Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

The slack has already been cut from the system.

[XCP]

REALIST123 said:

Breadvan72 said:

The slack has already been cut from the system.

Apparently not. This particular murderer thought he might as well plead NG. Why not, when someone else is paying?

[PRTVR]

XCP said:

REALIST123 said:

Breadvan72 said:

The slack has already been cut from the system.

Apparently not. This particular murderer thought he might as well plead NG. Why not, when someone else is paying?

Should there not be a added punishment if they are found guilty,
this would take away the feeling it is a no cost option.

[Pat H]

PRTVR said:

XCP said:

This particular murderer thought he might as well plead NG. Why not, when someone else is paying?

Should there not be a added punishment if they are found guilty,
this would take away the feeling it is a no cost option.

There is added punishment.

Sentences are reduced by a third for a prompt guilty plea.

They are all advised about this, and about the strength of the evidence against them.

This particular murderer insisted that he was not guilty, but the jury disagreed.

He got life with seventeen years before his first parole hearing. A guilty plea would have reduced this to eleven years.

If the jury had accepted that it was manslaughter, then he would probably have received a determinate sentence of ten years and been out after five.

The English legal system is adversarial. When a case goes to trial, it is the prosecution against the defence, with the jury deciding where the truth lies and the Judge making sure that everything is done fairly.

The problem with an adversarial system is that there is always a winner and a loser.

Sometimes the prosecution loses and sometimes the defence loses. But every time, at least one of them does.

So no matter which side loses, there has been a huge waste of money.

And when the prosecution loses, we aren't just wasting the money paid to the prosecution lawyer. We are also wasting the vast cost of bothering with the arrest and investigation as well.

But until HG Wells lends us his time machine, we aren't going to know the outcome of a trial until it happens.

I am afraid that this is the system we have. It has been here pretty much forever, and it has been copied across the world.

There are different ways of doing it. We could have some sort of investigative judge who decides cases having read the evidence.

Or we could take away the right to a trial and simply lock up everyone who the police charge with an offence.

Or we could keep the current system, but stop legal aid so that only the well heeled could afford representation.

Or we could pare the fund back to the point where only a very basic level of free advice is provided.

I'm not here to push any particular agenda. I am simply setting out the way I see it from the inside.

I have worked in the system for almost twenty years. Most of my work in the early days was prosecuting, latterly I have defended cases.

I only hope what I say helps people to reach an informed opinion about state funded representation, because there is a lot of misinformation out there.

[RYH64E]

One thing I've never really understood is why we need to employ a solicitor and a barrister, even in relatively simple cases. It just seems to double up the costs, is it really necessary?

[10 Pence Short]

You don't normally find barristers in the magistrates court (though they are sometimes used). A solicitor will typically run the case and advocate. Most solicitors do not have what are called 'rights of audience' in the Crown Court so are not allowed to advocate for their client. That's why specialist advocates, barristers, are used there.

[Countdown]

Would it be possible to get a comparison of legal costs (to the Public purse) elsewhere in the Western/developed world and look at how successful their legal system is?

[scenario8]

Countdown said:

Would it be possible to get a comparison of legal costs (to the Public purse) elsewhere in the Western/developed world and look at how successful their legal system is?

There's a table on page one of this thread that might lead you in a direction you find interesting.

[RYH64E]

10 Pence Short said:

Most solicitors do not have what are called 'rights of audience' in the Crown Court so are not allowed to advocate for their client. That's why specialist advocates, barristers, are used there.

I know that they don't have such rights, I just wondered why, as the dual roles add another layer of costs with, imo, little benefit to the client. In a fairly routine employment case I remembering calculating the per minute cost of a three way meeting between myself, solicitor and barrister, it certainly seemed excessive and unnecessary at the time. A friend made the same comment following a (funded by legal aid) family law case about child access rights, why can't a solicitor fulfil both roles in anything but the most complex cases?

I did jury service at the Old Bailey many years ago, the 5 day case had 4 young female defendents each with a solicitor, solicitor's assistant, and barrister, all for a matter that could have been dealt with in a headmaster's study. The costs must have been enormous, over what was just a bit of nonsense. Hopefully things have changed since.

[Pat H]

RYH64E said:

10 Pence Short said:

Most solicitors do not have what are called 'rights of audience' in the Crown Court so are not allowed to advocate for their client. That's why specialist advocates, barristers, are used there.

why can't a solicitor fulfil both roles in anything but the most complex cases?

It is increasingly common.

I have higher rights of audience, which means that I can do the police station attendance, any hearings in the magistrates court, then deal with the Crown Court advocacy if the case gets booted upstairs.

I used counsel for the Crown Court trials simply because I never had time to do everything.

These days, most provincial criminal practices have at least one solicitor advocate. No idea what happens in London.

[johnfm]

singlecoil said:

Breadvan72 said:

Buy a few fewer nukes, maybe? The savings here are marginal. The slack has already been cut from the system. It is now proposed to operate it on such a basis that it will fail to deliver its stated objectives.

