In light of all this, modernising and promoting confidence in the criminal justice system may seem to be a tall order. However, I do not believe it is an impossible aim.

Past efforts to alter the system have, ironically, only served to exacerbate the problems that exist. The criminal justice system has suffered from a piecemeal approach to legislative reform. Changes of policy have been implemented in quick succession leading to confusion and uncertainty. While the aims of some of those initiatives have been laudable, some have been the result of knee jerk reactions to headline grabbing issues. Sound bite reform, often in relation to specific events, that does not work on the ground, benefits no one and certainly does not improve the system in the longer term.

So what is it that we want and expect from our criminal justice system ?

The consensus must be that we aim to achieve a criminal justice system that delivers justice fairly and swiftly, whilst upholding the rights and civil liberties of all. To achieve this, the system must be modernised to ensure that victims, witnesses and defendants – and consequently the general public - have greater confidence in it.

The much reported Criminal Justice Bill, now at the Report Stage in the House of Commons, represents the latest attempt to radically overhaul the criminal justice system.

We welcome many of the specific proposals in the Bill. There is emphasis on restorative justice and rehabilitative sentencing; support is proposed for both victims and witnesses; the impact of domestic violent crimes is recognised; and there are proposals which aim to make the system more user friendly.

Interestingly, the strength of the Bill lies in many of its practical proposals, especially relating to case progression, case management and police reform. Although these are not eye catching enough to generate headlines in the general press, I believe that they will have a considerable impact on efficiency.

Proposals to give responsibility for charging offenders to the Crown Prosecution Service are very welcome. Pilot schemes have been very successful and have helped to ensure that the correct level of charge is brought at an early stage. This will help with more efficient processing of cases and will avoid the disappointment and confusion of victims which can arise when charges are changed.

However, some of the Bill’s other proposals are more controversial and, together with the Bar Council and other criminal justice agencies, the Law Society has lobbied hard to persuade parliamentarians to resist a number of them.

The proposals on admissibility of evidence require careful thought. We support a review of the admissibility of evidence but this very complex area must be examined carefully. If the admission of hearsay evidence, for example, is to be left to the judge’s discretion, then detailed guidance must be drawn up.

Similarly, the proposal relating to the disclosure of defendants’ previous convictions to juries has received a very lukewarm reception. The Law Commission has shown that it would be extremely difficult to formulate rules that would be workable at a practical level. Any proposal to disclose previous convictions as a matter of routine, must be strongly resisted.

Double jeopardy has been one of the most widely reported issues contained in the Bill. Although it is reassuring that the Law Commission has addressed some of our strongest concerns about changes in the law, we still have some serious reservations. It is debatable whether defendants could ever really get a fair trial the second time around. In addition, there is the possibility that the police could use new rules in this area to harass defendants. It is clear that we will need a proper opportunity to engage in a constructive debate with the government and other criminal justice agencies, before proposed changes in this area are fleshed out to ensure that the interests of all parties are properly considered. One particular area of concern is the ever widening number of offences to which this proposal could apply.

Another area in which the Law Society campaigned vigorously was that of the right to elect for jury trial. It was a relief that the government did not re-introduce the proposal for limiting the right to elect for jury trial recommended by Lord Justice Auld.

In summary, the Law Society is concerned that the government seems to think that an effective way of solving the problem of crime is by weakening citizens’ rights and liberties. The Bill appears designed to increase conviction rates but this can only ever be a justifiable aim if the inviolaicle-text">Frequent changes of policy will not cure the system’s ills in isolation. The other key element to modernising and promoting confidence in the criminal justice system is resourcing.

The Bill proposes investing £600 million in the IT development of the criminal justice system. This is an enormously positive step and greater investment in the legal system must always be welcomed. This commitment to improving the infrastructure of the criminal justice system will hopefully lead to the benefits of a coherent IT system, linking together all the relevant agencies.

However, IT is only a tool and it cannot transform the system alone. One area that is often underestimated is the extent to which serious investment in training and staff development is required. New and advanced IT systems are only as effective as the people who use them and adequate recognition of their crucial role is essential. The ability to send and receive information more quickly, for example, whether through e-mail or via the web is somewhat wasted if there are insufficient human resources available to progress or utilise that information any faster.

The criminal justice system will not be modernised effectively without a better administration system. In my opinion, a unified administration is a good idea and will go some way to improving efficiency within the system. However, it is essential to avoid a uniform system. The unified structure must not be at the expense of local justice and local needs. One must consider that the needs of rural communities can differ greatly from those of more urban areas. Innovators must bear in mind that efficiency measures can take their toll on people in remote communities. Fewer court sittings, for example, can have a dramatic impact on people in rural areas. Any new protocols, such as those relating to travel arrangements or prison visits, need to take local needs into account.

The Law Society very much welcomes plans to codify the criminal law. Codification will make law and procedure more accessible to the public. The Law Society’s present involvement in the Law Commission’s codification programme reflects our commitment to it. I hope that the codification of the law would prevent the perceived need for constant legislative change. There have been too many isolated initiatives on criminal justice from successive governments and I am not alone in this opinion. Giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in October 2002, the Lord Chancellor stated that “there are far too many Criminal Justice Acts, coming forward like confetti…it is time we got the whole system right, gave it a rest and let it get on with the job”.

Remaining with the issue of resourcing, it is clear that the persistently thorny subject of public funding is central to the future success, or otherwise, of our criminal justice system.

The legal aid spend in criminal matters has been increasing steadily for the past four or five years. The removal of the means test for most criminal defence work has increased the number of people eligible for legal aid. On top of this, a gaping hole has been left in the legal aid budget by the urgent need for immigration support – a need that was not identified when the budget was set – and by Home Office policies that have significantly affected criminal court costs.

I believe the Government must now recognise that it cannot introduce legislation, initiate reforms to the criminal justice system, or decide to take a ‘tougher stance’ on certain types of offences and categories of defendants, without considering the consequent impact on the criminal defence budget.
However, the current problems do not relate simply to money. The government must also give greater thought to those who operate the system, including prosecution and defence lawyers.

There is already an insufficient supply of criminal defence lawyers. Unless urgent action is taken, more and more experienced practitioners will leave this area of work and young people will be further deterred from entering this area.

The morale of criminal legal aid practitioners is at an all time low: they feel under valued and under attack. Criminal lawyers have been accused of ‘stringing out’ cases for profit - an accusation that is not only without justification but is entirely senseless in a system with standard fees for criminal cases. Low morale contributes to the drift away from this area of work. Failing to address these issues now will lead to deserts of provision.

The crisis facing the duty solicitor scheme is also disturbing. Low pay, plummeting morale, a lack of career structure and uncertainty about the future of legal aid, all contribute to the exodus from this area of practice. Insufficient numbers of duty solicitors will inevitably make it more difficult for suspects’ basic rights to legal advice to be met.

There has never been a greater need for criminal practitioners. A natural consequence of this should be an increase in the prestige and value accorded to criminal defence practitioners. Government and media should celebrate their vital contribution to the administration of justice and the protection of basic human rights. However, this is currently not the case.

Under resourcing does not merely affect defence practitioners however, it is evident that our criminal justice system will never become a model of modern efficiency without a properly funded prosecution service.

Taking this one step further, I believe that greater investment in our police service is another crucial stage for an effective modernisation process. Better crime prevention and detection rates will be more effective in promoting confidence in the system, than policies that undermine civil rights.

In conclusion, the most crucial element to effective modernisation and the successful promotion of confidence in our criminal justice system is for those implementing change to focus on the ‘big picture’. Policy, infrastructure, staffing levels, funding, police, prosecution and defence – all are so intertwined that any significant change in one area will affect and influence the others. This means abandoning the habit of implementing ‘sound bite’ initiatives.

Carolyn Kirby is President of the Law Society.