Judge has stayed the trial which mean, as I understand it, there will be no trial.
Massive blow to Chris Grayling's attempts to remove legal aid from defendants.
Best of all it was the PM's brother arguing that the defendants couldn't have a fair trial without legal aid being available 🙂
(google Operation Cotton for details on the case, #opcotton on google for latest info)
[edit] one commentator saying;
[i]Grayling's legal aid cuts have become a "Fraudsters' Charter" as prosecutions in complex fraud cases no longer possible.[/i]
(google Operation Cotton for details on the case, #opcotton on google for latest info)
So it's worth posting here but not worth the effort of posting a link to the story?
I guess those that cared might be prepared to do some research for themselves, given that this is effectively saying that if you commit a crime for which legal aid is no longer available you are immune from prosecution if you cannot pay for your own lawyer.
still and all;
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/apr/28/david-cameron-brother-legal-aid-cuts ]http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/apr/28/david-cameron-brother-legal-aid-cuts[/url]
That ought to damage Cameron beyond repair, but of course it won't.
Has it been stayed? That article just says the Judge is considering the request...
[i]That article just says the Judge is considering the request..[/i]
hence my suggestion to google it in the OP as the story is developing.
The article is from last night, the stay was issued this morning.
kudos to the judge for doing that if they have 😀
This whole thing has always been bonkers! In this country, once this shower are finished, it'll be like America. You'll get the justice you can afford!
We're going to end up with a conveyor belt of plebs being marched through the courts, with either incompetent legal representation, or none at all, while a small number of big firms of lawyers cream off a fortune in fees for doing the bare minimum. One of the firms bidding to be a de facto legal representative is Eddie Stobart. Yes… as in big green trucks! Go figure!
Then at the other end of the scale, the courts will be stuffed full of the Bernie Ecclestones and Roman Abramoviches of the world, settling their expensive tifs with each other, and dodgy regimes covering stuff up. We keep hearing about benefits tourism, but not much about [url= http://wikileaks.org/wiki/MPs_accuse_courts_of_allowing_libel_tourism ]libel tourism[/url]
[i]with either incompetent legal representation, or none at all[/i]
I think that's part of Alex Cameron's argument. And the judge seems to agree with him.
Its on the BBC now.
[i]You'll get the justice you can afford![/i]
I saw the comment that it was the modern equivalent of the ducking stool: if you can't afford to hire a lawyer you must be guilty and will get the punishment you deserve.
It is brave and they will protest about how this impacts on justice and fairness and they are correct - soon only the wealthy will be able to afford justice
However the main problem is they will still ask for £200 + per hour though and we a re a bit skint.
I think that in order to practice they all need to do x amount of Legal aid work for x amount of money- bit like Doctors still have to do NHS work
Justice should not have a price but it does and it is too high currently
the thing is that the prosecution pay the same fees as the defence and there seems to have been no effort to curb spending on those costs.
Directly employing advocates for both prosecution and defence work would seem to be a way of achieving a level playing field and justice for all whilst also reducing costs. Given how many ex-barristers and QC's are MP's it won't happen.
Does our beloved prime ministers brother not have his own cash to pay his fees?
I believe daves not from a poor family so would assume brothers doing alright.
[i]Does our beloved prime ministers brother not have his own cash to pay his fees?[/i]
well he did this case for free.
his brother was the qc representing the defence. Not one of the accused
Lawyers holding the Govt to ransom and Cameron's brother assisting to press the case for the poor hard done by Barristers as far as I can tell.
"Each advocate who had signed a contract to undertake a VHCC case was presented by the government with a choice - either to accept a 30% cut in their fees or to terminate their contract. They chose to terminate their contracts," he said."Since then, we understand that no barrister has signed a new contract to undertake a VHCC at the reduced rates."
Even after the savings, if a QC picked up a case like this one, they could expect to receive around £100, 000 for working on it, with a junior barrister receiving around £60, 000”
[i]Even after the savings, if a QC picked up a case like this one, they could expect to receive around £100, 000 for working on it, with a junior barrister receiving around £60, 000”[/i]
don't QC's operate for the prosecution?
Since there is an effective amnesty on, anyone else interested in committing complex fraud on a massive scale?
I've watched The Wolf of Wall Street so reckon I know enough to make a killing......
However the main problem is they will still ask for £200 + per hour though and we a re a bit skint.I think that in order to practice they all need to do x amount of Legal aid work for x amount of money- bit like Doctors still have to do NHS work
Your logic is flawed.
Firstly, legal aid advocates don't get £200+ / hr. The maximum daily rate is I think £979/day (and it is falling!). They are probably not taking home more than a top hospital consultant doing only NHS work. The NHS effectively pays people to do medical work so nobody relies on 'pro bono' treatment.
The Legal Aid board pay lawyers to do something similar - but have decided to limit the range of people they "treat". What would you expect a doctor to do if the NHS decided that they would stop treating anyone who earned above a certain threshold? Would it have more impact if they treated them FOC out of the goodness of their heart or if they made a stand so all similar people might benefit?
The problem is a really good lawyer can earn even more doing non-criminal work, so its really just tough if you want a fair effective trial, you need to pay both representatives the market rate for their skills. If you want to make justice more efficient probably a load of better ways to do it than limiting who gets access to legal representation. Even in the simplest cases an unrepresented accused is likely to take more court and prosecution time up than a professional lawyer.
Its fine quoting figures like '£100,000 for a QC', without putting it in any context. That figure may as well have been plucked out of the air.
Isn't the whole point of fraud trials like this that they're incredibly detailed and complex, and can literally drag on for years. And require people who are the best legal brains in the business. So in that context, that doesn't seem massively unreasonable.
If you want the best in any profession, to work on the most complex projects, then they don't come cheap.
Its unfortunate, but If you want a decent system of justice, you really can't do it on the cheap. You just end up as America. Where OJ Simpson walks, but the prisons are full of miscarriages of justice, because poor people, even on really serious charges, are given token legal representation. Is that really where we want to end up?
Its fairly typical of this government to pick arbitrary figures that they need to cut budgets by, without apparently giving a toss about the consequences this produces. Just look at IDS's welfare reform for the classic example of that
The case against the men was "complex and substantial", the court heard, involving 46,030 pages of evidence and 864,000 lines of spreadsheet data.
The last VHCC I did lasted 4 years , so a QC would get £25 k per annum on the quote . Of course they would also do other work but the time devoted to a VHCC is massive . I had to do mine on my own time as I needed to get fees in maintaining other work during the 9 to 5 working day . I also made nowhere near £60k out of it.
In terms of the cuts the governments own figures show that legal aid firms run on a 6% profit margin 8.5% cut has been imposed this year (on top of previous cuts) and another 8.5% is planned for next making the profit margin -11%.
In terms of the cuts the governments own figures show that legal aid firms run on a 6% profit margin
Surely their largest cost is salaries, so you could just reduce pay by 8.5% and have the same profit %?
Your logic is flawed.
I think you mean my figures, which i did pluck out of thin air to be fair, are wrong.
The maximum daily rate is I think £979/day
The reason it costs so much is STILL that they charge so much. You write that as if it is a small sum. How many on here could afford to pay that?
How many folk in society earn anythign approaching that? Is it any wonder we cannot afford it?
That is £186,110 assuming a 5 day week for 38 weeks of the year or £140 per hour assuming a 7 hour day.
That is a fair chunk of money tbh
Would it have more impact if they treated them FOC out of the goodness of their heart or if they made a stand so all similar people might benefit?
I think if they did work for free on all cases[ will never happen] it would have a bigger impact as we could all access legal representation. I do get it why they are concerned and it is not just self interest but reducing their fees may well be part of the solution here.
if you want a fair effective trial, you need to pay both representatives the market rate for their skills.
No we do not we could force[ legally compel] them to do it for a certain rate as we do doctors or they cannot practice[ must do 50% of their time in the NHS iirc]. I accept they would not like this.
If you want to make justice more efficient probably a load of better ways to do it than limiting who gets access to legal representation.
Like making it affordable to all for example? Do you really not think reducing fees would help with this goal? I do agree this is a dogs dinner of a proposal but I struggle to not think that the folk who refuse to work for about 1 k a day are not part of the problem rather than part of the solution tbh
I further accept that appealing to he humanitarian side of lawyers may not be the most effective strategy 😉
I do agree the issue is critical within a democracy but the fees are, relative to the average wage/income on the high side and someway above the average wage.
as crankboy is here i do accept many many lawyers are decent honourable people doing a difficult job and working very long hours.
If we want it to have the broadest reach the easiest ways to do this are
1. Fully fund it
2. Make it cheaper by reducing costs.
Tories are in 2 will be the option and I do think fees are high and beyond the means of "little "people.
