Crown court judges oppose legal aid changes Lawyers protest against legal aid cuts outside parliament. The criticism from judges reflects widespread antagonism to the changes in the legal profession. Crown court judges have delivered a damning response to government plans to prevent defendants from choosing their solicitor and slice a further £220m off the legal aid budget. The submission by the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges is one of about 13,000 replies to the public consultation on radical reforms proposed by the justice secretary, Chris Grayling. The release of such critical comments from senior judicial figures reflects widespread antagonism to the changes within the legal profession. Under the plans, the cost of judicial reviews will rise steeply, lawyers' fees will be slashed and criminal legal aid contracts will be awarded through competitive tendering. The consultation closed on 4 June. One of the most controversial elements is the removal of suspects' ability to choose their own solicitor. The Ministry of Justice says that if it does not remove this, it cannot guarantee firms tendering for defence representation contracts enough business to enable them to make savings through economies of scale. Responding to the plans, the council of circuit judges said: "We are strongly opposed to this proposal. In our view, the financial guarantees for the providers have been obtained at the expense of the accused's choice of representation ... We believe that the general public favour an alleged offender having the right to choose his legal representative. It will remain for those who are able to fund their representation but not for the poorer sections of the community. Choice seems to be favoured in other areas of publicly funded service but, on purely economic grounds, is ruled out of legal services. We can easily envisage the dismay which a defendant may feel if they are allocated to one contract holder and they know that the solicitor of their choice is employed by another contract holder and that it is no more than the wheel of fortune which precludes him or her from the solicitor of choice. That will appear to the defendant, and we suggest the general public, to be bizarre. Conversely, the defendant, or a member of his family, may have been previously represented by a solicitor and have formed a hostile opinion of that solicitor. It matters not whether that opinion is justified or not; there will be no confidence and likely to be an unwillingness to accept advice. In general terms, the judges, who sit in crown and county courts in England and Wales, said they deplored the way the consultation had been rushed through. We are saddened that the measures proposed seem to be based upon bald assertions concerning the cost of provision of legal aid in the United Kingdom but without analysis of the factors involved, and seeking to compare with other jurisdictions where the structure of the justice system is not comparable. It appears to us from the consultation paper that justification for the proposals is based on assertions that legal aid has lost much of its credibility with the public, that it has been used to fund frivolous claims, to foot the bills of wealthy criminals and to enrich lawyers, yet no evidence is cited to support those assertions, nor has consideration apparently been given to whether such concerns as may be legitimate might not be met by proper use of existing powers.