Skip to main content

Are further restrictions on your rights coming?

The new Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill has been published.

Clause 12 allows for suspects in police custody to be represented.  This is good as the right to free legal advice has been with us for a long time now.  A lack of legal advice has also led to convictions being overturned by the appeal courts for various reasons that would not have occurred had a solicitor been present.

However, clause 12 appears to be slightly different to the current position, which allows for representation to be provided quickly for most detainees.  Clause 12(6) is concerned with regulations that a civil servant (probably the head of the Legal Services Commission) will be able to make regarding the hoops that must be jumped through before you can receive advice from your police cell.  It reads:
Regulations under subsection (5) may, in particular, include——
      ....
      (b) provision permitting or requiring applications and determinations to
           be made and withdrawn in writing, by telephone or by other
            prescribed means,
Does Parliament seriously intend that somebody arrested and sitting in a police cell should be required to fill in a form, submit it to a solicitor who will then pass it to the LSC who will consider the application, make a decision and return the completed application?  Bear in mind that the LSC is the organisation that said legal aid applications at their new central processing unit would take just three-days and are now running with a four-week backlog, which is looking like it could become a 6-week backlog very soon as application processing is way behind applications being submitted!

What happens if John is arrested in the middle of the night?  Will the LSC be working 24-hours a day?  To be frank you're lucky if you get an answer from them before 9.30am or after 4pm at the moment.

Call me cynical, but I happen to believe that this type of policy has two purposes a) to reduce the legal aid bill by making it harder to solicitors to claim; and b) to increase the conviction rate by reducing the level of representation suspects receive.

What is more likely to happen though is that it will simply push up the administrative costs of funding legal aid, which are already very high.  It will also lead to more lengthy legal arguments at court to the effect that interviews should be excluded for various reasons.  So, in the end it will push up the overall cost of legal aid by simply transferring the payments from solicitors to Counsel with an uplift as Counsel's daily fee is higher than a single police station attendance and increasing the admin costs.  There probably won't be much of an increase in conviction rates either as a lot of interviews will simply be excluded.  And, I bet there will be a few challenges to this policy through the European Courts at some point, which the Government will have to defend at huge public expense.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…