*/
Legal aid
Removing client choice and introducing a “fundamentally flawed” model of price competitive tendering will bring “the lowest possible quality of service”, hit society’s most vulnerable and undermine social cohesion, the Bar Council has warned.
In its 150-page response to the Government’s Transforming legal aid consultation, which closed on 4 June, the Bar Council said that obliterating client choice ignores human rights. Further, that the adoption of the proposed changes “may be wholly unlawful, at any rate unless made the subject of explicit primary legislation”.
“What is being proposed, so soon after the implementation of the LASPO reforms, will emasculate legal aid and irreversibly damage the administration of justice in our country,” said Bar Chairman Maura McGowan QC.
Economic and statistical analysis, commissioned from the University of York and Europe Economics, found the Ministry of Justice’s thinking “muddled” at best, that it had “failed to consider hard evidence” and that the proposals were “a breathtakingly convoluted way” of finding savings. On current caseload and spending per case trends, the response said, substantial savings in criminal legal aid expenditure might be expected over the next four to five years, even if no changes to the system were made.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB), in its consultation response, issued a stark warning that the Government’s justice reforms could push innocent people to plead guilty. Financial incentives could pressure some advocates into telling clients to plead guilty when they’re not, said Chair of the BSB’s Quality Assurance Committee, Sam Stein QC: “These proposals will have a huge impact on an advocate’s ability to represent their client’s best interests – independently and fearlessly.” BSB Chair, Baroness Deech, said she wanted assurances that the public interest would be a “central factor in reaching decisions on the final shape of the legal aid fee structure” and demanded “the democratic scrutiny of parliamentary debate to prevent lasting harm to the credibility of the criminal justice system”.
In a separate announcement, the Bar Council stated that it has no plans to develop a quality system to facilitate PCT for criminal legal aid. The Lord Chancellor had asked the Bar Council to come up with a scheme to ensure quality within the remit of the Government’s PCT proposals.
The Ministry of Justice had not released the number of responses received as Counsel went to press, but said it “did not recognise” the figure of 13,000 circulating amongst lawyers. Meanwhile, the introductory statement to its consultation – that “the system has lost much of its credibility with the public” – has been countered by research. A Bar Council poll of over 2,000 members of the British public, conducted by ComRes in May, showed seven out of ten were concerned that cuts to legal aid could lead to innocent people being convicted. Sixty seven per cent agreed that legal aid is a price worth paying for living in a fair society. Also in May, a Populus survey of 2,000 was commissioned by the six Circuit leaders in conjunction with the Criminal Bar Association. Sixty four per cent felt the proposed cuts would negatively impact the British justice system. Eighty per cent feared they would not be able to afford legal fees under the proposed changes, and could be forced to represent themselves.
In its 150-page response to the Government’s Transforming legal aid consultation, which closed on 4 June, the Bar Council said that obliterating client choice ignores human rights. Further, that the adoption of the proposed changes “may be wholly unlawful, at any rate unless made the subject of explicit primary legislation”.
“What is being proposed, so soon after the implementation of the LASPO reforms, will emasculate legal aid and irreversibly damage the administration of justice in our country,” said Bar Chairman Maura McGowan QC.
Economic and statistical analysis, commissioned from the University of York and Europe Economics, found the Ministry of Justice’s thinking “muddled” at best, that it had “failed to consider hard evidence” and that the proposals were “a breathtakingly convoluted way” of finding savings. On current caseload and spending per case trends, the response said, substantial savings in criminal legal aid expenditure might be expected over the next four to five years, even if no changes to the system were made.
The Bar Standards Board (BSB), in its consultation response, issued a stark warning that the Government’s justice reforms could push innocent people to plead guilty. Financial incentives could pressure some advocates into telling clients to plead guilty when they’re not, said Chair of the BSB’s Quality Assurance Committee, Sam Stein QC: “These proposals will have a huge impact on an advocate’s ability to represent their client’s best interests – independently and fearlessly.” BSB Chair, Baroness Deech, said she wanted assurances that the public interest would be a “central factor in reaching decisions on the final shape of the legal aid fee structure” and demanded “the democratic scrutiny of parliamentary debate to prevent lasting harm to the credibility of the criminal justice system”.
In a separate announcement, the Bar Council stated that it has no plans to develop a quality system to facilitate PCT for criminal legal aid. The Lord Chancellor had asked the Bar Council to come up with a scheme to ensure quality within the remit of the Government’s PCT proposals.
The Ministry of Justice had not released the number of responses received as Counsel went to press, but said it “did not recognise” the figure of 13,000 circulating amongst lawyers. Meanwhile, the introductory statement to its consultation – that “the system has lost much of its credibility with the public” – has been countered by research. A Bar Council poll of over 2,000 members of the British public, conducted by ComRes in May, showed seven out of ten were concerned that cuts to legal aid could lead to innocent people being convicted. Sixty seven per cent agreed that legal aid is a price worth paying for living in a fair society. Also in May, a Populus survey of 2,000 was commissioned by the six Circuit leaders in conjunction with the Criminal Bar Association. Sixty four per cent felt the proposed cuts would negatively impact the British justice system. Eighty per cent feared they would not be able to afford legal fees under the proposed changes, and could be forced to represent themselves.
Legal aid
Removing client choice and introducing a “fundamentally flawed” model of price competitive tendering will bring “the lowest possible quality of service”, hit society’s most vulnerable and undermine social cohesion, the Bar Council has warned.
The Chair of the Bar sets out how the new government can restore the justice system
In the first of a new series, Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth considers the fundamental need for financial protection
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Possibly, but many barristers are glad he did…
Mental health charity Mind BWW has received a £500 donation from drug, alcohol and DNA testing laboratory, AlphaBiolabs as part of its Giving Back campaign
The Institute of Neurotechnology & Law is thrilled to announce its inaugural essay competition
How to navigate open source evidence in an era of deepfakes. By Professor Yvonne McDermott Rees and Professor Alexa Koenig
Brie Stevens-Hoare KC and Lyndsey de Mestre KC take a look at the difficulties women encounter during the menopause, and offer some practical tips for individuals and chambers to make things easier
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice since January 2021, is well known for his passion for access to justice and all things digital. Perhaps less widely known is the driven personality and wanderlust that lies behind this, as Anthony Inglese CB discovers
The Chair of the Bar sets out how the new government can restore the justice system
No-one should have to live in sub-standard accommodation, says Antony Hodari Solicitors. We are tackling the problem of bad housing with a two-pronged approach and act on behalf of tenants in both the civil and criminal courts