[i]No we do not we could force[ legally compel] them to do it for a certain rate as we do doctors or they cannot practice[ must do 50% of their time in the NHS iirc].[/i]
Well this is exactly are doing that for work that's publicly funded - saying 'here it is take it or leave it'
They've said 'No thanks' and gone off to do private stuff.
Same as the Doctors would if the pay they got for publicly funded work was too low. Only doctors with an NHS contract who want public money must do 50% NHS work. Doctors in wholly private practice can charge what they like and do no NHS work.
Crankboy, isn't the cuts against charge out rates which is different to profit. As your example shows that legal aid firms have no overheads and all income is pure profit.
I believe the legal aid system is essential to the innocent but also abused to hell. Those that have abused have ruined it for others but so have those who have taken on the legal aid work with their snouts firmly buried in the trough regardless of how ridiculous the case taken on.
Well this is exactly are doing that for work that's publicly funded - saying 'here it is take it or leave it'They've said 'No thanks' and gone off to do private stuff.
I think you need to consider what compel means and it does not mean offer.
I though Dr had to do 50% of the work in the NHS even if private is that not true?
Its a complicated issue and no one seems to disagree it is essential in a democracy. What we are discussing is how to make it affordable
Reducing the costs seems the most obvious way and the costs are largely their fees/wages which are, by most standards, very high and way above the national average.
[i]I think you need to consider what compel means and it does not mean offer.[/i]
so we're going to have forced labour in the court rooms now? They *will* be motivated to perform.
[i]I though Dr had to do 50% of the work in the NHS even if private is that not true?[/i]
only if they have an NHS contract.
Doctors are allowed to be in private practice (same as dentists) and refuse NHS work. Although doctors will accept nhs referals at private rates when the NHS is trying to cut waiting lists in a particular area.
actually my pay cut has been 20% as a result of the last round of cuts , My firm cannot cut the support staff wages any lower as they will all go and work elsewhere. The legal staff have born the brunt of the cuts but quite frankly the Porsche, mortgage on the mansion and restaurant bills don't for pay themselves .
Always remember that the pay rates you read are the charge out rates of the work not the take home pay of the lawyer. So buildings typists training computers books paper stamps etc etc are all funded by that. To think of it in terms of cars or bikes being serviced, the QC's £100k quoted above is for the full transaction including parts and labour . if my maths is right that works out at £2.17 a page without considering the spread sheets going to court for months or seeing the client and taking instructions . The legal aid agency say you read annotate and cross reference at 3 mins a page so that puts the QC on £54 per hour (to cover all his costs) assuming he did the spredsheets conferences and hearings for free.
To be very clear pre the last round of cuts I and most colleagues did a host of work for free, because it seemed like the right thing to do or to make the system work or because I liked the client or felt strongly about the issues , it is so common to do this that we even have a Latin phrase for it .
We cannot afford to do that in the deserving but out side the system cases now as free work is imposed upon us within the system by the current legal aid rules. Say you are arrested for a serious assault and qualify for legal aid. I am payed a fixed fee to help you at the police station no mater how long you are there *so it is in my financial interest to spend as little time on you as I can . You are held in custody and the court decides the case should be sent to the crown court you need a bail application I am not paid to advise you or make that application I am not paid to prepare your case at all prior to your sending to the crown court . At the crown court I will get paid a lump sum that varies by how the case progresses but not by how much time I spend preparing . If you are still locked up I wont be paid to visit you and I am unlikely to be paid for any bail application to get you out.
The financial drivers are even worse if you are wrongly charged and chose to exercise your right to a jury trial.
Sorry for the rant.
craigxxl I hope my rant points out that the charge out rate is not pure profit it is turnover . My firm has a building to rent computer systems that I am abusing now, secretaries, receptionist, phone system, banking/accounts training books stationary heat light etc etc . All of that is covered by the fees we bring in from legal aid . We provide police station cover 365 days a year 24 hours a day court cover for every day but sundays Christmas day good Friday and easter Monday.
so we're going to have forced labour in the court rooms now? They *will* be motivated to perform.
Lots of people have to do forced labour as you call it. Some of them even care about their jobs and the outcome and most of them get less than this lot.
What is your solution then?
To repeat I am not defending these changes - crankboy did a very good job explaining it to me last time and explaining that not all legal bods are porsche driving associates with a taste in fine suits and golf club membership. The reforms are poor on many levels
I still do not see how the high rates charged help us find an affordable solution
It's not that we can't afford the current rates. Whole thing is political, Tory mantra is that public spending is bad and must be culled.
[i]Lots of people have to do forced labour as you call it.[/i]
I can't think of any job (I guess except military and police) where the state says 'you can only do this job if you work for us'.
Forcing everyone in a profession to work for the state at a lower rate than they can get outside of that employer seems just wrong.
[i]
What is your solution then?[/i]
reverse the changes Chris Grayling introduced that caused the problem in the first place.
[edit] it's not about affordability - the you only have to look at what the government spent on QC's in various 'political' cases to see money is there. It's about the dogma of saying "We will remove legal aid for certain classes of case" without understanding the consequences - that the cases then become impossible to prosecute.
Crankboy, I know how the charge out rate works and what the overheads are. We are accountants for a few firms of solicitors, both small and large. I also know that for all the staff on average rates of income the partners with profit share will take home substantially more. Hence why you all aim to become partner so that may start to earn a good income and get your name off the rota for 24/7 cover.
I have never said that your pay isn't earned but it is not all low paid employees either.
The current system is affordable we even pointed out how and where to save the figure Grayling wanted, though Grayling did not at first know exactly what figure he was wanting to cut from . As of two months ago Grayling did not understand the difference between turnover and profit . While Grayling is our pet hate figure especially as he fights to defend the diversion of public money to non tax paying corporations like crapita serco and group4 he is only a thoughtless puppet told that he must impose cuts on legal aid . Legal aid is in fact a very small part of his depts. spend. The cuts are pure ideology not fiscal saving . As example see the amounts he is willing to pay to barristers to join the Public Defender Service which far exceed a barristers legal aid practice earnings.
I can't think of a single solicitor in a criminal legal aid practice who wants to be a partner at the moment . It is one of the few crumbs of comfort in my life that I am employed and my personal assets are not on the line to secure a business debt in this profession.
aren't they all LLP's now?
and banks are all wise to that - so generally look for personal guarantees!aren't they all LLP's now?
crankboy - Member
I can't think of a single solicitor in a criminal legal aid practice who wants to be a partner at the moment .
My wife has been offered a partnership several times in the last few years, and instead is kicking me to cease riding bicycles and start another business to employ her.
Meanwhile, as part of its welfare cuts programme, the government has relented and announced that it will raise the subsidy it provides for grouse moors from £30 per hectare to £56.
This no doubt is to relieve the suffering of the obscenely rich.
they even subsidise the cost of shotgun licences.
Costs the police £196 to run all the checks, people get charged £50.
The case above does not involve "normal" rates of pay. It is for the very few cases that are going to last more than three months and involve extremely complex issues. They are only capable of being conducted by the top end of the profession with many years of experience and represent a tiny proportion of the number of cases that go through the Courts. The proposal to cut rates by 30% has been almost universally condemned by almost everyone with knowledge of the system as leaving rates of pay that are unsustainable.
Dont be misled in to believing all Barristers earn £979 per day. Q.C.'s doing the most complicated and complex of cases can earn a maximum of £979 per trial day on legal aid rates. So that is the top of the profession doing the toughest work on their best day, certainly not everyday.
A Junior Barrister (anyone other than a Q.C.) gets between £326 and £530 per day for each day of a trial beyond the third day (first two are paid seperately and work out at significantly less). All these rates include prep for that or the next day so no extras (nor for travel, waiting etc.). There are lots of non trial attendances at Court for every case where no seperate fee is paid but the Barrister is required to attend (a single fee covers all prep travel and conferences along with the first two days of trial and up to 5 of these attendances plus sentence hearings if guilty). The fee for these hearings works out at between £50 and £80 with no travel or waiting paid. You must travel up to 30km each way from the local bar without any recoverable expenses. If you accept work in another local bar area you also do not get travel expenses.
A top earning Junior Barrister (likely to have at least 10 years experience) doing more or less back to back big drugs, fraud, serious sex or violence (murder/attempt) might just gross £100k going forward but they would be working late every day and weekends to do the prep on these and upcoming cases out of normal court time (so they can be in court every working day billing the payable days). In order to stay this busy it would be extremely unlikley that they could do it all locally so there would be travel and stay away from home involved as well. Their profit after overheads is likley to be between £60-70k with no holiday, sickness, pension etc.
The majority of Junior Barristers run of the mill work will be lucky to gross £50k and net £30k. This is the vast majority of cases that go through the Courts and represents the largest section of the profession.
