Daniel Breger
Earlier this week the Justice Select Committee heard evidence on the Government’s consultation paper Transforming Legal Aid, and there was no shortage of individuals arguing that the plans to reform legal aid are wrong-headed. Only last week, a senior judge described the proposals as “costly and potentially disastrous”. QCs have lined up to state that those who came up with the reforms, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling included, “ought to be ashamed of themselves”. At the heart of the concern is the proposal that, if you receive legal aid, you will be allocated a lawyer rather being able to choose one yourself. This concern maybe well founded.
When a similar scheme of ‘direction’ was piloted in Scotland in 1998, independent research showed that 54 per cent of defendants administratively allocated public defenders were dissatisfied with their representation. This was compared to the 17 per cent who had chosen their own lawyer. That element of the pilot was subsequently scrapped.
Many would argue that satisfied or not, at least these defendants still had access to a lawyer. But we should be careful not to dismiss dissatisfaction so lightly. It could produce what would be to Mr Grayling a presumably unintended consequence— it may cause further crime. Read the full article in The Independent