header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 March 2017 / Steve Hynes
Issue: 7739 / Categories: Opinion , Legal aid focus , Profession
printer mail-detail

Criminal actions

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Will the government learn from past criminal legal aid mistakes, asks Steve Hynes

Michael Gove’s time at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was mainly marked by a series of policy u-turns which dismantled the legacy of his predecessor, Chris Grayling, and earned him plaudits from the legal profession. For legal aid, it was the abandonment of two-tier contracts in criminal legal aid which was perhaps the most dramatic of his policy reversals. This was forced on him by a combination of effective campaigning by criminal legal aid lawyers and bad advice from his civil servants. Gove’s successor, Liz Truss, seems to not to have learnt any lessons from this debacle and is heading for another showdown with criminal legal aid lawyers.

Two-tier contracts

Successive legal aid administrators have been attracted to the idea of putting duty work for police and magistrates’ court work out to tender. In March 2009, the then Labour government announced it was going to introduce a system of best value tendering (BVT) for the work. At the time many practitioners

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll