Criminal Justice System: Families Bereaved by Public Disasters

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I would like to start by saying, in my 21 years in Parliament, what a privilege it has been to participate in this very important debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for securing this debate, as well as Lord Michael Wills for his work alongside her in championing the Public Advocate Bill (No. 2) Bill.

We have had so many important speeches in this debate. There is the leadership shown by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and I think we are all very grateful for her continuing to champion these issues. It has been good to hear from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), as Chair of the Justice Committee, as well as from my hon. Friends the Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson).

We heard two very emotional speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and they both brought tears to my eyes. The truth is that I may well get emotional myself, because I have been thinking throughout this debate about the victims and the loved ones of the Grenfell fire, and my friend Khadija Saye and her mother, who lost their lives. It is for that reason that we must set this right, because tragedies have come after Hillsborough, and we are still waiting. That is unacceptable because we have to demonstrate that we can act, so I hope that the Minister, when he rises to his feet, has some news for us on this occasion.

None of us in this House will forget that, in the FA cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest in 1989, 97 football fans tragically lost their lives. The victims were young and old. Jon-Paul Gilhooley, Liverpool legend Steven Gerrard’s eldest cousin, was the youngest, aged just 10. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood recognised, the most recent is Andrew Devine, who died this summer as a result of the catastrophic injuries he received 32 years ago.

Inquests carried out since the Hillsborough tragedy have shown that the 97 victims were unlawfully killed by the negligence of others. The authorities shamefully failed the fans whose lives they were supposed to protect. But it was not only the lack of experience at managing large crowds that was wrong and it was not only poor decision making; it was the gross and repugnant lies that they have since admitted and the desperate attempts to cover their own tracks. Earlier this year, the collapse of the most recent case was yet another slap in the face for the families of all those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough.

It is truly shameful that, still today, not one person has been held accountable for these deadly failures. The truth about what happened that day in 1989 was only acknowledged 23 years later as a result of the Hillsborough independent panel, but still not one person has been held accountable, not one victim has got what they deserve, not one family has received closure. South Yorkshire police have not been held accountable for their lies but tried to deflect blame from their own failures on to the victims. The lack of justice in this case fatally undermines the very concept of a public inquiry: what is the point of a public inquiry if it is incapable of shedding light on the murkiest of dealings and if it is incapable of or unwilling to provide closure for the families of the victims?

The reforms we are debating today stem from the Hillsborough tragedy but their benefits would reach far beyond it. The appalling thing about the travesty of Hillsborough is that it is by no means a one-off. I referenced the parallels that I see in the dishonesty and criminality at the heart of the Grenfell tragedy, in which I personally lost a friend. I will never forget waking up on the morning of 14 June 2017 at around 5.30 am, a few hours after the catastrophe had started that would take the life of my friend Khadija Saye and 71 others. What has emerged since the blaze is a pattern of deception and untruthfulness from the authorities. The inquiry is still ongoing but not one person has been arrested for the clear criminality that has been revealed, no one has been convicted, no one has been punished, no one has been held to account to this day. It breaks my heart to admit there will be more injustices like it; that is why it is so important that our justice system is prepared for them.

The Opposition firmly believe that changes to the law are needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood is right that an independent public advocate should be available to the victims of disasters to advocate for their best interests, to establish a panel to review all the evidence, documentation and data relating to the tragedy, and to advise on the course of action most likely to get justice and push for it. The creation of an independent public advocate was promised in the Government’s 2017 manifesto, and I am sure all in the House will agree this is too important a promise to break.

The Opposition also support the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, as proposed by Andy Burnham, former Member for Leigh. When disasters like Hillsborough occur, the public expect those in official positions to be honest and transparent about the events which took place. If mistakes are made, they expect officials to be held to the same standard as they themselves would be if they made a mistake at work. That is why the Opposition support the principle that those in public office should face legal consequences if they fail to co-operate with inquiries in a truthful, open and honest way.

