Legal aid for the egp's
- 19 June 2013 18:04233996completely nonplussed me gary, as others on here have said businesses usually are covered on their insurance for legal costs.
- 19 June 2013 20:10234029Me too Howard, just thought our business buddies on here might come up with an explanation for us.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum" - 22 June 2013 11:19234393Howard.
Very one-sided posts and not the usual dialogue of expert opinions about this thread, coming forward.
Could it be possible that this is completely borne from the actions of this present Gov and can't be spun back at Labour or GB.
What do you think?"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum" - 22 June 2013 11:38234395I will not say alot about this because I do not understand how it all works,but will just add years ago when our son died I asked and got legal aid to help us take the N.H.S, to court over the cause of this very sad happing this went on for about two years,at last it came to the time for it to go to high court then I had a letter from the legal aid dept saying they will not fund the high court cost even that they think we are right in doing what we had done but because it was not a 100% open and shut case they have stoped our legal aid at the wrong time,we had to stop because we could not cover the very high cost of the case going ahead even today we feel very upset and sad about it all. I have nothing more to add to this thank you.
- 22 June 2013 13:51234404"We are still waiting for response to Howards question below.
"i always thought legal aid was restricted to members of the public on low income, not businesses in any shape or form"?"
Having now read the article in #1 I see no mention of companies (Banks?) availing themselves of Legal Aid. IF I am mistaken somebody will set me straight, I'm sure.
It may be that the issue here is that Legal Aid is granted to those who have assets but have had those assets frozen. There appears to have been some movement on this front...
"Ending crime bosses' 'free ride' on legal aid
Monday 11 March 2013 by A Gazette reporter
Amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill announced today 'will put an end to millionaire criminals refusing to reimburse the taxpayer' for free legal advice, the government said. The move follows a long campaign by the legal profession.
Under the current system, wealthy defendants can have their assets 'frozen' - making them eligible for legal aid. Today's amendments will enable legal aid costs to be seized from all assets, restrained or not, alongside compensation
for victims and the proceeds of crime.
Justice secretary Chris Grayling said: 'The principles of fairness and equality are fundamental to our justice system. It's high time the legal aid system was made fairer to the taxpayer; putting an end to crime bosses getting a free ride at the taxpayers' expense.'
The Law Society's president Lucy Scott-Moncrieff said: "The Law Society is delighted that our campaign to see frozen assets of wealthy suspected criminals released to pay defence costs has been successful. We welcome the Ministry's amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill to implement this long overdue change."
The Bar Council, hailed the development as a 'significant victory' in its campaign 'to take pressure off of the legal aid budget'.
Maura McGowan QC, chairman of the bar, said: 'The Bar Council is delighted to hear today's agreement to unfreeze wealthy defendants' assets so that they can be used to meet their legal costs. Since 2010 we have been campaigning for this move to take pressure off a legal aid system, which the government has already squeezed to breaking point.
'We urge the Ministry of Justice to use this opportunity to ensure that those most in need can have effective access to justice.'
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ending-crime-bosses-free-ride-legal-aidIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 23 June 2013 16:39234528Tom.
The headline is "Hundreds of millions from legal aid budget helps banks defend fraud cases""My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum" - 23 June 2013 17:27234549I've read it all again Gary, and it is hard to fathom just what point is being made, other than the "What about the workers?!" angle.
I must boil down to two separate things...
-In a case where assets are frozen the State picks up the tab for all defendants. Something (they say) is to be addressed. [#25]
-That two areas of expenditure are being conflated:The overall cost of prosecutions and Legal Aid.
"The taxpayer is forced to foot a bill mounting up to hundreds of millions to deal with bank fraud cases each year...said Michael Turner QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association...
...Speaking before MPs on the justice select committee today, Mr Turner said there were better ways of making savings to the legal budget, one of them being to ensure that banks were obliged to insure themselves against fraud and the cost of prosecutions.
Speaking to The Independent, he said: "About 45 per cent of the criminal legal aid budget of £1.1 billion is spent on these fraud cases."
"The state pays for the investigation by the police and the state prosecutes at the expense of the tax payer," said Mr Turner, pointing out that the higher burden of proof required in a criminal court then made it simpler for a bank to prove a civil case.
"If they never recover that money, the banks are entitled to write off the fraud loss against tax..."Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 24 June 2013 09:21234607Tom.
Thanks, I think I get the gist of it, tell me if I'm right?
Lots of money made by criminals who rip off banks.
