Having read the recent Legal Service Commission guidance on the completion of criminal legal aid applications, it is clear that the commission is gearing up to refuse a substantial number of applications on technical grounds.


I have asked the Law Society to confirm its previous advice that in all multi-defendant cases there will be a presumed conflict of interest from a professional practice point of view. I urge my colleagues to do the same. On a practical note, the commission offers advice on the wording of applications.



I submit the following for preprinting into paragraph 5.j in all applications of denied matters from littering to murder: 'In due course, the crown will serve a schedule of unused material in this case. A defendant-in-person cannot be expected to understand terms such as "IBIS" logs or command and control logs. Nor can they be expected to understand the potential importance of the contents of an officer's pocket notebook or a crime report. In the unlikely event that an unrepresented defendant did understand the significance of such documents, he would then have to draft a defence case statement in order to plead for the release of such documentation. It is submitted that a defendant-in-person would not have sufficient expertise to draft such a pleading having regard to recent Crown Court guidance as to the detail and content of the pleading.'



The increase in grants based on such a wording may well be capable of offsetting the reduction that the commission clearly seeks.



Adam Walker, Ilkley, West Yorkshire