McKenzie friend

Last updated

A McKenzie friend assists a litigant in person in a court of law in England and Wales, Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia by prompting, taking notes, and quietly giving advice. They need not be legally trained or have any professional legal qualifications.

Contents

The right to a McKenzie friend was established in the 1970 case of McKenzie v McKenzie. [1] Although in many cases a McKenzie friend may be an actual friend, it is often somebody with knowledge of the area and the presumption is heavily in favour of admitting a McKenzie friend into court. [2] He or she may be liable for any misleading advice given to the litigant in person [3] but is not covered by professional indemnity insurance.

A similar, modified principle exists in Singapore. The role is distinct from that of a next friend or of an amicus curiae .

Origin

McKenzie v. McKenzie was a divorce case in England in 1969. [4] Levine McKenzie, who was petitioning for divorce, had been legally aided but the legal aid had been withdrawn before the case went to court. Unable to fund legal representation, McKenzie had broken off contact with his solicitors, Jeffrey Gordon & Co. However, one day before the hearing, Jeffrey Gordon sent the case to an Australian barrister in London, Ian Hanger, whose qualifications in law in Australia did not allow him to practise as a barrister in London. Hanger hoped to sit with his client to prompt him, take notes and suggest questions in cross-examination, thereby providing what quiet assistance he could from the bar table to a man representing himself. The trial judge ordered Hanger not to take any active part in the case (except to advise McKenzie during adjournments) and to sit in the public gallery of the court. Hanger assumed his limited role was futile and did not return for the second day of the trial. [4]

The case went against McKenzie, who then appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that he had been denied representation. On 12 June 1970, the Court of Appeal ruled that the judge's intervention had deprived McKenzie of the assistance to which he was entitled and ordered a retrial. [5]

As of 2022, Ian Hanger AM KC, the original McKenzie friend, is a King's Counsel (KC) at the Queensland Bar. [6] [7] [8] [9]

In specific jurisdictions

Singapore

In September 2006, the Subordinate Courts of Singapore started a pilot project called the Lay Assistant Scheme in which persons, usually with some legal knowledge, attend hearings with litigants who are not represented by lawyers to advise them on non-legal issues and help them with administrative tasks. The scheme, a modification of the UK's McKenzie friend system, is intended to assist litigants who are not eligible for legal aid as they have an annual salary exceeding S$10,000 but cannot afford a lawyer.[ citation needed ] For the litigant to qualify, the other party must be legally represented.

Lay assistants are not allowed to act as lawyers and may not address the court; any breach of court rules may render them liable to a maximum fine of $1,000 or imprisonment of up to six months.

Plans for introducing McKenzie friends in court proceedings were first announced by Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong in May 2006. Students from the Pro Bono Group of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, have been participating in the scheme. [10]

England and Wales

In English courts, where a case is being heard in private, the use of a McKenzie friend has sometimes been contentious. This is a particular problem in family court hearings, where it has been held that the nature of the case is so confidential that no one other than the litigants and their professional legal representatives should be admitted to the court.

A 2005 Court of Appeal case, In the matter of the children of Mr O'Connell, Mr Whelan and Mr Watson, [11] clarified the law in this area. The result of the appeal has legitimised the use of McKenzie friends in the family court and allowed the litigant to disclose confidential court papers to the McKenzie friend.

England and Wales allow fee charging McKenzie friends, who may charge for their services, including the giving of legal advice. A recent report by the Legal Service Consumer Panel found that fee charging McKenzie friends were a net benefit. The report stated, "They should be viewed as providing valuable support that improves access to justice in the large majority of cases." [12] [13]

Scotland

The legal system in England and Wales differs from that in Scotland. The first recorded use of McKenzie friends in Scotland was in April 2007 in the case TB & AM v The Authority Reporter . [14] The one major difference between England and Scotland is that in Scotland McKenzie friends are not permitted to receive remuneration.

See also

Related Research Articles

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may result in sanctions against the offender.

In English civil litigation, costs are the lawyers' fees and disbursements of the parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural justice</span> Concept in UK law

In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly".

Prejudice is a legal term with different meanings, which depend on whether it is used in criminal, civil, or common law. In legal context, "prejudice" differs from the more common use of the word and so the term has specific technical meanings.

Support Through Court is a UK legal charity that supports people who have to represent themselves in court. The aim is to "reduce the disadvantage of people facing the civil and family justice system without a lawyer, enabling them to access justice" and believe that "no one should face court alone".

In England and Wales, a litigant in person is an individual, company or organisation that has rights of audience and is not represented in a court of England and Wales by a solicitor or barrister. Instructing a barrister and not a solicitor, for example through the Public Access Scheme, however, does not prevent the party on whose behalf the barrister had been instructed from being a litigant in person.

A public defender is a lawyer appointed to represent people who otherwise cannot reasonably afford to hire a lawyer to defend themselves in a trial. Several countries provide people with public defenders, including the UK, Belgium, Hungary and Singapore, and some states of Australia. Brazil is the only country in which an office of government-paid lawyers with the specific purpose of providing full legal assistance and representation to the needy free of charge is established in the constitution. The Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, requires the US government to provide legal counsel to indigent defendants in criminal cases. Public defenders in the United States are lawyers employed by or under contract with county, state or federal governments.

In forma pauperis is a Latin legal term meaning "in the character or manner of a pauper". It refers to the ability of an indigent person to proceed in court without payment of the usual fees associated with a lawsuit or appeal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Employment tribunal</span> Tribunal public bodies in England and Wales and Scotland

Employment tribunals are tribunal public bodies in both England and Wales and Scotland that have statutory jurisdiction to hear disputes between employers and employees.

