|
STOP THIS TAX ON
INNOCENCE |
|
At
present, individuals acquitted of a criminal charge in a Crown Court are able
to claim back out-of-pocket legal expenses. However the government has launched
a consultation paper, CP28/08, The Award
of Costs from Central Funds in Criminal Cases, downloadable from
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/award-costs-central-funds.htm
Applicable
to
It
is imprecise over the possible savings, but has some strange inconsistencies.
For instance, it promises to uphold the right to an interpreter (costing £12
million a year) which would help an accused person to understand a charge and
defend themselves, but might deny the right to representation and thus affect
an innocent layman’s ability to understand the law. (Defence cost savings might
be estimated at nearer £8m).
Ironically
both principles are upheld by the (non-EU) European Convention on Human Rights,
1950, which the government claims to respect in its Human Rights Act, 1998.
Some
argue that defendants do not need lawyers and can turn to Court Duty Solicitors
and Legal Advisers (aka Court Clerks) for advice – in the parallel context of a
Magistrates’ Court – however the government does not propose to push those who
qualify for legal aid into this alternative, another inconsistency.
Prosecutions
can cover relatively ordinary matters such as motoring where the authorities
have been found to be less than perfect. Legislation has been wrongly
implemented, for instance some speed measuring devices have been found to be
unsound.
On
The Road magazine (Winter 2008/9) put the typical cost of fighting alleged
speeding and other motoring offences at around £1,500. If members of the public
are unable to recoup out-of-pocket legal costs, they may wrongly plead guilty
as the price of innocence might be higher than a fine. The conviction
statistics may be massaged up, but justice will not be done!
The
government was recently exposed as having created roughly one new criminal
offence per day – over 3,600 since 1997, with over 1,000 carrying a possible
jail sentence. As a majority of our new laws now appear to be made in
The
difficulty in observing increasingly complex and unreasonable laws (cf. the
Metric Martyrs) will create criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens.
Yet
while the government poses as being ‘tough on crime’, many anti-social
offenders are let off with a caution. Hardened criminals are released early
from prison to inflict themselves on society.
One
in
Ironically,
while Jack Straw’s Ministry of Justice wants an effective deterrent to members
of the public defending themselves, he recently urged his government
departments to fight every compensation claim!
(Daily Mail, 8.12.08).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092695/Jack-Straw-reveals-Why-I-want-change-law.html
He
notes 'People concede these claims because the cost of fighting them could be
high. My view is that unless you have good reason to concede, you should fight
each, to discourage others.'
This
is not the first time that the government has been accused of tampering with
our rights. In 1999, a coalition of organisations including the Law Society
opposed aspects of the earlier Access to Justice Bill.
“The
government says this bill is about making access to justice available to more
people. It will take
away help from people who need it most…. Under the
bill, the right to justice will remain in theory, but is not guaranteed in
practice” (BBC, 22.6.99)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/375299.stm
If
the issue is cost-cutting, then the government should stop being penny-wise,
euro-foolish – in 2008, it voted through an extra £1 billion a year to the EU
for the period 2007-13, effectively a subsidy to our competitors. The
Taxpayers’
Lord Bach, a Justice Minister, would have us believe:
“It is extremely important that we target our resources effectively across
Government, particularly in the current financial climate”
The
answer is not to introduce a pernicious tax on innocence, particularly those
thrifty enough to build some savings.
The
government should remember the pledge from 1997 that it was elected to serve
the people. And not the other way round.
The
official consultation closed on
* Reading
this document is strongly recommended for detail that might affect individual
circumstances, for instance it also covers magistrates’ courts and appeals.
There is also a complex ‘Interests of Justice’ test which might go some way
towards providing financial safeguards in some cases, such as where there is a
prospect of imprisonment, or the use of expert witnesses. However some of the
categories are very subjective and will be interpreted by officials with a
remit to keep costs down.
The Law
Society’s comments in a parallel consultation on means testing raise some
serious issues, and are worth reading on: http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/secure/file/177932/e:/teamsite-deployed/documents/templatedata/Internet%20Documents/Government%20proposals/Documents/response_crown_court_means_testing_jan09.pdf
(assemble
text as single line URL as needed)
© New
This page
updated: