Question
18 of the consultation on “Transforming Legal Aid” asks:
Which of the
following police station case allocation methods should feature in the
competition model?
·
1(a) – cases allocated on a case by case basis
·
1(b) – cases allocated based on the client’s day of month
of birth
·
1(c) – cases allocated based on the client’s surname
initial
·
2 – cases allocated to the provider on duty
·
Other
Give the
reasons for your choice
"It
makes one despair to realise that the level of thought that has gone into the
above question is almost certainly indicative of the level of thought that has
gone into the consultation as a whole. The sheer impracticality of the
suggestions beggars belief
Let
me show you how foolish these proposals are...
1(a)
- allocation on a case by case basis:
This will result in numerous instances of one client having several
providers representing him. It is not
unusual for suspects to be arrested for a number of offences over a number of
occasions, as evidence comes to light. Repeat offenders, particularly for minor
offences, are commonplace. Even in areas
with only four providers, the risks of two providers representing the same
client on similar charges are high. The more providers per area, the greater
the problems will be
1(b)
- cases allocated by day of month of birth. I am simply astonished at this
proposal, clearly drawn up by someone with little knowledge of basic mathematics,
let alone statistics.
Four
months have 30 days in them - thus equal amounts of work for clients born in
such months can only be given to areas with 5, 6, 10, or 15 providers
Seven
months have 31 days - 31 is a prime number. That means it can only be divided equally
by itself or 1. Thus work can only be equally divided amongst 31 providers.
There are no areas with 31 providers
February
has 28 days. 28 can only be fairly divided between 4, 7 and 14
You
will note, I am sure, that there are actually no areas where work can be
allocated equally based upon the date of birth of the client and thus this
suggestion cannot work.
1(c)
- cases allocated on client's surname initial. Again, anyone with a basic grasp
of statistics will tell you this is also unworkable in giving an equal share of
the work to all providers
There
are 26 letters of the alphabet. 26 is divisible only by 2 and 13. There are no areas with 2 or 13 providers
Further,
the authors seem not to realise that
a) there
is no equal spread of surname initial letters – many are more common than
others
b)
some surnames are considerably more common than others, and
c)
there is a geographical spread of surnames around the country, with some far
more prevalent in one area than others.
For
example, over 25% of the 25 most common surnames in the UK start with the
letter W. Accordingly, a provider
assigned the letter W will receive an exponentially higher number of cases than
other providers.
10
letters of the alphabet - almost 40% - do not feature in the 25 most common
surnames in the UK. For example, you
have to go down the list to 46 to find the first A in Adams
The
person with the letter S is fortunate because you are 5 times more likely to
get a Smith arrested than you are a Lee, yet Lee is the 25th most common
surname in the UK!
The
most common name across most of England is Smith, or a derivative of it, such
as Smyth. However, the most common name
in Greater London is Patel. The most common name in Wales is Jones.
An
aside, albeit quite an important one – the surname Smith is not the most common
name in the North East or Cumbria. The surname Wilson takes those honours.
2 -
Allocated to the provider on duty. This brings me back full circle to the point
I made at 1(a). It will become very
common to have more than one provider representing the same client
Can
I suggest a fair way of allocating cases? Of course I can ... it is called
client choice"
