'not guilty' motorists face court costs'

I found this on another forum I have done my bit now do yours.

Steve

Drivers acquitted of motoring charges will pay costs under new government scheme.

New regulations set to come into force later this month will see motorists forced to cough up court costs.

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 93 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 on October 31, 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 no.10 website. To date the petition is backed by 18,630 signatures and the number is increasing every minute -

Petition to: ensure an acquitted defendant's rights to costs recovery from the Court Central Funds remain unchanged. | Number10.gov.uk

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 were prosecuted 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); and

6. The London Criminal Solicitors' Association;

7. The Taxpayers' Alliance; and

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."

So people will be forced to sue for compensation then?

Has anyone considered that it might be the greed of the solicitors putting forward what are effectively "get out" defences which has brought about their own downfall ?

Are you insinuiating that solicitors and lawyers are money grubbing, thieving, greedy ********?

Are you insinuiating that solicitors and lawyers are money grubbing, thieving, greedy ********?

Did I say that ? :eek:

Someone did - i'm sure of it. Anyway, back on topic, oh look everyone! Another basic tenet of the british legal system being dismantled by a liebore government - who'd have thought it?

We've long since got rid of 'innocent till proven guilty' and the right to silence, now even if you are innocent you'll get landed with costs. Nice.

does anyone expect anything different from this mob of money grabbing expence fiddling bunch of morons we have as a goverment

Total disgrace yet again. So what happened to human rights? No doubt they will expect everyone to plead guilty, even if the defendant knows they are innocent, as a fine will be cheaper than paying a legal bill, even if you win. Another no win for the motorist, and yet another form of stealth tax.

The current government have destroyed this country.

Let me guess, source was Daily mail? :rolleyes

Are you insinuiating that solicitors and lawyers are money grubbing, thieving, greedy ********?

Did I say that ? :eek:

And you'd be wrong... barristers, turn up, do the job and leave and have to pay all their travel, expenses and tax from a case. They get very limited money and it's certainly not unheard of for solicitors to hold off paying them for ages for the work done.

Don't tar them all with the same brush, as some do a very good job for very little money.

I have to say, it's going to be interesting watching them try and enforce that one, if it's true. This would mean they can charge people left right and centre without caring about costs. I do wonder who will sue the government for a material loss if this happens.

Anyway, I'll ask and see if this is upcoming statute or just bluster.

Don't tar them all with the same brush, as some do a very good job for very little money.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not tarring all lawyers with the same brush.

However, particularly in so far as motoring offences are concerned, and particularly in the case of the more well-to-do clients, some lawyers do have the ability to look like a cartoon character with £££ signs spinning in their eyes.

I have also seen cases where a client has knowingly committed a speeding offence (having actually put that in as many words) and then gone on to enquire with their lawyer how they can get them off.

Back to the old argument of ethics versus morals.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not tarring all lawyers with the same brush.

However, particularly in so far as motoring offences are concerned, and particularly in the case of the more well-to-do clients, some lawyers do have the ability to look like a cartoon character with £££ signs spinning in their eyes.

I have also seen cases where a client has knowingly committed a speeding offence (having actually put that in as many words) and then gone on to enquire with their lawyer how they can get them off.

Back to the old argument of ethics versus morals.

Differentiate between solicitors and barristers please, there is a big difference.

As for a client who has done it, the situation works like this:

If they say they didn't do it, then the barrister has to advocate their clients views, even if they don't 100% believe them. Their job is as an advocate to the court, on behalf of their client. If they don't believe them there are phrases used which are well understood to convey this to the judge without the client getting that.

If a client says yes I did it, but I want to plead not guilty, then a barrister can no longer represent their client as they would be professionally embarrassed. If the barrister continued the would likely lose the right to practice.

Reading a little more, the petition is posted by a group of motor lawyers and they are complaining about the below:

The Ministry of Justice plan to implement a new costs recovery system from October 2009. Under new rules any defendant acquitted of an offence in the Magistrates' Court will only be reimbursed at prevailing legal aid rates regardless of the level of costs they paid to their lawyers.

Sounds to me that they are moaning they will only be able to get reimbursed the same rate as legal aid and also that this only applies to a magistrates court.

The barristers rate on these cases is pretty low, so from reading the full petition description it sound to me more that the solicitors are getting angry that they might be getting a pay cut for this lucrative section of their work.