Society backs 'minute of action' on criminal legal aid

The Law Society has thrown its weight behind plans for a 'minute of action' on the criminal legal aid cuts on 4 June, the day the government's consultation closes.

Solicitors and barristers have been asked to take part, by standing in silence outside the doors of criminal courts across England and Wales, at 9.59am, a minute before proceedings commence.

However, it is understood that campaigners are keen that the protest is not labelled as a 'minute of silence', as this might be seen to be admitting defeat.

"This one minute of action will draw attention to these government plans, which we believe are unworkable and possibly unlawful," Des Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, said.

The protest has been organised by Rachel Bentley (pictured), solicitor at Trinity Advocates in Exeter, whose e-petition against the cuts, first reported by Solicitors Journal, has been now signed by more than 47,000 people.

In a separate development, the legal services consumer panel has joined the growing body of critics of the MoJ's plans for price competitive tendering (PCT).

"When a person's liberty is at stake, they must have the freedom to choose who will defend them," Elisabeth Davies, chair of the panel, said.

"The public will not have confidence in a system where the defendant's lawyer is chosen by the very state seeking to convict them.

"Allowing consumers to punish the worst providers by exercising choice is the best way of ensuring that quality is not sacrificed in a price-bidding war.

"Consumers need to be given the tools to make the market work on their terms and this shouldn't be dependent on how you pay for your legal services."

In its formal response to the government consultation, the consumer panel said the decision to remove choice was "surprising given the direction of government policy on public services in other departments".

The panel said that markets worked well when they were shaped by consumer needs, not the commercial needs of providers, and warned that the biggest impact could be on vulnerable clients.

"We are persuaded by arguments made by many lawyers in their comments on the proposals, that time and money is saved by knowing if a client has special needs, e.g. a pre-existing mental health condition.

"Furthermore, that when a lawyer is known and trusted by a repeat client, they are more likely to accept advice which may be unpalatable to them, e.g. to make a guilty plea rather than proceed to trial.

"These relationships not only deliver savings to the justice system, but spare victims and witnesses the emotional stress and time of appearing in court."