Report comment

The decision for which expert to instruct for publicly funded cases can be purely a question of who, if anyone, is prepared to accept instruction and reimbursement at Legal Aid rates.

I have a youth in court proceedings for failing to provide a second specimen of urine in a suspected drink drive matter. My client has a history of urological problems and is on medication which affects his ability to pass urine. In order for the Court to consider my client's medical reasons for failing to provide I need a urologist to consider my client's diagnoses and medication and then provide a report to the Court. During the course of requesting quotes to present to the Legal Aid Agency for prior authority I received the following response:-

"Whilst I respect the need for your client to have the benefit of a medical report I fear I cannot accept your instructions. Experience has taught me that I can expect that counsel for the Crown Prosecution Service will quite probably not have been appointed until the morning of any appearance in Court and that probably on the strength of my report the case will not proceed. I will be reimbursed both for my report and for my travel to and non-appearance in Court at an hourly rate less than I pay my garage mechanic."

In the absence of a medical report my juvenile client will almost inevitably receive a criminal record which may affect him for life. Access to justice has been damaged by cuts to public funding on several fronts.

Imposing further or harsher regulation on the provision of expert services will inevitably drive up the cost to the expert and will deter further practitioners away from assisting Legal Aid cases, thus harming access to justice even more. Is the more sensible solution not to allow greater reimbursement to experts so a competitive market for such services can be re-established and the quality of the expert's work tested by scrutiny in the courts?