Lawyers and those accused of crimes may benefit after Parliament passed the Legal Aid Amendment Act 2003 last night.

With the new law Government abolishes the $5,000 ceiling lawyers could charge in legal aid cases, allows those accused to choose who they want to represent them, increases the amount of aid, expands the types of proceedings that can be covered by legal aid and makes it mandatory that the accused be told of their right to legal aid when they are arrested.introduced the Bill in the House of Assembly yesterday

Mrs. Minors said: ?The Act was last updated in 1989 and needed modernising.? She said she felt the most important change was that accused persons would be entitled to legal aid from the time that they are arrested.

It will extend to proceedings such as bail application. At present legal aid can only be sought once a person is brought to court either for serious criminal offences, civil cases in the Supreme Court and appeals to the Supreme Court.

However, the main purpose of the Bill is to allow for a Legal Aid Committee and to make provisions for the Senior Legal Aid Counsel. The Bill also empowers the Minister to give policy directions to the committee and compels them to comply with them.

Much like the popular detective television shows, local law enforcement officers will be required to inform those they arrest of their right to obtain legal aid.

Instead of writing to the Registrar of the Court, those wanting to obtain legal aid will apply to the Senior Legal Aid Counsel. Legal aid clients will not be required to make any contributory payments if the costs are $10,000 or less. Previously those on legal aid had to share the cost once they reached $5,000.

The Bill also removes the$5,000 limit a lawyer can charge. It details how lawyers must bill the government and how they will be paid. said: ?The UBP generally supports the amendment to the Act but wonders why it has taken Government five years to bring it to the House.?

Mr. Dunkley expressed concern that a perpetual offender might receive legal aid. responded saying: ?No matter how many offences he has committed he still is innocent until proven guilty.?

was concerned about how much the senior legal aid counsel would be paid and would who ever was hired be full or part time.

He also called for an office for public defenders.

?I think that we need to have a public defenders office for people who do find themselves in need and for when they appear for the first time,? said Mr. Barritt.

?This Bill may go some way and we hope this Government will expand on this particular area.?

Mr. Barritt also said the $675,000 allotted for Legal Aid may not be enough to cover actual charges and asked whether Government would also be covering compensation for victims of crime.

?If the (culprit) is charged, prosecuted and convicted, it should be a slam dunk case for the victims of crime to get compensation,? said Mr. Barritt.

?If at the end of the day, they (the criminal) do not have money in order to pay damages, will the Government give them the right to compensation and out of pocket expenses??

?The Government needs to focus its attention on restorative justice.?reiterated many of the points made by Mr. Barritt, but said that Government needed to focus its attention on a new Hamilton Police Station and new courts building.

He said: ?I think there should be improvements across the board and that it (the legal justice system) should be looked at in a more holistic sense.?said that the Legal Aid Bill was a long time coming and he thanked the for bringing it. referred to his days as a court reporter and asked that it be made law for Police officers to read the Legal Aid rights form to detainees, as many of them are illiterate or semi-illiterate.

?I ask that the form to be read verbally to accommodate people who cannot read,? said Mr. DeVent.

He also quoted Dr. Myles Munroe, who is conducting seminars this weekend at the First Church of God, and said: ?Everyone is born a leader, but because of circumstances surrounding their (criminals?) lives... and many of them are coming out of the system unable to read or write.

?So often we hear this call for more punishment, but it isn?t helping.?

Mr. DeVent went on to say that he had seen the second graduation of Drug Court and he knows that Alternatives to Incarceration have helped some career criminals to change. said that surely the Government and Police could make better use of modern technology and he was concerned that there might be an open purse situation developing.

He said the amount of money being set aside for legal aid would not attract the high flying defence attorneys and that there would need to be a set standard or quality of lawyer.

Mr. Burgess said: ?We all get what we pay for in the end.? agreed that in the future there should be a public defenders office, but she urged caution, because it was not the aim of the Government to put practising lawyers out of business.said that everyone should have a right to Legal Aid, but she thought that it was important to specify the reasons of eligibility.

?The (Legal Aid) system could be open for abuses,? said Mrs. Gordon Pamplin.

Addressing the points made by Mr. DeVent about illiteracy among criminals, she said: ?I think there are a lot of criminals who can tell you what their rights are.?said: ?Justice delayed is also justice denied.

?We know that good legal counsel can speed a matter up.

?The first 72 hours after arrest are the most crucial for a defendant to have legal advice, when otherwise a detainee could make an ill-advised comment, which could prejudice their subsequent trial.?