january 2008 issue 7 call for unity - clsa | criminal law ... · pdf filecall for unity in...

Criminal LawyerT H E J O U R N A L O F T H E C R I M I N A L L A W S O L I C I T O R S ’ A S S O C I A T I O N

Call for unity

I N T H I S I S S U E

The overwhelming message in Mr Kelcey’s speech was acall for the profession to unite to put “the playgroundbullies otherwise known as the LSC and the governmentin their place”.

“We have been disregarded, lied to, lied about and dealtwith with contemptuous arrogance by those twoorganisations,” Mr Kelcey said.

“We have been proud to be able to say over the yearsthat those in receipt of legal aid would receive as good aservice as those paying privately. Those of us in this roomknow that to say that to a client now would be dishonest.”Instead, he said, we should be pointing out to clients thatlegal aid is a limited service because the government is notprepared to fund it properly.

With resolve, we could bring the government back to thetable. “We know that the court system cannot survivewithout us,” he said, adding that he was frankly worried forhis own practice, “but more importantly, petrified for thecriminal justice system”.

Jonathan Sedgwick, the acting chief executive at theOffice for Criminal Justice Reform, reported on progress inthe five strands of the 2004 reform strategy. Public

J A N U A R Y 2 0 0 8 I S S U E 7

4 LEGAL AID DOWN UNDERAn Australianexperience for Joy Merriam

6 FIXED FEESVicky Ling makessense of thechanges

8 JAMESMORTONCasting a practisedeye on expertwitnesses

10 BOOKREVIEWSCross-examinationand a survival guide

11 DIRECTOR’SREPORT

12 VIEWFROM THE(NEW) CHAIR

CLSA

CLSA’sThe

Continued on page 2

Ian Kelcey, the CLSA’s outgoing chair, launchedthe day’s proceedings with a minute’s silence intribute to Paula Rohan, freelance journalist andfriend of CLSA who very sadly died at the age of32. Mr Kelcey said: “Paula was totally committedto her work, and all who knew her will recall herenthusiasm for the subject of legal aid.

“Our thoughts and condolences go out toPaula’s family at this sad time. She will be missedbut not forgotten.”

confidence was increasing and victim and witnesssatisfaction had seen some improvements, he said. In termsof the third goal, bringing more offences to justice, MrSedgwick said he could see that the way the targets weredrawn may have had some negative consequences, and thatimprovements needed to be made.

Real progress had been made in terms of effectiveenforcement, for which “we give ourselves modest ticks,”he said.

In the fifth strand of the strategy — “a modern, joined-upcriminal justice system” — there was more to do, MrSedgwick admitted. He acknowledged that his office had notengaged well enough with bodies such as the CLSA.

The goal for criminal justice in 2011 included moreeffectiveness in bringing criminals to justice; increasedpublic confidence in the effectiveness and fairness of theCJS; the placing of all victims at the heart of the system;and using technology to simplify processes to enable thepolice to focus on tackling crime.

“Underpinning the vision is that the process of decision-making is in its own right one of the benefits of a civilisedsociety. It is important because it inspires publicconfidence. That drives all we do.”

“We have been proud to beable to say over the years thatthose in receipt of legal aidwould receive as good a serviceas those paying privately. Thoseof us in this room know that tosay that to a client now wouldbe dishonest”

The CLSA held its annual conference last month at Thame, near Oxford

2 The CLSA’s Criminal Lawyer

CLSA

Edited by:Sharon Wallach

Tel: 01763 273376

Email: [email protected]

Published by:The Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association

Suite 2 Level 6

New England House

New England Street

Brighton BN1 4GH

DX 2740 Brighton

Tel: 01273 676725

Fax: 01273 676231

Web: www.clsa.co.uk

Director:Rodney Warren


Administrator:Sue Johnson


Designed by:Jonathan Payne


Printed by: RAP Spiderweb Ltd

Tel: 0161 947 3700


CRIMINAL LAW SOLICITORS’ ASSOCIATION Continued from page 1

Next came David Kirk, director of the Fraud Prosecution Service, whodeparted from his script to describe his own experiences “moving back andforth between prosecution and defence”. He rejoined the CPS last yearafter 18 years of defending, where, he said, “the landscape was veryunfamiliar”. Money was now at the core of all issues. “Efficiency is awonderful thing unless it’s combined with saving money”.

