I would like to make a comment in the debate about government legal aid cuts.
There should be a distinction between criminal and civil legal aid.
To my knowledge, criminal legal aid has always been dealt with differently.
I am sure the cost of criminal trials has rocketed in the last 25 years.
In the good old days, cases would be over fairly quickly.
Now, the paraphernalia of additional evidence, DNA, electronic evidence, surveillance cameras and a whole host of forensic media, all of which need to be collated, prepared and submitted, and then challenged by the opposition, serves to spin out the length of trials and the period of time for preparation.
It seems not uncommon for someone to be arrested for murder, only to be tried in 18 months or two years.
I recall the infamous trial of R v Smith in 1960, where a murder took place in the Woolwich High Road on 2 March of that year.
There was a swift trial at the Old Bailey and Jim Smith was convicted of the murder of PC Meehan and sentenced to death.
The Court of Appeal quickly reversed the conviction and the case went to the House of Lords.
The Lords ceased its deliberations on 29 June and the verdict was formally published on 30 July.
So the case went through all the courts in just a few months.
Back then, a murder case would hinge on the finding of the blood-stained body.
What additional evidence would there be?
A letter to the deceased threatening to kill him, a blood-stained knife by the body and witnesses who said: ‘I saw who did it’.
This evidence would be given at trial along with the defendant going into the box to say: ‘I didn’t do it guv, I have an alibi’. This would mean the case would probably take a couple of days.
The Hanratty murder trial of January 1962 was the longest yet - it took 21 days.
However, this was a trial in respect of a murder taking place on 21 August 1961, a few months earlier.
There was no problem then about access to justice and no problem about the swiftness of the judicial process, which cost the taxpayer a lot less.
And they got it right. Hanratty was guilty.
Richard Crumly, solicitor, Thatcham, Berks
No comments yet