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

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