A duty solicitor, duty counsel, or duty lawyer, is a solicitor whose services are available to a person either suspected of, or charged with, a criminal offence free of charge, if that person does not have access to a solicitor of their own and usually if it is judged by a means test that they cannot afford one. The system is operative in several Commonwealth countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

In English law, a law costs draftsman is a specialist lawyer who settles the legal costs of a court case. The role of the law costs draftsman centres on a procedure known as the detailed assessment of costs, which is controlled by statute in England and Wales. They are concerned with costs relating to all areas of the law and deal with every conceivable type of legal matter that touches upon the subject of costs. An experienced and competent law costs professional may command a salary on a par with that of a solicitor or legal executive.

In common law, a right of audience is generally a right of a lawyer to appear and conduct proceedings in court on behalf of their client. In English law, there is a fundamental distinction between barristers, who have rights of audience in the superior court, and solicitors, who have rights of audience in the lower courts, unless a certificate of advocacy is obtained, which allows a solicitor advocate to represent clients in the superior courts also. There is no such distinction in American law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial officers of the Republic of Singapore</span>

The judicial officers of the Republic of Singapore work in the Supreme Court and the State Courts to hear and determine disputes between litigants in civil cases and, in criminal matters, to determine the liability of accused persons and their sentences if they are convicted.

Glenn Jeyasingam Knight is a Singaporean lawyer. He was the first Director of the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) when it was founded in 1984. He lost his post in 1991 after being convicted of corruption in a much-publicised trial. In 1998, he was again tried and convicted for misappropriating money while in office.

Pro se legal representation comes from Latin pro se, meaning "for oneself" or "on behalf of themselves" which, in modern law, means to argue on one's own behalf in a legal proceeding, as a defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, or a defendant in criminal cases, rather than have representation from counsel or an attorney.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Doctrine of bias in Singapore law</span> Principle of appellate law in Singapore

Bias is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law which a person can rely upon to challenge the judgment of a court or tribunal, or a public authority's action or decision. There are three forms of bias, namely, actual, imputed and apparent bias.

Fettering of discretion by a public authority is one of the grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. It is regarded as a form of illegality. An applicant may challenge a decision by an authority on the basis that it has either rigidly adhered to a policy it has formulated, or has wrongfully delegated the exercise of its statutory powers to another body. If the High Court finds that a decision-maker has fettered its discretion, it may hold the decision to be ultra vires – beyond the decision-maker's powers – and grant the applicant a suitable remedy such as a quashing order to invalidate the decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Comyn</span> Irish Fianna Fáil barrister, politician and judge (1871–1952)

Michael Comyn was an Irish barrister, Fianna Fáil Senator and later a judge on the Circuit Court. He was also a member of the British Civil Service, geologist, discoverer and operator of mines, and finally "litigant in one of the longest cases ever heard in the Irish courts". As a lawyer-turned litigant, he recounted that "it was his last case, and he won it: a far cry from his first case as a young barrister...it was a bad case and I did it badly".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Post Office scandal</span> British legal and political scandal

The British Post Office scandal is a miscarriage of justice involving the wrongful civil and criminal prosecutions of an unknown or unpublished number of sub-postmasters (SPMs) for theft, false accounting and/or fraud. The cases constitute the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history, spanning a period of over twenty years; aspects of the scandal remain unresolved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sheriff Appeal Court</span>

The Sheriff Appeal Court is a court in Scotland that hears appeals from summary criminal proceedings in the sheriff courts and justice of the peace courts, and hears appeals on bail decisions made in solemn proceedings in the sheriff court. The Sheriff Appeal Court also hears appeals in civil cases from the sheriff courts, including the Sheriff Personal Injury Court.

References

  1. ↑ [1971] P 33; [1970] 3 WLR 472; [1970] 3 All ER 1034, CA
  2. ↑ McKenzie Friends, Family Law Week , Retrieved 15 June 2015
  3. ↑ Wright v Troy Lucas (a firm) & Anor [2019] EWHC 1098 (QB)
  4. 1 2 Forsyth, John (4 May 2009). "Little help from my friends". The Scotsman . Retrieved 23 September 2013.
  5. ↑ "Litigant In Person Has Right To Assistance" (Law report), The Times , 17 June 1970, p. 8.
  6. ↑ "Ian Hanger". Law Society Gazette. Ireland. 15 May 2020. Retrieved 1 March 2021.
  7. ↑ "Ian Hanger AM QC". 31 West Chambers. Retrieved 1 March 2021.
  8. ↑ "Council Members". National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Committee. Archived from the original on 3 April 2010. Retrieved 26 April 2010.
  9. ↑ "Ian Hanger AM KC". whoswholegal.
  10. ↑ Ansley Ng, "Law Undergrads in Court's Pilot Scheme Archived 2007-03-12 at the Wayback Machine ", Today (5 January 2007).
  11. ↑ O'Connel & Ors (Children) Rev 2 [2005] EWCA Civ 759 , [2005] 3 WLR 1191, [2006] Fam 1(22 June 2005)
  12. ↑ Bowcott, Owen (17 April 2014). "Legal watchdog urges culture shift over fee-charging McKenzie friends". The Guardian . Retrieved 13 September 2015.
  13. ↑ ‘Culture change’ needed to embrace fee-charging McKenzie friends, The Law Society Gazette, Retrieved 15 June 2015
  14. ↑ "Judgment Search". www.scotcourts.gov.uk.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.