Shifting the blame

With reference to your recent article pointing out that the House of Commons' Public Accounts Committee has found in its review of the Criminal Justice System that the defendant or the defence solicitor were responsible for 23% of court adjournments (see [2000] Gazette, 13 July, 4).

This presumably means the other 77% are the responsibility of either the Crown Prosecution Service, the Probation Service, the prison service or the court itself - all accountable to the taxpayer.In my experience, defence practitioners are keen to avoid any unnecessary adjournment in a court case as the rates of pay established by the Lord Chancellor's Department do not make this an attractive proposition.

It is time the blame for the ever-increasing cost of legal aid was not laid at the door of the defence practitioner.A visit to any of my local courts would illustrate the fact that it is generally either the CPS which delays the progress of the case, owing to its inability to review and prepare cases within the necessary timeframe, or the relevant security firm which often does not produce custody prisoners until late in the morning's proceedings, if at all.

For as long as the LCD chooses to focus on trying to improve the criminal justice system by imposing layer upon layer of bureaucracy upon the defence practitioner under the guise of franchising and contracting, then the real reasons for wasteful delays in the criminal justice system will remain hidden.

Euan Macmillan, Sonn Macmillan & Co, London