Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rare Bear

Legal Fees When Found Innocent

Recommended Posts

Hearing about ou MP has been bount not guilty of various sexual shenagigans and hearing hin complain that he is £130K down makes me ask the question.

If you are charged with somethinh, not eligible for legal aid and are eventualy found innocent would you not automaticly get a full refund of any expenses incurred, be it legal fees or loss of income etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the fact he couldn't vote is the only thing stopping him having voted for legislation that might ruin him.

I see Dom Grieve has waded in. That'll be the same Dom Grieve who voted in favour of this legislation then.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/40065&showall=yes#divisions

They really are a bunch of twats this lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hearing about ou MP has been bount not guilty of various sexual shenagigans and hearing hin complain that he is £130K down makes me ask the question.

If you are charged with somethinh, not eligible for legal aid and are eventualy found innocent would you not automaticly get a full refund of any expenses incurred, be it legal fees or loss of income etc?

You get your costs paid but only at the rates specified for legal aid, which are pretty meager.

edit: meant to add 'only if you're found innocent'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its one of about a million examples of the system being fine if you are on benefits, and terrible if you are not. If you qualify for any of the usual myriad of benefits (eg Universal Credit etc) then you automatically get the full maximum amount of legal-aid without any means-testing, regardless of your net income after benefits (so someone getting £20-30k tax free from benefits gets full non means-tested legal aid). Whereas if you have a normal job then you will almost certainly have to pay your own legal fees, and will not get reimbursed at anywhere remotely close to the market rate, even if your actual net income is lower than the person on benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also an example of 'benefits' the boomer generation had that they cut for future generations (see also education, dentistry, flogging off the utilities etc.) ... right before triple locking the bits they care about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its one of about a million examples of the system being fine if you are on benefits, and terrible if you are not. If you qualify for any of the usual myriad of benefits (eg Universal Credit etc) then you automatically get the full maximum amount of legal-aid without any means-testing, regardless of your net income after benefits (so someone getting £20-30k tax free from benefits gets full non means-tested legal aid). Whereas if you have a normal job then you will almost certainly have to pay your own legal fees, and will not get reimbursed at anywhere remotely close to the market rate, even if your actual net income is lower than the person on benefits.

Yup. Justice is for the very rich and very poor in the UK. maybe better than the US, where it's only for the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its one of about a million examples of the system being fine if you are on benefits, and terrible if you are not. If you qualify for any of the usual myriad of benefits (eg Universal Credit etc) then you automatically get the full maximum amount of legal-aid without any means-testing, regardless of your net income after benefits (so someone getting £20-30k tax free from benefits gets full non means-tested legal aid). Whereas if you have a normal job then you will almost certainly have to pay your own legal fees, and will not get reimbursed at anywhere remotely close to the market rate, even if your actual net income is lower than the person on benefits.

How else would lawyers, bankers etc derive an income to which they claim entitlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its one of about a million examples of the system being fine if you are on benefits, and terrible if you are not. If you qualify for any of the usual myriad of benefits (eg Universal Credit etc) then you automatically get the full maximum amount of legal-aid without any means-testing, regardless of your net income after benefits (so someone getting £20-30k tax free from benefits gets full non means-tested legal aid). Whereas if you have a normal job then you will almost certainly have to pay your own legal fees, and will not get reimbursed at anywhere remotely close to the market rate, even if your actual net income is lower than the person on benefits.

So a normal job is one where you earn £37,500, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its one of about a million examples of the system being fine if you are on benefits, and terrible if you are not. If you qualify for any of the usual myriad of benefits (eg Universal Credit etc) then you automatically get the full maximum amount of legal-aid without any means-testing, regardless of your net income after benefits (so someone getting £20-30k tax free from benefits gets full non means-tested legal aid). Whereas if you have a normal job then you will almost certainly have to pay your own legal fees, and will not get reimbursed at anywhere remotely close to the market rate, even if your actual net income is lower than the person on benefits.

Are you sure that's true?

Friend of mine was recently rejected for legal aid and she gets a small amount of HB and Tax Credits. She does work but only 20 hours currently as she has a young daughter. Just out of a very violent relationship and partner being abusive and an ****.

Is she not poor enough then?

Edit: just checked. Most of the civil help has gone and it's mainly only criminal legal aid remaining by the looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure that's true?

Friend of mine was recently rejected for legal aid and she gets a small amount of HB and Tax Credits. She does work but only 20 hours currently as she has a young daughter. Just out of a very violent relationship and partner being abusive and an ****.

Is she not poor enough then?

Edit: just checked. Most of the civil help has gone and it's mainly only criminal legal aid remaining by the looks.

Dont know the specifics, but being on Universal Credit parachutes you through the means-testing part of legal aid (as does several other benefits). See for example: https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legal-aid/eligibility/universal-credit-legal-aid-means-testing.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont know the specifics, but being on Universal Credit parachutes you through the means-testing part of legal aid (as does several other benefits). See for example: https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/legal-aid/eligibility/universal-credit-legal-aid-means-testing.pdf

The specifics are legal aid has been revocted for civil claims for pretty much everyone. Universal Credit of not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't apply for legal aid apparently. If he had, he'd have had to contribute about £900 p.m. according to BBC news but would have got it all back because he was found innocent.

