Where are the organ grinders?
pinkolady | 22.05.2013 19:19 | Public sector cuts
It is not often that lawyers take to the streets. But they did on Tuesday in Manchester over the latest legal aid cuts.
The next time you are arrested on a demonstration - or indeed for any reason - how would you like to be represented by a government-chosen lawyer who works for a company that also has a contract to transport remand prisoners from the prisons to the courts? Or whose main business interest is in road haulage? And not be allowed to change your lawyer, no matter how inadequate they are?
This is the effect the latest cuts to legal aid will produce. The government is proposing to reduce the number of firms with legal aid contracts for criminal law from 1600 to 400, and cut the rates they pay to legal aid firms for each case they take on and the amount of work they do. The contracts will be put out to competitive tender and awarded to those who put in the cheapest bid. Quality of representation does not enter into consideration. Defendants who apply for legal aid will not be allowed to choose their own solicitor but will be allocated one by the Legal Aid Agency. Many of the traditional law firms will not be able to afford to take on legal aid contracts under the new terms - but big firms like Serco, G4S and Eddie Stobart have already expressed an interest in bidding for them. The only way they will be able to make them pay under the reduced funding will be by spending as little time as possible on each case, just enough to meet the minimal quality standards.
There's more: the government proposes to also cut the legal aid fees paid to expert witnesses in both civil and criminal cases, and to stop legal aid funding for judicial review cases. This latter change will make it next to impossible to challenge unlawful decisions by government departments in the courts, or oblige them to carry out legal duties when they fail to do so.
The march was organised by Defend Justice, the campaign group for people who have been falsely prosecuted for being involved in political activism and made victims of corruption in the criminal justice system. But it was joined by between 200 and 300 lawyers who represent defendants under the legal aid system. The march went from Manchester Crown Court to the Palace Hotel, where civil servants from the Ministry of Justice were holding a 'consultation meeting' for people who work in legal aid.
At the Palace Hotel, I was expecting a restrained, polite debate with the four civil servants who were there from the Ministry of Justice. But from past experience of Coalition 'consultations', people already expect this one to be a dishonest exercise in public relations, with the Ministry already set to put its plans into effect, no matter how pointless and unworkable. The civil servants were facing a roomful of deeply unhappy lawyers, plus psychiatrists, paediatricians, forensic accountants and others who act as expert witnesses in court, at least one magistrate, and a posse of political activists.
One of the first speakers was Chris Hilliard, who was prosecuted as a result of taking part in the student protests in 2010. It took two years for him to get a full trial and be acquitted, due to the CPS constantly failing to produce evidence they had been asked for on time. He was only charged with an offence because the police colluded in making false statements. He said that of the people prosecuted for taking part in the demonstration, only those who had used experienced lawyers who understood protest law and how the police operate, got acquitted. Those who used duty solicitors were advised to plead guilty and get a lighter sentence - and were given two years in jail. The new system would allow people what amounts to duty solicitors and nothing else.
The civil servants were subjected to nearly two hours of questioning, largely by people who are well practised in cross examining witnesses. They began to look worried; very worried. They hadn't prepared good answers, even though they must have heard some of the questions from others; they had already held five consultation meetings in other towns. Some of their answers were so clearly untruthful that they were heckled. Finally, somebody asked the question: "Where are the Ministers? Why hasn't Chris Grayling attended any of these meetings?" The answer to that was: "Since these are policy meetings and not political meetings, the Minster doesn't need to attend." Two hundred lawyers burst into cynical laughter.
At the end, somebody asked, "When this whole scheme collapses (like the new scheme for court interpreters), do you have a contingency plan to revive what's left of the criminal justice system?"
A civil servant answered this with what can only be described as incomprehensible waffle. one or two voices called out "They don't have one!"
Indeed. The Ministry will not recognise that its plans to cut legal aid might be utterly unworkable. They have to be stopped. But the most sinister aspect is, that if campaigners are not successful, the cuts could all be implemented by this autumn by statutory instrument with no publicity and no parliamentary debate or vote. The government could destroy the system of criminal defence, almost by a snap of the fingers.
This is the effect the latest cuts to legal aid will produce. The government is proposing to reduce the number of firms with legal aid contracts for criminal law from 1600 to 400, and cut the rates they pay to legal aid firms for each case they take on and the amount of work they do. The contracts will be put out to competitive tender and awarded to those who put in the cheapest bid. Quality of representation does not enter into consideration. Defendants who apply for legal aid will not be allowed to choose their own solicitor but will be allocated one by the Legal Aid Agency. Many of the traditional law firms will not be able to afford to take on legal aid contracts under the new terms - but big firms like Serco, G4S and Eddie Stobart have already expressed an interest in bidding for them. The only way they will be able to make them pay under the reduced funding will be by spending as little time as possible on each case, just enough to meet the minimal quality standards.
There's more: the government proposes to also cut the legal aid fees paid to expert witnesses in both civil and criminal cases, and to stop legal aid funding for judicial review cases. This latter change will make it next to impossible to challenge unlawful decisions by government departments in the courts, or oblige them to carry out legal duties when they fail to do so.
The march was organised by Defend Justice, the campaign group for people who have been falsely prosecuted for being involved in political activism and made victims of corruption in the criminal justice system. But it was joined by between 200 and 300 lawyers who represent defendants under the legal aid system. The march went from Manchester Crown Court to the Palace Hotel, where civil servants from the Ministry of Justice were holding a 'consultation meeting' for people who work in legal aid.
At the Palace Hotel, I was expecting a restrained, polite debate with the four civil servants who were there from the Ministry of Justice. But from past experience of Coalition 'consultations', people already expect this one to be a dishonest exercise in public relations, with the Ministry already set to put its plans into effect, no matter how pointless and unworkable. The civil servants were facing a roomful of deeply unhappy lawyers, plus psychiatrists, paediatricians, forensic accountants and others who act as expert witnesses in court, at least one magistrate, and a posse of political activists.
One of the first speakers was Chris Hilliard, who was prosecuted as a result of taking part in the student protests in 2010. It took two years for him to get a full trial and be acquitted, due to the CPS constantly failing to produce evidence they had been asked for on time. He was only charged with an offence because the police colluded in making false statements. He said that of the people prosecuted for taking part in the demonstration, only those who had used experienced lawyers who understood protest law and how the police operate, got acquitted. Those who used duty solicitors were advised to plead guilty and get a lighter sentence - and were given two years in jail. The new system would allow people what amounts to duty solicitors and nothing else.
The civil servants were subjected to nearly two hours of questioning, largely by people who are well practised in cross examining witnesses. They began to look worried; very worried. They hadn't prepared good answers, even though they must have heard some of the questions from others; they had already held five consultation meetings in other towns. Some of their answers were so clearly untruthful that they were heckled. Finally, somebody asked the question: "Where are the Ministers? Why hasn't Chris Grayling attended any of these meetings?" The answer to that was: "Since these are policy meetings and not political meetings, the Minster doesn't need to attend." Two hundred lawyers burst into cynical laughter.
At the end, somebody asked, "When this whole scheme collapses (like the new scheme for court interpreters), do you have a contingency plan to revive what's left of the criminal justice system?"
A civil servant answered this with what can only be described as incomprehensible waffle. one or two voices called out "They don't have one!"
Indeed. The Ministry will not recognise that its plans to cut legal aid might be utterly unworkable. They have to be stopped. But the most sinister aspect is, that if campaigners are not successful, the cuts could all be implemented by this autumn by statutory instrument with no publicity and no parliamentary debate or vote. The government could destroy the system of criminal defence, almost by a snap of the fingers.
pinkolady
