*/
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.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
