Billing resources

From CrimeLine from Andrew Keogh

(Redirected from Guide to billing)
Jump to: navigation, search
Criminal Costs: A Practical Guide Editorial Reviews: Synopsis The provisions relating to costs in criminal cases are extensive and complex. Recent legislation - notably the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the regulations made under it - has brought about a fundamental change in the way criminal costs and legal aid funding work. There has been a continuing stream of statutory provisions covering all aspects of Criminal Defence Service funding, recovery of defence costs orders, and contribution orders. Lord Carter's proposals for reform promise continuing developments in this field. Practitioners need to have access to and an understanding of the disparate array of materials relating to these matters as well as costs out of Central Funds (defendants' costs orders) and the award of costs in criminal cases. This new work explains the criminal costs regime in a clear and accessible manner. It sets out the law and practice governing the award of costs, practitioners' fees; the principles on which fees are assessed as well as guidance on the assessment process and appeals. The book guides practitioners through applicable procedures in the Magistrates' Courts, the Crown Court, the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal. It explains the criteria to be applied when the court is considering an award of costs in criminal proceedings, or when it is dealing with Criminal Defence Service funded work and Recovery of Defence Costs Orders. The only book to cover criminal costs, written by Senior Costs Judge Peter Hurst, with contribution by Andrew Keogh


Contents

Very High Cost (Crime) Cases Panel Discontinued

Very High Cost (Crime) Cases Panel Discontinued

Ministry of Justice makes changes to CDS remuneration

The Ministry of Justice has today given effect to changes to arrangements and levels of remuneration for Police Station and Committals work, following their consultation "Legal Aid: Funding Reforms". …. Read

  • Lord Bach this morning signed a funding order that comes in to force on 6th April 2010. The order reduces police station rates in 148 areas.
  • The MoJ have now given effect to the introduction of a fee for Committals work, fixed at £318 exc. VAT.
  • Following the changes to the Funding Order, this fee can now only be claimed as part of the bill submitted at the conclusion of the Crown Court matter as part of the Litigators Graduated Fee Scheme bill.
  • This change takes effect for all matters where a representation order is granted on or after 6 April 2010.
  • These arrangements only apply to those cases that reach the Crown Court following a committal hearing.
  • If proceedings are dismissed or withdrawn at the committal hearing, then the case will remain in scope of the magistrates’ court standard fee scheme under the Unified Contract (Crime).
  • Please follow these links for guidance on the new arrangements:
Reforming Advocates Graduated Fees and Very High Cost Cases (5 April 2010)

Ministry of Justice Legal Aid: Reforming Advocates Graduated Fees and Very High Cost (Crime) Cases 2010 (5 April 2010)

The advocates graduated fee scheme came into force on 27th April 2010, leading to a 4.5% reduction in advocates graduated fees. The funding amendment order was however defective. A corrective order has now been published, just in the nick of time: Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 3) Order 2010

Crime contracts for 2010

The General Council of the Bar of England and Wales

Bar Council standard rate VAT increase 1 January 2010 bar council guide

The Bar Council is the professional body for barristers in England and Wales. It provides representation and services for the Bar, and guidance on issues of professional practice. This website caters for a diverse audience. If you are a barrister, or looking to instruct a barrister, or seeking guidance on becoming a barrister, there is information here for you.

The Criminal Bar Association This website is designed to provide all the information you need about the Criminal Bar Association, the events we run and the services we offer.

  • Bar Council: Letter to Heads of Chambers re quality initiatives (7 June 2007)
  • Bar Council letter re issues regarding very high costs cases (5th July 2007)
  • Bar Council The Bar Council has issued a new guidance on criminal graduated fees.
  • Bar Council Graduated fee payment protocol (April 2007) INTRODUCTION TO THE PROTOCOL
  • Bar Council Graduated fee payment protocol (April 2007) THE PROTOCOL
  • LSC Litigator graduated fee scheme
  • CPS Graduated Fee Scheme - Manual of Guidance and accompanying annexes are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs
  • CPS Graduated Fee Scheme pdf

CRIMINAL BAR ASSOCIATION GUIDANCE NOTES: The Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007 comes into force on 30th April 2007 and applies to proceedings in the Crown Court or Court of Appeal where the Representation Order was granted on or after that date: Article 4(1). The new regulations significantly amend the legal aid regime for advocates in the Crown Court. The basic structure of the graduated fees scheme (GFS) for Crown Court advocacy was introduced in January 1997, applying initially to trials lasting between 1 and 10 days and to some guilty pleas. Over subsequent years, the scheme was extended to longer trials: initially up to 25 days and in 2005 up to 40 days…..Read more

K & Ors, R v [2005] EWCA Crim 145 (28 January 2005) Lord Justice Thomas: lodging of forms in repect of legal representation - the scope of the representation order - should an order be made against the appellants?

Applications for two advocates

Applications for two advocates

Costs special preparation fee

Pages Prosecution Evidence (For AGFS & LGFS)

  • LSC response to Cost Judge decisions re. PPE: “The LSC has reviewed these, and other, Cost Judge decisions and does not believe that any of these decisions warrant a change to the LSC’s processes or the published guidance.”
  • LSC Multi-defendant claims and PPE evidence (29 March 2010)
  • LSC New guidance in relation to PPE (16 December 2009)
  • Evidence not counted as PPE
  • LSC Guidance for claiming advocates graduated fees (16 December 2009)

LSC Change to supporting evidence required for LGFS claims (11 November 2009) Following feedback from providers about difficulties with obtaining a copy of the PPE form for Litigator Fee claims, we have agreed that submission of the PPE Form is no longer mandatory. Claims will not be rejected if providers are unable to submit this document. Claims will be processed where evidence of the PPE is provided. Evidence can be in the form of documentation that has been generated by the prosecution and provided to the defence teams in the course of the client’s case. Please see the CDS News pages for further information.

  • LSC Updates to fee calculator, claim form and guidance (17 September 2009)
  • LSC New measures for pages of prosecution evidence (16 September 2009)

New process with effect from 1 May 2009

  • LSC Updated LGF guidance (1 April 2010) (Para 13 is the new and important bit)
  • LSC Form Version Details as at April 2010
New fees for advocacy in confiscation hearings

Guidance Notes Application under Paragraph 11 Of Schedule 1 Of The Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007 – Advocacy Payment In Confiscation Cases. The Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2009 introduced new fees for advocacy in confiscation hearings concluded on or after 21 August 2009 where there are more than 50 pages of evidence.

PPE Evidence

The LSC requires evidence of the prosecution's final PPE for all claims made under the LGFS.

Evidence of PPE can be in the form of the committal or Notes of Additional Evidence (NAE) cover sheet that identifies the pages for that bundle and for CPS cases, the running PPE total for that case.

Where the litigator is unable to provide evidence of the PPE because the bundles of evidence have not been paginated or indexed, or a running total of the PPE has not been endorsed on the committal bundle or NAE, the litigator should inform the LSC using the contact details below. (emphasis added)

The LSC will then raise this directly with the prosecuting authority.

PPE form

As per the LSC Update circulated on 11 November 2009, submission of the PPE Form is no longer mandatory for claims made under the LGFS. Therefore, litigators are not required to obtain copies from the advocate or the court.

The PPE form can not currently be accepted as evidence of the PPE and documents that have been generated by the prosecution such as the committal or NAE cover sheet, should be submitted with LGFS claims instead.

The LF1 will be amended in April 2010. For further guidance on PPE, evidence of PPE and the PPE process, please see the PPE Guidance manual.

Further Information
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact the LSC on one of the following numbers:
0115 908 4257 (Notthingham office)
0151 242 5239 (Liverpool office)

Costs special preparation fee

Costs special preparation fee

Table of offences Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007

Table of offences Part 6 of Schedule 1 of Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007

Table of offences Listed by class and alphabetical order

Standard Monthly Payments

Standard Monthly Payments Reconciliation Protocol

Either way cases funding process

LSC Either way cases funding process: Changes to magistrates' court means testing from April 6 will impact on either way cases....

Very High Cost Cases

See: Very high cost criminal cases

New Guideline Hourly Rates

New Guideline Hourly Rates Guideline hourly rates in civil cases increased with effect from 1st January 2009. The National Taxing Team will pay broadly similar rates for criminal cases, so no reason for criminal firms not to increase their rates accordingly

Guidance in relation to the new graduated fee system

The Criminal Bar Association has issued helpful guidance in relation to the new graduated fee system. Here for guidance, and here for fee sharing protocol. An annex to the fee sharing protocol has been published here. Also, click here for HMCS billing guidance (PDF). Click here for recent FAQ's (including treatment of section 51 hearings). Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007

Graduated Fee Scheme Manual of Guidance Amended Jul 08

Graduated Fee Scheme Manual of Guidance Amended Jul 08

Graduated Fee Scheme – Multiple Cracked Trials
  • Graduated Fee Scheme – Multiple Cracked Trials: This minute implements an important amendment to the GFS procedure to come into effect from 1 JUNE 2007. The amendment to the scheme affects remuneration of counsel fees in cases which result in multiple cracked trial outcomes.
  • Guidance on the Payment of Multiple Cracked Trials in Graduated Fee Cases New Process with effect from 1 JUNE 2007
  • Lord Chancellor v Haggan Q.C. & Ors [2007] EWHC 1212 (QB) (22 May 2007) Case on correct calculation of graduated fees and the courts approach to an obvious drafting error in the regulations.
  • Lord Chancellor v Frieze [2007 EWHC 1490 (QB)]. An interesting (and important) case on cracked trials at PCMH. Frieze contended that a trial date had been set at the preliminary hearing and given there had been a prior indication of plea and no element of the PCMH had been carried out (other that taking the plea and adjourning for sentence), no PCMH hearing had been held within the true meaning of the scheme. The distinction is crucial, had the hearing been a PCMH then a guilty plea fee would result, if not a PCMH then a much greater cracked trial fee would be payable. Held: The hearing was a PCMH and only a guilty plea fee was payable. Obiter: Having regard to the changes in procedure in the Crown Court which have occurred since the order was made, it may be appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to give some consideration to the amendment of paragraph 9 in the light of the issues raised in this case. Comment: At first blush this may be seen as an attempt to twist rules to seek maximum fee gain, however when you look at the judgment and consider Frieze's arguments you will see that a number of anomalies can result which act against the new case management ideals.

Implementation of the Carter Review of Legal Aid

Third Report of Session 2006–07 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes Implementation of the Carter Review of Legal Aid

Preferred supplier

  • LSC Preferred Supplier

Law Society conference webcasts

Legal Services Commission

Legal Service Commission: What's new?

Legal Service Commission: What's new?

LSC current CDS consultations

LSC current CDS consultations Current CDS Consultations This page shows the list of current consultations covering mainly criminal matters. These are available for you to respond to. You can see more information about a consultation by clicking on the consultation name.

Standard Monthly Payment Reconciliation Process

Standard Monthly Payment Reconciliation Process July 2008

Reconciliation of standard monthly payments

Form 5138 application for an extension of representation to cover 2 counsel

Form 5138 application for an extension of representation to cover 2 counsel

Crime Codes Translation: 16th March 2007

Crime Codes Translation 16th March 2007

Legal Service Commission Press Releases

Legal Service Commission Press Releases

LSC: Q&A police station One or two fees etc?

Police Station Advice & Assistance Fixed Fee Scheme Questions and Answers for Service Providers
This Q&A is the third version dated 12 February 2008

Download the new CDS6 and police station codes here

Download the new CDS6 and police station codes here

Submitting claims

LSC: Submitting claims Links:

  • Using the bulkload spreadsheet
  • Which version of the spreadsheet should I use?
  • How to transfer data from an earlier version
  • For more information
Criminal legal aid contract reforms

Criminal legal aid contract reforms The Legal Services Commission (LSC) has announced today the opportunity for legal service providers to apply for new six-month contracts to provide Criminal Defence Services across England and Wales. The application process will begin on 1 October and run until 4pm on 31 October 2007.

Proposed Amendments to the General Criminal Contract

LSC: Proposed Amendments to the General Criminal Contract (implementation Oct 07)

Following on from Friday's announcement by the LSC in relation to new criminal contracts, a Q+A document has been published (PDF).

The Legal Services Commission has released the new general criminal contract, duty solicitor arrangements, contract termination notice and list of FAQ's. Full details Hear

Unified Contract (Crime) July 2008 Specification Tracker

Unified Contract (Crime) July 2008 Specification Tracker

General Criminal Contract January 2008

General Criminal Contract January 2008

Crime Specification (July 2008)

Crime Specification (July 2008) Final Unified Contract Crime Specification (July 2008) for Invitation to Tender (080407)

Criminal Bills Assessment Manual: January 2008

Criminal Bills Assessment Manual: January 2008

Criminal Bills Assessment Manual: April 2007

Criminal Bills Assessment Manual: April 2007

Litigator Graduated Fee Scheme

New fee scheme for litigators (Last updated: 31 March 201)
  • LSC New fee scheme for litigators (Last updated: 31 March 201) graduated fee scheme for Crown Court litigators...
Legal Services Commission: Litigator fee 2008
Litigator Graduated Fee Scheme
  • LSC Litigator Graduated Fee Scheme changes in early August: Changes to the Litigator Graduated Fee Scheme due after 3 August
Crown Prosecution Service] Graduated Fee Scheme

Police Station Fixed Fee Claims: One or More fixed Fee

Police Station Fixed Fee Claims: One or More fixed Fee

Claiming for post-charge work carried out in the police station

LSC CRIMLA 77 Claiming for post-charge work carried out in the police station: Firms have a choice as to how to claim for work carried out, after charge, in the police station, either on the representation order or as part of the police station claim. The wording in the guidance in the Criminal Bills Assessment Manual was permissive, rather than prescriptive (“may” rather than “must”) because, in cases where there was a change of solicitor, it will only be possible to claim under the work type which that firm has carried out. In different cases, this may be either the investigations class or proceedings.

Police Station Reforms: response to the consultation

Police Station Reforms: response to the consultation

More....
  • LSC: Interests of Justice test: Justices’ Clerks’ Society Guidance on the Consideration of Defence Representation Order Applications Date: June 2007

As part of the legal aid reform programme, the Legal Services Commission (LSC) today announced a preliminary timetable for rolling out quality assessment to legal aid providers, linking Preferred Supplier with best value tendering. Read more..

