I have recently had experience of the financial lunacy caused by the government's legal aid reforms for criminal cases.


I was asked by my local magistrates' court to act as the court-appointed advocate to cross-examine the victim in a case of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This is because the defendant, who had been refused legal aid because of his financial means, was not entitled to cross-examine the lady directly.



I was, therefore, duly appointed to carry out this task under section 38 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. My three-and-a-half hours of advocacy at £173 per hour, plus my travel time, came to approximately £650, payable from central funds. If the defendant had been granted a representation order, I would have done the work for a lower standard fee of £378.46 - that is, £270 less.



Where is the logic in this? If it is obvious that a defendant cannot cross-examine his victim in cases such as this, is there not a strong argument for legal aid being granted automatically rather than having to go through the rigmarole of appointing an advocate for cross-examination?



Once again, these hasty, ill-conceived reforms just prove that this government has no idea about how legal aid actually works, and proves the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.



NP Tweddle, Townshends, Coventry