Fake Law

Fake Law Plot Summary

Introduction

The justice system represents the cornerstone of democratic societies, yet public understanding of its functioning remains clouded by persistent myths and deliberate misrepresentations. These distortions create a dangerous disconnect between citizens and the legal frameworks designed to protect them. When media outlets and politicians present skewed narratives about legal cases, judicial decisions, and fundamental rights, they undermine not just public confidence but the very foundations of justice itself. Through careful examination of high-profile cases and systematic misrepresentations, we can identify how vested interests deliberately chip away at individual rights and protections through coordinated dissemination of half-truths and rhetorical sleight of hand. The consequences extend far beyond individual misunderstandings - they threaten access to justice, erode constitutional safeguards, and ultimately weaken democratic governance. By exposing these legal myths and contrasting them with factual realities, we gain essential tools for defending a justice system that serves all citizens rather than privileged interests.

Chapter 1: The Justice System's Accessibility Crisis

The legal system in England and Wales presents an inherently complex and often alienating landscape for ordinary citizens. Finding answers to straightforward questions about personal rights requires navigating a labyrinth of outdated legislation, impenetrable case law, and specialized legal jargon. Even the official government website responsible for publishing accessible versions of the law has not been fully updated for decades, with a significant percentage of statutes containing "outstanding effects" - meaning they are simply wrong. This technical inaccessibility creates the first barrier between citizens and justice. Education systems compound this problem by failing to provide even basic legal literacy. Despite law underpinning every facet of existence, English and Welsh schooling has historically placed virtually no emphasis on legal education. Fundamental questions about how laws are made, what rights citizens possess, or how the justice system functions are rarely addressed in curricula. The legal profession itself bears some responsibility, having historically guarded its knowledge rather than making it accessible to the public. This disconnect between citizens and the legal system creates dangerous vulnerabilities. Society functions only when people abide by common, agreed rules. When public comprehension is corrupted by misinformation, citizens cannot properly engage with arguments about justice, critically evaluate its performance, or propose sensible reforms. Unfamiliarity makes the population susceptible to those who exploit knowledge gaps to push ulterior agendas. Media outlets play a crucial role in this distortion process. News sources frequently present misleading versions of legal outcomes, creating what might be termed "Fake Law" - misrepresentations of cases and judgments spun for mass consumption. These distortions reach millions through clickbait headlines and social media, becoming increasingly difficult to counter with accurate information. The narratives fed to the public about how and why the law doesn't work are deliberately configured, sometimes simply to boost circulation, but often as part of deeper political or commercial agendas. The consequences extend beyond individual misunderstandings. When citizens cannot access or comprehend the legal system designed to protect them, justice becomes theoretical rather than practical. Rights that cannot be effectively exercised become meaningless. The resulting cynicism about legal processes creates fertile ground for those seeking to undermine fundamental protections in service of power or profit. Addressing this accessibility crisis requires confronting both technical barriers and deliberate misinformation campaigns that separate citizens from their legal heritage.

Chapter 2: Self-Defense Rights: Legal Reality vs. Media Narratives

The law of self-defense in England and Wales is frequently mischaracterized in public discourse. Headlines regularly suggest that homeowners cannot defend themselves against intruders without facing prosecution. This narrative gained particular traction following the case of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, who in 2000 was convicted after shooting dead a teenage burglar. His case was adopted across the country, with crowds gathering outside court demanding his release and politicians pledging to "overhaul the law" to protect homeowners. In reality, the law of self-defense has been established in common law for centuries and is remarkably permissive. It provides a "complete defense" to charges of violence, up to and including murder, if certain conditions are met. A person acting in genuine self-defense is entitled to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances as they believe them to be. The key concepts are whether the defendant genuinely believed force was necessary and whether the amount of force used was reasonable given those beliefs. The law recognizes that in frightening confrontations, precisely gauging necessary force is difficult. As Lord Morris famously stated in the Palmer case, "If the jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken." There is no duty to retreat, though the possibility of retreat may be considered when assessing reasonableness. A person may also strike pre-emptively rather than waiting to be hit first. The facts of Tony Martin's case reveal why his conviction was justified under these principles. The prosecution demonstrated that Martin had not fired in reasonable self-defense but had instead lain in wait and shot the burglars "like rats in a trap." The fatal wound was to the burglar's back, suggesting pursuit rather than immediate defense. Martin had previously told local Farm Watch meetings that burglars should be shot, and had once fired at someone attempting to steal apples from his orchard. His shotgun certificate had been revoked, meaning the firearm he used was unlicensed. Statistical evidence further contradicts the narrative that English homeowners cannot defend themselves. Between 1990 and 2005, there were only eleven prosecutions of people who had used force against intruders on private premises. The Crown Prosecution Service has provided examples of cases where householders killed intruders but were not prosecuted, including instances where burglars were stabbed to death or suffered fatal head injuries during struggles with homeowners. Despite this reality, politicians have repeatedly introduced unnecessary legislation to "solve" a problem that doesn't exist. The danger in this political arms race to permit ever-increasing violence against fellow citizens is that it encourages a mindset where violence becomes a first, not final, recourse. When a prime minister tells the public that burglars "give up their rights" when crossing a threshold, he is inciting a dangerous attitude that can lead to unnecessary deaths and undermining the principle that all human life deserves protection under law.