BUT, he wouldn't have been able to choose his own QC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mate in the next cell was done for killing his wife and got life.. His house was worth £140k., He was forced to sell his house to meet the £60k defence bill. If you kill your wife best dump the body somewhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days the defendant even has to start paying the CPS's costs DURING the trial. They make them pay some money on account assuming they will lose. They get the money back if acquitted though.

Hopefully, Nigel Evans will become a cause celebre and trigger reform of the whole expenses system. It's all too easy to win in court but still end up bankrupt. I blogged about this here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully, Nigel Evans will become a cause celebre and trigger reform of the whole expenses system. It's all too easy to win in court but still end up bankrupt. I blogged about this here.

Good blog post.

Let's hope so, now that somebody influential has been targetted.

At the moment it seems there is nothing to constrain the CPS from using the unlimited resources of the state to persecute whoever they (don't) like.

A large financial penalty for failed prosecutions + automatic compensation for wrongful convictions with the payouts publicly linked to named CPS prosecutors, with career progression subject to performance-review, might just do the trick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what the problem is TBH. He'll get his fees paid, up to the legal aid rate. He has the same access to justice as everyone else.

+1

I can just about buy the concept that the wealthy are able to increase their chances of an acquittal by getting a top class QC and a handful of trainees when Joe Soap (even working Joe Soap) has to make do with the cheapest legal service he can hopefully stretch to afford. And he's more likely to lose, which means he'll be getting none of his fees back. Unlike Mr Rich, who gets a few crumbs.

But I don't buy the idea that while Mr Rich trots off a free man, waving at Joe Soap in the prison van, he can scrape back the entire cost from the taxpayer.

You pays yer money, you take yer chances. Simple as that.

.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what the problem is TBH. He'll get his fees paid, up to the legal aid rate. He has the same access to justice as everyone else.

See Nationalist's linked blog post. The average person wouldn't have to face the high-powered prosecution team that the CPS put up in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days the defendant even has to start paying the CPS's costs DURING the trial. They make them pay some money on account assuming they will lose. They get the money back if acquitted though.

Hopefully, Nigel Evans will become a cause celebre and trigger reform of the whole expenses system. It's all too easy to win in court but still end up bankrupt. I blogged about this here.

There are actually 10 senior treasury counsels and 7 junior treasury counsels.

They prosecute the most serious criminal cases including murder and terrorism but also sexual offences.

It's completely reasonable to think that a senior treasury counsel would prosecute here. Who would you expect to lean the prosecution against the Deputy Speaker on multiple counts of rape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

I can just about buy the concept that the wealthy are able to increase their chances of an acquittal by getting a top class QC and a handful of trainees when Joe Soap (even working Joe Soap) has to make do with the cheapest legal service he can hopefully stretch to afford. And he's more likely to lose, which means he'll be getting none of his fees back. Unlike Mr Rich, who gets a few crumbs.

But I don't buy the idea that while Mr Rich trots off a free man, waving at Joe Soap in the prison van, he can scrape back the entire cost from the taxpayer.

You pays yer money, you take yer chances. Simple as that.

More to the point, everyone who had a chance of getting off would hire the most expensive (best) QC they could get hold of. The current system has some very nasty smells about it, but is probably the best current option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If legal fees were repaid it would be a licence to print money for defense lawyers.

That is not so - in days of old (pre-1998) civil legal aid was checked at every stage by the Legal aid Board. You couldn't just run up a bill and expect the state to pay.

It's a shame that Nigel Evans had to go through Hell to realise what commonsense tells everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are actually 10 senior treasury counsels and 7 junior treasury counsels.

They prosecute the most serious criminal cases including murder and terrorism but also sexual offences.

It's completely reasonable to think that a senior treasury counsel would prosecute here. Who would you expect to lean the prosecution against the Deputy Speaker on multiple counts of rape?

You are saying that the more senior the defendant, the more senior (and more expensive) the prosecutor?

That may sound 'reasonable' but it does not sound like justice to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure that's true?

Friend of mine was recently rejected for legal aid and she gets a small amount of HB and Tax Credits. She does work but only 20 hours currently as she has a young daughter. Just out of a very violent relationship and partner being abusive and an ****.

Is she not poor enough then?

Edit: just checked. Most of the civil help has gone and it's mainly only criminal legal aid remaining by the looks.

Changed last April. I know somebody also affected, I don't like big shiny words like "justice" but in this case there are people who really suffered and continue to be in fear from ex-partners (mostly men) and now can't do anything about it because they can't afford to. Withdrawing legal aid for these cases was a really bad decision

I don't see what the problem is TBH. He'll get his fees paid, up to the legal aid rate. He has the same access to justice as everyone else.

Really? If you're accused of sexual offences that you didn't do and want to defend yourself I don't think shopping around for a cheap lawyer is an economy many of us would be inclined to take.

I am a bit confused if the OP is right, I thought these no-win no-fee lawyers made their money by charging extortionate legal fees on cases that they knew they would win and have costs awarded. If it's only paying basic rates then they no longer have a viable business model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   202 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.