Supplementary evidence submitted by the
Department for Constitutional Affairs in response to questions
from the Committee
The LSC have asserted that since the removal
of the means test, the courts are not adequately applying the
merits test, and are granting too many representation orders.
Please supply information on the number of orders granted, broken
down annually, between 1997 and 2004, although if the former date
is too early, then any time until 1999 would probably serve the
purpose.
LEGAL AID
STATISTICS
| Legal Aid Applications
| Refused on Interests of Justice |
Refused on Financial Grounds | LA Orders Made
| % Granted | % Refused Interests of Justice
|
| QUARTER | | |
| | |
|
| Jun 1999 | 119,213 | 7,926
| 1,234 | 109,135 | 91.55
| 6.65 |
| Sep 1999 | 126,843 | 7,907
| 1,431 | 115,845 | 91.33
| 6.23 |
| Dec 1999 | 114,340 | 5,952
| 1,294 | 106,272 | 92.94
| 5.21 |
| Mar 2000 | 121,606 | 5,680
| 1,189 | 112,534 | 92.54
| 4.67 |
| Jun 2000 | 110,820 | 5,007
| 1,070 | 102,951 | 92.9
| 4.52 |
| Sep 2000 | 111,253 | 4,408
| 1,069 | 104,408 | 93.85
| 3.96 |
| Dec 2000 | 124,558 | 5,318
| 224 | 117,996 | 94.76
| 4.27 |
| Mar 2001 | 130,676 | 5,731
| 739 | 124,277 | 95.1
| 4.39 |
| Jun 2001 | 155,138 | 7,156
| n/a | 147,705 | 95.21
| 4.61 |
| Sep 2001 | 156,153 | 6,801
| n/a | 149,035 | 95.44
| 4.36 |
| Dec 2001 | 158,365 | 7,045
| n/a | 151,208 | 95.48
| 4.45 |
| Mar 2002 | 157,559 | 6,795
| n/a | 150,474 | 95.5
| 4.31 |
| Jun 2002 | 165,915 | 7,387
| n/a | 157,996 | 95.23
| 4.45 |
| Sep 2002 | 167,972 | 7,310
| n/a | 160,656 | 95.64
| 4.35 |
| Dec 2002 | 160,529 | 7,113
| n/a | 152,722 | 95.14
| 4.43 |
| Mar 2003 | 168,431 | 8,076
| n/a | 160,683 | 95.4
| 4.79 |
| Jun 2003 | 165,960 | 7,168
| n/a | 158,999 | 95.81
| 4.32 |
| Sep 2003 | 171,930 | 8,020
| n/a | 164,037 | 95.41
| 4.66 |
| Dec 2003 | 163,813 | 8,064
| n/a | 154,819 | 94.51
| 4.92 |
| Mar 2004 | 171,854 | 8,537
| n/a | 161,545 | 94
| 4.97 |
| | |
| | | |
We have summarised on the table above the numbers of applications
and grants made since the first quarter in 1999 until the end
of the last quarter. I am not sure whether the figures represents
emperical evidence that the courts have been granting too many
orders, but the figures do show that despite a large increase
in the number of applications, roughly the same proportion of
applications have been refused.
You will know from our paper that we do believe that courts
have demonstrated an apparent willingness to grant representation
orders—too favourable towards defendants and certainly inconsistent
in applying the interests of justice test.
So you understand our figures, where the sum total of applications
granted and applications refused is greater than the number of
applications, it may be that courts have counted two decisions
against one application (where the second decision was made on
appeal). Where the sum total of applications refused and applications
granted is less than the number of applications it could be that
some applications were not dealt with before the end of that quarter.
The figures cover a large period, and the rate of returns
from courts over this period has improved. We have not estimated
numbers of applications for courts where they have not provided
figures.
How have you calculated the estimated savings from the
proposals in the draft Criminal Defence Service Bill and on what
statistical information are these calculations based?
Have the following factors been taken into account in
these calculations:
— the additional cost to the LSC of assuming
responsibility for grant, including the cost of processing applications
and of auditing grant decisions made by solicitors;
— any additional cost to the courts of an increase
in the number of unrepresented defendants and of any delays resulting
from the proposals;
— any additional cost to Central Funds arising
from an increase in the number of defendants who pay for their
legal defence on private client rates and who are acquitted; and
— the additional cost to defence solicitors:
and, if so, how?
The volume of grants of criminal public funding are collected
from magistrates' courts by the Department on a quarterly basis.
The figures provided by the courts include the numbers applying
for public funding, the numbers refused, and the numbers granted.
Prior to the abolition of the means test, these figures included
the numbers refused because of their means, and a further breakdown
into the numbers of legal aid order granted with a contribution
from income, capital, or both. The estimated savings are based
on the average cost of case in the magistrate' court, based on
bills paid by the Legal Services Commission against the number
of cases paid for. Where the paper has referred to the numbers
of case types, and cases dealt with by the courts, these figures
were taken from Home Office criminal statistics.
In reaching the predicted savings some estimates were based
on projections including the volume of the increase overall and
the increase in the number of cases being heard in the magistrates'
courts (a 2% increase for indictable cases proceeded with in the
Magistrates Court). Taken together, this allowed us to conclude
that almost certainly a large proportion of the 50% increase in
grants is due to the abolition of the means test. It is not possible
to determine precisely how much of that increase is down to the
abolition of the means test, but we have made an assumption that
75,000 and 150,000 of the 212,000 additional grants arose as a
result of the abolition.
Statistics collected by the DCA show that there has been
a reduction in payments from central funds to defendants acquitted
in the magistrates' court. We would anticipate a reversal of this
and therefore increase in costs from central funds of £15.2
million. Re-introduction of the means test could lead to savings
of between £39 million and £77 million, offset by the
anticipated increase in costs to central funds, leaving net savings
of between £24 million and £62 million.
The impact of reintroducing the means test in the Crown Court
may affect as many as 7,000 defendants. This figure is based on
the decrease in payments from central funds.
The additional costs to the LSC in assuming responsibility
for grant have not been included in the estimated savings. These
figures appear separately in the partial Regulatory Impact Assessment,
at paragraph 29 (page 49 of the Command Paper).
The additional cost to the courts is again referred to in
the partial RIA. Currently two thirds of defendants who appear
in the magistrates' courts are unrepresented or pay privately.
Our early calculations show that less than one additional defendant
would appear unrepresented per week per court. We conclude that
the additional costs to the courts would be negligible.
As mentioned above, the increase to costs to Central Funds
was included in the estimated savings calculations.
The additional costs to defence solicitors are currently
estimated at £1,000 per supplier. This figure appears in
the partial RIA and is subject to the final model that is adopted
by the Department. The £1,000 include changes that will need
to be made to how solicitors manage means information, and potentially
recover contributions. This may include the need to update software
in order to comply with audit requirements.
Please could you supply the following statistics (for
the last five years):
— The number of cases in the magistrates' courts
and the Crown Court (including both trials and guilty pleas),
preferably by offence type; and
— The number of cases in the magistrates' courts
and the Crown Court which have resulted in custodial sentences?
I have provided below links to relevant website for the Home
Office statistics that provide details of the number of cases
in the magistrates' courts and Crown Court by offence type and
indicates outcome of the cases. The figures are only available
for the years 1999-2002.
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/crimstats02.html£vol1
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/crimstatvol1.pdf
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/crimstatvol2.pdf
www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm50/5001/5001-06.htm£c
www.official-documents.co.uk/cgi-bin/dialogserver?DB=off-docsl
Samantha Toyn
Bill Manager
Public Legal Services Division
30 June 2004
|
