Outside the Ministry of Justice on “Grayling Day” on Friday I spoke to Russell Fraser, a third six pupil at 1 Pump Court, about why he’s opposed to the government’s legal aid policy.

He mentioned what he called the

discriminatory and arbitrary residence test

for civil legal aid, which he said must be looked at again – and he mentioned the judicial review for which permission has been granted.

But he’s mainly concerned about the overall impact on justice of the government’s cuts, and especially in criminal law.

It’s not about fees … it’s more about what sort of pressures will result on the lawyers concerned … it means that the clients involved won’t get the dedication and devotion to their cases that they ought to get … we will see more miscarriages of justice; we will see more appeals, and people going free who may be guilty, and vice versa.

He queried the government’s financial justification

The spend is nothing like what the government say it is. It relies on an inflated figure which is from to or three years ago. The criminal budget continues to fall.

and picked up Subashini Nathan’s point about the amount the government spends on instructing barristers in its own cases.

Finally, he offered a proposal of his own, taking account of the international success of the commercial and chancery courts:

Why not put a levy on each of those cases that go through the Rolls Building, a small levy – and put it into legal aid?

2014-03-09T20:12:04+00:00