THE defence solicitor is one of the last barriers between the state and the individual.
Like healthcare (provided "free"), it is vital that when it is most needed legal representation and advice should be provided. It is acknowledges that there isn't much public, and hence political, support for legal aid. The fact that it is used sometimes to defend the apparently indefensible creates an unfortunate image of public funds being used to "get the guilty off". That may be so, but there is a phrase in business that "80% of advertising is wasted, the problem is we don't know which 80%". The difficulty in criminal justice is that we simply do not know what part is "wasted" until the trial is over, but the "not-wasted" part prevents the punishment of the innocent.
Our work involves reviewing scientific evidence in criminal cases. In other UK and international jurisdictions we receive or make copies of the lab notes and records of the prosecution. Not only does the Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA) charge for supervision of our scientists, even looking at the notes (because it refuses to allow copies), it charges the defence, and hence the Scottish Legal Aid Board, £100 an hour for the privilege. Who is happy to pay to see the evidence against them? One small practical way in which we can save money is to encourage the Scottish Government to get the SPSA to abandon this abhorrent practice that simply moves public money from one place to another, and allow the defence copies of their notes.
The argument about legal aid should not be about spending more money, it is about spending what we have more wisely. Equality of arms should not just be a principle, the system must ensure that it is practised. We must remember that it's not all about the guilty; legal aid helps protect the innocent. What we must deal with is the question of whether we want the best criminal justice system or the cheapest. It is almost certain that the two are mutually incompatible.
Professor Allan Jamieson,
Director, The Forensic Institute,
166 Buchanan Street, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article