No secrecy in decisions over legal aid
I refer to the report ("'Black box' secrecy of legal aid condemned", April 9) reporting the views of Stephen Hung Wan-shun, vice-president of the Law Society, concerning the processing of criminal appeals by the Legal Aid Department.
The director of Legal Aid may only grant legal aid in criminal cases if he is satisfied that it is desirable in the interests of justice to do so.
With appeal cases, this involves a balancing exercise which, although heavily weighted in favour of the appellant, is necessarily judgment-based.
It follows that where trial lawyers have certified that if an appeal issue arises, legal aid will not invariably be granted if the ground put forward is plainly unarguable.
Conversely, legal aid is often granted where our professional officers are able to identify a ground even after counsel has certified that there is none. Usually, there is a discussion between the professional officer and counsel on the recommendation.
When legal aid is refused, written reasons for refusal are always given, and further explanation will be provided if required. There is no "secrecy" involved in our decision-making process, and as with any public decision, the reasons behind it are subject to judicial supervision.
