I refer to the lead letter on the Carter Review from Philip Beardwell (see [2006] Gazette, 2 March, 15). I am a chartered accountant who qualified in 1974, and for the past 21 years I have specialised in forensic accountancy, particularly in legally aided criminal defence work, although I have also assisted in prosecution cases.

I agree with Mr Beardwell that it is meaningless to compare our system with other jurisdictions without proper investigation. I found the review made grim reading.


The objectives are laudable but the proposals will be a nightmare for the so-called criminal defence teams, such as the use of composite rates - no doubt cut-throat rates - and re-tendering two or three times during the three phases for contracts, which may be only one to two years. Not much chance for planning there.


Among other matters, Mr Beardwell also refers to the lack of examination of 'the increased use of and expense of expert evidence within criminal cases'. Again, I agree with this, noting, however, that detailed representations were submitted by various expert witness organisations.


Furthermore, I draw attention to the Legal Services Commission's consultation paper The use of experts - quality, price and procedures in publicly funded cases. These recommendations were planned to be in place by around March 2005. However, it provoked such a massive response from stakeholders, not least the expert witnesses, that it seems to have been sidelined. One major criticism was the total lack of financial data on expenditure.


It seems to be a recurring theme that far-reaching decisions are proposed by the Department for Constitutional Affairs without proper investigation and thus without reference to any underlying evidence.


Steve Redhead, R&M Chartered Accountants, Manchester