The revelations in the full report that the MoJ omitted from the summary it released include:



The gulf between MoJ predictions on the minimal impact of legal aid changes on criminal cases and the reality experienced by judges.

That more than half of the judges interviewed were concerned about unrepresented defendants understanding the concept of the difference an early guilty plea made in sentencing.

Explicit warnings backed up by data that not having a lawyer may create more hearings, a situation that could end up costing the court system more.

Judges said preparation for cases was “more extensive or difficult” where the defendant had no lawyer.

Data from five magistrates courts across England and Wales in 2015 suggesting that 13% of people have no lawyer when facing criminal charges there.

That some of those interviewed said no support at all was offered to unrepresented defendants.

While the summary made just three vague policy recommendations on the back of what it described as a “small study”, the original report has seven specific recommendations, including looking at options for providing legal assistance in crown court.

A judge saying the impact of witnesses being interrogated by a defendant is “almost like committing the offence all over again.”

Correspondence between the Senior Presiding Judge (SPJ) and MoJ officials “where the SPJ requested the MoJ conduct further work on the issue, namely to provide more robust data on the number of unrepresented defendants in the Crown Court.”

The government is conducting a review on the impact of legal aid cuts but it is largely focused on civil law. This proves the MoJ has been sitting on research that showed there were already serious concerns in the judiciary three years ago about the availability of criminal legal aid and the rise of people defending criminal charges without a lawyer.

BuzzFeed News applied under Freedom of Information laws for the release of the research in April last year. It was turned down by the MoJ, but following an appeal, the Information Commissioner ruled that it should be released.

When the MoJ finally released the summary document last week, it vehemently denied any more substantial version of the report existed. In one email a press officer wrote: “Further to our conversation earlier where you accused me of lying to you about the report, I want to make it abundantly clear that the report given to you was the only report produced on the back of this research. We will be very disappointed if you allude to us being in any way dishonest in your article.”

In its on-the-record statement the MoJ insisted: “The report sent was the one requested and it is in its entirety. There are no summaries nor are there any transcripts in the review.”

A further email from the press office after publication said: “upon reading the article published after the conversation we had on Monday about the contents of the report, I would appreciate if you could add the below statement below the passage which strongly suggests that the full research was not published. An MoJ spokesperson said: 'We have released the full and final report as requested and will of course consider any further requests for information related to this work.'"

BuzzFeed News approached the MoJ at 2pm on Tuesday for its response to the full leaked document. We asked why it had failed to disclose its existence last week and why it had repeatedly insisted that the summary was the only report.

By 6pm, the department still had not provided a response and a spokesperson said it would be unable to offer one until Wednesday.

Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Burgon told BuzzFeed News: “When people’s liberty is at stake, no one should be left without proper legal representation. This risks not only miscarriages of justice but, as the revelations uncovered by Buzzfeed shows, it can cause distress for victims and witnesses as well as costing the taxpayer more as cases drag on.

"The government’s failure to publish this research, delays in responding to FOI requests, and denials that the full research even exists suggests that it is trying to sweep these problems under the carpet rather than fix them. That approach must end."

Despite the MoJ insisting no quotes or transcripts from the judges existed, some of the most damning material in the 2016 report is quotes from judges clearly exasperated with the situation.

Describing the impact of unrepresented defendants not understanding court processes, one judge said: “It’s like saying if you felt unwell would you want to go and ask someone with no medical qualification how to cure yourself”.

Another, explaining the defence’s level of participation in hearings where they have no lawyer, said: “Some of them just sit there looking like a rabbit in the headlights and they haven’t got a clue what’s going on and you really have to check that they are following and are in a position to make any relevant comments they need to. Others will be jumping up every five seconds, even when it’s not their turn to talk”.

Commenting on the impact on witnesses when a defendant is the person to cross-examine them, one judge said: “He decides he’s going to represent himself, and then he’s asking questions of these people, it’s almost like committing the offence all over again.”