*/
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.
Our call for sufficient resources for the justice system and for the Bar to scrutinise the BSB’s latest consultation
Marie Law, Head of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, discusses alcohol testing for the Family Court
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth explains how to make sure you are investing suitably, and in your long-term interests
In conversation with Matthew Bland, Lincoln’s Inn Library
Millicent Wild of 5 Essex Chambers describes her pupillage experience
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth explores some key steps to take when starting out as a barrister in order to secure your financial future
From a traumatic formative education to exceptional criminal silk – Laurie-Anne Power KC talks about her path to the Bar, pursuit of equality and speaking out against discrimination (not just during Black History Month)
James Onalaja concludes his two-part opinion series
Expectations, experiences and survival tips – some of the things I wished I had known (or applied) when I was starting pupillage. By Chelsea Brooke-Ward
If you are in/about to start pupillage, you will soon be facing the pupillage stage assessment in professional ethics. Jane Hutton and Patrick Ryan outline exam format and tactics
In a two-part opinion series, James Onalaja considers the International Criminal Court Prosecutor’s requests for arrest warrants in the controversial Israel-Palestine situation