Is that all you've got? You're quite handy at preaching to the converted (who are the only people who will be impressed by your earlier link, BTW), but when it come down to providing a solid reason as to why the Legal Aid budget should be exempt from cuts that are affecting every other are of public spending, it's 'buy a few fewer nukes'.

Anyway, the cuts are coming like it or not, best the lawyers who will be affected (which will be most of them eventually, whether or not they currently do legal aid work) suck it up and make the best of it, just like everybody else.

Quite interesting that Singlecoil seems only to chime in when Breadvan posts.

You still a bit upset at being labelled an armchair lawyer SC? Get over it. You gave shoddy advice (understandable really as law isn't really your area of expertise) & were called out on. Pick up the teddy bear and jog on.

[singlecoil]

I must admit I am impressed (but not in a good way) by JohnFM's ability to carry a grudge. I nailed his head to the coffee table on a thread, it must have been a couple of years ago or maybe more, and every now and then he will enter a thread for the sole purpose of having a go at me. Usually I ignore him, but thought I had better explain why he is stalking me.

[Countdown]

scenario8 said:

Countdown said:

Would it be possible to get a comparison of legal costs (to the Public purse) elsewhere in the Western/developed world and look at how successful their legal system is?

There's a table on page one of this thread that might lead you in a direction you find interesting.

Thanks

And also - holy heck

Why are we more than twice as expensive as other countries which, on the face of it, are well developed, civilised, democratic countries? Either there's a significant lack of supply/demand (for legal aid) in those countries or there's a significant oversupply/demand in the UK - or am I missing something?

[singlecoil]

Countdown said:

scenario8 said:

Countdown said:

Would it be possible to get a comparison of legal costs (to the Public purse) elsewhere in the Western/developed world and look at how successful their legal system is?

There's a table on page one of this thread that might lead you in a direction you find interesting.

Thanks

And also - holy heck

Why are we more than twice as expensive as other countries which, on the face of it, are well developed, civilised, democratic countries? Either there's a significant lack of supply/demand (for legal aid) in those countries or there's a significant oversupply/demand in the UK - or am I missing something?

My best guess is that one element at least of the justice system over here is simply too expensive, and that's the lawyers. I was reading a judgement in an immigration appeal yesterday, and one side has a QC AND a junior, and so, of course, does the other. That must have cost a pretty penny.

[Rovinghawk]

Breadvan72 said:

Many solicitors and most barristers earn reasonable amounts - high five figures or low six.

Herein lies the issue for many people- high five figures is beyond the wildest dreams of the majority, six figures even more so. It is three times what my profession pays for a graduate with 10 years' experience.

Yet to your profession it is merely 'reasonable'.

[Rovinghawk]

Pat H said:

A cornerstone of the proposed reforms is to take away client choice and to allocate cases according to a cab rank principle.

Whilst I agree with much of what you posted, I agree with the government's side on this.

Beggars can't be choosers- if they're getting it for nothing, why should they be able to pick & choose who they will or won't accept at the taxpayers' expense?

[Pat H]

Rovinghawk said:

Pat H said:

A cornerstone of the proposed reforms is to take away client choice and to allocate cases according to a cab rank principle.

Whilst I agree with much of what you posted, I agree with the government's side on this.

Beggars can't be choosers- if they're getting it for nothing, why should they be able to pick & choose who they will or won't accept at the taxpayers' expense?

In principle there is no reason why they should have a choice.

After all, if you fall of your motorbike and wind up in A&E, then you don't get a choice of doctor.

But I can deal with one of my regular clients far more quickly than someone I pick up through the duty scheme, simply because the regulars trust my advice and I know all about their circumstances. I represented some of my regulars hundreds of times.

They accept unpalatable advice far more readily from a familiar face and it is much easier to compromise cases quickly. Less time is wasted and less money wasted too.

I believe that client choice should remain for the simple reason that it is the most efficient way of processing the work.

A secondary function of client choice is that the incapable or poor lawyers soon fall by the wayside because no one wants them. It is a good self regulating way of maintaining quality.

IMO, client choice is nothing at all to do with pandering to their fickle taste in lawyers but simply because the most efficient way of running the system.

[RYH64E]

Pat H said:

I represented some of my regulars hundreds of times.

That does of course raise the question as to why the tax payer should be funding legal costs for some deadbeat who needs representing 100s of times!

I don't suppose that there's an easy, acceptable solution.

[10 Pence Short]

singlecoil said:

My best guess is that one element at least of the justice system over here is simply too expensive, and that's the lawyers. I was reading a judgement in an immigration appeal yesterday, and one side has a QC AND a junior, and so, of course, does the other. That must have cost a pretty penny.

It may be that the case merited the level of representation.

Perhaps you could link us to the "judgement" (sic)?

[singlecoil]

10 Pence Short said:

singlecoil said:

My best guess is that one element at least of the justice system over here is simply too expensive, and that's the lawyers. I was reading a judgement in an immigration appeal yesterday, and one side has a QC AND a junior, and so, of course, does the other. That must have cost a pretty penny.

It may be that the case merited the level of representation.

Perhaps you could link us to the "judgement" (sic)?

Perhaps you could get off your lazy arse and do your own research?

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/j...