Evidence submitted by Michael Strain,
Martin and Strain (LAR 106)
I write in response to the consultation period
in respect of the reforms proposed by Lord Carter and wish to
express in clear terms the catastrophic effect the anticipated
changes will have upon my Practice.
I am a Criminal Partner in a two partner general
practice in Pwllheli, North West Wales. There is a Court in my
home town which sits once a week on Wednesdays, with Youth Court
sitting on alternate Fridays.
Custody has been centralised in Caernarfon which
is some twenty two miles away from Pwllheli. The nature of the
road itself means that the journey can often take up to forty
minutes and even more in the summer months in summer when there
is a substantial influx of tourists.
The reforms would result in writing off one
hour forty minutes travelling with forty four miles worth of fuel
and is quite simply economically untenable. Frequently, whilst
at Caernarfon Police Station there is a need for the Police either
to gather their thoughts, collect further evidence, conduct Section
18 searches, seek the CPS for advice and a host of other reasons
for not dealing with matters. This leaves us with the alternative
of travelling back to the office or waiting. Usually if more than
two and a half hours wait is anticipated we do travel back to
the office. We estimate that this kind of waiting takes place
in between 20% and 30% of all cases.
Pwllheli, my home Court, is the remand Court
for the local criminal justice area on Wednesdays. If, however,
I have a client who is brought before Court on days other than
Wednesdays then I have the following logistical difficulties:
| Mondays | Remand Court is Llangefni, which is some 70 miles round journey
|
| Tuesdays | Remand Court is Holyhead, a 100 mile round journey taking approximately 1 hour 24 minutes each way
|
| Wednesdays | Pwllheli |
| Thursdays | Llangefni see above
|
| Fridays | Llangefni see above
|
The local Remand prison is HMP Altcourse, Fazakerly in Liverpool
which is some 120 miles distance. If, as is often the case, I
am required to see clients in respect of a whole range of offences,
from the most serious to relatively minor matters then this involves
a round trip journey of some 240 miles and approximately 5 hours
travel.
My local Video Remand Court is Llandudno which is an approximately
100 miles round journey.
Given the geographical nature of North West Wales, travelling
substantial distances to properly represent clients and to give
reasonable service is essential. This travelling expenditure needs
to be accounted for and the current figures proposed by Lord Carter's
Review, as I understand it, would make my Criminal Practice uneconomic.
There are three solicitors who work as Duty Solicitors in
respect of my local Court and thirteen individuals on the rota
for Caernarfon Police Station. I believe of the thirteen solicitors
on the rota, most are middle aged with myself at 39 years of age
being one of the youngest Duty Solicitors on the scheme.
North West Wales is predominantly a Welsh speaking area.
I would estimate that 60% of the work I carry out is through the
medium of the Welsh language and as such very often clients wish
to have their Court Hearings conducted in Welsh. This causes difficulties
if I am obliged to instruct agents and in any event, Defendants
should always have a right to conduct cases in their first language.
I believe the Carter Reforms as they currently stand will have
a seriously detrimental effect upon the provision of Legal Aid
Services in rural areas and the provision of Legal Aid Services
in respect of Welsh speakers.
The most recent means testing proposals are problematic in
the amount of additional work involved. Those who devise such
schemes seem to forget that very often Criminal Defence Practitioners
are dealing with illiterate people with numerous other difficulties
whether it be of limited intellectual ability, drink or drug problems.
Requiring people to complete such Forms invariably will lead to
the solicitors doing most of the work for what appears to me to
be no more pay with the uncertainty of whether a Representation
Order will be granted in any event.
I do not object to the principle of those who can afford
to pay actually paying towards their defence; however it seems
to me that requiring so much additional work taking up Criminal
Defence Practitioners' time for no remuneration further reduces
a Firm's profitability.
We are a General Practice Firm on the High Street, my Partner
deals with non contentious work of Conveyancing and Probate, such
work being considerably more profitable than the Public Funded
work which I am responsible for. We have recently lost a solicitor
dealing with Family Law work and despite numerous attempts, have
found it impossible to recruit an Assistant Solicitor to carry
out publicly funded Family work. This, I believe, is mainly because
of the rate of pay we are able to afford to offer any assistant
and a reluctance on young solicitors being involved in the administrative
requirements of franchised publicly funded work. We are the only
Firm in Pwllheli that now offer Legal Aid Family Law advice and
we do not at this moment in time, have anybody suitably qualified
to offer the work. We are continuing to actively recruit and are
hopeful of employing a Matrimonial Legal Aid lawyer in the near
future but are finding both the reward which we can offer any
prospective employee and the administrative burden which would
be placed upon the recruit, a substantial hurdle for any individual
willing to accept our offer of employment.
I hope these comments are of assistance when these issues
are considered.
If the prospective changes go ahead as planned, large numbers
of experienced practitioners will leave the publicly funded sector,
ourselves included. This will result in advice deserts with some
of the most vulnerable members of society not receiving the assistance
they most desperately need.
October 2006
| 
