Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

I agree 100% with Robin Murray on court appointed solicitors , the truth is we take on this work at short notice , in the bulk of cases we take instructions at short notice at court . We assist the client whom sometimes feels we are forced on them and we make sure the prosecution do not take advantage of an unrepresented defendant . Many times I have had prosecutors saying to me " you are only here on section 38 " . Well that does not stop me making sure the prosecution have reviewed the case properly , served the unused schedule and have complied with their obligations . I assist the client and the court by sometimes conducting the full trial on a pro bono basis and claim accordingly for the cross examination only . This type of work has been described to the author of the consultation as work we already do- and also we are instructed by the court - that is utter rubbish- if we mess it up then we can be reported and investigated by our governing body and it is our indemnity cover that pays out if we have acted in a way that involves compensation to the defendant- we are not exempt from complaints by saying " we are instructed by the court hence complain to them" . What utter rubbish the consultation reads on this point . My view , if they want to cut the rate and hold these crazy views then for those willing to do the work for peanuts should be excluded from complaints and indemnity , better still the government can change the rules and allow court clerks , the magistrates themselves, police officers or maybe even the local butchers to conduct the cross examination of vulnerable witnesses . That would save money and if special measures are in place then the victims may not see the blood on the butchers apron .May sound crazy but it will save money and just as crazy as the government proposals .
Getting onto the issue of the victims -we have to follow the protocol and in essence assist in the process of victims of crime being cross examined in accordance with the protocol . So the options should be - make legal aid non means tested , let the solicitors who want to do it for peanuts do it , or let the defendants cross examine the victims . The best way to cut the costs in my view is to just let the defendant cross examine the victim . And while we are at it if the government bans the ownership of property then we can save hundreds of millions on the legal aid budget by not having offences such as theft, allowing to be carried, robbery , burglary and fraud .

Your details

Cancel