There is, it seems, no letup for criminal practitioners, with the MoJ’s announcement of further fee reductions last week.The proposals will see cuts for police station representation and Crown court work, which – says the MoJ – are designed to rebalance the budget in favour of civil help.

Though obviously unwelcome news for practitioners, the cuts come as no real surprise. In April this year, when the Legal Services Commission launched its second consultation on best value tendering for police and magistrates’ court work, the documents contained a not very thinly veiled threat that if the profession didn’t play ball with the introduction of BVT, there would be cuts in face-to-face advice at the police station.

The profession has not let up in its opposition to BVT. Faced with almost universal criticism of the plans and the tight implementation timetable, the government was forced to announce a three-year delay in the national rollout.

So now it’s payback time.

If the intention is to cut costs, then surely the Crown court is the right place to do this. Frequently cited statistics show that Crown and higher court cases take up one third of the £2.1bn legal aid budget, and very high cost cases, which account for 1% of trials, take up 50%. Many would also say the plan to cut the fees paid to expert witnesses is long overdue.

But where is the logic in cutting fees for police station advice or limiting the availability of representation?

The MoJ asserts that the duty solicitor scheme has been overused in some parts of the country. What it means by this is unclear – surely the use of the scheme is dependent on how many people the police arrest, not the business plans of criminal solicitors?

Skimping on advice at police stations seems a short-sighted way of attempting to cut costs. While it may reduce the cost of advice at one stage, there is huge potential for it to increase costs as a case progresses through the criminal justice system if mistakes are made in the police station.