United by Cuts: Exploring the Symmetry between How Lawyers and Expert Witnesses Experience Funding Cuts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14296/ac.v3i3.5438Abstract
This article highlights that defence lawyers and expert witnesses appear to have experienced the impact of criminal legal aid funding cuts in similar ways. Despite the very different and specialized nature of their respective work, both sets of professional participants in the criminal process identify that funding cuts create problems around sustainability and quality of service.
While a growing body of literature has well documented, and continues to document, the perilous position that defence lawyers are in as a result of funding cuts, less is known about the effect of funding cuts on the work done by expert witnesses. To that end, we conducted two focus groups with expert witnesses during which we put to them some findings from our study of the impact of legal aid cuts on lawyers conducting appellate and Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) case work. During interviews in the CCRC study, it became apparent that defence lawyers were struggling to instruct expert witnesses, so we wanted to explore that issue more with expert witnesses themselves. In doing so, we discovered a significant overlap in the concerns expressed by both defence lawyers and expert witnesses regarding the ways in which their work was affected by funding cuts.
Keywords: expert witnesses; legal aid; defence lawyers; sustainability; quality; morale.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Those who contribute items to Amicus Curiae retain author copyright in their work but are asked to grant two licences. One is a licence to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, enabling us to reproduce the item in digital form, so that it can be made available for access online in the open journal system, repository, and website. The terms of the licence which you are asked to grant to the University for this purpose are as follows:
'I grant to the University of London the irrevocable, non-exclusive royalty-free right to reproduce, distribute, display, and perform this work in any format including electronic formats throughout the world for educational, research, and scientific non-profit uses during the full term of copyright including renewals and extensions'.
The other licence is for the benefit of those who wish to make use of items published online in Amicus Curiae and stored in the e-repository. For this purpose we use a Creative Commons licence (http://www.creativecommons.org.uk/); which allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to your entry in Amicus Curiae and/or SAS-SPACE; but they can't change them in any way or use them commercially.