The Opposition would also take steps to end the fundamental imbalance of power at the heart of the inquest system. It is absurd beyond belief that after terrible events like Hillsborough and Grenfell a modern-day David and Goliath situation exists when it comes to public disasters. It simply cannot be right that state bodies and their representatives have unlimited access to a pot of public money to spend on the country’s best legal minds while the families of victims get little or nothing. How can it be just for a family who has gone through the most unimaginable pain of losing a member in horrendous circumstances to have to rely on crowdfunding just to be represented at inquest? Yet we know this happens all the time.

Let us consider the case of Zane Gbangbola, which I raised last year. On the evening of 7 February 2014, seven-year-old Zane and his mother and father went to bed in their Surrey home and owing to circumstances which remain unexplained Zane tragically died in his sleep and his father was left paralysed for life. The inquest into Zane’s death found that he died as a result of poisoning caused by a petrol pump in their home; however, doubts regarding this verdict have been expressed from all sides of the political spectrum. When Zane’s family applied for legal aid they were denied it because the case was not considered to be in the public interest. Of all those present at the inquest into their son’s death, they were the only ones not to be publicly funded. How can it be fair for this family in their moment of absolute grief to be left to present their case with one crowdfunded lawyer against six teams of top lawyers funded by the public? Labour would end this injustice by ensuring that bereaved families at inquests and public inquiries received public funding to ensure that they have basic equality of arms in their struggle for justice. Both these changes would put victims first, leaving the justice system much better prepared for the worst.

Truth and justice are the fundamental principles that must guide us in this debate. The families of victims must be supported, and authorities must be held to account. Those are simple commitments that everyone in this House can agree on. We cannot have more cover-ups. We cannot have decades of mistruths placed on the shoulders of victims who have already suffered too much. We cannot allow lies to linger for as long as they did over Hillsborough ever again. It is time for the Government to do the decent thing and change the law.

Shooting of Abdulkarim Boudiaf

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I wish to use this Adjournment debate to raise the case of Abdulkarim Boudiaf, a constituent of mine who tragically lost his life in Tottenham on 14 March 2009. As Members of Parliament, we are first and foremost representatives of our constituents: we are sent here to speak for them, to represent them, to serve them, and to fight for their interests. This is a responsibility that I have always taken with the utmost seriousness, so tonight I stand here as the Member of Parliament for Tottenham, but also as the representative of the Boudiaf family, who are yet to find closure and are yet to get justice for their son who was taken from them in the most brutal of circumstances.

Eight long years have passed since Karim’s untimely death, yet the family’s grief remains as raw as on the day he died. Their search for justice goes on, and their son’s murderers are yet to be brought to justice for this heinous crime. Many listening may reflect on a high-profile case from a different constituency and think that the case of my constituent is eerily similar to that of Stephen Lawrence. Two of the original murder suspects, Gary Dobson and David Norris, were convicted and are serving minimum life terms. The remaining three prime suspects in the murder of Stephen Lawrence on 22 April 1993 are still free from conviction and punishment, however. I hope tonight that I will be able not only to shed some light on the circumstances of the case, but to highlight wider concerns about the implications of the double jeopardy rule in pursuing public prosecutions.

Karim, as he is known to his family, was a talented and outgoing young man with aspirations of attending the University of Northampton to read law. I was once a young man from Tottenham with aspirations to go to university to read law, so it breaks my heart that the opportunity was snatched away from Karim when he was callously murdered outside the Elmhurst pub on Broadwater Road in my constituency on Saturday 14 March 2009.

