What do the government’s legal aid changes mean for justice?

July 4, 2013 12:09 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

Last year the government brought forward draconian cuts to the legal aid budget, the effects of which are already being seen with people unable to get advice and help for their legal problems.  In the last few months the Government has since announced further deep cuts to civil legal aid – including to areas such as judicial review which is the one area where organisations and interest groups can challenge decisions made by the government itself.

But along with this they are now also proposing to introduce a series of changes to criminal legal aid. This includes a £220 million annual cut in funding and a proposal to introduce ‘price competitive tendering’ for defence work. In the eighties we had the Conservative government introduce CCT for services and this is a similar type of policy, driven purely by cost. Under this system firms of defence solicitors will have to bid for government contracts for work and the lowest bidder wins, subject only to a minimum threshold quality of service.

This sector is dominated by high street firms who – if they want to bid – will have to scale up their operations to cover entire counties. And in London for example firms would have to expand their operations to cover areas of ten or more boroughs. And they will have to do this from within only three months from the date of any bid.

The result is that many firms will find themselves in serious difficulty with their ongoing viability seriously threatened. But this actually seems to be the government’s intention as they want ‘new entrants’ into the market. Eddie Stobart have already said they want to enter this market (yes, they’re a road haulage firm) and there are rumours about Serco and Capita being ready to move in. The outcome will be a relentless drive to cut all costs.

Added to this, the Government propose to flatten the fee structure so that these firms will get the same fee for handling a not guilty plea as a guilty plea. So now there will be a financial incentive on these firms to chase profits for shareholders rather than focus on the quality of service that they provide. The result of this is bound to be miscarriages of justice and people being convicted for crimes they haven’t committed. The original proposals also had a clause which would mean that people accused of offences would no longer be able to choose their own solicitor to represent them. This would mean that the Government funded police and prosecution services would bring cases against people – and the Government would then effectively choose who should represent them as well.

This inequality of arms could not be in the best interests of justice.

After a strong campaign led by the Law Society – supported by other legal interest groups – and through a broad based campaign by MPs across the political spectrum the Lord Chancellor signalled on Monday that he was now willing to listen, announcing to the Justice Select Committee that he would remove the requirement for the Government to choose the accused person’s solicitor and would allow client choice to continue. He also signalled “an intention” to consider alternative proposals. Let’s hope the Government keeps on listening, because if the original proposals are eventually implemented, the consequences for access to justice and the rule of law could be incalculable.

Robert Khan is an Islington councillor and a non-practicing barrister

  • Andylabour AlltheWay

    You will get a Lawyer who does not know you or your circumstances .
    They will be reluctant to take you to trial as a guilty plea on day one gets the same payment as a full trial.
    The Top lawyers will still represent the well off and the poor will not get the justice everyone deserves.

  • BusyBeeBuzz

    Justice Alliance
    RALLY FOR LEGAL AID 30th JULY
    celebrating 64 years of legal aid
    4.30pm–6.30pm at the Old Bailey. Download the pdf with full details here.
    And 5pm at Manchester Crown Court. Download the pdf with full details here.

    STATEMENT OF AIMS
    We are an alliance of legal organisations, charities, community groups, grass roots and other campaigning groups, trade unions and individuals who are united in our opposition to the government’s proposed attack on legal aid and the criminal justice system. These legal aid proposals are part of the larger assault on essential parts of the welfare state.

    Legal aid, introduced in 1949, is a vital part of the UK justice system. It ensures that access to justice is not just for the rich and that there is equal justice for all. Legal aid is a cornerstone of our democratic tradition and the rule of law.

    Any justice system needs to ensure: fair and equal access to justice for all; protection for vulnerable people; quality and effective legal representation; that the state is held to account; a right to legal aid and a duty upon the Government to provide it. We consider the proposed cuts and the cuts already experienced to be unjust, unnecessary and profoundly damaging.

    The Government’s proposals on legal aid will affect everyone and will have the following effects on those who cannot pay:

    Remove your right to choose your own solicitor. You will be prosecuted by the state and defended by a lawyer selected and appointed by the state.

    Quality, specialist legal defence will disappear. The removal of choice and the cuts in funding will mean you will be getting a service where the cheapest defence lawyers will get a legal aid contract. BAME and Welsh language firms will not survive.

    With the introduction of the residence test, many people would not be able to access the justice system at all; this will include babies in care proceedings, victims of domestic violence and people who have been trafficked into the UK.

    Legal challenges to decisions made by the state and public authorities will be seriously undermined.

    Prisoners will not have legal aid to make representations about vital issues like their treatment, rehabilitation and progress. They will be left to stagnate.

    We will work as a Justice Alliance to promote national and local action to stop the government proposals and so protect legal aid as an essential part of access to justice.

    http://www.savelegalaid.co.uk/justicealliance?dm_i=C3V,1Q9U2,48V8P9,65KJ9,1

Latest

  • Featured LabourList readers back Miliband’s pledges

    LabourList readers back Miliband’s pledges

    Last Thursday, Ed Miliband made Labour’s first election pledge, Conor Pope gave us the low-down of what this meant.  Effectively, Miliband said Labour would reduce the deficit but noted that a next Labour government would do so while securing the future of the NHS. Labour is long portrayed as the fiscally irresponsible party, and this speech saw Miliband try to rectify this mischaracterisation. So we wanted to know what LabourList readers thought about this pledge. The news looks good for the Labour […]

    Read more →
  • Comment There’s more to Higher Education than the REF

    There’s more to Higher Education than the REF

    Yesterday, British universities were in a spin. The result of six years of stress and anxiety, management pressure and absurdly bureaucratic language is out. We know the REF scores. We know, in other words, the numbers that every university department in Britain have been given for the quality and impact of their research over the last six years. The REF dominates university life. It decides appointments and shapes the way university managers treat staff – many hire research ‘stars’ at […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We want to build relationships with Labour – but they need to take some bold steps

    We want to build relationships with Labour – but they need to take some bold steps

    First my credentials. I have supported Labour at every election since I was old enough to vote. I am a party member of some 30 years standing. Why then, as the General Secretary of the trade union for staff in further and higher education am I in such utter despair at the timidity of the policy offer made by Labour to the members I represent and their students? Let’s be clear, I believe the coalition’s policies have been a disaster […]

    Read more →
  • News I was “never ever complicit” in illegal rendition or torture, says Jack Straw

    I was “never ever complicit” in illegal rendition or torture, says Jack Straw

    Jack Straw has condemned the use of torture and denied being complicit in the torture of suspected terrorists, following the publication of a report in America concerning the CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs). Straw was Labour’s Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006, during the foremost years of the “War on Terror” and the UK’s military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Questions have been raised concerning what members of the British government knew about the use of EITs, but […]

    Read more →
  • Comment How not to change the constitution

    How not to change the constitution

    In this Parliament AV was rejected, Lords reform stumbled and even the Tories attempt to ‘equalise’ constituencies fell. ‘The Implications of Devolution for England’ already looks unhealthily like these other failed constitutional reforms. Nonetheless, the issue holds real dangers for Labour. Hague’s partisan and divisive Commons statement showed the Tories’ more concerned to maximise difference than to bring people together for the good of England. Yet even this couldn’t disguise Conservative divisions. In three months his Cabinet Committee failed to […]

    Read more →