ROBIN MURRAY & CO
SOLICITORS
C83
www.robinmurrayandco.com
ROBIN MURRAY, RICHARD ATKINSON, ADRIAN ROHARD
OUR REF:
YOUR REF:
16 February, 16
Name MP
http://www.parliament.uk/about/contacting/mp/
The House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
THE OLD RAGGED SCHOOL
KING STREET
CHATHAM, KENT ME4 4LY
TEL: 01634 832332
FAX 01634 831331
ALSO AT:
12 STATION ROAD
SWANLEY
KENT BR8 8ES
TEL: 01322 665500
FAX: 01322 667223
DX: 56503 SWANLEY
AND:
ST ALBANS HOUSE
98 EAST HILL
DARTFORD
KENT DA1 1SB
TEL: 01322 665500
AND:
24 LONGLEY ROAD
RAINHAM
GILLINGHAM
KENT ME8 7RT
TEL: 01634 832332
By appointment only
Dear ,
Re: Parliamentary Debate on MOJ paper ‘transforming Legal aid- The next steps.’
This debate we understand is shortly to take place but upon a date yet specified. I am very
anxious that MP’s should not be under any illusion that the MOJ abandonment of their
attack upon client choice or plans for price tendering leaves access to local justice much
safer. These reversals of policy were welcome and it would be churlish not to say so.
They also reflect well upon Parliament as many MP’s from all sides of the House made
discreet representations to the MOJ or spoke in the previous debates in the house most
effectively about their concerns. However the level of cuts is simply unsustainable and
puts at risk most local independent defence firms and the Counsel they instruct.
MP’s most effectively told the MOJ/HMG that:
1. That they were wrong on client choice.
2. That they were wrong on Price tendering. (PCT)
3. Now the public interest I respectfully suggest would be served if MP’s helped to
demonstrate that the MOJ is once again wrong to implement wholly disproportionate cuts
destabilising access to justice irreversibly. This plea for your help is ‘not a drill’. Not
‘hysteria’. Not ‘crying wolf.’ Is there some self-interest involved on my part? It would be
Regulated and authorised by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority
SRA No. 68448
foolish to pretend otherwise. But this is simply because I want to carry on serving my
community in an independent and fearless manner not because I and my colleagues are
making huge amounts of money from legal aid. That popular press lie has surely been put
to rest as the evidence to the contrary is readily available and now more widely known.
This is what the latest survey concluded on on the impact of an administrative cut in fees
of 17.5% - ‘Our survey indicates that most firms would not be able to survive such a cut.
– Many of the costs are fixed and would remain and they are already operating at low
staff levels’1
We in the profession are not insensitive to the needs of the country still suffering from
past/present economic travails but our professional bodies have put forward real and
(with impetus behind them) rapidly attainable aims and objectives to reflect that fiscal
need and they should perhaps be listened to for the benefit their collective experience
brings to the discussion with the MOJ civil servants unless you feel the latter are always
right. (On client choice? – On PCT v 3? - These were not our ideas). Please consider the
following salient points relating to the latest consultation document2 and which
incorporate the views of the major specialist solicitor and bar criminal representative
organisations3:1. Solicitors are mainly a local network of small and medium sized enterprises and there
is real demonstrable danger to local Justice and to the survival of the criminal bar, with
the enforced removal of a large number of Solicitors firms undertaking Duty Solicitor
work and those which temporarily survive if the proposed cuts, initially of 8.75% but
ultimately totalling 17.5%, are implemented. Unquestionably the overwhelming majority
of all firms whatever their size together with most Counsel believe these proposed cuts
are unsustainable even over the short and certainly medium term.
2. Client Choice is an empty choice if firms cannot survive unsustainable cuts and are not
there in the community to be instructed. Just look at the devastation caused by cuts to
civil legal aid firms whose clients increasingly seek you out in your surgery.
3. The consultation ignores the 25% reduction in expenditure due to recent cuts and the
collapse in the number of cases now being brought to court.4 It picks £220m as the
desired reduction without any logical basis for that figure. I feel it is bizarre to choose a
random figure without a budgetary context.
1
2
Otterburn – A Report for The Law Society of England and Wales June2013
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aid-next-steps
3
CBA CLSA, LCCSA, LAPG. See e.g.
http://www.clsa.co.uk/assets/files/general/Joint%20statement%20of%20Practitioner%20Groups%2024%20
September%202013(1).pdf
4
National Statistics Office
www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/AA2010/aa2010final.pdf
Regulated and authorised by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority
SRA No. 68448
4. The calculated misstatement by the MOJ and others 5 that UK criminal legal aid is ‘one
of the most generous in the world’ ignores the actual evidence that the expenditure in the
UK was average (and I imagine has since fallen further) according to the National Audit
Office6. This is when taking into account other countries different legal systems and their
respective spend on Judges and civil servants investigating and developing the defence
case. For easy illustration please look at the graph attached to this letter and note where
the UK intersects the mean average line. It is precisely at the ‘average’ point!
5. The consultation repeatedly refers to investigations, further consultations and reports
(Otterburn) that are needed and yet purports to commence cutting straight away in
notwithstanding this information vacuum. It would be prudent to wait for these MOJ
research projects and investigations to be completed as rapidly as possible before
implementing cuts.
6. The consultation fails to take into account the many detailed cost cutting savings and
alternate revenue streams suggested by all the practitioner groups including the Law
Society, the Bar Council, CBA CLSA, LCCSA, LAPG and others. It is prudent for these
suggestions to be properly investigated with our full co-operation before dramatically
diminishing access to local justice (with consequential pressure on MP’s surgeries CAB’s
and social services).
7. The threatened solicitors firms and Barrister’s Chambers, who provide local access to
Justice, once gone will never return thus leaving the way open for the corporate
juggernauts such as G4S and Stobart Lorries. What is their track record in this field? Do
we have to say any more?
8. A perceived incentive to plead guilty provided by a single fee whether innocent or
guilty will reduce confidence in our Justice system and be counterproductive. Defendants
will fail to take sensible advice and may plead not guilty contrary to advice given which
they may suspect to be tainted by financial considerations.
9. The 30% reduction in fees for large cases ignores the fact that these cases require
additional work. The Prosecuting authorities spend a great deal of money and time in
preparing and presenting these case for the court but this work may be undone by
discouraging defence teams from maintaining the necessary skills to assist.
10. The £37500 income limit for legal aid in the Crown Court, above which no-one will
qualify for legally aided representation, discriminates against middle income earners who
find themselves suddenly accused of crime and yet have insufficient capital savings to
suddenly be forced to fund private legal representation. These people should still be
Chancellor George Osborne claimed ‘the cost of legal aid per head is double the European average.’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/spending-review/10143782/Spending-Review-2013-GeorgeOsbornes-speech-in-full.html
5
6
National Audit Office Briefing for the House Of Commons Justice Committee February 2012 Ministry of
Justice ‘Comparing International Criminal Justice Systems’ Part 3 paragraph 3.3.
Regulated and authorised by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority
SRA No. 68448
entitled to legal aid but required to repay on conviction by instalments as rapidly as
possible. (Immediately if funds are by then available)
11. [Add here variable or local detail relevant to the consultation and your area/firm
if you wish to make such points]
I hope the forthcoming debate on criminal legal aid will be well supported. I hope you
will attend this debate and in the meantime make your views known to The Lord
Chancellor and the MOJ.
Yours sincerely
Robin Murray
Robin Murray & Co
Enc: Graph separately attached.
Regulated and authorised by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority
SRA No. 68448