Lots of money made by Lawyers, Barristers etc.
Banks allowed to claim L.A. to pay the Lawyers etc. through their incompetence and if after spending £millions on bringing the criminals to justice, they cant get their money back, the bank get's let off from paying lots of tax.
So everyone is nice and happy, cashed up and happy to continue on their merry way.
Except that is for the Tax Payer 
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum" - 24 June 2013 09:31234610That does seem to be the situation Gary, I'll keep an eye out for further information.
P.S.
Except that...
A lot of public money could be saved, according to this committee witness barrister fellow, if instead of publicly funded criminal proceedings being brought in bank fraud cases the banks faced up to their own shortcomings and pursued the 'fraudsters' through the civil court at their own expense.
I am still a little unsure about the term "defend" in the headline, unless as I have said, all parties are Legally Aided in a case where assets are frozen:say, with money laundering, the bank itself is in the dock along with the 'criminal'.
Who knows what more information the day will bring?Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 24 June 2013 13:03234640The Justice Committee...
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
"Q5 Steve Brine: Mr Turner is Chair of the Bar Council, for those watching. Do you take, on face value, the Secretary of State's assertions that we need to make significant savings here?
Michael Turner: No. As has already been pointed out, we think in the first place that he has achieved his target figure when he says he wants to reduce the budget to £1.5 billion once it is worked through. The real point here and where the taxpayer is losing out is that there is huge waste in the system, as we have pointed out...
Q6 Steve Brine: Would you just outline two for me? ..
Michael Turner: Let me just give you an example from Friday. One of my members, last Friday, attended court to do three cases. In the first case, the prisoner was not delivered, so the case could not take place. In the second case, the CPS had failed to instruct a prosecutor, so that case could not take place. In the third case, the Punjabi translator, who was meant to be delivered by Capita, did not turn up either. None of those three cases could go ahead. That is a picture that is happening all across the country on a daily basis.
In terms of the Crown Prosecution Service, which has been advertised as saving the taxpayer £27 million, if you look at their internal audit report, you realise, in fact, that they do not deliver those savings at all because that figure is based on counsel's savings rather than taking into account the cost of their employees. Once you do that, that £27 million disappears altogether.
Then you have to take into account again what is happening on a daily basis, which is that cases are not being properly prosecuted. One example from four weeks ago is a case at Southwark. A five-handed kidnap trial collapsed because disclosure was not done properly. There was a £500,000 costs order against the CPS, with a conservative estimate of £3 million to the taxpayer. There will be a retrial. Again, that is a picture that is happening across the country.
If things were done properly, those are the gaps that will produce huge savings. In addition to that, an entire budget can be produced by three very small measures. If you delivered the magistrates court back into the hands of the Magistrates' Association-it was taken into the MoJ in 2005 and was probably the best example of David Cameron's Big Society in action-that would produce a saving of £1.5 billion. We have suggested an insurance scheme, which would mean that the banks contribute to the cost of the fraud prosecutions. At present, when a bank loses any money, the only person who suffers is the taxpayer. The bank is allowed to write the money off against tax; the taxpayer pays for the investigation; the taxpayer pays for the prosecution. If the prosecution is successful, lo and behold, the bank is delivered free of charge all it needs to get its civil recovery..."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmjust/uc91-i/uc9101.htm
So Gary, it appears that the term 'defend' does not mean much at all.Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 24 June 2013 13:30234646Further down the page the proposed tendering process is discussed...
"Q40 Andy McDonald: You are quite dismissive of some of the names that have been bandied around in this context, with Serco and G4S. Are you saying that there is no incentive for new entrants into the market?
Michael Turner: ... in terms of the type of supplier that might come in and look at how they are behaving at the moment? If you take a name that is well known now, which is Eddie Stobart, who is wishing to come into this market, at present he is advertising a service to the public that the public can get for free and he is taking money from them for that service. He advertises as Stobart Barristers. He has not a single barrister on his books. What he is doing is taking the Bar Direct Access Directory and he is charging the public for putting his finger in those pages and saying, "You can go to that barrister." The public can get that service completely and utterly for free. That is the kind of behaviour that it is going to come into this market."Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing. - 24 June 2013 14:28234653Tom.
Lost for words.
So at a time when this Government is outlining plans to change disability premiums within Child Tax Credits or Income Support under the Universal Credit to dramatically cut disabled children's benefits for up to 88,000 families under the guise of bringing down spending.
It is happy to continue to waste £millions on the above debacle."My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"