Trials in absentia and the cuts to criminal legal aid

Abstract

The swingeing cuts to criminal legal aid may do irreparable damage to the defence side of the equality of arms. Coupled with this, the case of R v Jones gives the judge discretion to try in the defendant’s absence without representation or being present as a litigant-in-person. It is arguable that the defendant’s right to be heard will be chipped away at until the defence side is left legally crippled. The enactment of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is insular and neglects the defendant’s rights systemically. Without an adequate defence, squalid injustice will permeate and reverberate throughout the criminal justice system. Defendants cannot be corralled into court without the assistance of an advocate. The impact of the cuts falls on the litigant-in-person, thereby delimiting access to justice. Thus it disallows the opportunity to raise a proper defence. The sequela of the attack against the defence is a retreat back to the pre-1690s when defendants had very limited chances of being represented. Expense should not quell the right to be heard. Will the 2012 Act administer the coup de grace to the right to be heard or will Magna Carta be a heaven-sent ancient bulwark against this threat?