Turning to his current role, the FPS was concentrating on the AttorneyGeneral’s fraud review, the 2006 Fraud Act and non-jury trials. He calledfor dialogue; “the defence is not the enemy”, he said.

Professor Ed Cape and Roger Smith, director of Justice, then took thestage. Professor Cape, director at the Centre for Legal Research at theUniversity of the West of England, spoke on the future for criminaldefence lawyers in a “modernised” world. The word “modernised” was, hesaid, an annoying term, part of the nonsense language used as ajustification for many government policies, a deliberate ploy used as coverto hide fundamental changes.

Summarising current and future trends, Professor Cape listed cuttinglegal aid entitlement and quality; increase of police powers and a movetowards a summary justice system; and the change of our adversarialsystem — but to what, he asked.

“Efficiency is awonderful thingunless it’scombined withsaving money”

David Kirk,director of theFraud ProsecutionService

The word“modernised” is an annoyingterm...

Professor Ed Cape,director at the Centre

for Legal Researchat the Universityof the West of England

C L S A C O N F E R E N C E

The CLSA’s Criminal Lawyer 3

Message from a sponsorCriminal Law Week was delighted to sponsor the2007 CLSA conference. Cited in all courts includingthe House of Lords, Criminal Law Week is providedto more than 15,000 criminal law practitionersincluding all of the judiciary and magistrates’courts’ legal advisers, the Ministry of Justice, theCrown Prosecution Service, and all police forces inEngland and Wales via PNLD. Subscribers alsoinclude barristers, solicitors, governmentdepartments, law libraries and academics.

Many of solicitors’ firms subscribe to Criminal LawWeek Plus, the package designed specifically forthem, enabling all criminal law practitioners to haveindividual access to Criminal Law Week Online forone firm subscription.

Criminal Law Week CPD distance learning course isfree for all Criminal Law Week Plus subscribers, thusenabling them to attain up to 75% of required CPDhours at no extra cost.

Criminal Law Week has also begun offering CPDseminars; details can be found on the Criminal LawWeek home page.

Criminal Law Week Online provides:

• a database of over 10,000 digests of all reportedcriminal cases and relevant legislation

• weekly issues

• new update feature

• links from digested cases to full-text transcripts fromCasetrack

• editorial commentary on developments of particularinterest provided by James Richardson (editor ofArchbold)

• annotated full-text statutes service

• powerful search engines

• comprehensive tables and subject index.

For further information on Criminal Law Week pleasetelephone 01483 414 040, email [email protected], or visit our website at www.criminal-law.co.uk

He suggested there was a pattern whereby the governmentwas seeking to diminish the role of defence solicitors in thecriminal justice system. Making justice simple, speedy andsummary was also reducing that role.

Roger Smith launched on an impassioned speech,beginning with the stark warning that the number oneproblem was money. Jack Straw, he said, was not interestedin legal aid; his imperative was to keep the budget within£2 billion. The identity of the legal aid practitioner wasdisintegrating; as far as the government was concernedthere was only one game in town for containing expenditure— compulsory competitive tendering.

Relatively little future existed in legal aid — apart fromvarious niche areas — for small operations. “We are facing achange of provision that will come whatever,” he said.“Criminal justice has been over-politicised as an issue, withno money to go with it.” It was a major failing of socialpolicy over the last 20 years, not necessarily deliberate.

On the brighter side, Mr Smith insisted that lawyers hadan inherent resistance to authority. “I won’t have it thatit’s all doom and gloom. Lawyers won’t give up. I’ve seenthat all round the world.”

He won applause for his call to stand firm over the rightof the client to choose his lawyer. The way that legal aidwas being separated from this right had implications in

terms of human rights and good practice and policy. “Theselling off of clients as though they are dodgy loans isoffensive.”

Breakout sessions after lunch were led by Andrew Keogh,on higher rights, and Penny Owston, on working with fixedand graduated fees.

The association’s AGM saw Joy Merriam take over thechair of CLSA from Ian Kelcey.

“Criminaljustice has beenover-politicisedas an issue,with no money

to go with it”

Roger Smith,director of Justice


L E G A L A I D I N O Z

Vive ladifferenceIn early spring I realised a long heldambition and travelled to Oz to staywith my flatmate from university. Iwas determined to forget all aboutcriminal law, the LSC, Carter et al forthree blissful weeks.

On the second morning my friend hadto visit the local cop shop to make astatement about her husband’s stolenpedal cycle. Well, curiosity got thebetter of me and we went together tosleepy Hornsby police station, wherewe were met by a senior constableresplendent in shorts and T-shirt. Myfriend duly identified the bike andmade a statement. She asked whathappened next; the officer explainedthe case would go to court and as thedefendant had legal aid he expectedlots of adjournments, or mentions asthey call them. He would thenprobably plead guilty. I couldn’t helpbut declare an interest and asked theofficer about crime in suburbanSydney. He was quick to point out heusually worked on drug busts — “ice”(crystal meth) being the main drug ofchoice in Oz — he had a drug bust incourt that day but the case would notbe on till the afternoon.

He remarked that we may seesomething in the local court nextdoor, but our best chance to see someaction would be at Sydney Centralcourt on Monday. We duly trotted next

door to find nothing but traffic, andwe settled down to watch a trial. Thedefendant was unrepresented and theprosecutor inept. However the DJ wasspot on, and as I predicted to myfriend, threw the case out for a weakID. My friend was horrified (havingbeen impressed by the victim) andwas even more shocked when we sawthe defendant get in the case officer’scar, presumably for a lift home! Thedinner party circuit in Sydney wasregaled with this injustice for the restof my stay.

I decided to make further enquiriesand rang the Crown court to ask for alocal defence lawyer contact. So ithappened that early on Mondaymorning I was sitting in the office of asenior lawyer in Sydney’s legal aid andassistance department. He explainedthat after the war, Australia, like theUK, had set up a publicly fundeddefence service that was primarilyprovided by State employees. He didnot like the term public defender forsome reason. All the major courts werecovered by these employed lawyersand in local courts the work wassubbed out to private practice. Thebasic fee per case was low (around$200) but the lawyers were paid courttime on top, hence, he said, thenumber of mentions.

Furthermore, he explained that the

inept prosecutor I had seen was apolice officer — police officers carryout much of the summary work (a bitlike the old court presentation officersfor those old enough to rememberthem). He knew all about the Carterreview and was pleased to inform methat Australia spent less per capita onlegal aid than the UK. (I subsequentlysent him, at his request, the CLSAresponse.)

I arranged to meet him afterwardsfor feedback and he explained that inSydney Central the custody and bailcourts were in separate buildings.

We headed off to the custody courtexpecting a busy morning. There wasone case called on: an adjournment fora rehab place where reports were notready. The defendant waved cheerilyto his mum in the public gallery — “butthat means he will spend another twoweeks inside,” my horrified friendexclaimed. Nothing else was ready —so pretty much the same as the UK.The judge retired and I managed to get backstage to see him. He explainedthat this was par for the course andthe custody cases would not be arrivingtill the afternoon; however the next cases were by video link andwould proceed.

Back in court I then witnessed anastonishing list of cases where theprosecution was not ready to commit.

A trip to Australia made me proud to be a British lawyer, writes Joy Merriam

when the crime rate is low is not auseful indicator. However, the thingthat shocked me most was the way thecustody clients were completelydisengaged from the process. In asystem where work and a salary areguaranteed there is no incentive tofight for your client. This hasimplications for the cost per case (LSCtake note), but more importantly forthe integrity of the criminal justicesystem. A society where lawyers do notstand up for the poor and oppressed isnot in my view a civilised society and,as I said at the start, I came away fromthe experience feeling proud to be aBritish lawyer.

Footnote: The man who stole myfriend’s husband’s cycle pleaded guiltyon the first occasion and received acommunity penalty.

L E G A L A I D I N O Z


In every case there was no enquiry bythe court and no opposition by thedefence. However, the most surprisingthing was that the defendants did notappear even by video link. They hadbeen told the case would not proceedand had consented not to be produced.This was understandable in view of thelack of opposition by any lawyer to theadjournments. It made the earlier twoweek adjournment for the rehab clientseem innocuous.

About 11 am the court dried upaltogether so we went to try our luckat the bail court. There the cases werealmost exclusively motoring, many ofthem excess alcohol. Despite thisapparently being a serious offence, lowsentences of three month bans werehanded out. More interestingly, onedefendant, who had clearly instructeda lawyer privately, was able to

persuade the judge that a particularsection applied. Consequently, he didnot sustain a conviction at all, despitean admission. The cases were allprosecuted by police officers and Ispoke to one who explained they aretrained for this purpose and that it wasquite a cushy number.

We met our friendly defence lawyerafterwards. He explained that there isa section under Australian law (whichcan only be used once) when a judgecan agree that a conviction is notrecorded. I asked him about the videolink and the defendants not beingproduced. He seemed surprised by this.

My conclusions were that theAustralian system is cheaper than oursbecause there is considerably lesscrime. The Sydney Central court wasvery quiet compared to courts inBritish inner cities, so a cost per capita

“The thing thatshocked memost was the way the custody clientswere completelydisengaged fromthe process”

Joy Merriam outside Sydney Central court


F I X E D F E E S

Right place, The LSC has recently announced thatthe introduction of fixed fees in policestation cases has been postponed untilJanuary 2008. However, since 6 April2007, revised standard fees formagistrates’ court work, whichincluded a fixed element for travel andwaiting, came into effect in 16 mainurban areas. The timetable hasslipped, but the substance of thechanges has not. Firms will need to bemore efficient than ever before if theyare to make a profit.

The level of the new fixed feesmeans that firms will need to reducetravel and waiting, as these elementswill be rolled up into the overall policestation fee. Some fee earners will needto spend more time working away fromthe office, to reduce travelling andwaiting times. This means they willneed laptops so that work can be doneanywhere and downloaded from homeonto the office network.

Allocation, allocation, allocation

Successful crime firms are generallybusy and flexible. They know that whatgets them repeat work is a high level

of client care. This creates hugelogistical problems as the work thatneeds to be done changes continuallythrough the day: for example, casesthat run over the lunch break, clientswho are not produced at court afterall, the police who are unexpectedlyready to interview, or a client who getsarrested. None of these things can beplanned for in detail a month or even aday in advance. At the centre of goodcrime firms there is usually anoutstanding administrator, workingclosely with a partner for support whennecessary, who knows the clients andthe lawyers, and can continuallyallocate work throughout the day.

Larger police station boundarieswhich the LSC may introduce in someareas, combined with performancetargets, could mean that firms willstruggle to cover their new duty slots,although de-restricting the work thatcan be done by police stationrepresentatives could help resolve thisproblem. Unfortunately, by allocatingwork on the basis of the numbers ofduty solicitors employed, the LSC hasmade it more difficult for firms toreduce their costs by substituting someaccredited representatives for some

Continual changes in the timetable for the reform of criminal legal aid have increaseduncertainty amongst criminal defence practitioners, writes Vicky Ling

“The precise division of labour will dependon the type of crime a firm does, butpartners and supervisors will need tobecome expert in segmenting a case intoindividual tasks and getting someone atthe right level to do it”


F I X E D F E E S

right time?

duty solicitors and thus reducing theoverall wage bill.

Firms will generally need to look veryhard at what the most expensive fee-earners are doing and allocating workaccordingly. There’s nothing new inthat — this principle is already wellestablished in the assessment of CrownCourt bills, with rates beingdetermined by the level of fee earnerwho should have done the work, eventhough someone more senior mightactually have done it. Solicitors incrime departments will have to bereserved for making decisions aboutthe degree of complexity in each caseand how the law should be applied.The precise division of labour willdepend on the type of crime a firmdoes, but partners and supervisors willneed to become expert in segmenting acase into individual tasks and gettingsomeone at the right level to do it.

Much preparation can be delegatedas long as each case is evaluated by anexperienced practitioner and isproperly supervised. Again, many firmsalready do this, especially with CrownCourt work; but the same principleswill need to be applied in policestation and magistrates’ court work aswell. This will involve agreeing andintroducing a framework casemanagement model which everyoneuses, so that cases can be passed fromperson to person and still beprogressed at a good level of quality.

Firms will have to get much better atensuring that all fee earners spend asmuch time as possible doing work at

their highest possible fee rate. Onearea of criminal practice which firmscan find profitable is the exercise ofhigher courts rights, particularly appealapplications.

Electronic case management

The need to change ways of workinghas been underlined by the interim ITguidance which the LSC recentlypublished and can be downloadedfrom:http://www.legalservices.gov.uk/docs/news/ECMSinterimguidancedocumentFeb07.pdf

The LSC will require firms to use someform of computerised casemanagement system, incorporating keymilestones or workflows, which willmove cases along. If most of thepeople working on files are highlytrained and/or very experienced, thereis no pressing need for such a system,as they know what to do. Requiring anelectronic case management systemwill increase firms’ overheads, and oneway of redressing the balance, at thesame time as taking full advantage ofthe benefits of such a system, is to useless experienced or less qualified staff.

Team working

Effective team-working with activemanagement and supervision will bethe key to surviving the Carter reforms.

“Firms will have to get much better atensuring that all fee earners spend asmuch time as possible doing work attheir highest possible fee rate”


F E A T U R E

ExpertwitnessesA new biography is out on the life ofand particularly evidence given bythe great pathologist Sir BernardSpilsbury, a man who dominated thecourts from the beginning of the 20thcentury to his death in 1946.

He gave evidence in dozens ofmurder cases and it came to the pointwhere if Sir Bernard said there wasscientific evidence to show the manhad or, (very rarely) hadn’t done it,then the jury went along with him. InLethal Witness (Sutton Publishing £20)immigration judge Andrew Rose writesof how Spilsbury came to believe hewas infallible and, once he had madeup his mind, refused to look at anyexculpatory evidence or explanationthere might have been. The evidencehe gave in the case of DavidGreenwood, who in 1918 was convictedof the murder of a young girl NellieTrew, was little short of disgraceful.Fortunately for Greenwood the HomeSecretary thought there was at leastsome doubt about the case, and in theend he served a mere 15 years. Whatmade the case so appalling is thatthere was another very convincingsuspect who when he was sent to amental hospital was described as “ofan exceedingly homicidal nature”.

As a result of Spilsbury’s evidenceNorman Thorne was probably wronglyhanged for the murder of his fiancéein 1925; there was considerable doubtabout the conviction of John Robinson

for the murder of Minnie Bonati; andHarold Loughans was certainlywrongly acquitted in 1944. Inbetween there were plenty of othermistakes, particularly when he eitherembroidered his evidence or sethimself up as a firearms expert whichhe certainly was not. Even whenother genuine experts such as SirSydney Smith and Keith Simpsondisagreed with Spilsbury, as they didin the case of Sydney Fox, it wasSpilsbury’s flawed evidence whichcaptivated the jury.

Have experts changed today? In myday it was all fingerprints. It took sometime for fingerprint evidence to gainthe stranglehold it has had on juries.The first case in England involvingfingerprints was in 1902 when an oldlag Henry Jackson was done forburglary. Then in 1905 came theStratton case when two brothers wereaccused of robbery and murder. Theywere convicted more or less onfingerprint evidence alone. One by onethe countries of the western worldabandoned the old Bertillon system ofmeasuring noses, ears, the width ofeyes and so forth and adoptedfingerprints. From then on it was up tocriminals to try to defeat the systemby having the skin taken from theirfingertips — it did not help. The newskin simply grew the same papillarylines. Fingerprint evidence was here tostay and to convict.

By James Morton

Sir Bernard Spilsbury in his laboratory at St Bartholomew’s Hospital


F E A T U R E

Now in the eyes of the courts itbecame an exact science. Speakingabout fingerprint evidence in 1997when she was chair of the CriminalBar Association, Mrs Justice AnneRafferty said: “If fingerprint evidenceemerges when you are defending aclient, then you tend to put your headin your hands. There is not really aquestion mark over it.” So hands upthose of us who over the years bowedthe knee or head and gave up whenan expert witness said that he hadfound our client’s fingerprints on thebank safe. Fourteen matching pointsand the ten years’ experience (neverless) of the prosecution’s expertwitness — what did they do in the first

nine? — was quite sufficient to send usrunning for the cover of the highlyillegal sentence bargain. Unless thatis, the client had an account at thebank and that previous week had beeninvited to a select sherry party in thevault given by the manager. But no,he didn’t want him called.

But nearly a century later,fingerprint evidence came underrenewed scrutiny. In 1998 the Court ofAppeal quashed the conviction ofDanny McNamee convicted of the 1982IRA bombing in Hyde Park. In thepreparation of an American case, US vByron Mitchell in 1999, twofingerprints from a car robbery weresent to 50 FBI agencies, 20 per cent ofwhich failed to identify the ownerscorrectly. Then came a mostinteresting article by Michael Specter,“Do Fingerprints Lie?” in the NewYorker (27 May 2002). It centred onthe 1997 Scottish case of policewomanShirley McKie whose print wasapparently found in a room where amurder took place. She said shehadn’t been there and was prosecutedfor perjury. Fortunately, a senior NewScotland Yard scientist was convincedit was not her print. “It wasn’t even a close call,” he said. In January ofthe following year a US district courtjudge limited the use of fingerprintevidence in a Philadelphia murdercase. He noted the “alarmingly high” error rates on periodicproficiency exams.

One problem I never had to facewas DNA evidence, which has replacedfingerprints in the scheme ofirrefutable evidence but the principlesstill apply. For the moment thesituation is what might be called 4F —properly collected, collated and notcontaminated then it is probablyunchallengable. But if evidenceinvolves a human being — and itnecessarily does — there’s always thepossibility of error. Experts, howeverapparently eminent they may seem,are not infallible. We should not justroll over supinely and wave our pawsin the air in submission. Moral: nevergive up in the face of difficulty — asmy school reports used to say.

“One by one thecountries of thewestern worldabandoned the oldBertillon system ofmeasuring noses,ears, the width ofeyes and so forth andadopted fingerprints”


The Criminal Advocate’sSurvival Guide

By Jan Davies (The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, £9.99)

This book is a must for any newly-qualified criminalsolicitor advocacy in the magistrates’ court. It covers alot of ground, and includes chapters on key areas such asbail applications and preparing for trial in the CrownCourt. In addition, it has appendices dealing with thehearsay provisions and bad character evidence, whichare a useful reference guide.

The book is highly practical in its approach, and theauthor uses examples from her own experience whichgives the book an informal style.

I would highly recommend the book to criminaladvocates at all levels — an ideal little Christmaspresent.

Sonya Frough-Haghighat

There really aren’t too many good books on advocacy —indeed Du Cann, Napley, Eric Crowther are the onlyones which immediately spring to mind — and so anynew one is welcome. The fact that Chicago trial lawyerTerence MacCarthy, who headed the Federal Defender’soffice for 40 years, looks at the art from an Americanperspective, doesn’t mean it does not contain a greatdeal of advice that applies to an English cross-examination.

MacCarthy takes the conventional wisdom thatwitnesses are there to be controlled and discreditedand stands it on its head. Persuasion is the keyword andthat applies to the whole trial. The lawyer must lookgood to the jury and that is more persuasive thancontrolling, extracting information or insulting, whichhe equates with discrediting. He advocates pace — donot allow a witness to take advantage of a pause orinterrupt witnesses, even your own. A study has shownthis loses the sympathy of jurors. Form, he believes, isoften of far more value than substance.

MacCarthy, who believes that every good cross-examination should tell a story, gives substantial

“MacCarthy takes theconventional wisdom thatwitnesses are there to becontrolled and discreditedand stands it on its head”

examples. He does not like asking the witness regularor open ended questions — “What else do you knowabout my client, officer?” which allows the witness tobecome a participant in the proceedings rather than afriendly puppy being taken for a walk. He favours thestatement phrased as a question, “You went to theshop?” Legal speak which adds “Isn’t that right?” and“Did there come a time?” is definitely out.

Interestingly, he is also against the use of pencils andpens being pointed at witnesses. My recollection isthat in the 1970s Treasury counsel John Mathew’s goldpencil pointed at an erring witness was one of his mostdamaging weapons.

Even if you do not agree with everything headvocates, MacCarthy is always sound and interesting.Any young lawyer should, as my law tutor used to say,“Read, learn and inwardly digest”. Even if the price ofthe book is a whopping $129.95, particularly given thestrength of the pound, it is a well-worthwhilepurchase.

James Morton

MacCarthy on Cross-Examination

By Terence F. MacCarthy($129. 95, ABA Publishing, 321 North Clark Street, Illinois 60610)


D I R E C T O R ’ S R E P O R T

The Legal Services Commission hasbeen quite open about itspreference to have been able topilot the means test before it wasintroduced into the magistrates’court in October. Unfortunatelythere was no authority given in thelegislation to allow that to happen.Changes which were introduced intothe Criminal Justice and ImmigrationBill will now allow a pilot for anyfuture scheme of means testing inthe Crown Court.

In some areas problems with themeans test are as bad as ever and inothers even worse than at the point ofintroduction. The post implementationreview has some objective commentbut reveals the true cost of thescheme in terms of paymentreductions to solicitors at £40 million(over 16%). This is money beingstripped from magistrates’ courtspend and is in addition to the moneybeing saved by the abolition ofseparate travel and waiting paymentsin the standard fees in urban areas.

Work still needs to be done on themeans test to radically improve theassessment of applications. A newapproach is needed which sees a movefrom the current risk averse approachtowards a more commercial andproportionate assessment of risk. Theemphasis should be on fostering aradical shift in attitudes towards thegrant of legal aid being seen as anintegral part of the CJS and not anobstacle to it.

So although we see little done toimprove the means test there is anacknowledgement that piloting

something first can provide valuableinformation from which improvementscan be made for any final roll out.What a contrast then when looking atthe current situation of the provisionof criminal defence work in general.Here we have what has beendescribed as “the big bang” approach,with the simultaneous implementationof CDS Direct, police station fixedfees and the litigators’ graduated feescheme. How about that for a changein approach to risk?

On the one hand there can be norisk taken that one self employedwindow cleaner, for example, mightget legal aid in the magistrates’ courtwithout proving he has no accountsand on the other such a level of riskin untested whole system change thatcould see wholesale financial collapseof providers or, worse, severe damageto the legal aid scheme as a whole.

There is so much uncertainty andapprehension in the profession aboutwhat lies ahead, with paymentprocesses for staff working out ofhours at the police station as a primeexample, that it is no small wonderthe profession is becoming disengagedand can see no future in their chosenspecialisation. At the same timeministers, the Commissioners andthose who advise them demonstrate acommendable level of self belief.

The irony of the much heralded CivilService IT award to the Commission forLSC Online and the subsequentcomplete collapse of the system withina fortnight is not lost on practitioners.The question is: will changemanagement lessons be learned?

By Rodney Warren

“The irony of themuch heralded CivilService IT award tothe Commission for LSC Online andthe subsequentcomplete collapse ofthe system within afortnight is not loston practitioners”

Learning the lesson

V I E W F R O M T H E C H A I R

The CLSA’s Criminal Lawyer

First of all, in October, we were faced with fixed feesin police stations, swiftly followed by a new contractin which we would have to express an interest. No sooner were we marshalling ourselves for this then the goal posts moved again and we had a monthto sign up to a new contract bringing in a raft of changes. All protests by the Law Society andourselves were ignored by a LSC determined to presson at all costs.

On 3rd November at our conference in Oxford,however, little did we know that a new drama wasunfolding. The LSC had suspended their contract withCDS Direct providers Bostalls, as they had not obtainedthe necessary waiver from the SRA. CDS Direct looked tobe in trouble; yet, a week later — again despiteopposition — the SRA granted the waiver late in theafternoon of the 9th November, and the LSC announcedit would be reinstating Bostalls’ contract. Is this reallyany way to deal with provision of criminal defenceservices to those in need?

If you add into the pot the chaos engendered by LSCOnline, which has left members angry and frustrated,we can expect a rocky 12 months ahead. The Associationis still considering the live issue of the provision oftelephone advice in police stations through CDS Direct,and whether it is a breach of section 58 of PACE. I willkeep you advised as to how this pans out.

As chairman, it is my firm aim to communicate withyou and support you throughout my term. Those of youwho were at the dinner in Oxford will have heard mequote that venerable Roman lawyer Marcus TulliusCicero on the subject of friendship and support. Friendstalk to each other — and I intend to keep you regularlyinformed through a revamped web site and regular e-bulletins. I would urge those of you who are notsubscribers to our e-group to join. This is a forum forlively discussion on the issues of the day and a valuablesource of practical advice, too. Many of our newcommittee members are regular contributors.

Finally, I hope to see as many of you as possible at ourannual conference next year which will be slightlyearlier, on the 17th October in Yorkshire. I am hoping itwill be in my home town of Sheffield (UTB!), subject toa suitable venue being found.

So that’s all from me for now folks: keep the faith.

When I assumed the mantle of chair frommy esteemed predecessor Ian Kelcey, I didso at a conference of defence lawyersbattered by the new contract fiasco,writes Joy Merriam

Keep the faith

“If you add into the potthe chaos engenderedby LSC Online, whichhas left members angryand frustrated, we canexpect a rocky 12months ahead”

january 2008 issue 7 call for unity - clsa | criminal law ... · pdf filecall for unity in...

Documents