Bar Council and BSB condemn MoJ's controversial legal aid reforms
The Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board (BSB) have warned that the Government's proposed legal aid reforms could do "irreparable damage" to the UK justice system and potentially destroy the criminal Bar, in their responses to the Ministry of Justice's (MoJ's) consultation on the controversial plans.
June 03, 2013 at 07:03 PM
5 minute read
The Bar Council and the Bar Standards Board (BSB) have warned that the Government's proposed legal aid reforms could do "irreparable damage" to the UK justice system and potentially destroy the criminal Bar, in their responses to the Ministry of Justice's (MoJ's) consultation on the controversial plans.
In a 150-page document published today (4 June), the Bar Council argues that the proposals for reform, set out in the 'Transforming Legal Aid' consultation – will "destroy the livelihoods of many smaller solicitors' firms and rapidly destroy the criminal defence Bar", with the introduction of price competitive tendering (PCT) for criminal legal aid work described as "fundamentally flawed".
The Bar Council's response also challenges the assertion that these proposals are a way of achieving sustainable savings and questions their legitimacy, saying that the plans will "obliterate client choice", "thwart efforts to improve diversity across the legal profession" and "set back the steps taken to increase diversity in the judiciary for many years".
Meanwhile, the BSB cautions that plans to pay legal aid lawyers the same amount for a 'guilty' or 'not guilty' plea could lead to defendants being pressurised into pleading guilty, leading to a a "crisis of public confidence" in the justice system.
Further, by introducing PCT contracts the Bar Council claims the MoJ is "ignoring fundamental human rights" and contradicting the Government's White Paper on 'Open Public Services', which was published in July 2011.
Academic analysis commissioned by the Council and carried out by the University of York describes the MoJ's thinking as "muddled", suggesting that savings are already being made and such intervention is not needed.
The BSB has also expressed concerned that plans to reduce the number of legal aid contracts and agree contracts based on price rather than quality could lead to wrongful convictions, longer or ineffective trials and a rise in the number of appeals.
Maura McGowan QC, chairman of the Bar, said: "There is no avoiding the simple fact that these proposals would move us from having a justice system which is admired all over the world, to a system where price trumps all. PCT may look as though it achieves short-term savings, but it is a blunt instrument that will leave deep scars on our justice system for far longer. Further cuts to the scope of civil legal aid will limit access to justice for some of the most vulnerable. That is a legacy of which no Government should be proud."
"The Secretary of State for Justice cannot fail to have registered the strength and breadth of opposition to these proposals. The concerns are being voiced not just by the legal profession but by many other groups and individuals.
"We want to achieve and maintain a legal aid system which works in the public interest. We invite the Lord Chancellor to engage with the profession in a proper, considered review of legal aid to achieve that system and any required reforms without destroying a world-renowned institution. It is not too late for the Government to think again."
Sam Stein QC, the chair of the BSB's quality assurance committee, added: "These reforms represent a significant upheaval in our justice system. If we put in place financial incentives that could lead to some advocates telling clients to plead guilty when they're not, this will do irreparable damage not only to people's lives but to a justice system that has been world-renowned for centuries."
The Bar Council's full consultation response and an executive summary will be published this afternoon (4 June).
The responses follow the publication of a letter in The Daily Telegraph last week, signed by a group of around 90 QCs, which criticised proposals to limit legal aid for judicial review, claiming that such a move would "seriously undermine the rule of law".
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling (pictured) announced earlier this year that applications for judicial review – the process by which judges are asked to examine the legality of government decisions – will only receive legal aid funding once a judge has agreed the case is strong enough to proceed to a full hearing.
The news comes after the MoJ last week denied reports that it is considering a "wholesale privatisation" of the courts system as it weighs up propsals to cut costs and make the current system more efficient.
Grayling, who was appointed justice secretary last September, has upset many within the legal profession with his cost-cutting plans, with legal aid cuts in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill expected to save roughly £350m a year, while the closure of around 100 courts is expected to be announced shortly.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaker & Partners, LCWP Lead on $1B Fraud Claim by Malaysia's 1MDB Against Amicorp
Apple Subsidiaries in Belgium and France Sued by DRC Over Conflict Minerals
2 minute readBaker McKenzie, Norton Rose & Other Top Litigators Foresee Rise in AI, Data & ESG Disputes
Freshfields Takes on Syria's Brutal Legacy, But Will Victims Ever See Compensation?
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250