Legal aid levels
Last week I considered the impact on the prison population of the passing of criminal statutes. This week I would like to consider the impact of government policy on legal aid levels.
There are three principal areas which have to be considered which impact upon the amount of legal aid which could be required (other than fee levels themselves). Firstly the granting of rights. Secondly the imposition of penalties for offences. Thirdly the consequences of immigration. Each of these areas has consequences for the amount of money which will be spent on legal aid.
Post Human Rights Act there has for example been something of an explosion in asylum work and points taken relating to human rights. It would seem somewhat odd to implement the Act and then not expect people to litigate and in doing so seek to rely upon the rights granted. That therefore must be a foreseeable consequence of the implementation of the Act. The same with other legislation giving rise to various rights. These will inevitably increase the demands upon the legal aid budget. They are however a consequence of government introduced legislation, not the approach of lawyers (other than in seeking to obtain on behalf of their clients the protection of the rights introduced). Thus while seeking to reduce the legal aid budget by taking certain categories of claim effectively out of it, pressure on the legal aid budget has been increased by legislation.
This comes very sharply into focus when considering crime. Introducing all sorts of new crimes (including crimes which arise from breach of civil orders such as Asbos) is inevitably going to mean more criminal trials. Quite apart from any pressure upon prison places, the pressure upon the criminal legal aid budget will be the more intense. Only those cases which actually result in imprisonment will affect the prison statistics. All cases where the defendant requires representation will affect the legal aid budget.
Immigration is another area with a foreseeable impact upon criminal cases. If the population increases, one would expect the levels of crime to increase. Many immigrants will not be fluent in English. The police understandably complain about the impact this has for interviews, but it has the same impact for trials. Interpreters have to be paid for. Moreover, as anyone who has conducted a trial using an interpreter will verify, such trials tend to take longer. Not only is the procedure of questioning slowed down, but a jury is likely to have a harder time considering demeanour when the defendant is answering questions. That is also likely to slow their deliberations.
This is even before one considers specific crime problems caused or anticipated in respect of particular populations. There was widespread press speculation that the Home Office had a number of briefing papers regarding the expected relocation of criminal elements from Romania and Bulgaria to this country once they were able to come. That again will inevitably have an impact upon public funding of criminal work.
Everyone accepts that public spending is subject to constraints. If limits have to be imposed upon for example the amount of money spent upon health, it is difficult to argue that in principle the law should be treated differently. However government actions do not determine (hopefully!) Locates that he levels of sickness. They do in large part determine the levels of certain types of legal proceedings and hence the need for public funding. When considering provision for legal aid whether civil or criminal, it must be incumbent upon the government to bear firmly in mind the impact and effect of its own actions.