header-logo header-logo

Preliminary work to go unpaid under pre-charge scheme

09 June 2021
Issue: 7936 / Categories: Legal News , Disclosure , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail
Lawyers’ groups have called on the Lord Chancellor to think again on early disclosure plans in criminal investigations or risk them failing before they even begin.

The pre-charge engagement scheme, which came into force this week, is a voluntary process between parties to an investigation which can take place at any time after first interview under caution and before the suspect is formally charged.

Its purpose is to make it easier for the defendant or their solicitor to bring information that may assist their case to the attention of police and prosecutors so that cases can be dropped quickly, if it is appropriate to do so. The scheme can be initiated by an investigator, prosecutor, suspect or suspect’s representative.

However, no fewer than ten groups have written to the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC, warning that restrictions on payments to solicitors for taking part could scupper the scheme before it gets off the ground. The groups include the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association, Black Solicitors Network, London Criminal Court Solicitors’ Association, Legal Aid Practitioners Group and the Law Society.

‘The rationale for this scheme is sound but defence solicitors were assured they would be paid for the additional work it entails,’ said Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce.

‘That work necessarily includes getting instructions from the client, examining relevant evidence and advising the client whether or not to take part in pre-charge engagement. However, solicitors will not be paid for this preliminary work as, under the scheme the Ministry of Justice has devised, payments will only kick in if and when they begin engaging with police or prosecutors, and only for work done after that point.

‘Opportunities to save money by bringing cases to an early close will inevitably be missed because hard-pressed defence practitioners simply cannot take on even more unpaid work. This would have adverse financial consequences for the police, prosecutors and the overburdened courts.’

The letter also highlights the low hourly rates for defence practitioners in the new scheme―£51.28 in London and £47.45 outside London.

Boyce called on ministers to ‘substantially’ raise the rate and pay solicitors for advising suspects on the scheme.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll