Criminal Justice: funding concerns over move to improve standards of care for witnesses

Plans to improve standards of care for witnesses in the criminal justice system will impose a significant extra burden on defence solicitors - but there has been no indication as yet on whether they will be paid for it, criminal law specialists have warned.


Responding to a government consultation on the proposed Witness Charter, the Law Society's criminal law committee said that while it fully endorsed the charter's aims, it is going to require defence solicitors to undertake 'considerable extra work'.


It said lawyers could not be expected to do so 'until some indication has been given as to the extra funding that will be made available'.


The committee strongly backed the suggestion that a legal aid impact assessment be carried out. 'In addition, a number of practitioners have expressed their concerns that it will be increasingly difficult for defence lawyers to fulfil these extra obligations with the advent of reduced funding and fixed fees.'


The charter sets out 34 standards that witnesses can expect from the likes of the police, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), defence lawyers, Witness Care Units and Witness Service. It takes them from reporting an incident to post-trial support.


The response points out that defence lawyers have no duty to their witnesses, and 'this may place some limitations' on their involvement, such as the charter's requirement to provide emotional support.


It also said the profile of the Witness Service needs to be increased among lawyers and witnesses alike, observing that 'on occasions the Witness Service does not fully appreciate that they are available to provide assistance and support to defence witnesses as well as prosecution witnesses'.


But the committee was concerned that there is no equivalent of the witness care units run by the police and CPS for prosecution witnesses.


However, overall, the committee said it was optimistic that the charter will help ensure defence witness attendance, and with it reduce the number of ineffective trials. It also noted that only a small number of trials are rendered ineffective by such an absence.