Letters: The barristers strike back

Legal squabbles

Sir: Harry Mount’s angry and unfocused polemic (‘Against the Law’, 8 June), demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the British legal system. That is surprising from a former barrister, even if he never practised after pupillage. British justice is revered worldwide, and for good reason. Rather than deal with the disastrous effects the proposals will have, should they be implemented, Mount’s invective is preoccupied with what barristers wear, rather than what we say. Barristers prefer to focus on evidence.

What could be a bigger display of Big Government than the state charging you with a criminal offence and then allocating you a lawyer, whether or not they are suitable? That is what the legal profession is fighting. To add insult to injury, these lawyers will be allocated on price alone. Quality will be eroded by a Dutch auction style system of bidding for legal aid contacts: price competitive tendering.

Legal services are not exempt from cuts in a time of economic austerity. But what masquerades as cuts will result in far more appeals, court delays, miscarriages of justice, and an increasing number of vulnerable people having to represent themselves in court, all of which will end up costing the taxpayer far more.

If Harry Mount is happy to be represented by a trucking company should he be arrested for Bullingdon high-jinks, then that is a matter for him, but most people wouldn’t be. Of course, the likelihood of Mr Mount relying on a legal aid lawyer is nil. A recent poll found that 68 per cent of the British public agree that at less than 0.5 per cent of annual government spending, legal aid is a worthwhile investment in our basic freedoms. But why let the facts get in the way of a good argument?
Maura McGowan QC
Chairman of the Bar Council
London WC1

Sir: I had hoped for better from Harry Mount than his ill-informed populist diatribe.