At the time of the tragic incident, Karim was enjoying an evening out with friends. Aged just 18 years, he was shot in cold blood at point-blank range and sustained fatal injuries to the abdomen and neck shortly after 10 o’clock in the evening. Emergency services were called to the scene and paramedics fought desperately to save his life, yet, sadly, in vain; he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Karim left behind a mother, a father and two siblings. As each day passes, the family struggle to come to terms with what happened and with the horrific circumstances in which Karim lost his life. No motive was identified, nor was the murder weapon ever found. It has been extremely difficult for the Boudiaf family to accept, first, that their son is gone; secondly, that the murder case remains unsolved; and, thirdly, that the perpetrators of this senseless crime walk free among us today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward with such dedication. Does he agree that the reward offered for information in 2016 should be reviewed, and that a renewed publicity campaign should be launched to seek justice for the family of this young man, who was planning to study law and was a much loved member of his family and of the community?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is important that, when we offer incentives to the public to come forward, the sum involved is appropriate and the right amount to draw attention to the crime and to bring people out of the woodwork. The threshold in these sorts of cases is so high.

The perpetrators of this crime are walking free—free from conviction for this serious offence, free from justice, free from having to face up to their crimes and free to live under the pretence of being just another ordinary citizen in society. Karim’s family are not free. They cannot find any peace. They cannot find closure. They cannot live their lives with this injustice hanging over them.

Karim was out with a crowd of friends in the vicinity of a busy pub on a Saturday night. There were numerous witnesses who saw what happened to him, and some of them gave evidence, but their testimony was undermined during the investigation into his death. The Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges against two men, Asher Vance and Jack Johnson. However, the defendants were acquitted during a trial heard at the Old Bailey in 2009, much to the family’s disgust. The family’s grief was further compounded when they heard that any further prosecutions involving the only defendants charged with the murder of Karim could take place only if new and compelling evidence was brought to light in accordance with double jeopardy legislation.

Since the prosecutions failed, I have been raising questions about the relationship between double jeopardy and prosecution appeals. Was the original investigation robust and watertight? Were any stones left unturned? Why did the prosecution fail? Why was the murder weapon never found? Why was a motive never established? Is there anything that the police and Crown Prosecution Service could have done differently?

During the trial, Karim’s mother shared her anguish with the public through the recital of poetry. It is heartbreaking to have to say that the family felt that their ethnic background and Muslim faith was held against them, and that they felt marginalised throughout the process. I am no stranger to the issues of how race and ethnicity interact with our criminal justice system, having published a review into this subject area for the Prime Minister in September. The Boudiafs are a proud, loving family of Algerian descent, who have close ties to the Algerian community in my constituency and across London. It is a cause of real concern that any family would feel that their race, ethnicity and religion could influence and play a factor in whether the person responsible for a murder is brought to justice. Unfortunately, this is very much the situation that the Boudiaf family are faced with. Karim’s mother in particular has always felt that her Algerian background resulted in conscious and unconscious bias in the course of police investigations, which in turn contributed to a failure to secure a conviction at trial.

Social divisions, racial inequality and the disproportionate representation of individuals from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds as the victims of crime are issues we have seen highlighted time and again in criminal cases. Notably, all these issues were deeply rooted in one of the most high-profile cases in criminal history in the UK: the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, and the subsequent miscarriage of justice that saw his case overlooked for 19 years.

Changes to the application of the rule of double jeopardy followed shortly after recommendations in the Macpherson report, published in 1999. Amendments to sections 75 to 97 in part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 permit retrials where new and compelling evidence is brought against the acquitted. Those changes mean that acquittals can be quashed, and that qualifying and serious cases can be retried in the interests of, and in pursuit of, justice. However, it took 19 long years before significant failings were recognised. It was 19 years before substantial changes were made to the application of the double jeopardy rule. Ultimately, it took 19 years too long before only two successful convictions were secured under revisions to the doctrine of double jeopardy. How long will the Boudiaf family have to wait before justice is duly served and they can find some semblance of peace?

Following my interventions, the police launched a fresh appeal in 2015 for more information about the murder. To the family, the police efforts felt cursory. I understand that it is still an open case, but no active investigation is being undertaken at this point. For there to be an active investigation, the Homicide and Serious Crime Command would need to review the case. I am calling for a review and an active investigation as we approach the 10th anniversary of Karim’s death.

