Acceptance that a single anecdote does not constitute evidence is something I wish were more prevalent in political discourse.
The conclusion from this case however probably represents more than a single anecdote especially as it repeats common observations from all those involved in the justice system:
‘Money may have been saved from the legal aid funds, but an equal amount of expense, if not more, has been incurred in terms of the costs of judges’ and court time. The result is that there is, in fact, no economy at all,’ he said.
This follows parliamentary consideration of the broader evidence last week.
Most of us will not find the MoJs somewhat complacent response convincing, as indeed did the Committee itself:
‘When the National Audit Office specifically looked at our civil legal aid reforms it was only able to identify small additional costs to the MoJ – approximately 1% of the £300m savings’.
Plus of course they had to chuck in that old gem we so love:
‘When we began reform we had one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world at £2bn a year and even after reform it will remain very generous at around £1.5bn per year.’
Knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing is something else to avoid – so back to the headline case:
‘Worse, this way of dealing with cases runs the risk that a correct result will not be reached because the court does not have the legal assistance of counsel that it should have and the court has no other legal assistance available.’