  • LSC: Police station reforms
  • The Legal Services Commission has issued new policy advice in relation to defendants in custody and the provision of national insurance numbers. The document is available here
  • LSC: Amendments to General Criminal Contract (Apr 07)
  • LSC: Crime Change Programme Q&As: Version at 02/04/2007

LSC back down after threat of judicial review
The LSC, following a threat of judicial review from the Law Society has backed down in relation to the consultation over duty slot allocations. The Law Society, having tasted blood, is now threatening judicial review over magistrates' boundary zones, and has now issued proceedings in relation to the unified contract.

Duty Solicitor

Court duty solicitor swaps guidance

Court duty solicitor swaps guidance

LSC Police station duty solicitor scheme eligibility | Postcode Lookup tool

LSC: Duty Solicitor with links to relevant documentation/information.

Duty Solicitor Arrangements 2008

Annex A to the Duty Solicitor Arrangements 2008

LSC: Police Station Register Arrangements 2001 (as amended 30 April 2005 and 2 October 2006)

Duty solicitor call centre

The Duty Solicitor Call Centre (DSCC) Internet Project will allow, for the first time, duty solicitors to access online management information reports held by the DSCC. These reports will provide both up to the minute and historical information on the performance of individual solicitors and firms as a whole.

CDS Direct

The Legal Services Commission announced (20 March 2007) a consultation in relation to the extension of the Duty Solicitor Call Centre and CDS Direct. The intention is to filter all calls, save for those from detainees proposing to pay privately for advice, through CDS Direct. CDS Direct will deal with all telephone only cases. The aim is to save £4 million and a LSC press release stated that this money "...could then be reinvested in the legal aid scheme". The consultation lasts 6 weeks.

Click here for consultation paper.

CrimeLine Alert - Litigator Fee Initial Findings

It is easy to become a little weary at the constant drip of LSC consultations, but the litigator graduated fee paper needs urgent attention. Early indications are that some firms will lose on average over 30% of their crown court income, with losses on some case categories as high as 70%. There is no evidence yet of any firm having the right mix of cases to survive. The consultation clock is ticking and it is vital that you calculate a sample of your firms files to see the true picture. It could not be easier, simply click here.

Recovery of Defence Costs Orders

Recovery of Defence Costs Orders

The Criminal Defence Service: Financial Eligibility

The Criminal Defence Service (Financial Eligibility) (Amendment) Regulations 2007. These Regulations amend the Criminal Defence Service (Financial Eligibility) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/2492), which set out the criteria relating to financial eligibility which must be satisfied before individuals involved in criminal proceedings in a magistrates' court may receive publicly funded representation. The Regulations increase the financial eligibility limits and cost of living allowance for applications for representation orders made on or after 2nd April 2007.

A regulatory impact assessment has been prepared for instruments relating to the Criminal Defence Service Act, which is available from Criminal Legal Aid Strategy Division, Department for Constitutional Affairs, 54 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QW and can also be found at http://www.dca.gov.uk/risk/crime-defence-act-ria.pdf.

The Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2007. These Regulations amend the Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/1437) to provide for an increase in the financial eligibility limits for advice and assistance funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service. In force 2 April 2007.

The Criminal Defence Service (Financial Eligibility) Regulations 2006

Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 2492

Explanatory memorandum Explanatory memorandum to the criminal defence service (financial eligibility) regulations 2006 2006 no. 2492

These regulations will introduce a new financial eligibility test for criminal legal aid and transfer the power to grant the right to publicly funded representation from the courts to the Legal Services Commission (LSC). They set out the criteria relating to financial eligibility which must be satisfied before individuals involved in criminal proceedings in a magistrates’ court may receive publicly funded representation, provide for appeals or renewed applications and set out the procedure to be followed by applicants.

The Criminal Defence Service (Representation Orders: Appeals etc.) Regulations 2006

Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 2494

Explanatory Memorandum The criminal defence service (representation orders: appeals etc) regulations 2006 2006 no. 2494

These Regulations provide for appeals or renewed applications where an individual involved in criminal proceedings has been refused publicly funded representation on the grounds that the interests of justice do not require him to be granted an order giving a right to such representation. They take effect from 2nd October 2006, when the relevant amendments to the Access to Justice Act 1999 effected by the Criminal Defence Service Act 2006 (c.9) come into force. In the case of proceedings in magistrates' courts, the individual may appeal to the court. (There is no appeal where the order has been refused because the individual is financially ineligible to be granted an order.) In the case of proceedings in other courts, he may make a renewed application to the person who, or court which, refused the application. Where a representation order is withdrawn, the individual may apply for the withdrawal to be set aside.

The criminal defence service (representation orders and consequential amendments) regulations 2006 2006 no. 2493

Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 2493

Explanatory Memorandum Criminal Defence Service (Representation Orders and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2006

These regulations will introduce a new financial eligibility test for criminal legal aid and transfer the power to grant the right to publicly funded representation from the courts to the Legal Services Commission (LSC). They set out the criteria relating to financial eligibility which must be satisfied before individuals involved in criminal proceedings in a magistrates’ court may receive publicly funded representation, provide for appeals or renewed applications and set out the procedure to be followed by applicants.

Criminal Defence Service Funding Orders

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Orders (2009)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001 (No. 855)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2001 (No. 1143)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2001 (No. 1143)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2001 (No. 1256)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2001 (No. 1256)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 3) Order 2001 (No. 3341)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 3) Order 2001 (No. 3341)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2002 (No. 714)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2002 (No. 714)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2003 (No. 642)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2003 (No. 642)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2004 (No. 2045)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2004 (No. 2045)

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2005

Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 2621

Explanatory memorandum Criminal defence service (funding)(amendment) order 2005

This instrument relates to the payment of remuneration to barristers and solicitors in publicly funded criminal cases. It amends the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/855) by.....

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2006

Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 389

Explanatory memorandum Criminal defence service (funding) (amendment) order 2006

This instrument relates to the remuneration of solicitors in publicly funded criminal cases.

It amends the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/855) by:- giving a solicitor the right to seek a reclassification of certain offences without having to request the advocate to do so on its behalf.

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2007

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2008

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment) Order 2008

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2008

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2008

Criminal Defence Service Act 2006

Criminal defence service act 2006 Commentary

Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Orders

See also: Defence Service (Funding) Orders amendments and regulations

Criminal Defence Service (General) Regulations

Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

These Regulations amend the Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/1437), which deal with advice and assistance and representation in criminal cases funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service. They provide that for the purposes of such legal services, proceedings relating to serious crime prevention orders under the Serious Crime Act 2007 are to be regarded as criminal proceedings. They also provide for an increase in the financial eligibility limits for advice and assistance in respect of applications made on or after 7th April 2008.

An impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as it has no impact on businesses, charities or voluntary bodies.

Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007

Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2007

These Regulations amend the Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/1437) to provide for an increase in the financial eligibility limits for advice and assistance funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Criminal Defence Service.

A regulatory impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as it has no impact on businesses, charities or voluntary bodies.

Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2005

Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 2784

Explanatory memorandum Criminal defence service (general) (no.2) (amendment) regulations 2005

The Access to Justice Act 1999 (‘the 1999 Act’) provides for legal aid to be made available in criminal proceedings. In addition to ordinary criminal proceedings, proceedings related to criminal proceedings may also be included. These Regulations extend the list of such related proceedings, in the light of recent legislation. They also provide for an increase in the financial eligibility limits for advice and assistance.

Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) Regulations 2001 (Statutory Instrument 2001

Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) Regulations 2001 (Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 1437) UK Statute Law Database

Criminal Defence Service (General) (No. 2) Regulations 2001 (Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 1437) These Regulations govern the provision of advice and assistance and representation by the Criminal Defence Service under Part I of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

They provide for, inter alia,

(a) the proceedings which are prescribed as criminal proceedings for the purposes of section 12(2)(g) of the Act;
(b) the circumstances in which an individual may receive advice and assistance, including with regard to his financial eligibility;
(c) the manner in which applications for the grant of a representation order are to be made;
(d) the representatives who may provide legal services; and
(e) the withdrawal of representation.

They also provide for the revocation of the Criminal Defence Service (General) Regulations 2001, which they replace.

Costs in Criminal Cases (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2005

Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 2622

Explanatory memorandum Costs in criminal cases (general)(amendment) regulations 2005

This instrument amends regulation 11(7) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1335), by substituting Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules in place of a Part 8 application when lodging an appeal to the High Court from a decision of a Costs Judge of the Supreme Court Costs Office. It also amends regulation 12(2) permitting a determining officer, Costs Judge or Judge of the High Court to impose a penalty by reducing the costs claimed when extending the time limits for lodging a claim or appeal.

Criminal Legal Aid Administration Guide

Criminal Legal Aid Administration Guide The purpose of this document is to provide comprehensive information and guidance to Legal Services Commission’s (LSC) and Her Majesty’s Courts Service’s (HMCS) staff, as well as defence practitioners (solicitors) how to administer new criminal legal aid applications process introduced by Criminal Defence Service Act 2006 (CDS Act

Means testing 2 October 2006

Criminal Defence Service Act 2006: Implementation of the new means testing scheme

Information Pack: Implementation of the new means testing scheme: Updated: Tuesday, 21 November 2006

The purpose of this document is to address questions that have been raised in relation to the Criminal Defence Service Act and, particularly, the implementation of the new means test. This paper will be updated weekly and will be available to view by 12 noon every Tuesday. The latest changes will be highlighted in blue text.

FAQ on criminal means testing newly updated 17 October 2006

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION, ENGLAND AND WALES
The Criminal Defence Service (Financial Eligibility) Regulations 2006 Superseded by SI 2006 No 2492 The Criminal Defence Service (Financial Eligibility) Regulations 2006.

Latest news from LSC Important information on means testing early cover and more. ESSENTIAL READING

Quick guide to means test How to Claim Early Cover

The Criminal Defence Service (Financial Eligibility) Regulations 2006

Explanatory memorandum to the criminal defence service (financial eligibility) regulations 2006 no. xxxx

The Legal Services Commission has now made available a significant amount of material detailing the new arrangements for means testing. The material is detailed and voluminous as the scheme is not without complexity.

The main points are:

  • Passported means testing for (a) those under 16, (b) those under 18 in full time education, (c) those receiving certain benefits provided that they give a national insurance number.
  • Facility for those detained in custody to provide a statement of truth in support of the means form in lieu of formal evidence
  • Hardship scheme
  • An early cover scheme

It is also becoming clear that the interests of justice test will be more strictly applied, please ensure you read carefully the information on this (see below).

You need to print off and carefully consider each of the following documents (all in PDF):

Solicitor training: Presentation

Frequently asked questions: Criminal legal aid

The means test and the Interests of Justice test: Guidance

CDS Forms

CDS6 and 7 Guidance

Legal aid applications guidance

Legal aid applications guidance The LSC has produced this useful guidance. CrimeLine recommends that it is distributed widely. It will be of use also to barristers appearing at magistrates' courts who are submitting applications on behalf of solicitors.

New version 5 criminal legal aid forms CDS14, 15, 16 and 17
  • CDS forms CDS forms for applications for Legal Aid in criminal proceedings
  • CDS 14 - To be completed by all defendants who wish to apply for legal aid in criminal proceedings.
  • CDS15 - Financial statement to support CDS 14. To be completed by defendants who are employed and over the age of 16.
  • CDS 16 - To be completed by defendants who think they will fail the means test, but due to exceptional circumstances cannot afford to pay for their defence. Defendants may submit this form simultaneously with their CDS 14 or after they have received notification that they have failed the means test.
  • CDS 17 - To be completed by defendants in custody. Defendants may submit this statement where they cannot obtain the necessary evidence to support their application.
CDS12 submissions

Important note from the LSC in relation to CDS12 submissions. Read it here Revised deadline for submitting CDS12 forms – 4pm on Friday 7 May 2010

Permissibility of Barristers Signing Form CDS 14

Permissibility of Barristers Signing Form CDS 14

Criminal Legal Aid Consolidated Guide (April 2008)

Criminal Legal Aid Consolidated Guide (April 2008)

Form B Statement of Means Right to Representation in Criminal Proceedings in the Crown Court

Funding warrants of further detention under Terrorism Act 2006

Funding for Applications to the High Court for Warrants for Further Detention The Terrorism Act 2006 (Commencement No.2) Order bought section 23 of the Terrorism Act 2006 into force on 25 July 2006.

Funding Civil sanctions classed as criminal proceedings

Civil sanctions classed as criminal proceedings Civil sanctions that have been classed as criminal proceedings for funding purposes due to the restrictions that they can place on individual liberty. Criminal Defence Service (General) (No 2) Regulations 2001

2006 contract changes publishedThe LSC is not proceeding with changes to funding of ASBO's, Part 2 SOA 2003 orders, football banning orders etc.

Guide to Continuing Personal Development (CPD) scheme

Solicitors Regulatory Authority Continuing Personal Development (CPD)

Duty Solicitor

National Taxing Team - Claim Guidance

  • JSB Guide to the Award of Costs in Criminal Proceedings
  • Litigators Support to Advocates When solicitors can attend court with counsel in the types of hearings listed in The Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001 Schedule 1 Paragraph 12(8)
  • dca Guide to Allowances for Witnesses and Experts
  • Costs out of Central FundsUnder the terms of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, acquitted defendants who have privately funded their legal representation, and private prosecutors, may obtain from the Crown Court an order to obtain their costs out of central funds. Such claims for costs are determined by the NTT under the terms of Part III of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986.
  • Practice Directions Where a person is not tried for an offence for which he has been indicted or committed for trial or has been acquitted on any count in the indictment, the court may make a defendant's costs order in his favour. Such an order should normally be made whether or not an order for costs inter partes is made, unless there are positive reasons for not doing so, as where, for example, the defendant's own conduct has brought suspicion on himself and has misled the prosecution into thinking that the case against him is stronger than it is."
Legal Services Commission
  • LSC: New advocacy rates: From 30 April 2007 advocates (both barristers and solicitor advocates) may claim these revised fees for representation orders granted by the courts on or after 30 April 2007. These claims will be processed following the updating of the payment changes on the CREST IT system. This is expected week commencing 30 July 2007.

Grades of fee earner

The grades of fee earner have been agreed between representatives of the Supreme Court Costs Office, the Association of District Judges and the Law Society. The categories are as follows:

  1. Solicitors with over eight years post qualification experience including at least eight years litigation experience.
  2. Solicitors and legal executives with over four years post qualification experience including at least four years litigation experience.
  3. Other solicitors and legal executives and fee earners of equivalent experience.
  4. Trainee solicitors, para legals and other fee earners.

"Legal Executive" means a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives. Those who are not Fellows of the Institute are not entitled to call themselves legal executives and in principle are therefore not entitled to the same hourly rate as a legal executive.

Unqualified clerks who are fee earners of equivalent experience may be entitled to similar rates and in this regard it should be borne in mind that Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives generally spend two years in a solicitor’s office before passing their Part 1 general examinations, spend a further two years before passing the Part 2 specialist examinations and then complete a further two years in practice before being able to become Fellows. Fellows have therefore possess considerable practical experience and academic achievement. Clerks without the equivalent experience of legal executives will be treated as being in the bottom grade of fee earner ie. trainee solicitors and fee earners of equivalent experience. Whether or not a fee earner has equivalent experience is ultimately a matter for the discretion of the court.

Changes to Proceeds of Crime Act Guidance

Recent developments in legislation and case law have created the need to review the existing Funding Code Guidance (section 23) concerning applications for representation in civil proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002(POCA).

Legal Services Commission: Proceeds of crime Act 2002 funding

Appeals

Practice Direction: (SCCO: appeals as to costs in criminal cases) Appeals to a Costs Judge and to the High Court pursuant to the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, the Legal Aid in Criminal and Care Proceedings (Costs) Regulations 1989, the Crown Court Rules 1982 and the Criminal Defence Service (Funding) Order 2001.

See: Defence Service (Funding) Orders amendments and regulations

Case law

R v Sturmer and others, Supreme Court Costs Office, (7 January 2009)

R v Sturmer and others, Supreme Court Costs Office, 7 January 2009 (PDF only). Solicitors represented 2 defendants in the magistrates' court, both charged with affray. Both defendants pleaded guilty and were committed for sentence to the Crown Court. At the conclusion of proceedings the solicitors claimed 2 standard committal for sentence fees under the litigator's graduated fee scheme. Held: The solicitors were only entitled to one fee, irrespective of how many defendants they represented. Comment: Only ever act for one is moral of this story.

The Law Society, R (on the application of) v Legal Services Commission

The Law Society, R (on the application of) v Legal Services Commission [2007] EWCA Civ 1264 (29 November 2007) Judgment of the court: Appeal decision: judicial review brought by the Law Society against the LSC re: the rights of the LSC to amend the Unified Contract referred to in clause 13.1 of that Contract (other than amendments permitted under clause 13.2) were incompatible with Regulations 9(2), 9(4) and 9(7) of the 2006 Regulations insofar as they were applicable to technical specifications (as defined in Regulation 9(1) of those Regulations). Held: Consequently, we agree with Beatson J that the Unified Contract does not conform to the principle of transparency, but we consider that that result flows not only from Regulation 9 but also from Regulation 4(3). In the result, therefore, we allow the appeal by the Law Society and Dexter Montague, and dismiss the appeal by the Legal Services Commission and the Secretary of State.

Law Society: Press Release: Law Society wins legal aid appeal over contract

Law Society: Press Release Law Society wins legal aid appeal over contract: The Court of Appeal has this morning wholly upheld the Society's challenge to the Legal Services Commission's unified contract, also rejecting the commission's appeal. The commission has now lost the power unilaterally to amend the unified contract in the extreme way it proposed. The commission was refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords and ordered to pay the Law Society’s costs. Read more

LSC Press Release: Unified Contract JR decision provides clarification.

LSC Press Release Unified Contract JR decision provides clarification. Legal aid reform programme continues

Minister for Legal Aid v Main, R (on the application of) (19 November 2007)

Minister for Legal Aid v Main, R (on the application of) [2007] EWCA Civ 1147 (19 November 2007) At issue is the legality of the Lord Chancellor's decision to refuse legal aid funding for the claimant at the coroner's inquest, following the railway accident at Ufton Nervet in November 2004. Five passengers died in the accident, which resulted from a train colliding with a stationary car on a level crossing. The claimant's mother and sister were among the dead. The train was operated by First Great Western Rail Ltd ("FGW"), on railways owned by Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd ("Network Rail").

For the Minister, Miss Lieven takes issue with the judge's conclusions on all three points. On the SWPI issue, the judge had in effect substituted his own judgment for that of the Minister, rather than considering whether it was outside the boundaries of rationality.

52. For these reasons, notwithstanding the obvious sympathy which all must feel for the position of the claimant and his family, we think the judge's criticisms of the Minister's decision were unjustified. We are happy that in the event the inquest has been able to proceed, and that the decision on this appeal has been rendered academic in this particular case. However, the judge's approach would in our respectful view risk imposing an unjustified burden on the funding system, unsupported by domestic or European law.

53. Accordingly we allow the appeal, and set aside the judge's order.

Lord Chancellor v Frieze

Lord Chancellor v Frieze [2007] EWHC 1490 (QB)]. An interesting (and important) case on cracked trials at PCMH. Frieze contended that a trial date had been set at the preliminary hearing and given there had been a prior indication of plea and no element of the PCMH had been carried out (other that taking the plea and adjourning for sentence), no PCMH hearing had been held within the true meaning of the scheme. The distinction is crucial, had the hearing been a PCMH then a guilty plea fee would result, if not a PCMH then a much greater cracked trial fee would be payable. Held: The hearing was a PCMH and only a guilty plea fee was payable. Obiter: Having regard to the changes in procedure in the Crown Court which have occurred since the order was made, it may be appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to give some consideration to the amendment of paragraph 9 in the light of the issues raised in this case. Comment: At first blush this may be seen as an attempt to twist rules to seek maximum fee gain, however when you look at the judgment and consider Frieze's arguments you will see that a number of anomalies can result which act against the new case management ideals.

Lord Chancellor v Haggan Q.C. & Ors

Lord Chancellor v Haggan Q.C. & Ors [2007] EWHC 1212 (QB) (22 May 2007) Case on correct calculation of graduated fees and the courts approach to an obvious drafting error in the regulations.

Gittins & Anor, R. v

Gittins & Anor, R. v [2007] EWCA Crim 806 (04 April 2007)

In both these cases, the court granted a retrospective representation order in circumstances where counsel acting on behalf of each of the appellants had been privately paid for the application for leave to appeal. In both cases counsel have, quite properly, accepted that if they are paid under the representation order, they cannot retain any money paid to them privately for the purposes of these applications. We wish to make it quite clear that we do not consider for one moment that counsel in either case have acted in any way improperly.

Horner, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions

Horner, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] EWHC 1607 (Admin) (13 June 2006) A very interesting case on costs. I think I have made the point well now, having cited an increasing number of such cases over the last 12 months, that the rules of the "game" have now changed. AK.

Galandauer v Snaresbrook Crown Court

Galandauer v Snaresbrook Crown Court [2006] EWHC 1633 (Admin) (27 June 2006) Another costs case, this time with a better result. In this case, having allowed the Judicial Review the court had the option of remitting the matter for taxation or allowing the costs. The court allowed the costs on the basis that there was "no doubt" that they would be allowed. The significance I hear you ask? The court did not take issue with a charging rate of £150 per hour, stating: "An hourly rate of £150 plus VAT was claimed, which was less than that routinely recovered on taxation in road traffic cases. The court's figure of £150 overall equated to an hourly rate of £35, and it would be impossible to find a solicitor anywhere in the United Kingdom who would represent the claimant at such a rate.

links to summaries of the latest decisions on Costs

Criminal Bar Association: links to summaries of the latest decisions on Costs

R v Bishop & Others (5 January 2007) pdf

Goodman and Farr v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (13 November 2006)

Jonathan Goodman and Farr v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs [2006] EWHC 3669 (QB) (13 November 2006) Costs Pages Prosecution Evidence. The question before Master Rogers was whether DVDs and inlays referred to in a prosecution evidence schedule constituted “pages of prosecution evidence … forming part of the committal documents or served prosecution documents”. The appellants say that they do. The respondent denies that these particular DVDs or inlays properly fall within that definition. Held: “…Here it seems to me that the appropriate answer is that in relation to the DVDs and inlays in the present case the question which arises is whether they constituted pages of prosecution evidence. They did not constitute such pages for the reasons given earlier in this judgment.”

R (Brewer) v Supreme Court Costs Office

Brewer, R (on the application of) v Supreme Court Costs Office [2006] EWHC 1955 (Admin) (27 July 2006) Practitioners should ensure that, where separate and to some extent conflicting claims are to be presented, they should be presented together in a manner which makes clear the relationship between them. For their part, determining officers and Costs Judges should ensure that assessments do not take place in a totally separated way…. It seems to me that the best solution would be for the Regulations to be amended so as to require both claims to be submitted contemporaneously, preferably via the solicitor. Failing such an amendment, consideration should be given to a practice direction to this effect. For the time being, practitioners and others, including determining officers and Costs Judges, should treat the present case as appropriate guidance.

WLR: R (Brewer) v Supreme Court Costs Office: Where a claim for reimbursement of costs made by an acquitted defendant in possession of a defendant’s costs order was made in addition to a claim for costs submitted by his solicitors, they should be submitted contemporaneously.

R v Rigelsford (4 July 2005)

R v Rigelsford Central Taxing Team Case Costs Pages Prosecution Evidence (4 July 2005)

K & Ors, R v

K & Ors, R v [2005] EWCA Crim 145 (28 January 2005) Lord Justice Thomas: lodging of forms in repect of legal representation - the scope of the representation order - should an order be made against the appellants?

Image:Bailiism.png Where would we be without bailii please DONATE to BAILII

Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland.
CrimeLine is sponsored by Keogh Solicitors. CrimeLine is published by CrimeLine Training Limited (Company No. 06748394)
Retrieved from "http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Billing_resources"
Personal tools