*/
The Legal Services Commission (“LSC”) has come under fire over its criminal legal aid reforms in a devastating National Audit Office (“NAO”) report.
The report, into the procurement of criminal legal aid, warns that reforms to criminal legal aid threaten value for money and the provision of an essential public service. It criticises the LSC for relying on “inaccurate and incomplete” data.
“The cost of criminal legal aid provision is driven by a number of factors, including the complexities of the criminal justice system, and the level of crime, both of which are beyond the control of the Commission,” it says.
The report also claims the LSC does not understand the market in which it operates, stating:
“In particular, we consider that the Commission has not marshalled the knowledge of its local managers well enough to develop a good understanding of the market for criminal legal aid, such as the cost structures of different types of firms and their profit margins.”
It concludes that no further reforms should proceed without having been properly piloted using guidance from the Office of Government Commerce. Paul Mendelle QC, Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “This report confirms what [we have] told the government time and again: that cuts to legal aid are unjustified and unprincipled, as legal aid expenditure is controlled and falling in real terms. The drivers of legal aid expenditure are the government’s own policies, not the actions of barristers.”
Carolyn Regan, LSC chief executive, said: “Work is already underway to implement their proposals.”
“The cost of criminal legal aid provision is driven by a number of factors, including the complexities of the criminal justice system, and the level of crime, both of which are beyond the control of the Commission,” it says.
The report also claims the LSC does not understand the market in which it operates, stating:
“In particular, we consider that the Commission has not marshalled the knowledge of its local managers well enough to develop a good understanding of the market for criminal legal aid, such as the cost structures of different types of firms and their profit margins.”
It concludes that no further reforms should proceed without having been properly piloted using guidance from the Office of Government Commerce. Paul Mendelle QC, Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “This report confirms what [we have] told the government time and again: that cuts to legal aid are unjustified and unprincipled, as legal aid expenditure is controlled and falling in real terms. The drivers of legal aid expenditure are the government’s own policies, not the actions of barristers.”
Carolyn Regan, LSC chief executive, said: “Work is already underway to implement their proposals.”
The Legal Services Commission (“LSC”) has come under fire over its criminal legal aid reforms in a devastating National Audit Office (“NAO”) report.
The report, into the procurement of criminal legal aid, warns that reforms to criminal legal aid threaten value for money and the provision of an essential public service. It criticises the LSC for relying on “inaccurate and incomplete” data.
The beginning of the legal year offers the opportunity for a renewed commitment to justice and the rule of law both at home and abroad
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
Providing bespoke mortgage and protection solutions for barristers
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
From a traumatic formative education to exceptional criminal silk – Laurie-Anne Power KC talks about her path to the Bar, pursuit of equality and speaking out against discrimination (not just during Black History Month)
Yasmin Ilhan explains the Law Commission’s proposals for a quicker, easier and more effective contempt of court regime
Irresponsible use of AI can lead to serious and embarrassing consequences. Sam Thomas briefs barristers on the five key risks and how to avoid them
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series