I reckon that the busiest groups of civil servants currently are those monitoring Government sponsored consultation processes. Under the present Government there are literally hundreds of consultations launched every year. The official line is that consultation is about making government more open and policies more effective by listening to and taking on board views of the public and interested groups, and has become an integral part of the policy-making process.
And here comes another, launched by the Ministry of Justice, which department alone has over 80 consultation exercises in progress at the moment. It concerns proposals to reform the way costs from central funds are awarded in the defence of privately funded defendants acquitted in criminal cases in England and Wales. This is in the context that the Government is committed to the principle that state funding in the form of legal aid should be available to individual defendants who cannot afford to pay for their own representation. “But it also believes that those who can afford to pay towards the cost of their defence should do so. For these reasons, means testing was reintroduced in the magistrates’ court in 2006 and we are currently consulting on a pilot of means testing in the crown court.†Changes are not proposed to the current arrangements for private prosecutor, witness, medical expert or interpreter costs, which are also paid from central funds.
What is being proposed is that, in future, any individual who does not apply for legal aid in defending their case would no longer be able to receive back their legal costs from central funds. This would be a reversal of the practice that those found innocent of charges brought by the state are compensated for the costs they have incurred in defending themselves. Under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, if an individual pays for their defence privately they can usually reclaim reasonable costs and expenses from central funds if they are acquitted. An interesting, if debatable, analogy with private education is offered in support. “Just as an individual who chooses to put their child through private education does not reclaim this cost from the education system, nor should public funding recompense those that choose to pay privately for a lawyer when a publicly funded alternative is available.â€
According to ‘The Times’, the proposals have prompted outrage. Frances Gibb reports that, amongst others, motoring groups and lawyers have criticised them as a fundamental breach of principle. She quotes Edmund King, president of the AA, as saying that the proposal is “against the common law and against the common manâ€; and Ian Kelcey, head of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, as condemning the proposal as a “disgrace.â€
The consultation will close on 29 January 2009. Full details are available at
http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/award-costs-central-funds.pdf
If you want to see the full range and extent of current consultation exercises, navigate your way round
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/PublicConsultations/DG_4003113


