header-logo header-logo

02 April 2020
Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Profession , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

COVID-19: Hardship payments for legal aid lawyers

The Law Society and Bar Council have given a mixed reaction to the government’s announcement of extra support for legal aid lawyers

The support includes expanding the scope and relaxing the evidence requirements for hardship payments in Crown court cases, including reducing the threshold for work done to £1,000, rather than the current £5,000.

Legal aid fees for First Tier Tribunal immigration and asylum appeals have been aligned with HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s move to an online system for these cases.

The Legal Aid Agency has also increased payments for virtual hearings in appeals before the Mental Health Tribunal, and for remote advice in police custody to ensure they are in line with in-person hearings. It has halted pursuit of outstanding debts owed to it, and is encouraging law firms to make the most of existing help, such as the ability to apply for early payment for work already done on a case.

Chair of the Bar, Amanda Pinto QC, said the measures would ‘have little impact on the many criminal legal aid barristers whose livelihood depends on conducting important criminal trials.

‘The changes, albeit made in a spirit of helpfulness, will have no effect on the overwhelming majority of criminal barristers.’

Law Society President Simon Davis said: ‘It still remains difficult to judge the scale of this crisis.

‘Whether this response is adequate will depend, among other things, on how quickly the police and courts are able to find new ways of handling more routine work―and thus maintaining a volume of cases throughout this period.

‘It will also depend to what extent, if and when some form of normality resumes, workload increases above their pre-crisis levels―enabling practitioners to recover lost income. This cannot be presumed. Even if so, it would require practitioners to incur significant additional costs long before they see such an increase.

‘Thus, there is significantly more that needs to be done to ensure the criminal defence sector is able to make it through this crisis.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll