Salaried defender plan under attack

By Anne Mizzi and Sue Allen

Solicitors groups this week branded the government's plans for a public salaried defence service (SDS) as 'unnecessary'.

The Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA) condemned the proposals as a waste of public money, while the Law Society and Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG) gave a cool response.

The groups have submitted their responses to a consultation on the SDS (see [2000] Gazette, 15 June, 1).

It will be part of the Criminal Defence Service (CDS), which replaces criminal legal aid from April 2001.

The SDS will be piloted at the same time, and will cost up to 50,000 in salaries for each defender.

The CLSA said: 'The massive financial cost of the proposed undertaking is completely out of proportion to the perceived and argued benefits.

It is an unnecessary and expensive experiment, which the country cannot afford.'

CLSA vice-chairman Rodney Warren said: 'As the government has such a large lead in Parliament, we have to accept that the pilots will go ahead.

We do not accept any state salaried defence service can operate with the same efficiency or cost benefit to the state as is offered by criminal law solicitors in private practice.'

The Law Society agreed the changes are 'not necessary', but said it is 'not fundamentally opposed' to salaried defenders.

It expressed concern about maintaining standards, and that defenders could 'undermine' the livelihoods of publicly funded criminal solicitors.

Malcolm Fowler, chairman of the Society's criminal law committee, said: 'The important message for the profession and the public is that we are not supporting these pilots.

'What we are doing is calling on the government to keep to its commitments on the non-negotiable principles which are guaranteed freedom of choice of solicitor for defendants, equality of arms and adequate funding for both the public and private sectors, guaranteedindependence for the SDS and absolute transparency on the true costs of the SDS,' he added.

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG) questioned whether the scheme would produce the benefits claimed.

Chairman David Emmerson said: 'Although it has been known for some time that the government wanted to pilot a salaried defender scheme, it came as a surprise to see the government condemning in principle the profit motive and extolling the virtues of public provision over private enterprise.

We never expected to hear such sentiments from a New Labour government.'