*/
Means testing is to be introduced in the Crown Court from 2010.
The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) has said it will trial proposals outlined in its consultation paper, “Crown Court means testing” in five courts in January. Under these proposals, defendants would pay legal aid contributions if they have annual disposable income of more than £3,398, capital assets of more than £3,000, or £30,000 of equity in their homes.
If acquitted, the money would be paid back with interest. Acquitted defendants who do not qualify for legal aid or want to pay privately will no longer be able to recover all of their costs.
Adrian Chaplin, secretary, Criminal Bar Association (“CBA”), said: “The CBA continues to have reservations over the levels at which defendants will be required to make contributions, and also has concerns relating to the proposals for recovery of defendant’s costs in privately funded defences. “The MoJ’s proposals are that successful privately funded defendants will only be able to recover costs up to legal aid rates. Before the proposed changes, a privately funded defendant would only have been entitled to recover reasonable costs that were properly incurred. The CBA is of the view that there is no need to change that test.”
Legal campaign group Justice condemned the plans for “undermining the principle of innocent until proven guilty”.
Senior legal officer Sally Ireland said: “Innocent people and their families should not suffer financially because the state has decided to prosecute them. Defendants should only pay costs once they are convicted.”
A spokesperson for the Bar Council expressed “concern that the proposed cut off from entitlement to public funding is set at a level which excludess, partially or totally too great a proportion of Crown Court defendants and this will cause hardship.
“There is concern that the costs of administering the scheme have been understated and therefore, the proposed savings figures are over optimistic.”
The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) has said it will trial proposals outlined in its consultation paper, “Crown Court means testing” in five courts in January. Under these proposals, defendants would pay legal aid contributions if they have annual disposable income of more than £3,398, capital assets of more than £3,000, or £30,000 of equity in their homes.
If acquitted, the money would be paid back with interest. Acquitted defendants who do not qualify for legal aid or want to pay privately will no longer be able to recover all of their costs.
Adrian Chaplin, secretary, Criminal Bar Association (“CBA”), said: “The CBA continues to have reservations over the levels at which defendants will be required to make contributions, and also has concerns relating to the proposals for recovery of defendant’s costs in privately funded defences. “The MoJ’s proposals are that successful privately funded defendants will only be able to recover costs up to legal aid rates. Before the proposed changes, a privately funded defendant would only have been entitled to recover reasonable costs that were properly incurred. The CBA is of the view that there is no need to change that test.”
Legal campaign group Justice condemned the plans for “undermining the principle of innocent until proven guilty”.
Senior legal officer Sally Ireland said: “Innocent people and their families should not suffer financially because the state has decided to prosecute them. Defendants should only pay costs once they are convicted.”
A spokesperson for the Bar Council expressed “concern that the proposed cut off from entitlement to public funding is set at a level which excludess, partially or totally too great a proportion of Crown Court defendants and this will cause hardship.
“There is concern that the costs of administering the scheme have been understated and therefore, the proposed savings figures are over optimistic.”
Means testing is to be introduced in the Crown Court from 2010.
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base