Report comment

There will always be this inevitable conflict between the interests of the defendant, the interests of the advocate, and the interests of the taxpayer.
The defendant wants the best advocacy possible, and as he is not paying has no concern about value for money.
The advocate knows this and therefore focuses on providing excellence rather than value in their working practices.
The taxpayer may want to live in a civilised society where defendants are given free representation to enable them to have a fair trial, but is not willing to write a blank cheque to enable this to happen.
The taxpayer is the only party which cares about value for money, compares arrangements with other countries, and considers legal aid costs alongside other equally crucial spending demands.
Is it any wonder that the taxpayer, through government, has demanded a cut in costs, and will persist in that aim?