Letters to the Editor

PAYING THE PRICE

In the light of the rally of criminal defence solicitors last month, it would appear that the future arrangements for funding this area of work are in chaos.

Nobody seems to know what is likely to happen over the next 12 months and this includes the Legal Services Commission and, perhaps to some extent, the Lord Chancellor's Department.

It is particularly worrying that the government presses on with constant detailed reform of the criminal justice system and yet nobody seems to stop and think what the cost of this could be in real terms.

It would appear, for example, that numerous provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill have not been costed.

Looking at some of the measures, it seems inevitable that further expense will be incurred.

While nobody has thought about this, we rest assured that in due course the criminal defence profession will be blamed.

Take, for example, the proposal to allow the police to impose conditions on bail before charge.

How will this be enforced? If there is no current court case, then it would appear that the only way of enforcing breach would be to create court proceedings.

Presumably, we can look forward to a series of prosecutions for breaching police bail conditions and a whole new chapter of expense will be inflicted upon the criminal justice system.

In addition, there are measures concerning the admission of evidence of previous convictions and hearsay.

How can this be dealt with in terms of a summary trial? It would appear that a trial bench could not hear all of the evidence and then proceed with the case if they decided not to admit it.

The only likely way forward would be to create a new pre-trial hearing at which issues on admissibility could be litigated.

Therefore, one could face a situation of a fully contested hearing having to take place to resolve these issues before any summary trial can proceed.

By definition, more cost and more expense.

If any person within government has carried out an analysis of the likely cost of measures within the Criminal Justice Bill (and indeed certain other proposed legislation) then I would be delighted to read their reply.

Tim Rose, Douglas & Partners, Bristol

FOOTING THE BILL

I was heartened to read the article by District Judge Jeremy Cochrane, the new president of the Association of District Judges (see [2003] Gazette, 10 April, 14).

Most of us these days aim to have typed attendance notes on our files.

Indeed, those of us fortunate (if that is the word) enough to have a contract with the Legal Services Commission are conditioned into keeping evidence on the file to record every second we spend dreaming about the case, and the costs we are to receive at its conclusion.

The assessment process is another hurdle to overcome, which I doubt will be eased when the commission takes over responsibility for bills below 2,500.

The assessment of bills is not one of the highlights of the day of a district judge, as I know when wearing my part-time hat, but I am confident that the majority of judges do their best to speed up the process to ensure that practitioners are adequately and promptly rewarded.

I am grateful to District Judge Cochrane for his encouragement to solicitor-advocates.

Many of us have entrusted more of our advocacy to the bar for two main reasons - time and money - these being interrelated.

We are, however, going to be back in droves.

Unfortunately, it is now difficult to persuade competent counsel to take on publicly funded ancillary relief cases on the fees allowed, and who can blame them? I do not generally advocate on behalf of the bar, many of whom believe themselves superior in this respect, but is there not a saying about peanuts and monkeys?

District Judge Cochrane's article will be a great help when solicitor advocates come to claim the 'suitable uplift' and I shall therefore ensure that a copy of it is attached to every bill.

Christine Doughty, Rothera Dowson, Nottingham

OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS

Given the fact that lawyers spend thousand of hours each year arguing over the meaning of one word in a statute or contract, I trust it will not be considered nit-picking to point out that career opportunities in local government are on the wane not just for 'young' lawyers, but for all aspiring lawyers (see [2003] Gazette, 17 April, 5).

Until older students are formally prohibited from entering the profession, we should not assume that it is only the young who are being denied a career because of the cutbacks.

Joyce Glasser, London