header-logo header-logo

Legal aid cuts threaten further trials

07 May 2014
Issue: 7605 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Eight complex criminal trials may suffer fate of Operation Cotton

A further eight complex criminal trials could suffer the fate of the fraud trial which collapsed at Southwark Crown Court with a loss of about £10m.

Barristers are refusing to take Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) due to 30% cuts in legal aid fees. Last week, Judge Leonard QC stayed the proceedings in R v Crawley (AKA Operation Cotton), an alleged complex land scam, noting that the defence had contacted 70 sets of chambers with competent barristers, including at the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh and the Bar of Northern Ireland, with no success.

Phil Smith, partner at Tuckers Solicitors, who was acting for one of the defendants, says: “There’s an additional eight trials due in the coming months which are deemed VHCC and which are likely to experience similar problems with barrister uptake.

“The government had been banking on barristers’ resilience weakening but it hasn’t. There is a distinct possibility that the same thing will happen again. 

“The Financial Conduct Authority prosecution probably cost about £10m, serious charges were brought and it went to trial. The prosecution had two QCs and two junior barristers, and the defence side had none. We instructed Alex Cameron QC [brother of the Prime Minister] pro bono to argue that the defendants could not get a fair trial.

“It’s difficult to see how the situation is going to improve. The government tried to set up a Public Defender Service but they didn’t get very far, they only have six silks. 

“The public has a right to be absolutely outraged by this. It was an extremely serious and complex case, and where cases like this are affected by the legal aid cuts you have to think that’s reflective of a policy gone wrong.”

Leonard J declined to grant an adjournment until January 2015 since there was “no realistic prospect” that sufficient barristers would be found by then. 

The trial was expected to last at least three months.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said a QC could receive about £100,000, and a junior barrister £60,000, for the case, and that the Public Defender Service had a number of qualified advocates.

Issue: 7605 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll