They make as few laws as possible, and they criticize other nations that accumulate volume after volume of legal literature on the grounds that an ordinary man should not be judged under a body of laws so complicated that he cannot know them all or be wrapped in such obscure legalese. that he cannot understand them. They do not have lawyers. Their policy is to let an accused speak in his own defense. This saves time and the judge usually gets the truth by questioning the accused without the tricks of smart prosecutors. “They have very few laws because very few laws are required in their welfare system. In fact, one of their big complaints against other countries is that even though they already have books and books with laws and interpretations of laws, they never seem to have enough. For, according to the utopians, it is quite unfair for someone to be bound by a code of law that is too long to read for an ordinary person or too difficult for him to understand. Moreover, they do not have lawyers to be too resourceful in individual cases and legal matters. They think it`s better for everyone to make their own case and tell the judge the same story they would otherwise have told their lawyer.

Under such conditions, the point in question is less likely to be obscured and it is easier to get the truth – because if no one tells the kind of lies that one learns from lawyers, the judge can use all his wisdom to weigh the facts of the case and protect the simple-minded characters more wisely from ruthless attacks. This regulation would not work very well in other countries because there are so many complicated laws to deal with. But in Utopia, everyone is a legal expert, for the simple reason that, as I said, there are very few laws and the crudest interpretation is always accepted as the right one. They say that the sole purpose of a law is to remind people what to do, so the more ingenious the interpretation, the less effective the law, because relatively few people will understand it – whereas the simple and obvious meaning is everyone`s eye. “1 “The laws and customs of this country seemed to me in many cases completely ridiculous. But I readily admit that there are many features of the utopian republic that I would like to see adopted in Europe, although I do not expect them. Legal accessibility is at the heart of this discussion, and we will come back to it often. Tom Bingham gives a strong definition of legal accessibility: “The law must be accessible and, to the extent possible, understandable, clear and predictable.” His three-pronged reasoning is equally well-founded: (1) people need to know what not to do to avoid criminal sanctions; 2) Likewise, we should know what rights and obligations we have towards others; and 3) successful action and business are encouraged when people recognize that there is a legal framework that supports them.2 These Utopia judges have earned such a reputation for integrity and judgment that they are highly sought after by neighboring countries, where they can serve in an official capacity for one to five years. They are appreciated as such not only for their supposed wisdom, but also because they have no family or partisan ties in this country and because they are known as incorruptible. The utopian approach to these questions is clearly extreme and cannot be considered an authority on More`s own views. The satirical nature of third-person utopia is general evidence that the content of More`s writings does not necessarily convey what he actually thought.

In fact, he was professionally one of those “overly resourceful” lawyers – and a very accomplished one to boot. However, these are important topics that have lasting relevance (if not longer) 500 years after the publication of Utopia. They deserve consideration that we must give now. From the utopian point of view, when the law remains simple, “the simple and obvious meaning looks everyone in the face”. An interpretation of the law as we know it would therefore be irrelevant. Theoretically, there should be little debate or question about the meaning of the law. That would be a huge boon for legal certainty; This would directly enhance our fundamental legal accessibility. But, unfortunately, this is not the case – there will always be someone who will make another interpretive argument that would be more beneficial to him.

Even if the meaning is obvious, interpretation will always be a problem. Moreover, while uncertainty in interpretation may compromise legal accessibility, it may also strengthen the rule of law as a whole. This is reflected in countless decisions, all of which depend on a broad, generous or creative interpretation of laws by the courts. This was evident in the Pierson case, particularly in Lord Steyn`s insistence that “Parliament does not legislate in a vacuum. Parliament legislates for a European liberal democracy based on the principles and traditions of common law. Anisminic was creative in interpreting to avoid a clear and unambiguous exclusion clause, which allowed the court to conduct judicial review. In describing the legal system of the utopians, More indirectly critically attacks the English system he knew and to which he belonged as a lawyer and judge. By showing what one system was, he revealed to his attentive readers what the other system was not. It is clear that he was expressing here the sympathy he had felt for ordinary people trapped in the vast web of legal complications, and also omitted some of his repressed indignation at the injustices he had seen through the skillful manipulations of unscrupulous lawyers. The language is clear in the statement of principles and themes with which More struggles, but they can be distilled and combined with their modern equivalents as follows: A lawyer`s salary can range from £25,000 to over £1,000,000.3 There`s a reason for this – the range of lawyer quality that a defendant or litigant can use, if the means allow, is enormous.

The more experienced and supportive the lawyer, the better the case will be brought before the courts and the more likely his client will be successful. According to a utopian analysis, this is unfair. This is a defensible position, but does their approach, which only allows for self-expression, really solve the problem? I maintain that this is not the case. Courts of adversarial jurisdiction should be concerned only with questions of fact and law. They should not be expected to make the legal arguments themselves, and they are not necessarily equipped. In short, the case must be presented to them. Apart from this problem, allowing self-defense does not necessarily mitigate the injustice suffered by an inexperienced party – it can make it even more acute. For example, in a fraud case, the honest citizen who has never been tried would have less experience in the best way to present his case than the serial fraudster who has already spent a lot of time in front of the bench. In summary, some people are better able to bring a case than others, and they can hire these services as professional lawyers.

There is no inherent problem with that. But, as has been recognized, the problem of inequality in the quality of advocacy is real. However, instead of abolishing professional advocacy, we should focus on ways to close this gap. Clearly, Lord Wilson is proposing to strengthen the important legal aid system to ensure that the fundamental requirement of legal accessibility is not compromised.4 Penalties are not set for most crimes or misdemeanors, and the level of punishment is determined by the judge. For the most heinous crimes, the punishment is slavery. The Companies Act 2006, adopted with the aim of reforming and streamlining company law, comprises approximately 1300 articles with a length of 700 pages. Suffice it to say that this is a complicated law on which utopians would undoubtedly shake their heads. Their main concern would be the point of legal accessibility – no one could digest and understand everything. But apart from this difficulty, I maintain that there is no inherent problem with legal complexity.

Indeed, the issue itself can be complicated (as in company law) and therefore requires full legislative treatment. If the issue is less complicated, as in the case of murder, virtually no legal treatment may be required.