On 9th April 2013 the Government published a consultation paper which set out proposals to change the funding of criminal cases under legal aid. It is a disaster for the criminal justice system, for those charged with offences and for the lawyers and other professionals who would have to work within such a system.

In basic terms the main changes are as follows:-

• The country is split into 42 areas and Contracts for work will be tendered for each area. There will be a limited number of tenders per area. In south London there will be 18.
• Firms will be invited to bid against each other to secure a Contract in their area but can also bid in other areas. The lowest price wins.
• If the firm does not have a Contract, it cannot undertake legal aid work.
• The work will be shared out in each area on an equal basis – this is based on an equal share of the number of cases not the nature of the cases.
• In order to ensure each firm gets the same number of cases, those arrested or charged will have NO CHOICE of lawyer. They will be allocated a lawyer and will not be able to change during the case. Even if your chosen lawyer has a Contract in the are ain which you are arrested, you will not be able to choose to be represented by them.
• This means clients could be allocated lawyers who are a long way from them (e.g they might live in Wandsworth and be arrested in Wandsworth but be allocated a lawyer in Woolwich).
• If a client is arrested more than once, they will most likely end up with more than one lawyer.
• Quality of representation is driven by the element of client choice. If a lawyer provides a bad service, they will not attract any clients and those they have represented will not recommend them or come back if they are arrested again. If the lawyer is guaranteed a fixed number of cases regardless of the service they provide, there is no incentive for them to provide a quality service.
• Furthermore, lawyers will be paid the same amount of money for a guilty plea as for a trial. So for example, in a case where the client pleads guilty to a domestic burglary and where the evidence amount sonly to 20 pages, the fee will be the same as for a case in which the client has a 5 day trial on a rape charge with 490 pages of evidence.
• Lawyers are to be incentivised to advise clients to plead guilty as soon as possible. This creates a clear conflict of interest.
• The rates to be paid are so low that they are no longer economically viable. For example the 5 day rape case above which may take up to 100 hours to prepare and present is likely to attract a fee as low as £800 – £8 per hour.

If you do not want to have your choice of lawyer taken away from you and do not want your lawyer to be representing you purely because they bid the lowest price and where it is in their interests not to have a trial, you should help us in our struggle against these appalling plans.

The public generally understand that criminal legal aid is important and helps to maintain justice in a civilised society. The Government say that the public has lost confidence in the system but admit they have no actual evidence of this. The Bar Council conducted a poll which showed that over 70% of the public felt there will be more miscarriages of justice under the proposed scheme. This is inevitably true. In addition two-thirds of the public agreed that legal aid was a price worth paying for living in a fair society, while 83% believed that people accused of a crime should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Two-thirds also agreed that at less than 0.5% of annual government spending, legal aid was a worthwhile investment in our basic freedoms.

In the meantime the Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, whose plans these are, has said “I don’t believe that most people who find themselves in our criminal justice system are great connoisseurs of legal skills. We know the people in our prisons and who come into our courts often come from the most difficult and challenged backgrounds.” In other words, the Government is happy for the public to have choice in relation to the health service, education and in voting for their MP but if they are arrested and cannot pay for a lawyer they are too stupid to be given a choice of representative.

You can assist us by writing to your MP and letting them know what you think about the situation and by signing the e-petition at tinyurl.com/itsmychoice. If this reaches 100,000 signatures, there has to be a debate in Parliament. We are half way there. Please add your name to the list and help us defeat these insane proposals.

On 9th April 2013 the Government published a consultation paper which set out proposals to change the funding of criminal cases under legal aid. It is a disaster for the criminal justice system, for those charged with offences and for the lawyers and other professionals who would have to work within such a system.

In basic terms the main changes are as follows:-

• The country is split into 42 areas and Contracts for work will be tendered for each area. There will be a limited number of tenders per area. In south London there will be 18.
• Firms will be invited to bid against each other to secure a Contract in their area but can also bid in other areas. The lowest price wins.
• If the firm does not have a Contract, it cannot undertake legal aid work.
• The work will be shared out in each area on an equal basis – this is based on an equal share of the number of cases not the nature of the cases.
• In order to ensure each firm gets the same number of cases, those arrested or charged will have NO CHOICE of lawyer. They will be allocated a lawyer and will not be able to change during the case. Even if your chosen lawyer has a Contract in the are ain which you are arrested, you will not be able to choose to be represented by them.
• This means clients could be allocated lawyers who are a long way from them (e.g they might live in Wandsworth and be arrested in Wandsworth but be allocated a lawyer in Woolwich).
• If a client is arrested more than once, they will most likely end up with more than one lawyer.
• Quality of representation is driven by the element of client choice. If a lawyer provides a bad service, they will not attract any clients and those they have represented will not recommend them or come back if they are arrested again. If the lawyer is guaranteed a fixed number of cases regardless of the service they provide, there is no incentive for them to provide a quality service.
• Furthermore, lawyers will be paid the same amount of money for a guilty plea as for a trial. So for example, in a case where the client pleads guilty to a domestic burglary and where the evidence amount sonly to 20 pages, the fee will be the same as for a case in which the client has a 5 day trial on a rape charge with 490 pages of evidence.
• Lawyers are to be incentivised to advise clients to plead guilty as soon as possible. This creates a clear conflict of interest.
• The rates to be paid are so low that they are no longer economically viable. For example the 5 day rape case above which may take up to 100 hours to prepare and present is likely to attract a fee as low as £800 – £8 per hour.

If you do not want to have your choice of lawyer taken away from you and do not want your lawyer to be representing you purely because they bid the lowest price and where it is in their interests not to have a trial, you should help us in our struggle against these appalling plans.

The public generally understand that criminal legal aid is important and helps to maintain justice in a civilised society. The Government say that the public has lost confidence in the system but admit they have no actual evidence of this. The Bar Council conducted a poll which showed that over 70% of the public felt there will be more miscarriages of justice under the proposed scheme. This is inevitably true. In addition two-thirds of the public agreed that legal aid was a price worth paying for living in a fair society, while 83% believed that people accused of a crime should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Two-thirds also agreed that at less than 0.5% of annual government spending, legal aid was a worthwhile investment in our basic freedoms.

In the meantime the Lord Chancellor, Chris Grayling, whose plans these are, has said “I don’t believe that most people who find themselves in our criminal justice system are great connoisseurs of legal skills. We know the people in our prisons and who come into our courts often come from the most difficult and challenged backgrounds.” In other words, the Government is happy for the public to have choice in relation to the health service, education and in voting for their MP but if they are arrested and cannot pay for a lawyer they are too stupid to be given a choice of representative.

You can assist us by writing to your MP and letting them know what you think about the situation and by signing the e-petition at tinyurl.com/itsmychoice. If this reaches 100,000 signatures, there has to be a debate in Parliament. We are half way there. Please add your name to the list and help us defeat these insane proposals.