Unrepresented Defendants

What a horrendous and tedious morning I am having. Whoever thinks that legal aid should be refused in summary non-imprisonable road traffic offences needs to witness what I am witnessing. A busy traffic court starts with an unrepresented defendant who is charged with leaving his vehicle in a dangerous position. The issue appears to be a simple one- yes the car was there, yes it was mine, but no it wasn't in a dangerous position. The examination in chief of the officer took about 10 minutes. The cross examination, however, went on for about 45 minutes. An advocate could have achieved the same net result in 5 minutes and would, quite probably, have ensured more helpful answers. The Defendant then proceeds with his defence- this lasts for just under 30mins. The magistrates retire for 10 minutes, return, and convict him. They observe, amongst other things, that the officer is credible and that the defendant is not and thus he is convicted. I did mention that the Defendant was unrepresented. Did I also mention that English clearly wasn't his first language and he didn't have an interpreter? Anyway, we then have to go through sentencing, with the defendant explaining in minute detail his daily outgoings etc. There then follows an enquiry as to whether or not the defendant has points on his licence- there being no up-to-date DVLA printout before the court. All in all, this sorry state of affairs goes on for just over 2 hours. It should have taken no more than 30 minutes, 45 at most. As a consequence, the court undoubtedly would not have finished its list- it having another 5 trials in the list plus two other matters. So, does refusing legal aid to people in situations such as the present, save the court service money? Answer- surely not.