Against a backdrop of austerity and spending cuts since 2010, I am also concerned that police services lack the resources they need to actively investigate open cases—even in a brutal murder case such as this. The Met is already having to find £1 billion of cuts, which has led to the loss of 2,800 staff and the closure of police stations across the capital in recent years.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

The Macpherson report will be 20 years old next year, and does my right hon. Friend share my concern that we still do not have the diversity in the workforce, particularly in the police, that we need so that communities are represented?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is quite right that part of this story is about ensuring that Britain’s ethnic diversity is replicated across the criminal justice system at all levels. There has been some small progress in the Met police but, as my review found, we need to see diversity among the judiciary and our prison officers if we are to ensure that ethnic minority communities have faith and trust in our criminal justice system.

I am grateful to the Solicitor General for being here today to listen to and understand the feelings of the family. I am also grateful for his offer of a meeting with the family, senior representatives from the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, and I will take up that offer following this debate.

Karim was somebody’s son, brother and friend. As the family’s MP, I am not only calling for justice but representing them and ensuring that their voices, which have been silenced throughout the intervening years since the trial, are finally heard today in our Parliament. Karim’s family have not received adequate support from the state. They inform me that they continue to feel undermined and ignored to this day. Instead, they rely on the kindness of individuals in the Muslim community, in which they feel understood and supported.

This year marks the eighth year since Karim’s death, and his family’s determination to get justice for their son remains unwavering. Over the years, the family have repeatedly posed the same questions relating to the police’s failure to build a strong case to prosecute, the failure of the prosecution in court and the shortcomings of reporting methods and communication between the state and the bereaved family following the trial. The family, who are still reeling from the death, have said that they were not aware of any right to review the decision made by the CPS not to bring any further charges against the main defendant in the form of a retrial. The family were not made aware of the victim’s right to review and believed that any appeals would cost them financially. If they had been told, they would have submitted an appeal within the time limit, which is between five working days and three months following the CPS decision.

Clearly, this is an exceptional and alarming case. I would like reassurances from the Solicitor General today that if the family were to proceed with a review request, their submission would be treated and assessed under exceptional circumstances. What is more, the family are no clearer on who actually discharged the firearm that killed Karim, why witness intimidation was not taken more seriously, why special measures were not put in place to protect witnesses in the case, and whether there was forensic evidence that would have provided new leads and evidence for the investigation. The same questions that they posed almost a decade ago remain unanswered. In an all too familiar and tragic tale when it comes to victims of violent crime from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, the lack of communication and information about Karim’s case have caused the family to lose confidence and trust in our criminal justice system. Since Karim’s death, I have supported the family and witnessed at first hand the agony and trauma that they face and battle with on a daily basis. It pains me every time I meet the family to see the looks of despair and the glimmer of hope that has been dashed. Many who know the family believe that there is sufficient and compelling evidence that could lead to a conviction. They feel that, regrettably, the scope of the police investigation was limited. The thought of having no right of appeal and no retrial is unthinkable for them.

Although of course I appreciate the principle of double jeopardy, I am concerned that the rule is fundamentally flawed. It is for that reason that I call on the Government to look again at the rule. It is time for the Government to review how it operates in practice and whether it is working as it was designed, or whether in fact it is actually preventing miscarriages from being overturned, resulting in guilty individuals avoiding justice.

The Government must also consider how circumstances such as witness intimidation and shortcomings on the part of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service can be taken into account so that justice is served. It is, of course, right and proper that the law must safeguard against miscarriages of justice. Currently, to obtain a prosecution appeal against an acquittal, we have a strict and narrow application of the double jeopardy rule that uses a high evidential threshold to test for qualifying offences.

I believe the current legislation is inflexible and does not reflect modern conditions and scientific advances. The original trial must be fit for purpose, watertight and leave no stone unturned if the double jeopardy rule is to work properly and if we are to avoid miscarriages of justice like we see in this case. Recent evidence suggests that the scope for retrials of acquitted individuals under the legislation is too narrow.

