Now that there is no payment under legal aid for magistrates’ court work which is committed to the Crown court, I find myself in a practical equivalent of the paradox described by Schrödinger and his dead or alive moggy.
I have a representation order for a youth charged with two robberies. The details of the allegation are such that representations have been made to the prosecution that alternatives of assault and handling would be more appropriate. The court clerk has already made her view clear that, if the charge remains as robbery, she will strongly advise on committal as a grave crime. If my representations are accepted the case will stay in the Youth Court.
So at this moment in time I am both funded and not funded. I am certainly legally aided. But where is the incentive to waste time actually bothering to represent this youth with no previous convictions? If I attend court, secure an adjournment, make representations and attend court again, only to find I have been unsuccessful, I will be paid not a single penny for the work (not even the travel costs of getting to the court). If I succeed, I will be paid a lower category 1 fee.
Where is the incentive to take the risk of non-payment when the interests of justice clearly demand that this individual should have representation?
And when the Legal Services Commission comes to audit me and demands the instant creation of a work-in-progress figure, should I refer them to the paradox of Schrödinger’s cat, or just pluck a figure out of thin air?
Andrew Port, Dexter & Port, Reading
No comments yet