Tories
Back Protest Against the Ministry of Justice's New Costs Recovery
Rules and a Vote for a Parliamentary Debate
Current law dictates that if you have paid for legal representation
and are prosecuted for an offence and found not guilty, you
will receive an order for your costs to be assessed and paid
back by the court. However, according to the Ministry of Justice,
this age old principle of "the loser pays" was costing
the Government too much money. A consultation was first announced
in 2008 on restricting the costs the Government has to pay as
a result of losing so many cases.
The consultation attracted responses from over 100 organisations
and individuals. Responses included overwhelming opposition
to the change in rules, as it was felt that if a person is proven
innocent they should not be financially penalised with an extensive
legal bill. The new rules, to be implemented in October, will
mean that even if a defendant is acquitted of an offence, they
will be expected to foot the majority of their legal bill themselves.
In June 2009, the MOJ announced their plans to go ahead with
their rule changes regardless of the resistance. Jeanette Miller,
President of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers, was astounded
that the MOJ ignored the opposition and steam-rollered ahead
with changes in the rules. Not satisfied with the MOJ's complete
disregard to the protests raised during the consultation process,
she launched an e-petition live on the Number.10 website. To
date the petition is backed by 3,559 signatures and the number
is increasing every minute - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CostsRecovery
Miss Jeanette Miller of the Association of Motor Offence Lawyers
(AMOL) comments: "I recognize that Government spending
may need to be reduced but it will be taxpaying motorists and
small businesses who will be most penalized by the planned rule
change. Saving money at the expense of having a fair system
with access to justice for all parties accused of a crime is
not the answer. It will most likely result in increased costs
as lawyers across the country are being briefed on a campaign
to make wasted costs applications in every instance of CPS inefficiency
which will result in the CPS being forced to pay sums expected
to far outweigh the amount the government are seeking to save."
The petition itself outlines the affect these rules will have
on motorists, as legal aid is not available for the majority
of motoring prosecutions and most members of the general public
will appreciate the grave impact of the inability to defend
a prosecution for a motoring offence being that there are currently
around 27 million licence holders in the UK. However, if allowed
to be implemented, the rule changes will also affect any defendant
acquitted of a crime in the Magistrates' Court if they chose
to instruct a lawyer who charges normal (not legal aid) rates.
1.4 million motorists wereprosecuted through the Magistrates'
Courts in 2007. 26% were found not guilty. This is a huge issue
|
and
until now, it seemed to be sweeping in under the carpet due
to a lack of understanding of what it actually means to the
average citizen on the street.
So far the petition has support from the Law Society, dozens
of QCs and the Criminal Bar Association have fully endorsed
the sentiments behind the petition. The petition is also backed
by the following organizations:
1. Association of Motor Offence Lawyers (AMOL)
2. Health and Safety Lawyers Association
3. The Criminal Bar Association
4. The Association of British Drivers
5. Drivers' Alliance (responsible for the largest ever petition
against road pricing who obtained 1.8 million signatures over
a 3 month period)
6. The London Criminal Solicitors' Association
7. The Taxpayers' Alliance
8. The AA.
Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive at the TaxPayers' Alliance
said: "This proposal is unjust, unfair and will prevent
innocent motorists from effectively fighting penalties. With
police forces too often using speed cameras more to raise revenue
than save lives, it is vital that people are given a fair opportunity
to clear their names when given an unjust penalty charge; they
shouldn't be financially punished if they are acquitted. Motorists
will fight this to the hilt, and the Government is going to
feel the full force of people power until it sees sense and
backs down."
Dominic Grieve QC MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice
and MP for Beaconsfield commented: "I entirely share your
concern about these proposals and do not believe that it is
right that the defendant should only receive a fraction of their
legal costs back from central funds if they are acquitted. While
there may be an argument for preventing a claim for grossly
excessive costs, the Government's proposals appear to me to
be unfair and wrong."
Since launching the petition, it has gathered increasing support
from members of Parliament. After spending an afternoon at the
Houses of Parliament with Shadow Minister for Access to Justice,
Henry Bellingham MP, he made the decision to call for a committee
to be selected to pray against the new cost recovery rules,
with a statutory instrument to be implemented at the end of
October.
Mr. Henry Bellingham MP is confident of a vote being organised
within the next two weeks saying: "It is a disgrace that
Ministers apparently have no intention of debating this issue
in the House to justify themselves. That is why we will try
to force a vote and a debate on the new regulations." Mr.
Henry Bellingham MP went on to say: "If the Conservatives
win the next election they will certainly wish to review this
issue as far from saving money, it might actually trigger numerous
additional cost that would far exceed the Government's target
to save £20 million per year." |
