Heavy price

I am a criminal practitioner and I feel punch drunk after recent events: the constant striving for better quality standards for less and less pay; the debate over whether we should or should not sign the new contracts; the regular and persistent reductions of my claims by the Nottingham Legal Services Commission Area Office; and the constant changing of procedures and erosion of fundamental principles.

The right to silence has gone, and the right to jury trial and the double jeopardy rule may soon follow.

So, it is against this background that two recent events left me not knowing whether to laugh or cry.




I recently had a Crown Court legal aid bill returned with my claim reduced - nothing new there - where one of the issues was the fact that I had spent some time considering the most appropriate barrister to use at the Crown Court stage.



In disallowing all this time claimed, the determining officer haughtily declared 'this is a legal aid case.

please leave your Rolls- Royce in the garage'.


I had heard rumours that the powers that be from the Lord Chancellor down regard us as second-class citizens, but I never thought that I would actually see it in writing.



I am now confused.

Are we supposed to adopt the franchising transaction criteria, which specifically encourages us to give due consideration to the choice of barrister or not? I think I see it now; we are supposed to adopt the criteria but we should not expect to be paid.


In a separate case, I received another reduction in a legal aid claim to the area office which I then applied for review on, to be told that the appeal hearing will be heard on 26 December 2001.

Not only have I got to wait more than nine months for my bill to be paid but I have to attend for the review on Boxing Day.

Quick somebody, pass me the Mogadon.




Mark Thompson, Partridge & Wilson Solicitors, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk