/ How about this one then?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Steph-in-the-West on 05 Jan 2013
As the title says - due to changes made by our dear Government in October 2012, in order to save taxes, people who are falsely accused of any crime and found to be innocent, can no longer recover their legal costs from anyone.............so - in other words - Joe or Josephine Bloggs accuses neighbour Fred or Freda Smith of a crime they didn't commit, if Fred and Freda Smith are found innocent - as they should be - they still end up having to fork out umpty thousnad pounds in order to prove it and can't claim that back from anyone. Just for good measure, Joe and Josephine can claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries bods............
Blue Straggler - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to Steph-in-the-West:

I don't believe a word of what you have written
Jim C - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to Steph-in-the-West:
> As the title says - due to changes made by our dear Government in October 2012, in order to save taxes, people who are falsely accused of any crime and found to be innocent, can no longer recover their legal costs from anyone.............so - in other words - Joe or Josephine Bloggs accuses neighbour Fred or Freda Smith of a crime they didn't commit, if Fred and Freda Smith are found innocent - as they should be - they still end up having to fork out umpty thousnad pounds in order to prove it and can't claim that back from anyone. Just for good measure, Joe and Josephine can claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries bods............

That sounds like all those MP's who hired expensive legal firms at our cost to represent them over dodgy expense claims, would not have got their money back.

Then again, do turkey's vote for Christmas?
The New NickB - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:

There does appear to be at least an element of truth to it!

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/advice/practice-notes/defence-costs-orders/
Ben Sharp - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:
> (In reply to Steph-in-the-West)
>
> I don't believe a word of what you have written

Really, sounds like another page in the ongoing quest to reduce poor peoples access to justice. I mean, why can't people just buy top lawyers themselves? I just don't understand it, surely just a quick call to the butler and he'll sent a nice chap down to deal with all this legal mumbo jumbo.
captain paranoia - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to Steph-in-the-West:

The changes appear to mean that, if you choose private legal representation, your costs will not be refunded. From the link that NickB posted:

"Your clients appearing in the Crown Court, in respect of proceedings commenced on or after the 1 October 2012, will not be entitled to recover their legal costs expended in successfully defending those proceedings if they chose to be represented privately.

The rationale for this policy position is that all defendants in the Crown Court will be entitled to legal aid whatever their means, but subject to a contribution.

It has to be remembered, however, that your clients who obtain legal aid will be entitled on acquittal to have the entirety of their contributions repaid to them. This is in contrast to those who chose to pay you privately for the cost of their defence, and who will not be entitled to recover their costs."
highclimber - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to captain paranoia: it still sounds a bit wrong though - if someone is well-off enough to hire a lawyer to defend against spurious allegations against them and are then found not-guilty, why should they not be reimbursed?
Blue Straggler - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to The New NickB:

Thanks. I had actually meant "have you got a link?" but I HATE it when people just ask "have you got a link?" so I went about it indirectly :-)
off-duty - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to highclimber:

Being found not guilty does not mean that the allegations were spurious.
It means the defence have been successful in arguing that the case could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I am not sure of many criminal cases that would proceed on the basis of allegations alone without other corroborating evidence - with the exception possibly of historic sexual abuse. Having said that - the prosecution will have examined the allegations in depth in an effort to find evidence supporting or negating the claims.
Steph-in-the-West on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:
> (In reply to Steph-in-the-West)
>
> I don't believe a word of what you have written


I am hardly likely to have started a post like this without knowing what I was talking about!!! Read some of the other replies and you will see that I am right - accepting the proviso of being able to reclaim legal aid costs which I didn't know. If you pay privately you cannot reclaim costs any more......

off-duty - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to Steph-in-the-West:

Bear in mind that if the allegations are false and malicious those making them expose themselves to criminal charges and civil claims.
Blue Straggler - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to Steph-in-the-West:

Yes, my follow-up post should have included an apology to you. Sorry.
I just see a lot of knee-jerk-reaction threads that spout some half-informed "facts" and I reacted too early in turn.
IanC - on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to Steph-in-the-West:
> (In reply to Blue Straggler)
> [...]
>
>
> I am hardly likely to have started a post like this without knowing what I was talking about!!!


Really, not aimed to you but it's not uncommon on an internet forum.
Steph-in-the-West on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to Blue Straggler:
hey thanks but no apologies needed..........sometimes the truth is completely unbelievable.......
Steph-in-the-West on 05 Jan 2013
In reply to IanC:
> (In reply to Steph-in-the-West)
> [...]
>
>
> Really, not aimed to you but it's not uncommon on an internet forum.

I guess - but I s'pose you need to know the person who posted the OP to know whether or not to believe what's written, especially when it seems completely unbelievable

stroppygob - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to Steph-in-the-West:
> As the title says - due to changes made by our dear Government in October 2012, in order to save taxes, people who are falsely accused of any crime and found to be innocent, can no longer recover their legal costs from anyone.............so - in other words - Joe or Josephine Bloggs accuses neighbour Fred or Freda Smith of a crime they didn't commit, if Fred and Freda Smith are found innocent - as they should be - they still end up having to fork out umpty thousnad pounds in order to prove it and can't claim that back from anyone. Just for good measure, Joe and Josephine can claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries bods............

Untrue. Just sheer hyperbole.

3.4 Magistrates' court proceedings
In simple terms, the new legislation provides that clients in the magistrates' court will be entitled to recover their costs under a Defendant's Costs Order if they are acquitted, but the amount will be limited to legal aid rates.

You must explain this to your clients and incorporate this information into your client care letter.

The amounts that may be recovered are set out in a Ministry of Justice document 'Calculation of amounts payable in respect of legal costs under defendants' costs orders', published 9 July 2012:


3.5 Crown Court proceedings
Your clients appearing in the Crown Court, in respect of proceedings commenced on or after the 1 October 2012, will not be entitled to recover their legal costs expended in successfully defending those proceedings if they chose to be represented privately.

The rationale for this policy position is that all defendants in the Crown Court will be entitled to legal aid whatever their means, but subject to a contribution.

It has to be remembered, however, that your clients who obtain legal aid will be entitled on acquittal to have the entirety of their contributions repaid to them. This is in contrast to those who chose to pay you privately for the cost of their defence, and who will not be entitled to recover their costs.

You must advise your clients of all the relevant funding options that are open to them and the advantages and disadvantages of each. You must also ensure that this advice is set out in any client care letter and, in particular, that the information includes reference to the new provisions set out above.

You must also advise existing clients of the change if you have not already done so.


ads.ukclimbing.com
stroppygob - on 06 Jan 2013
In reply to Steph-in-the-West: Note also;

Under Part II of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, acquitted defendants who have privately funded their legal representation, private prosecutors, and court appointees may obtain their reasonable costs out of central funds.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.