skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 92217 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Burnaby, British Columbia Experimental Public Defender Project An Evaluation, Report Two - Effectiveness Analysis
Author(s): P L Brantingham
Corporate Author: Canada Department of Justice
Project Director: P Burns
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 66
Sponsoring Agency: Canada Department of Justice
Ottawa ON K1A 0H8, Canada
Canada Dept of Justice
Ottawa, Ontario K1A0H8, Canada
National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America

Canada Dept of Justice
Evaluation and Statistics Section
Justice Building
Ottawa, Ontario K1A0H8,
Document: PDF
Language: English
Country: Canada
Annotation: This comparative analysis of the effectiveness of an experimental public defender program and the currently used judicare defense system (private counsel paid from public funds) considers court procedures, client contact, outcomes, sentences, patterns of discussion with Crown counsel, and lawyer work patterns.
Abstract: Clients of public defense counsel and judicare counsel experienced guilty outcomes at about the same rate, but there were differences in the procedures used. Public defense counsel pleaded their clients guilty more often than judicare counsel, while judicare counsel went to trial more often; however, when guilty pleas and determinations of guilt were combined, there was little difference in the overall rate of guilty outcomes for the two modes of delivering legal aid. Public defense clients received fewer jail sentences than judicare clients, while judicare clients received more stays of proceedings or withdrawals of charges. Public defense counsel engaged in more discussions with prosecutors, resulting in more guilty pleas and Crown recommendations for sentences. Public defense counsel made contact with clients earlier than judicare counsel, and although the public defense attorneys exhibited some individualized legal defense characteristics, work patterns such as discussions with Crown, entering pleas or going to trial, and sentences received were very similar. Given that minimal performance standards are maintained, it can be concluded that the public defense mode of delivering criminal legal aid should provide more continuous representation and fewer jail sentences than the judicare mode, as well as fewer trials. Tabular data are provided. For other reports from this evaluation, see NCJ 92216 and 92221-22.
Index Term(s): British Columbia; Comparative analysis; Cost effectiveness analysis; Defender systems; Judicare; Public defenders
Note: Report on work undertaken with the assistance of British Columbia Legal Services Society
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.