Chapter 3: Human Rights: Protecting Citizens, Not Criminals

The Human Rights Act (HRA) and European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are frequently portrayed as anti-British impositions that protect criminals and terrorists at the expense of law-abiding citizens. Headlines regularly claim these laws prevent deportation of foreign criminals, give prisoners rights to pornography, and allow illegal immigrants to remain in the UK because they have pet cats. Politicians have promised for years to scrap "Labour's Human Rights Act" and replace it with a "modern British Bill of Rights." This narrative fundamentally misrepresents both the origins and function of human rights law. Far from being un-British, the ECHR had distinctly British origins. Winston Churchill had been calling for the Council of Europe since 1943, and the rapporteur of the committee that drafted the convention was Churchill's Solicitor General, David Maxwell Fyfe. When the European Court of Human Rights was established in 1959, its first president was a British judge, Lord McNair. A persistent confusion exists between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union. The ECHR and its court have nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, despite frequent conflation in media reporting. The Council of Europe was formed in 1949 with a focus on human rights and democracy, while the EU evolved from economic communities established in the 1950s. The United Kingdom became a signatory to the court in 1966, allowing UK citizens to bring cases to Strasbourg after exhausting domestic remedies. The Human Rights Act 1998 "brought rights home" by enabling domestic courts to consider cases that previously would have gone to Strasbourg. It made it unlawful for public authorities to act in ways incompatible with convention rights, but did not give courts power to override Acts of Parliament. When legislation conflicts with convention rights, senior courts can issue a "declaration of incompatibility," but Parliament remains sovereign to address or ignore this declaration. The rights protected include the right to life, prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery, right to liberty, right to fair trial, right to respect for private and family life, freedom of thought and religion, freedom of expression, and prohibition of discrimination. Some rights are absolute, while others are qualified and must be balanced against competing interests like national security or public safety. The true value of human rights law is seen in cases that rarely make headlines. The Hillsborough inquest, which finally provided answers about the stadium disaster, was only possible due to the Article 2 right to life. Families of soldiers who died in Iraq due to substandard equipment used the HRA to hold the Ministry of Defence accountable. Victims of John Worboys, a serial rapist who attacked over 100 women, were able to sue the police for investigative failures only because of the Human Rights Act. These cases demonstrate that human rights laws protect all citizens, not just unpopular minorities, against potential abuses of state power.

Chapter 4: The Compensation Culture Myth in Personal Injury Law

The notion of a rampant "compensation culture" has become deeply embedded in public consciousness. Headlines regularly feature stories of lottery-jackpot-style payouts for trivial injuries, fueling the perception that personal injury law is out of control. This narrative is reinforced by ambulance-chasing lawyer advertisements and political rhetoric about the need to curb frivolous claims that supposedly burden businesses and public services. The reality of personal injury law is far different. Since early medieval times, English law has provided for compensation when one person injures another. The modern law of negligence simply requires that where a legal duty exists, and a person breaches that duty causing injury, they should offer something to put things right. The philosophical reasoning centers on who should bear the costs of injury - the person at fault (or their insurer) rather than abandoning the injured person or spreading costs among all members of society. When examining headline-grabbing compensation stories, two common devices emerge. First, there's a suggestion that the claimant was responsible for their own misfortune or not really injured at all, with no acknowledgment of fault by the organization paying compensation. Second, decontextualized figures are presented to imply that settlements are excessive, without explaining how the figure was calculated or what the medical prognosis is for the injured person. The truth is that compensation is calculated according to established guidelines and represents genuine losses. General damages reflect pain, suffering and "loss of amenity" (effect on quality of life), while special damages cover financial losses such as lost earnings and medical costs. Courts scrutinize these calculations carefully, and claimants are expected to take reasonable steps to minimize their losses. Many compensation culture stories crumble under scrutiny. The American who supposedly won millions after setting his motor home on cruise control and leaving the driver's seat doesn't exist - it's an urban myth. The woman who sued McDonald's over hot coffee suffered third-degree burns requiring skin grafts, and initially only asked for medical costs before McDonald's offered just $500. The cleaner who "tripped over a mop and won £9,128" must have suffered significant injuries, as a minor soft-tissue injury with full recovery would attract less than £1,950. Despite evidence that personal injury claims have actually decreased in recent years, the government has introduced significant legislative changes based on the compensation culture narrative. The Civil Liability Act 2018 raised the small claims limit, meaning more complex personal injury cases now fall into a track where legal costs can't be recovered. This effectively blocks access to justice for many genuinely injured people who cannot afford to pay for legal representation out of their modest compensation. The primary beneficiaries of these changes are not ordinary citizens but insurance companies, who stand to save billions while those injured through no fault of their own face insurmountable hurdles seeking justice.

