If you're found not guilty...

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.

Optimus Prime

Well-Known Member
Posts
5,988
Location
Garden of England
Apparently the ministry of justice are looking to change the law regarding re-imbursment of legal costs if you are found not guilty.

At present, you are entitled to receive all of your legal costs if found not guilty. However, the proposed change is that you will only receive the legal aid value of the costs, irrespective of what costs you have incurred.

If you disagree with this, there is a petition here:

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

And this is the full description of what is proposed:

"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.
This proposed rule change will undoubtedly mean that many defendants will accept wrongful prosecutions for commercial reasons. The Association of Motor Offence Lawyers see thousands of convictions each year in the Magistrates' Court that should never occur due to misunderstanding of technical points concerning motoring legislation. If a defendant wishes to clear their name, they often have to take their case to the Crown Court. This can be an expensive process for which legal aid is unavailable which many will not embark upon with the knowledge that even when they win their appeal, they will lose the majority of the legal fees they spend in the process.
The costs savings the government are seeing to make could be made by examining and improving other ineffective processes within the court system. It is not fair to pass yet another expense onto the public."
 
Be better to make the CPS responsible for court costs, as if they were a private pettisioner; Ie: judge ruled costs against them. If they started having to pay costs, they'd be a bit more choosey in bringing teniouse cases in the first place, saving both private individuals and the ruddy treasury.........
 
Back
Top