It appears that the government, in an attempt to save itself some money, plans to let motorists acquitted of motoring offences pay their own court costs. This is likely to cause many people to just pay the fine because it's cheaper than clearing their name. I've seen a figure (unverified) that one in four who challenge a ticket win their case.
It also applies to other offences, I think..
Petition at
Nice scare story , but I'm not sign "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."
MOST drivers don't take a lawyer to Magistrates Court - so unaffected. If you are stupid enough to pay a 'World Class' lawyer for a speeding ticket, when duty lawyer would have got you off - tough.
ISTR from similar posts on uk.legal that the government want a get-out clause so any person found innocent has to pay their own defence costs
- it wouldn't surprise me if there would be something in the ECHR act that would prevent this as it's a blatant abuse of power.
Some legal begals are investigating wether you can sue for the costs through the civil courts against the individual who issued the ticket , they are looking at different angles from false accusation ,breach of human rights act to distress at being falsly accused .
They are also looking at hitting the cps every time a case is delayed due to proceedural errors or infomation not being forwarded which is very common and the police every time an officer is not available at short notice to attend court
Some reckon just going after the cps will cost the government twice what they save
If the government really do want to save money stop offering legal aid to asylum seekers and ilegal immigrants which costs an estimated one billion a year
As I posted over in uk.rec.cars.misc a few days ago:
I think the majority of wrongly accused drivers would want a proper, pre-briefed lawyer who could marshall evidence & witnesses for their defence.
You might choose settle for 10 mins of the duty lawyer's time (and a conviction) but you have no right to impose that on others.
If you are innocent, any duty solicitor is obliged to use due dilligence to get you off, and if he doesn't then there is the appeals process through the crown court, where presumably you will still be able to claim costs. (its also debatable whether the case would even BE at the magistrates if you are pleading not guilty).
I object to paying tax money to use a sledge hammer to crack a nut - either the guy is innocent and a tax funded lawyer is good enough, or he is guilty and trying to use a loophole to get around it in which case he can use his own money to pay for his fancy lawyer.
What really bugs me is the fact that we provide an interpreter for those who can't speak English. If they are accused of an offence in this country why can't they provide their own interpreter if they can't speak the lingo?
Rob Graham
Sod that, why not just forget the trial altogether and stamp the word "GUILTY" on their foreheads in bright red ink? Think of the money the country would save.
Sorry, but that's utter bollocks. Shame on you for denying justice to innocent people.
Most of the population thinks there's a difference between innocent & let off on a technical c*ck up.
So - you seriously believe that the are two classes of lawyers - the 's*it' ones that work for the state funded prosecution and defense and a 'super lawyer' race? You pay for what you get in motoring defence? Bullshit.
On that basis the crown should pay their lawyers ten times the going rate and then EVERY case would be found guilty!
Go down the courts and tell a lawyer he must be s*it because he only gets legal aid funding, I dare you.
How is only paying the going rate for a lawyer rather than inflated fess 'denying justice'?
On that basis I guess if your Mini is damaged in an accident you are going to demand it repaired at the Ferrari bodyshop because they charge a higher hourly rate "so must be much better and its what I deserve"?
If _my_ Mini were damaged in an accident, the only person I would trust to repair it _properly_ is *me*!
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required