mittee's proposal of arbitration is a normal method of resolving such differences.
That in your view the Judiciary cannot participate in such an arbitration would not detract from its suitability for the present purpose. It seems that the Judiciary should not be concerned with this matter at all. It has only become concerned because of the provision in S. 9(2) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance which gives authority to the Chief Justice to make rules regulating the fees of counsel assigned as legal aids. If this authority is abrogated, as we think it should, the Chief Justic as head of the Judiciary would have no reason to be concerned with barristers' fees in Criminal Legal Aid Cases.
FEES FIXED AT 1952 SCALE.
I accept your qualification on this point except for your statement that "in 1959 the Bar had recognized that there would be justification for smaller fees in non-capital cases". Can you please refer me to the source of this statement?
CONTRIBUTION BY JUDGES & PROSECUTING OFFICERS.
My remark to this effect arose from your suggestion that legal aid in criminal cases is a social service. We agree with this. But this form of social service is now partly paid for out of public funds and the balance subsidized by practising barristers whose expenses remain the same whatever case they may temporarily be concerned with. It is in this con- nection that I make the point that there is no contribution to the subsidy by Judges and Crown Counsel.
CONTROL OF REMUNERATION OF BARRISTERS IN
PRIVATE PRACTICE.
I regret that I did not specify that I was referring to barristers when they took on legal aid cases although this
46
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.