and paedophiles are laughing and carrying on since some of their crimes have now been pinned on someone else.. And those who sought fame and money, their stories will never be tested in court, they stand no chance of publicly being called liars and having their reputations destroyed, which wouldn't in any case, hurt their chances of getting on a reality show.But what actually happened? Miller won, the Government conceded, a vote was had in Parliament which went overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit, the courts did not collapse and democracy was not destroyed. A couple of newspapers ran headlines that lawyers didn’t like. It was not the end of civilisation as we know it and nor should the judiciary be, uniquely, exempt from criticism. After all, it would be a very lonely place on our doorsteps every Thursday evening if we were all invited out to clap for the lawyers… Unless of course you are one of those who has suffered or lost loved ones as a result of negligence or incompetence, or wanted to hold the government to account, or might one day in the future. I'm fascinated by true crime and legal matters and jumped at the change to request Fake Law through the publisher, who provided me with a free copy to read and review. This is a look at multiple UK cases which, reading in Australia, are reflected in case within our justice system. Where people surmise the law is clean cut, and did they or didn't they - this book gives all the shades along the spectrum showing why things are not always clear cut. The SB takes as gospel the Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller 2, last year’s challenge against the Government for proroguing Parliament, despite the fact that three of the country’s most senior judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, decreed this to be outside the competence of the judiciary. Why was the Supreme Court’s ruling unanimous? Is there not something about its aggrandisement that is worthy of discussion, even in the terms employed by the tabloids which SB dismisses as “hysteria”, or are we just supposed to go along with it?