For a professional this is not well paid especially when you consider that the Govt does not pay you to train (like it does Doctors etc.) nor does it employ you or garuntee an income or pension. There are enormous fees for the professional tuition to qualify (on top of any undergraduate costs) and virtually no assistance available (one or two scholorships or bursaries). So after a minimum of 5 years to qualify (including undergrad) you have a few years of earning a pittance (lucky to average more than £10k p.a. profit in first 3 years) to build up sufficient experience and reputation to be trusted with better work. Many try but fail to establish a succesful practice so leave.
The system needs a large pool of qualified and independant advocates in order to work as it does, without them a much more expensive system would have to be put in place. It also knows that the public do not understand or care about the realities of the profession and have used this fact to impose years of successive cuts (there have been three years of 6% cuts p.a, and no rises for decades).
The profession is on the verge of collapse and will not survive any more cuts. If this happens those able and prepared to pay will still be able to get great representation but at a significant cost. To the rest, you better just make sure you dont ever do anything wrong, get falsely accused or fitted up by a dodgy cop.
they even subsidise the cost of shotgun licences.Costs the police £196 to run all the checks, people get charged £50.
No it doesn't!
There's no unified cost figure, most counties haven't worked out a cost
South wales police are able to do the same for £67 per certificate (cost of running administration of firearms divided between cost of all new FAC and SGC applicants and renewals, without subtracting income received from applications/renewals, or income from variations at £26 per time)
Northumberland do the same for £75 per certificate
https://www.northumbria.police.uk/faq/other/answer.asp?id=72213
So - how did someone get the figure of £196, and if its true, then how come South Wales can do it for a third of the price?
Figures came from here.
If they're wrong and acpo have got it wrong too then I look forward to the correction.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/22/cameron-blasted-battle-shotgun-licence-fees ]http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/22/cameron-blasted-battle-shotgun-licence-fees[/url]
Junkyard - I think you've missed the point completely. Those are the very highest rates for the very best lawyers, and then they need to deduct their overheads (don't forget no NHS pensions for lawyers), and they aren't going to achieve 190 days a year on that rate. There will be plenty of regular posters on here charging out at > £140/hr - most will probably take home a third of that! I'm sure a hospital consultant wouldn't be any cheaper* Dr's aren't mandated to work for the NHS - but as the monopoly employer if you want to work for them as a consultant you have to work (paid at good rates!) for them 50% of the time. Good criminal lawyers will be able to move into civil law and earn more. So you will be left with the dross - which is both unfair AND inefficient. If you were on trial - would you want someone "average" representing you? However I like your thinking that all private sector employees should be mandated to work for free in public service - we could start by making private school teachers work 1 day a week free in state schools. We could cut the number of teachers the state needs to employ then. 😉
* in fact from today's paper - consultants have also caused a case to collapse over THEIR legal aid expert witness fees! http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/01/criminal-case-collapse-legal-aid-neurologists-fees
I think you've missed the point completely
I did not it is still very expensive to employ a legal representative
their average fees are i imagine in the £100 + per hour and this is more than the average person earns per day never mind per hour.
There will be plenty of regular posters on here charging out at > £140/hr
there will not there will be very few but there will be some
they will be equally atypical.
Dont worry I will legislate for that as well 😉Good criminal lawyers will be able to move into civil law and earn more
No system or solution will be perfect but one obvious way to reduce costs is to make legal fees much more typical of the norm.
junkyard we are talking about criminal legal aid the fees are based around hourly charge out rates are usually between 43 and 69 quid an hour though there have been effective cuts of first 10% then 8.5% since the fixed fees were calculated on those rates .
These rates are not the lawyers earnings they are the charging out rate to cover the overheads and wages and profit . By comparison i googled labour rates for garages they came out at 40 - 85 quid an hour . I get called out at 2 am for three hours to a police station the firm gets £142 try getting a plumber out for that .
On Audi owning, ITtrackworld? 😆there will not there will be very few but there will be some
they will be equally atypical.
Good criminal lawyers will be able to move into civil law and earn more
You really don't want represented in a Criminal court by an inexperienced civil lawyer.
I think you are just misguided as to what the norm is for professional services.No system or solution will be perfect but one obvious way to reduce costs is to make legal fees much more typical of the norm.
Appeal being heard yesterday and today, latest;
[i]Another @MoJGovUK nugget: "The Lord Chancellor regards this as an emergency measure..." (to cover up a disaster foreseeable one year ago).[/i]
be interesting if the courts agree and decide to throw all these cases out.
I think you are just misguided as to what the norm is for professional services.
I am not it is too much 😉
It's like this thread had never been away 🙂