Otterburn Gambaccini and Magna Carta
PLEASE RESPOND TO THE
CONSULTATION ON LEGAL AID WHICH CLOSES TOMORROW. THE LINK IS:
We do not
apologise for reiterating the need for everyone involved in criminal justice to
respond to this Consultation.
The Ministry of
Justice website states as follows “We are now consulting on the reports
undertaken by Otterburn Legal Consulting and KPMG (including MOJ’s response to
the analysis) of findings, assumptions in their analysis, as well as a number
of duty provider contracts that should be tendered in the forthcoming procurement exercise by Otterburn Legal
Consulting and KPMG.”
Amazingly, Otterburn Legal consulting whose
report is the subject of this Consultation, have taken the highly unusual step
of responding to the consultation
itself. This demonstrates not just the degree of professional dismay that
the expert authors have clearly experienced but also the high stakes involved
in the Consultation; no less than the fate of criminal defence in England and
Wales.
In the report,
http://www.otterburn.co.uk/141008%20MOJ%20consultation%20questions%20-%20AO_VL%20response.pdf
Otterburn state
that the Duty Provider Contract Additional Information published by the Legal
Aid Agency in February 2014 included a reference to the findings from Otterburn
that bidding organisations would employ at least one full-time fee earner with
relevant experience of crime work for every £83,000 of the indicative contract
value.
Otterburn state
in their response that this was not the finding of their report, this
was a calculation made by the Ministry of Justice based on certain figures
included in the Otterburn report.
Otterburn state that they do not agree with the way that the figures
have been calculated which imposes an artificial constraint on firms’ ability
to develop different operational models.
Otterburn then comment on the assumptions adopted by KPMG.
Otterburn make clear that they had no input into the design of the KPMG financial
models or the underlying assumptions that these were based on. Otterburn say that they were very clear that
the assumption that firms would give up 50% of own client work if awarded a
duty solicitor contract “was incorrect and would not happen”. Of course not as all firms rely on their own
clients to generate the majority of their profits.
Otterburn also
describes as unsafe; the KPMG assumption that work levels would remain constant
for the purpose of modelling future contract sizes.
They also take
issue with the MOJ’s assumption that a 5% profit margin was unnecessary, and
call it “highly imprudent”. They accuse the MoJ of adopting a “high risk
assumption”.
All of the above
may appear boring and technical, but it is of real importance. Of greatest
significance is the fact that Otterburn whose Report we are being asked to
respond to have now undermined key figures, analysis and assumptions which
underpin the Consultation. This is a
damning verdict not only on the narrow issues the MoJ wants us to consider but
also more crucially on the validity of the model that the MoJ wants us all to
accept as a fait accompli.
Otterburn has had the integrity to speak truth
to power. We must honour that integrity by responding.
THIS MEANS IT IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO
RESPOND
Police Bail
This week the
police announced that they will be taking no further action against Paul
Gambaccini who had been on bail for nearly a year. There were the usual indignant voices in the
press complaining about the injustice of this man being on bail for so
long without knowing whether he was
going to be charged with criminal offences.
Paul Gambaccini
is the thin edge of the wedge. There are
many, many more on bail for very long periods of time, their lives effectively
on hold, and for every suspect who is on bail for months at a time there are
victims equally subjected to the agonising wait, not knowing whether they will
be giving evidence or not, not knowing what is going to happen to their case.
The Law Society
has recently been extremely vocal about how extended bail periods, and I read
recently that even where a decision is finally made and suspects are charged
some cases are being listed in 2016!
We need to stand
up for every part of the criminal justice system that is under threat; for
prisons, for probation, for victims, for suspects, for defendants, for the
police, and for the courts.
In February
2015, Mr Grayling seeks to showcase our legal system to the world, the flim
flam of pageant a mask concealing the dismantling of our justice system.
We must show the
world the current state of our justice system, a 21
st Century
edifice with early 20
th Century access to justice.
Mr Grayling has
degraded or traduced every element of our justice system including the panoply
of rights that the post war generation introduced. Independence,
rigour, access and choice all gone or going. This is what the world needs to
hear.
we should not lose sight of the millions removed from scope in civil law .The relentless attack on rates of pay is directly connected to removing the resources available to ordinary people who have cause to challenge to actions and decisions of the state and who without public support cannot access the justice system .
ReplyDelete