Legal watchdog warns budget cuts will damage justice

Depriving defendants of the ability to choose their own solicitor will undermine confidence in the criminal justice system, an official legal watchdog warned on Monday.

The Legal Services Consumer Panel has branded Ministry of Justice proposals to slice at least £220m from the criminal legal aid budget as unfair and likely to damage the quality of representation in courts and police stations.

The strongly worded rejection of one of the key elements of the MoJ's plans comes amid a swelling chorus of complaints from legal bodies who warn that the proposals will lead to an increase in miscarriages of justice.

A mass protest by lawyers outside parliament is due to take place on Wednesday organised by the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association, while the Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, has asked members to stage a one-minute "pause for unity" in courts on 4 June to oppose the "unworkable and possibly unlawful" cuts.

The Commons justice select committee is expected to hold an inquiry into the controversial measures unveiled last month by the justice secretary, Chris Grayling.

Under the plans the cost of judicial reviews will rise steeply, lawyers' fees are to be slashed and criminal legal aid contracts awarded through competitive tendering. Virtually the only company to express interest in the contracts in public has been Stobart Barristers, a legal subsidiary of the haulage conglomerate.

Criminal defence lawyers fear the MoJ's proposed fee structure will result in advocates being paid the same for a guilty plea as a trial lasting up to three days. This, they say, introduces perverse incentives and a danger of miscarriage of justice.

The Consumer Legal Services Panel's formal response to the consultation is particularly damaging since its members are appointed by the lord chancellor, who is also the justice secretary. The panel is an independent arm of the Legal Services Board, a government quango.

Removing client choice, the panel says, is "unfair in principle, not the most effective means of achieving the intended competition benefits, goes against the grain of government policy for other public services [and] risks undermining quality".

It adds: "Vulnerable clients may suffer most. Confidence in the legal aid system may be undermined if people accused of a crime are allocated legal representation by an agency of the state which is seeking to convict them.

"Consumers value choice and … allowing consumers to choose their lawyer would help to safeguard quality as poor providers know they will be punished by the market."

Elisabeth Davies, chair of the Legal Services Consumer Panel, said: "When a person's liberty is at stake, they must have the freedom to choose who will defend them. The public will not have confidence in a system where the defendant's lawyer is chosen by the very state seeking to convict them. Allowing consumers to punish the worst providers by exercising choice is the best way of ensuring that quality is not sacrificed in a price bidding war."

The MoJ says that in order to guarantee that firms awarded contracts receive a sufficient number of cases each year, it has to remove the right of defendants funded by legal aid to select their own solicitor.

Among other bodies preparing responses to Grayling's plans is the Criminal Cases Review Commission. "It stands to reason that if you do something that depletes the quality of representation … you obviously increase the risk there will be a miscarriage," a legal source said.

In a letter to the Guardian, the housing charity Shelter and the Bar Council, which represents barristers, warn that changes to judicial review will increase homelessness. "Judicial review is the main mechanism Shelter uses to ensure local authorities meet their legal duties to help homeless people," they say.