Whatever else may be said about Magna Carta, it is considered to be the foundation of the constitutional right of the citizen to have access to the judicial system. 

This is now under threat. The removal of large areas of law from the ambit of legal aid as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, or the imposition of unrealistic earnings limits, have had predictably devastating consequences for those who are generally the worst off in our society and least capable of defending themselves or establishing their legal rights. Take the case of the parents, for example, each of whom had battled through educational disadvantage and whose child the local authority sought to remove from them to free them for adoption. They were unable to obtain legal aid and were therefore obliged to go it alone against the local authority, which was able to use legal professionals, paid for by the local taxpayer, against them.  

The proposed imposition of greatly increased court fees in relation to civil claims is a further example, from an entirely different area of law, in which there is now a risk that those most in need of the services of the court will be unable to use them.

The greatest impact of these fee rises is likely to fall upon small and medium-sized businesses and individuals who are seeking to recover debts or payments for services delivered to larger organisations. Prompt and proper payment is an absolute necessity for these supplier companies, many of which form the lifeblood of our economy. Again, it surely cannot be right that the court fees for the recovery of money in claims such as these have the effect of pricing small and medium businesses out of the civil justice system.

These examples indicate that lack of access to the justice system is not a handicap felt in one small sector, but is a failing across an increasing range of subject areas.  
Even if we did not have feelings of disquiet, or worse, about the restrictions on access to justice, as matters of principle and practice, we should not complacently assume that they lack wider relevance. It is true that the jurisdiction of England and Wales has established itself as, and remains, the international dispute resolution capital of the world. However, there are other jurisdictions that will increasingly mount a serious challenge to our primacy. With new state-of-the-art buildings, low fees and other inducements, they will ruthlessly exploit any reputational fallout resulting from any derogation from the established principles of the rule of law in our jurisdiction.

And this is important, not only to the constitutional settlement of England and Wales, but also financially. The provision of international legal services brings in £2bn annually to the UK economy and so, again, there are substantial practical benefits flowing from our hitherto unrivalled reputation. 

Principle and practice all point, both domestically and internationally, in one direction. We have a duty to secure the equitable treatment of our citizens in relation to critical issues that touch every aspect of their lives and to assist in maintaining the health and well-being of companies providing billions of pounds of taxation revenue. That duty surely extends to the maintenance of our world-leading position in the resolution of international disputes. In order to achieve all of these goals, we need an increased respect for, and adherence to, the rule of law in all its manifestations. 

Alistair MacDonald QC is chairman of the Bar Council and a member of 5KBW.