Re: Will they fund the specialist lawyers and digital forensics experts?
Legal aid has always been a pittance.
Lawyers literally only work via legal aid out of the goodness of their hearts, or because their firm instructs them to, not for the pay.
The bigger difference has always been prosecution versus defence. Work on defending people who don't want to go to jail and you'll earn 10 times more than the people hired to gather the evidence to send you there.
Plus, courts are entirely separate to lawyers, forensics and everything else. The court is merely the venue when you show those items to people trained in law. They specifically AREN'T trained in every minor detail, that's for the lawyers to get across to the 12 lay-men in the jury and the judge who might not have a clue anywhere. Only incredibly specialist cases will dare mess with that.
If anything, you DO NOT WANT all that stuff in a court. You want an expert coming in, testifying, and being rebutted by other experts. You don't want judge and jury thinking they know more than the guy on trial, or the experts he's hired, or the counsel hired to represent him. Because, more often than not, they don't.
Take it from me, someone who works in IT, graduated in mathematics, was married to a barrister, and lived with a geneticist. In all those areas of specialism, I assure you I can point out huge gaping flaws in other people's expectations of what "hacking", "probability", "legal precedent", or "DNA match" actually means in real life. You want normal people listening to an expert who says "No, that's not how it works, your honour. There's only 96% certainty that this is the same DNA, which means that almost everyone in this room could be convicted of the crime being described today".