The Government has got its sums wrong in its misleading defence of Legal Aid Cuts

June 24th, 2011
Stumbleupon Twitter Facebook del.icio.us Digg it Linked in

Des Hudson, Chief Executive, The Law Society England and Wales:

Ken Clarke and his fellow ministers constantly attempt to legitimise cuts in legal aid by insisting that England and Wales have “much the most expensive legal aid system in the world”. This argument is both inaccurate and misleading. David Cameron and his ministers should know better.

Only one piece of research analyses why we spend so much per head of population on legal aid in this country. It was conducted for the Ministry of Justice. And it concluded that the Government is not comparing like with like.

The first reason for our seemingly higher costs is our adversarial system. Countries with an inquisitorial one, where judges examine the evidence. spend far more on courts than on lawyers: for example, Sweden spends over 51 euros per head on courts, compared with 8 euros per head in England and Wales.

The second is that we prosecute and imprison far more people per head of population than the countries with whom Ken Clarke compares us — 3,800 people per 100,000, compared with 1,500 in the next highest country, France.

The public appetite for being tough on crime also has consequences for the amount we spend on criminal legal aid. But overall we spend less than the Netherlands and only slightly more that Sweden despite processing many more defendants through the courts.

We bring to court the drunk who got out of hand; we prosecute teenagers for consensual adolescent fumblings if one of them is under 16. And, as in one notorious case earlier this year, we prosecute people for food fights in which no one is sure who threw what.On the civil and family side, the high number of divorces in England and Wales seems responsible for driving up legal bills.

So while it is true that we spend more on criminal legal aid per head of population, if you factor in the nature of the criminal justice system and the volume of defendants processed, our system is in fact significantly cheaper than our European counterparts.

The British system of justice has evolved to suit our beliefs and values. We place maximum emphasis on the individual’s rights to be heard and to defend themselves, regardless of their means. We are justifiably proud of our global reputation as a model of justice and fair play, but this ill-conceived bill risks damaging it irrevocably. The damage will be done to those victims who not strong and have no voice. The damage will be to our society, our communities and our families.

The one thing the MoJ research proves without doubt is that Ken Clarke’s comparison is simplistic, misleading, and almost certainly wrong. Who will suffer as a result of Ken’s hang-up over this random figure? It will be the babies seriously injured in accidents during their birth, for whom there will be no civil legal aid to secure compensation.

It will be the woman looking after her disabled mother, who can no longer get advice when her carer’s benefit is wrongly stopped. It will be the man whose ex-wife will no longer let him see his children.

It will be me, you, and people like us.

Des Hudson is chief executive of the Law Society, England and Wales. This article was originally published in The Times.

  • Nathaniel Mathews

    Thank you for giving the lie to the government figures.

  • Inez Collier

    Des,this was an excellent article, thank you. How can governments bring in criminal legislation by the barrowload (the previous Government was especially fond of doing this) so nobody knows where they are, even we as lawyers have our work cut out keeping up with it all – and then deprive them of lawyers?

  • Tom Higgin

    At last some figures to counter the myth of the most expensive legal aid system in Europe. Thanks for providing these.

  • Louise

    Please keep Legal Aid for those who need it.

  • http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/06/poor-and-vulnerable-lose-out-most-from-new-justice-bill/ The poor and vulnerable will lose out most from the new Justice Bill | Left Foot Forward

    [...] Justice Bill is littered with mistakes, inaccuracies and lacks detailed impact assessments. The figures and calculations the government have used for the Justice Bill are based on assumptions rather than evidence. The [...]

  • Robertmoore

    keep up the good work and maybe the goverment will back down.We are the model on which other countries base there legal systems.Legal aid should be for everyone.

  • http://soundoffforjustice.org/83-is-the-magic-number 83 is the magic number to stop the cuts in legal aid | Sound Off For Justice

    [...] Once they do this, they must also start admitting that they’re wrong when they try to say “we have the most expensive legal system in the world” and they must start letting the public know the true cost of legal aid in the UK and how this is [...]

  • http://stevekirwan.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/legal-aid-bill-why-the-rush/ Legal Aid Bill – Why the rush? | stevekirwan

    [...] The Government attempts to legitimise the proposed cuts by arguing that we have the most expensive legal aid system in the world. This is simply not true. The only published research on this issue was carried out by the Ministry of Justice and concluded that the Government is not comparing like with like. Countries which have an inquisitorial system rather than our adversarial system spend much more on courts. Similarly, we prosecute and imprison a far larger proportion of our population and consequently spend a lot on criminal legal aid. For more information, see the post of Des Hudson, Chief Executive of the Law Society, at The Government Has Got Its Sums Wrong. [...]