Chapter 5: Employment Tribunals: Balancing Power, Not Favoring Workers

Employment tribunals, established in 1968 to provide "an easily accessible, speedy, informal and inexpensive procedure" for resolving workplace disputes, have become frequent targets of misrepresentation in public discourse. Business groups and certain media outlets persistently portray these tribunals as "overwhelmingly weighted in favor of the employee," creating a perception that employers face constant risk from vexatious claims brought by disgruntled workers seeking windfall compensation. Statistical evidence contradicts this narrative. In 2009/10, only 13% of claims were successful at a full hearing, with 6% unsuccessful and the remaining 81% not reaching a full hearing - either settling through ACAS (31%), being withdrawn (32%), struck out at an early stage (11%), or uncontested by the employer (7%). These figures hardly suggest a system biased toward employees. Moreover, the system contains multiple safeguards against frivolous claims, including powers to strike out claims that are "scandalous or vexatious," require deposits from claimants with weak cases, and award costs against parties who act unreasonably. The principle underlying employment law is the inequality of bargaining power between employers and employees. Unlike standard contractual relationships, employment contracts usually start from a position of unequal power - you need the job more than the employer needs you - and remain this way throughout. Employment law provides minimum standards, duties, and rights to protect employees from exploitation resulting from this imbalance. Far from creating an unfair advantage for workers, these protections merely attempt to level an inherently uneven playing field. Despite media portrayals of employment law as biased against employers, the reality is more balanced. Unfair dismissal laws, for example, require employers to show they had a fair reason for dismissal and acted reasonably, but the tribunal isn't asking whether they would have dismissed the employee - only whether dismissal fell within the "band of reasonable responses" open to the employer. Similarly, discrimination laws prohibit treating people unfavorably based on protected characteristics, but require objective assessment of whether treatment was justified. The narrative that employees receive "jackpot" compensation awards is similarly misleading. Remedies at employment tribunals aim to restore employees to the position they would have been in had they not been treated unlawfully. Compensation is calculated based on actual losses, not plucked from thin air. If an employee is partially to blame for their dismissal, that's reflected in a reduced award. In fact, Parliament has imposed an artificial cap on compensation recoverable for unfair dismissal, unlike in ordinary civil courts. In 2013, the government introduced fees for workers bringing employment tribunal claims, with costs reaching £1,200 for unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. For someone on minimum wage or recently unemployed, these fees represented an insurmountable barrier. Claims fell by approximately 70%, with the greatest drop in low-value claims like unpaid wages. The Supreme Court eventually declared this fee scheme unlawful because it "effectively prevents access to justice," emphasizing that access to courts is not merely a service like any other, but fundamental to the rule of law. This episode demonstrates how easily fundamental rights can be eroded when misconceptions about the system go unchallenged.

Chapter 6: Legal Aid Cuts: Undermining Access to Justice

Legal aid was established in 1949 with the aim of providing legal advice for those of slender means, ensuring no one would be financially unable to prosecute a just claim or defend a legal right. Initially, 80% of the population was eligible. By 1979, coverage remained at 79%. Today, after decades of cuts, the percentage has plummeted to 29%. This dramatic reduction has been facilitated by a campaign of misinformation that portrays legal aid as excessively generous and frequently abused. Government ministers and media outlets have repeatedly claimed that England and Wales has "the most expensive legal aid system in the world" - an assertion that crumbles under scrutiny. This claim was based on a 2009 report comparing eight justice systems, which found that England and Wales spent more on criminal legal aid than the comparator nations. However, the report's authors themselves warned that the sources were "insufficiently robust to support much in the way of inferences." The fundamental flaw in this comparison is that it isolated legal aid expenditure without considering the different structures of justice systems. The adversarial model in England and Wales places more costs in the legal aid budget, while other countries might have state-employed defense lawyers or higher court budgets. The reality for many vulnerable people is that legal aid is simply unavailable. Domestic violence victims facing custody battles with abusive ex-partners, undocumented children brought to the UK as infants facing deportation, families wrongly deemed "intentionally homeless" by local authorities, and disabled people wrongly assessed as fit to work are all routinely denied legal assistance. Without legal aid, these individuals face navigating complex legal systems alone, against well-resourced opponents with professional legal representation. Access to justice is a fundamental principle dating back to Magna Carta: "We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right." This means more than physical access to court buildings; it requires access to professional legal advice and representation to ensure cases are properly presented. Without this, rights become meaningless theoretical constructs rather than practical protections. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) removed legal aid entirely from vast areas of law, including most clinical negligence, consumer law, employment law, private family law, housing, immigration, and welfare law. The impact was devastating. The number of people accessing civil legal aid plummeted by 82% in eight years. Legal aid for welfare benefit law saw a decline of over 99%. Half of all Law Centers and not-for-profit legal advice services closed between 2013 and 2019. The consequences extend beyond individual hardship to undermine the rule of law itself. As Lord Reed noted in the Supreme Court judgment striking down employment tribunal fees, access to justice matters not only to the individual with a legal problem but to every citizen living under these laws. When people cannot enforce their rights, the law becomes "a dead letter." The systematic dismantling of legal aid has been facilitated by a campaign of misinformation that has convinced many that this essential service is not for "people like them" - until, of course, they find themselves in desperate need of it.

Chapter 7: Judicial Independence: Democracy's Essential Safeguard

Judicial independence represents the cornerstone of constitutional democracy, yet in recent years it has faced unprecedented attacks from politicians, media outlets, and public figures. The 2016 High Court ruling in the Miller case, which held that triggering Article 50 to leave the European Union required an Act of Parliament rather than executive action, provoked extraordinary vitriol. The Daily Mail's infamous "ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE" headline, accompanied by photographs of the three judges involved, marked a dangerous escalation in rhetoric. The judgment was mischaracterized as "blocking Brexit" when it merely delineated the lawful process for achieving it. This reaction betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional principles. The court was not, as some MPs claimed, "straying into political territory." All parties to the litigation, including the government, agreed that the case raised "a justiciable question which it is for the courts to decide." The judges were simply upholding the settled principle that the royal prerogative cannot be used to remove rights established by Parliament. Government ministers have frequently ignored their statutory duty to uphold judicial independence. Home Secretary Theresa May wrote in the Daily Mail that she would "fight any judge who stands in my way" of deporting foreign criminals. David Blunkett, as Home Secretary, accused judges who passed sentences he considered too lenient of having "lost their marbles." Following the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling that Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament was unlawful, ministers denounced the judges as having effected "a constitutional coup" and suggested a need for "parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments." The consequences of these attacks extend beyond rhetoric. Following the "Enemies of the People" headline, the Lord Chief Justice sought police protection for the first time in his career. Judges have been confronted in court by angry litigants calling them "enemies of the people," and threats of violence have become commonplace. Over half of surveyed judges report fearing for their personal safety while in court, with substantial sums spent on security equipment and panic alarms for judges' homes. The global context is alarming. Every authoritarian regime targets judicial independence as a priority. From Poland's attempt to remove a third of its senior judges to Turkey's dismissal of a quarter of all judges following a failed coup, the pattern is clear. The UK is not immune to these trends. When politicians suggest that judges should decide cases based on what is popular rather than what is lawful, or when media outlets subject judges to personal attacks for unpopular decisions, they chip away at the foundations of constitutional democracy. The separation of powers doctrine establishes that the three branches of government - legislature, executive, and judiciary - must remain independent to prevent tyranny. As Montesquieu observed, "All would be lost if the same man or the same body of principal men... exercised these powers: that of making the laws, that of executing public resolutions, and that of judging the crimes or the disputes of individuals." This principle recognizes that concentrating these functions creates the conditions for oppression. When judges face pressure to decide cases based on political expediency rather than legal principle, the rule of law itself is compromised.

Summary

The justice system belongs to all citizens, yet its principles and operations are frequently misrepresented in ways that undermine public understanding and support. From self-defense rights to human rights protections, from personal injury compensation to employment tribunals, from legal aid to judicial independence - each element faces distortion in public discourse. These misrepresentations serve specific agendas, typically framing legal protections as privileges for the undeserving rather than safeguards for all citizens against potential abuses of power. The consequences of these distortions extend far beyond individual misunderstandings. When we accept narratives that portray rights as obstacles to justice rather than its foundation, we become complicit in dismantling protections that ultimately serve everyone. The invitation to direct anger at "criminals," "illegal immigrants," or "compensation culture" obscures the reality that these same legal frameworks shield all citizens from state overreach and injustice. A justice system that truly serves its purpose must balance efficiency with fairness, popular sentiment with principled decision-making, and the interests of the majority with the rights of individuals. Understanding the myths and realities of our legal system is essential for citizens who wish to engage meaningfully with the institutions that ultimately exist to serve them.

About Author

Loading...

The Secret Barrister

The author, writing under the pseudonym of The Secret Barrister, is a junior barrister practising criminal law before the courts of England and Wales. The Secret Barrister is also a blogger who in 2016 and 2017 was named Independent Blogger of the Year at the Editorial Intelligence Comment Awards. As of the book's publication date in March 2018 the author had a substantial following on Twitter of nearly 88,000.

Read more