A judicial review has been launched against Ministry of Justice (MoJ) cuts to legal aid fees for Crown Court cases with heavy workloads, such as terror, fraud and serious historic sex cases.
The Law Society issued proceedings in the High Court this week against the MoJ’s decision to slash payment for defence lawyers—it confirmed in October 2017 that it would reduce the maximum number of pages of prosecution evidence that lawyers can claim for from 10,000 to 6,000.
The MoJ’s plans are highly controversial—the consultation received 1,005 responses, almost all opposing the proposals. In June 2017, a Law Society practice note reminded legal aid defence solicitors that they can exercise discretion when deciding to accept cases if the work threatens the viability of their firm.
Defence lawyers say the cuts mean they may no longer have the resources to review evidence as thoroughly as is required. Business sustainability is another concern.
Adam Makepeace, practice manager at criminal law firm Tuckers Solicitors, said: ‘At a time when the issue of miscarriages of justice is making front page headlines because of failures by the police and CPS to comply with their disclosure obligations, it is obvious to all how important it is that there is effective representation of defendants in criminal trials.
‘Inflation has already eroded the value of legal aid rates by over 40% since they were last increased over 20 years ago—and repeated rate cuts on top of this have left the criminal defence sector hanging by the thread of the goodwill of dedicated legal aid lawyers. This may be the cut that finally snaps that thread.’
Carol Storer, director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, said: ‘We are pleased the Law Society has brought this judicial review, mindful that fee cuts have been an enormous worry for law firms in the last few years.
‘Research into the impact on sustainability shows that these cuts are a massive concern. We also feel strongly that if you bid for a contract on the basis of fees being at a certain level that those fees should not then be cut, making it more difficult to deliver on that contract. How can people run a business on that basis?’
Law Society president Joe Egan warned that disclosure of evidence is ‘integral’ to a criminal investigation.
‘Their justification for this cut is that electronic and social media evidence is not always relevant to the complexity of the case,’ he said.
‘However, it was exactly this social media evidence that defence lawyers had to examine in order to secure the exoneration of Liam Allan [who was falsely accused of rape and whose trial collapsed after three days when it emerged the police had failed to disclose crucial evidence].’
An MoJ spokesperson said it would respond within the 21-day time limit when it received formal notice of the proceedings being served, adding: ‘Defence solicitors do valuable work and we remunerate them fairly. We will defend any challenge vigorously.’
