![](\"https:\/\/d1d8vslyhr7rdg.cloudfront.net\/pictures\/280x188\/3\/4\/7\/114347_royalcrtsofjustice_272_678727_crop.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A few duty solicitor schemes under particular strain do not amount to widespread systemic failure in the criminal legal aid sector, lawyers for the government have told High Court judges hearing a judicial review challenge brought by the Law Society over solicitors\u2019 fees.<\/p>\n
Chancery Lane is challenging the government’s decision not to raise criminal legal aid fees by the minimum 15% recommended by an independent criminal legal aid review two years ago.<\/p>\n
Sir James Eadie KC, for the lord chancellor, told Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Jay yesterday that the government does not accept there are areas where individuals are unable to access criminal legal aid representation.<\/p>\n
Eadie said: \u2018There is a functioning duty solicitor scheme in all geographic areas. There are certainly capacity challenges in a small number of areas, but these are actively being managed. There are various different factors that may feed into these particular challenges in each of these particular areas, and they are not therefore, or at all, representative of a broader systemic problem with criminal legal aid provision. Nor do we accept the remuneration decision has caused any such consequence.<\/p>\n
\u2018There are contingencies in place, including emergency deployment of the Public Defender Service, which means there will always be cover for duty solicitor slots. That\u2019s not to say these problems are not being taken seriously and that\u2019s not to say there may not be need for further thought to arrive at a more structural solution, but for the moment that\u2019s the position.\u2019<\/p>\n
On the escalating number of unrepresented defendants, Eadie cited ‘a host of reasons’ for lack of representation: the means test, the interests of justice test, or that the defendant may not need assistance.<\/p>\n
\u2018If the three factors you identified, which have existed for many years, and rates of unrepresented defendants are increasing, can one not infer causation?\u2019 Mr Justice Jay asked.\u00a0Eadie disagreed, telling the court that it could just be that a greater number of people are falling\u00a0within those categories.<\/p>\n
The court heard that the lord chancellor did not have to commission Lord Bellamy to conduct an \u2018extraordinary, detailed inquiry\u2019 and the lord chancellor knew Bellamy was not producing a figure or time \u2018that was either immediate or set in stone\u2019. However, the lord chancellor accepted almost all of Bellamy\u2019s recommendations.<\/p>\n
The resulting programme of reform will \u2018embed and preserve the continuation of a viable system\u2019, Eadie said. Consultation on how to distribute \u00a316m set aside for police station work will begin early next year.<\/p>\n
Yesterday, following a request from Mr Justice Jay, lawyers for the government produced previously undisclosed modelling used by the Bellamy review to assess by how much criminal legal aid fees would need to increase to make salaries at criminal legal aid firms broadly equivalent to those at the Crown Prosecution Service.<\/p>\n
The hearing drew to a close at lunchtime yesterday. Due to the production of new documents during the hearing, including the modelling used by the Bellamy review, Lord Justice Singh said a further witness statement would be required ‘so that there is evidence in proper form. If that is to be done by the defendant, then we feel that it is necessary the claimants must have an opportunity to respond to that evidence\u2019, Singh said.<\/p>\n
Judgment was reserved. Lord Justice Singh said a draft judgment will be circulated in the usual way on a confidential basis. Any breach of confidentiality or the embargo \u2018will be taken very seriously by this court\u2019, the judge said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/footer-300x100.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n