WHAT ENSURES EFFECTIVE STATE-FUNDED LEGAL AID SYSTEM? (A guide for the reform of the current state-funded Legal Aid System in Jamaica)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Justice transcends the boundaries of a single legal system. 2 It is more than a sector, even more than a power; it is a virtue. 3 The rule of law, a phrase frequently used, but little explained or understood guarantees that no one is above the law, which should be accessible to all. The right to access to justice, conceived as both a means and an end to justice, is one of the most important human rights. Access to legal assistance affects an individual’s fundamental right to fair trial, a right which should be afforded even to the poor and vulnerable and be respected, supported and enforced. Effective legal aid has undoubtedly been deemed one of the most important aspects of access to justice. Without access to the means of enforcing one’s legal rights, those rights are meaningless. The recent economic downturn on world markets exacerbates the problem of state-financed legal aid, especially in developing countries or countries in economic transition. Public officials, rule of law and development advocates are therefore propelled to implement new strategies to ensure that despite the economic challenge, this very important rule of law guarantee is not sacrificed. This paper primarily explores the novel issue of what actually drives or ensures effective state-funded legal aid system. The writer embarks on a comparative, historical, theoretical and qualitative study; the main methodology of research being desk-review. The researcher however utilises some qualitative research methods to supplement same. He also proffers arguments as to why there are several common law jurisdictions, such as Jamaica, Uganda, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, whose legal aid systems comprise more or less, the same components that are deemed ‘necessary’ for effectiveness, yet some are effective and others not. Through the cross-jurisdictional comparisons, the hypothesis is tested and proven that, it is accepted that the fundamental right to fair trial is affected by access to justice, facilitated not only by an accessible legal aid system, but by an effective one that is based on the quality aid provided and the resulting client satisfaction. However, while the components of a state-funded legal aid system are an indicator of its effectiveness, it is the treatment and/or interplay of these ‘necessary’ components that really ensures or drives its effectiveness. A central reasoning is that the extent to which legality is valued, facilitated and guaranteed by the treatment of the necessary components is a determinant of whether the said components work to make legal aid systems effective. The greater the level or value of predictability and accountability that the treatment of the seven (7) components in the legal aid system allows, is the greater the level of legality and effectiveness. In treating with the components, there is a clear underpinning tri-dimensional conceptual appreciation of the norms, capacities and interests and their interconnectedness, tension and compromise. The point is made that effectiveness of law, being a cognitive institution, requires that the legal aid system is sustainable and demand-oriented, being targeted at the needs of the most needy “rights-holders” and constantly being monitored and evaluated, albeit avoiding bureaucracy. The service should be comparable to paid legal services and be aimed at client-satisfaction or high clients’ approval. Where possible, it should facilitate diversion from litigation to alternative dispute resolution, to save the strain on public funds. 1 Attorney-at-Law, Jamaica; Rule of Law and Development Advisor, LL.B. (Hons.) UWI, C.L.E., LL.M.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,019 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».