and efficient system)，值得香港參考。公帑要用得其所，尤其是涉及民事訴訟的法律援助，有點像醫療服務，與香港沒有緊密連繫的非本地居民，民事訴訟不獲法律援助，也很有道理。英國法務國務大臣(Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice)在咨詢文件寫的前言，簡要說明理據，整份文件的連結在此 。
Ministerial Foreword
Access to justice should not be determined by your ability to pay, and I am clear that legal aid is the hallmark of a fair, open justice system. Unfortunately, over the past decade, the system has lost much of its credibility with the public. Taxpayers’ money has been used to pay for frivolous claims,to foot the legal bills of wealthy criminals, and to cover cases which run on and on racking up large fees for a small number of lawyers, far in excess of what senior public servants are paid. Under the previous government, the cost of the system spiralled out of control, and it became one of the most costly in the world.
Earlier in this Parliament, the Government took significant steps to reform legal aid, to bring costs under control particularly in relation to civil claims. In the current financial climate, it is now necessary to make further savings by embarking on the next phase of reform, mainly focused on criminal cases. The principles which underpin these proposals are simple: to ensure that those who can afford to pay do so; to make certain that legal aid is not funding cases which lack merit or which are better dealt with outside court; and to encourage greater efficiency in the criminal justice system to reduce costs. The hardworking public pay for legal aid, and we must deliver a system which commands their confidence and spends their money wisely.
Under these reforms, those with significantly higher than average incomes will no longer be eligible for financial support in criminal cases; those who have no strong connection with the UK will cease to have their civil legal costs covered too. Prisoners who wish to challenge their treatment in custody will have recourse to the prisoner complaints procedures rather than accessing a lawyer through legal aid; on Judicial Reviews, lawyers who bring weak cases will no longer be reimbursed; and cases with less than a 50% chance of success will no longer be funded. This is a comprehensive package of measures to restore the public’s faith in the system.
To deliver real savings, it is necessary to drive greater efficiency in the legal aid system too. For criminal litigation, we are proposing a model of competitive tendering, where solicitors firms must compete to offer the best price they can for work in their local area. This will mean successful firms expanding or joining together, to achieve economies of scale which can be passed onto the taxpayer in savings to the public purse. For criminal advocacy, we intend to reform the fee structure, to ensure that cases are resolved as quickly as possible, which will mean less time required of lawyers, and lower costs to the legal aid bill. The impact of these changes will also help remedy the great disparity which had emerged within the legal profession by reducing the payments to that small number of lawyers earning very high fees whilst protecting the majority of barristers who should not lose out as a result of our proposals. Indeed, some of the lowest fee earners will be better off.
In short, the reforms outlined in this document both boost public confidence in and reduce the cost of the legal aid system. In the medium term, I am keen to explore further ways for convicted criminals to bear a greater proportion of their legal costs themselves, rather than the bill simply falling to the taxpayer. Whether through deductions from future earnings, or by some other means, we should be seeking to ease the burden of legal aid on the public purse, whilst guaranteeing everyone the right to a defence.
Though in Britain today we face serious challenges, this must not undermine our determination for reform or our desire to achieve the best value for the taxpayer. These proposals are bold but fair, and I look forward to hearing your views.
Chris Grayling
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
Access to justice should not be determined by your ability to pay, and I am clear that legal aid is the hallmark of a fair, open justice system. Unfortunately, over the past decade, the system has lost much of its credibility with the public. Taxpayers’ money has been used to pay for frivolous claims,to foot the legal bills of wealthy criminals, and to cover cases which run on and on racking up large fees for a small number of lawyers, far in excess of what senior public servants are paid. Under the previous government, the cost of the system spiralled out of control, and it became one of the most costly in the world.
Earlier in this Parliament, the Government took significant steps to reform legal aid, to bring costs under control particularly in relation to civil claims. In the current financial climate, it is now necessary to make further savings by embarking on the next phase of reform, mainly focused on criminal cases. The principles which underpin these proposals are simple: to ensure that those who can afford to pay do so; to make certain that legal aid is not funding cases which lack merit or which are better dealt with outside court; and to encourage greater efficiency in the criminal justice system to reduce costs. The hardworking public pay for legal aid, and we must deliver a system which commands their confidence and spends their money wisely.
Under these reforms, those with significantly higher than average incomes will no longer be eligible for financial support in criminal cases; those who have no strong connection with the UK will cease to have their civil legal costs covered too. Prisoners who wish to challenge their treatment in custody will have recourse to the prisoner complaints procedures rather than accessing a lawyer through legal aid; on Judicial Reviews, lawyers who bring weak cases will no longer be reimbursed; and cases with less than a 50% chance of success will no longer be funded. This is a comprehensive package of measures to restore the public’s faith in the system.
To deliver real savings, it is necessary to drive greater efficiency in the legal aid system too. For criminal litigation, we are proposing a model of competitive tendering, where solicitors firms must compete to offer the best price they can for work in their local area. This will mean successful firms expanding or joining together, to achieve economies of scale which can be passed onto the taxpayer in savings to the public purse. For criminal advocacy, we intend to reform the fee structure, to ensure that cases are resolved as quickly as possible, which will mean less time required of lawyers, and lower costs to the legal aid bill. The impact of these changes will also help remedy the great disparity which had emerged within the legal profession by reducing the payments to that small number of lawyers earning very high fees whilst protecting the majority of barristers who should not lose out as a result of our proposals. Indeed, some of the lowest fee earners will be better off.
In short, the reforms outlined in this document both boost public confidence in and reduce the cost of the legal aid system. In the medium term, I am keen to explore further ways for convicted criminals to bear a greater proportion of their legal costs themselves, rather than the bill simply falling to the taxpayer. Whether through deductions from future earnings, or by some other means, we should be seeking to ease the burden of legal aid on the public purse, whilst guaranteeing everyone the right to a defence.
Though in Britain today we face serious challenges, this must not undermine our determination for reform or our desire to achieve the best value for the taxpayer. These proposals are bold but fair, and I look forward to hearing your views.
Chris Grayling
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice
沒有留言:
發佈留言