Since the 18th March, 2013, I have attended a complicated Fraud Trial centering around Film Tax Credit and VAT.
Whilst I have no intention whatsoever of commenting on the precise details of that Trial it is relevant to point out that there were 4 defendants and would have been 5 if one had not passed away.
It was what the Lawyers like to describe as a ‘Cut-throat’ Trial wherein each defendant blamed one or more of their fellow accused, together with the deceased, as being responsible for elements of dubious practices.
In itself there is nothing remarkable about this and the Law has taken its course and guilt or innocence has been proclaimed by the Jury.
What does concern me though is the Grayling proposals for reform of the Legal Aid system.
Under the Grayling proposals those defendants using Legal Aid would have had Court appointed Solicitors foisted upon them who would probably have lacked the experience or ability to act in such a specialist field. Once you are using inexperienced Solicitors it would seem highly likely that the danger occurs of the use of equally inexperienced Barristers in representing them in the Crown Court. This is even more likely as the Solicitors appointed will be selected from a pool of representatives of the legal profession who will come from companies motivated by profit and not their clients justice and they will not want to be using ‘high’ value Barristers to take their cases to the next stage as this would mitigate the profit.
All defendants should have an equal opportunity to defend themselves but when it impinges on specialist fields such as fraud this definitely will not be the case under the Grayling proposals. It will be one law for the rich and another for the poor.
This is just one major flaw I can see happening from first hand experience and I am sure there are many others.
tyersgate 