The criminal law review published in 2014 confirmed that only 13 applications for retrial were made to the Court of Appeal under the provisions of the double jeopardy rule. Of those 13 applications, nine resulted in retrials. The defendants in seven of those cases were retried and convicted, with two defendants convicted on a guilty plea. Just one case led to acquittal. That evidence highlights clearly how restrictive the double jeopardy rule is.

In the case of Abdulkarim Boudiaf, there is still a long way to go until we can reasonably conclude that justice has been done. Those responsible for his murder are protected by this rule, so it logically follows that the tragic circumstances of this case call into question the fairness of the double jeopardy rule. The law must serve the interests of the victim, of the victim’s family, of the public and, most of all, of justice. In 2019 it will be 10 years since Karim was murdered. The case remains open.

Legal aid

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I am delighted to have secured this important debate so soon after the publication of the legal aid Green Paper. It is a mark of how significant such issues are that there is a good attendance in the Gallery and that a number of Members of Parliament are present hoping to make a contribution.

Members of Parliament have a particular interest in legal aid, particularly in the broader context of advice services, because we are part of the family of advisers. That was brought home to me during my first week as an MP when, at my very first surgery, a gentleman asked me for assistance in having his wife deported. I was not able to refer that case to a partner legal aid firm.

Over the course of 13 years, I have made extensive use of, and am enormously grateful to, private firms, law centres and other advice centres in my constituency and elsewhere, and I will pay tribute to them by name. Paddington law centre is an excellent local facility that has assisted thousands of people in the community. The London borough of Westminster is often used as a byword for prosperity and the great institutions of central London, but in fact it includes a number of the most deprived wards in the country. Westminster citizens advice bureau is another superb organisation and I had the pleasure of attending its annual meeting a couple of weeks ago. Other organisations include the North Kensington law centre, the migrants resource centre, the Mary Ward centre—that is not in my constituency, but it is an important local organisation—Just for Kids Law, to which I will refer in a moment, and many private practices, as well as the Central London law centre and the Brent private tenants rights group, which is just over the border and provides an important service to tenants.

Those professionals in the sector provide, for the most part, a service to many of the most vulnerable and distressed people in society, and they do so for what is a challenging level of remuneration in a professional context. We hear—sometimes rightly—about the eye-watering sums of money paid in legal aid in some criminal cases. I understand that such cases cause public concern, but as in so many areas of public policy, we are being driven by policy making by anecdote. We need to address extreme examples and issues, but, overwhelmingly, legal aid practitioners are not well remunerated and they do an excellent job at astoundingly good value to the public purse.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend says that those professionals are not well remunerated. Does she agree that they are not even as well remunerated as many of the senior police officers and teachers in our constituencies? Their average income is between £28,000 and £40,000 in London.

[Ms Buck]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is true that legal aid practitioners who take on institutions in the public sector, and sometimes the private sector, are significantly less well paid than those professionals who make the public policy decisions that they challenge.

It is important to put on the record the fact that the previous Labour Government took decisions that bore down on legal aid expenditure. Not everyone will have agreed with those decisions—they may have challenged them—but there was a healthy debate. It must also be accepted that had Labour been re-elected, there would have been cuts in the legal aid budget. It is not the case, however, that the unfolding policy of the Labour party would have placed the pressure, which we now see emerging, on civil, family and social welfare law. Those are the areas of concern that I want to address.

It is critical to protect criminal legal aid. If it is not available at the right level and provided by quality professionals, justice will be denied. It is very important to protect a proper criminal legal aid budget. I pay tribute to Lord Bach, the former Minister with responsibility for legal aid, who looked at ways in which to bear down on exceptional costs in the criminal legal aid budget without sacrificing the principles of access to justice. I think there was consensus on that.

