The dichotomy of “first timer” and “regular” and its implications for legal advice and assistance

ABSTRACT When an individual is suspected or accused of committing a criminal offence, they are brought into the realm of the criminal process. This process can be complex and alien, and the accused person may not understand – or be able to engage with – elements thereof. This paper examines how experiences of the criminal process are framed by lawyers, drawing from interviews conducted with lawyers (N = 36) as part of a larger project on the experiences of criminal justice in (south) Wales. Lawyers, when discussing the experiences of the accused, made frequent distinctions between “first timers” and “regulars”. Whilst this distinction has been touched-upon in previous studies, it has not yet been subject to much exploration and interrogation. Within this paper, we explore and critique the how and why of this distinction, querying the utility and limits of such a distinction. We argue that whilst an accused’s experience should be accounted for, it is unhelpful to frame “regulars” as not needing – or being undeserving – of attention.