Skip to main content

Pay to prove your innocence

The Labour Government sought to introduce plans to prevent acquitted defendants to criminal cases from recovering their costs from the prosecution.  In all cases, whether civil or criminal, it is said that "costs follow the event", which means that the losing side gets to pay the legal costs of the winning side.  In criminal courts up and down the country you will daily see defendants who have been convicted or pleaded guilty being ordered to pay the costs claimed by the prosecution.  Equally, if a defendant chooses to pay for his own defence and is acquitted then the prosecution has to repay him the money he spent defending himself.

So, to be clear what we are talking about are people who have been accused of a crime and found to be not guilty of that crime by either a jury or a bench of magistrates.

The Labour Government was judicially reviewed by those concerned about civil liberties (and no doubt some lawyers concerned about their income - let's not pretend that lawyers don't want to protect their livelihoods).  The Government lost and those proposals never became law.  The newly elected coalition confirmed at that time they would not appeal the High Court's ruling.  However, despite that earlier promise the Coalition Government has now announced that they will in fact prevent the innocent from claiming back money spent proving their innocence.

The Bill will become law around April 2012. I anticipate that the  Defence Cost Order (DCO) proposals will come into force shortly thereafter.

The proposals are:

1. No DCO's in any circumstances for companies/corporate bodies etc - they will have to bear the cost themselves or insure - although I will tell you now that I have tried and failed to find any insurance company willing to provide after the event legal expenses cover for criminal litigation;

2. No DCO's for individuals in the Crown Court as contributory legal aid is available in all case - you therefore take legal aid or nothing; and

3. In the Magistrates' Court DCO's will be available for acquitted individuals, capped at legal aid hourly rates.

Given the current financial mess that the country is in you might be surprised to hear that companies will be forced to pay for their own defence in circumstances where they have done nothing wrong.  This will put practically any small business facing an accusation and in financial difficulties out of business.
The second proposal is also surprising for a majority conservative government in that it seeks to remove freedom of choice from people and requires them to become reliant upon the state... very socialist if you ask me.  It's also worth noting that the contributions can be up to £900 per month and some cases can take more than a year to come to trial.  At least if you pay privately you can have an agreement with your solicitor over how and when you make payments.  I know for a fact that I couldn't afford to pay out an extra £900 p/m... could you?

The effect of point 3 will really be to stop people accused of motoring offences from being represented in court.  Now, this isn't going to stop the rich from being represented because they can afford to absorb the difference between private and legal aid rates (my private hourly rates are pretty average at £180 p/h for a director, £140 for a solicitor and £90 for a trainee - my own solicitor charges me £300+VAT per hour!  Legal aid hourly rates are fixed at £49.70 p/h).  This means that the average man or woman accused of a motoring offence and facing losing their job will have some pretty touch choices to make.

So, let's say you come to me asking that I represent you personally at a trial.  Say the whole case takes about 12 hours to prepare, which is about average for the magistrates court, then you will have a bill of about £2,000 - this is actually the fixed fee we offer for a mags court trial if I represent you personally.  Now, let's say that because you are innocent you are found not guilty by the court.  You can reclaim your costs at the legal aid hourly rate, so you will get back £596.40 leaving you with £1,403.60 to pay.  Remember, criminal proceedings aren't something you can avoid like civil proceedings often are.  You have no choice but to get involved and defend yourself in court if you are accused!

Just to give you an idea, my nearest competitor will do a mags court trial for £1,500 + VAT, so £1,800 all in.  So you can see that my fees are not particularly high - if you read the papers you'll celebs who have paid £29,000 for a mags court trial (in the case of one comedian I read about).

If you agree with me that it is grossly unfair to ask innocent people to pay to prove their innocence then I urge you to sign this e-petition on the Government's petitions website.


Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…