My concerns are about the manner in which the legal aid Green Paper attacks—and it is an attack—the legal aid budget. It bears down particularly severely on civil cases, including family and social welfare, and takes a number of areas out of the scope of aid entirely. Such areas include children and family cases in which domestic violence is not a stated factor, education, immigration where a person is not detained, clinical negligence, welfare benefits, employment, debt and some areas of housing. As a consequence, more than 500,000 people each year are less likely to receive help. Not only will that have an effect on those people unable to access legal aid services, but it will destabilise and possibly destroy such services in many areas and make it extremely hard for public services to be held to account when they are at fault.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for initiating this incredibly important debate, which cuts to the heart of the kind of society that we want to live in. It is important for the House to record that we do not want to go back to the time when this work was being done by volunteers. We talk about access to justice, but at its heart is social justice and the kind of society that we seek. I believe that we should live in a society where the most vulnerable have access to justice.

I speak as a former Minister with responsibility for legal aid. If we go back to the earlier part of the last decade, before the 30 consultations that we heard of, I was considering fixed fees and new ways of contracting, but that is a long, long way from the Green Paper.

I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in the run-up to the election about family policies. He said that he wanted to make Britain the most family-friendly country in Europe. Only a few days ago, he said:

“The seeds of so many problems, as well as success stories, are sown in the early years. Family is where people learn to be good citizens, to take responsibility, to live in harmony with others. Families are the building blocks of a strong, cohesive society.”

He cannot make such pronouncements and then run a coach and horses through family life in constituencies throughout the country.

The services that family practitioners provide for vulnerable families facing breakdown and for people having to decide who should have contact and how it is to be arranged, are essential in modern society. If we take that advice away, except in cases of domestic violence, we will see chaos. We will see people presenting at court as litigants in person. When those cases come to the county court, people will not be receiving advice from the court clerks or the judges; they will simply get a form to fill in. They will be on their own. What will happen? Families, but mostly women, will not get that advice. I ask the Minister to think hard about whether that is the sort of family that we want, and whether that is consistent with an undertaking to put families at the centre of British life.

[Margot James]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lammy]

I will not give way, as there is so little time.

It cannot be right that people will get a practitioner only if they already have an injunction. Are we really saying that a woman should pitch up to court on her own if she is concerned about her children having contact with her husband, who may be violent? Is it right that she should have to make her way on her own, in such vulnerable contexts, without access to legal advice? Are we really saying that when families are in dispute—perhaps one parent wants to take a child abroad—the parent fighting that decision should have to find access to justice on their own and without sufficient funds?

Are we saying—I ask as the Member of Parliament in whose constituency the baby P case occurred—to the many thousands of families affected by care proceedings that ultimately end in adoption, which changes the legal nature of the child’s relationship with its parents, that they cannot have legal aid to fight it or challenge it in court if they are concerned about losing their children? That cannot be right. That is not the kind of society that we want.

The policy is not consistent with the big society. Yesterday we saw the announcement of cuts of up to 40% in local government budgets. That will decimate much of the voluntary sector that the Ministry of Justice says people should rely upon. How can that be part of the big society? What will happen with welfare benefit cuts, given that many of the groups that support the most vulnerable—those with mental health problems, immigrants and those who have been without work for a considerable time—will find support withdrawn at this time of profound change? How can that be right?

In relation to immigration, the Churches consistently remind the state about its responsibility. We have pared back so much on legal advice about immigration and asylum matters that lawyers specialising in this area now help the system; they help constituents provide information to the bureaucracy—to the court system—that is easy to understand, which makes justice quicker. This Green Paper will drive those people underground; it will drive them into ghettos where they cannot be seen or found, as they will not have the right documents. That is the sort of thing that we see in other parts of continental Europe. We do not want that in this country.

The Green Paper is particularly worrying. It is possible to pass it off as unimportant, but we cannot call ourselves a civilised country unless we provide adequate legal aid. The previous Government stabilised legal aid. In that context, I contend that enough is enough. Now is the time to stand up and say what civilised really means. It is certainly not the time to walk alongside hypocrisy by suggesting that we can support families, that we can have a big society, that we can be fair in a civilised democracy and then run a coach and horses through the only access to justice that vulnerable people need.