Criminal defence solicitors hit out at government threat of disclosure fines

CRIMINAL JUSTICE: white paper concern that defence lawyers are using disclosure as delay tactic

Defence lawyers have attacked government proposals to impose financial penalties on them for failing to comply with pre-trial disclosure requirements, as set out in last week's criminal justice White Paper.

The paper says there is 'some concern that defence practitioners may be using disclosure as a procedural tactic to delay the process and cloud the issues' and that 'there should be appropriate financial incentives and sanctions to encourage the defence - both defendants and their legal representatives - to play a proper part in the process'.

A Law Society spokeswoman said: 'Suggestions that lawyers may be fined for not disclosing material are inappropriate, as the current regime of wasted cost orders already deals perfectly adequately with this issue.'

Graham White, chairman of the Law Society's criminal law committee, said the move could 'increase the risk of solicitors putting their own interests before their clients'.

Morag Rea, media officer for the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, said: 'The primary cause of delays is the prosecution, and I thought this situation had been dealt with by wasted costs orders.

I don't think this has been properly thought through and as a profession, we must bite back early on.'

Rodney Warren, director of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, also complained that the proposals on disclosure are 'shifting defence lawyers' position from an adverserial role to an inquisitorial one'.

Mr White welcomed the extension of magistrates' sentencing powers from six to 12 months, saying that 'alongside the retention of the right to elect jury trial it would strike the right balance'.

He added: 'I think greater magistrate power would lead to less cases going to the Crown Court, and thus speedy and more effective justice'.

Lawyers also expressed concern that the otherwise welcome plan to widen eligibility for jury service could extend to lawyers, judges and the police, because of the undue influence they could have on lay members of the public.

Andrew Towler