Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Written Evidence


Evidence submitted by Julia Bainbridge, Saunders Solicitors (LAR 205)

  The following response is based on my own view as a criminal defence solicitor of three years qualification and not necessarily the collective view of the firm in which I am employed.

  Having attended various courses in the past few months about the implementation of the proposals in Lord Carter's report I have grave concerns regarding the future of my career and the future of the legal aid system and therefore justice as a whole.

  From the viewpoint of a Duty Solicitor, the proposals strip me of my status and belittle the years of commitment required to qualify as a Duty Solicitor and provide a high quality of legal advice and representation to an entirely cross section of society.

  London of course has a large number of police stations which causes a further concern in relation to the payment scheme proposed by Lord Carter. When one is on the "central London scheme", eight police stations are covered, not including the British Transport police stations such as Ebury Bridge and Central London BTP. Representatives are often called upon to travel from one end of London to another often in black cabs in order to abide by the regulations of the Legal Services Commission that they must be at the police station within forty-five minutes of being asked to attend. The new proposal suggests that we are not paid separately for travel at all and that a fixed fee is a suitable way of reducing costs in this area of legal aid. I can see that certainly, it is a way of reducing costs but greatly at the expense of quality and fairness.

  When a representative is asked to attend the police station out of hours for a case which is expected to last a number of hours, how is the firm to be able to offer an attractive payment to that representative when the fixed fee is only £313 whether that is in office hours or not and more importantly, whether it lasts one hour or twenty-odd hours?

  The effect of the fixed fee proposal at the police station will be that it will be very difficult to find anyone willing to attend for potentially half of the bill and therefore £156. A police station attendance lasting eight hours, which is very common would provide a legally qualified professional a paltry £19.50 per hour. This figure of course including travel and waiting and the advice telephone call.

  Persons arrested are not necessarily repeat offenders or the unemployed vagrant which the public may perceive. The Duty Solicitor scheme provides advice and representation to all whether a doctor, teacher or vicar and the principle that every person no matter what background should be entitled to advice for free where their liberty is in question is a principle the Government should be proud of and not ashamed.

  Reducing rates for police station attendance will affect justice further down the line and there will be an inclination to rush attendances (if anybody volunteers to go) and advice will be improper and there will be miscarriages of justice.

  The Legal Services Commission confirms that the budget for police stations and magistrates court is under control and this is of course despite the number of amendments made in recent years and the fact that we as a profession have had to come to terms with the fact that in continuing in a career we feel strongly about effectively means we are resigning ourselves to earning much less than our equally qualified civil counterparts. Dealing with cutting costs in this way does not tackle the real causes of increased costs.

  The proposed "20% rule" in relation to clients who ask for a particular firm to represent them at the police station but who have found themselves out of the requisite postal code is also a very worrying proposal. Competition on quality and reputation will not be possible given the limited ability for clients to choose their own solicitor. London is not an area where such a scheme is practical, there being so many police stations, Magistrates Courts and Crown Courts scattered over a greater area.

  In conclusion, it appears that the proposals are aimed at professionals cutting corners and providing a sub-standard service and pressure will be on all of us to not exceed the minimal amount of work in order to move onto the next case as in many criminal firms, there is already little profit being made in criminal legal aid and the proposals will put many out of their jobs and obviously dissuade high quality lawyers from joining the already poorly paid area of law.

  Criminal defence lawyers do not enter this profession with aspirations of very high earnings but they do hope to attain a certain level of comfortable earnings to suitably reflect the hard work, commitment and academic standards gained on the long path to qualification.

  I ask that this letter be counted as a response to the proposals Lord Carter made and hope that the Committee will view it along with the other concerns of my fellow criminal defence lawyers.

October 2006





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 1 May 2007