Hitler discusses the legal aid reforms
Discussion
carinaman said:
At least ITV aired the Christopher Jefferies dramatisation today.
Regarding there only being 20 MPs in the House to witness Chris Grayling mislead the House, is there a way of finding out who those 20 are? I thought Hansard only kept notes of people when they speak. Or do they also keep a record of bums on seats?
not up on it but i wouldn't have thought soRegarding there only being 20 MPs in the House to witness Chris Grayling mislead the House, is there a way of finding out who those 20 are? I thought Hansard only kept notes of people when they speak. Or do they also keep a record of bums on seats?
quick google suggests not
'Members of Parliament are not obliged by parliamentary rules to attend the House at any time. Political parties may make demands of their MPs, but that is a matter for them. Therefore no records are kept of an MP's attendance at Parliament; however you may be able to look at an MP's voting records to ascertain their attendance in the chamber, although this may give you a distorted picture of their attendance as they may be present in the chamber and decide not to vote (abstentions are not recorded in Hansard). Likewise, the transcript of debates in the House, known as Hansard, records only those Members who speak.'
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/foi/foi-...
anyhow, it doesn't matter how many were there its still 'the house'
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/5045598.article?utm_so...
"Victor Nealon was convicted of attempted rape in 1997 despite a disputed identity parade – witnesses said the attacker had a distinctive bump on his head, which Nealon does not have.
He served 17 years – 10 years more than his seven-year sentence – because he always claimed that he had not committed the crime. This led to him having fewer privileges than other offenders and also being refused parole.
His conviction was quashed in December 2013, four years after a DNA test pointed to ‘an unknown male’ – not Nealon – as being the likely assailant.
He was rapidly released from prison, given £46 and a train ticket to Shrewsbury, his destination of choice. He proceeded to sleep on friends’ floors until Birmingham MP John Hemming offered him temporary accommodation above his constituency office.
Although denied legal aid, he was determined to receive compensation for the 17 wasted years and the trauma he still suffers.
However, in June 2014, the Ministry of Justice rejected his application for compensation and is now demanding he pays £2,500 in legal costs on the grounds that the DNA analysis ‘did not show beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant did not commit the offence’.
This requirement to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt, Newby maintains, was a breach of the presumption of innocence that is a cornerstone of UK law."
"Victor Nealon was convicted of attempted rape in 1997 despite a disputed identity parade – witnesses said the attacker had a distinctive bump on his head, which Nealon does not have.
He served 17 years – 10 years more than his seven-year sentence – because he always claimed that he had not committed the crime. This led to him having fewer privileges than other offenders and also being refused parole.
His conviction was quashed in December 2013, four years after a DNA test pointed to ‘an unknown male’ – not Nealon – as being the likely assailant.
He was rapidly released from prison, given £46 and a train ticket to Shrewsbury, his destination of choice. He proceeded to sleep on friends’ floors until Birmingham MP John Hemming offered him temporary accommodation above his constituency office.
Although denied legal aid, he was determined to receive compensation for the 17 wasted years and the trauma he still suffers.
However, in June 2014, the Ministry of Justice rejected his application for compensation and is now demanding he pays £2,500 in legal costs on the grounds that the DNA analysis ‘did not show beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant did not commit the offence’.
This requirement to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt, Newby maintains, was a breach of the presumption of innocence that is a cornerstone of UK law."
Shocking. Where does that sit with the Centre for Social Justice of Christian Guy and Iain Duncan Smith?
That he can't get compensation as he has to stump up £2,500 sounds like one of those mailings OAPs get informing them that they've won the lottery but they just need to send a cheque to cover the admin costs to get their winnings.
That he can't get compensation as he has to stump up £2,500 sounds like one of those mailings OAPs get informing them that they've won the lottery but they just need to send a cheque to cover the admin costs to get their winnings.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/legal-aid-...
Morale at the criminal bar continues to plummet. 28K after expenses, and hourly rates on some gigs (eg 80 odd quid for a summary trial) that can drop below minimum wage. I am lucky, as I don't do legal aid work, or criminal work of any kind. I would need a much more mahoosive sense of vocation than I possess to do the crim gigs. Luckily, some have that sense of vocation, but I wouldn't blame anyone for Jacking it in.
Morale at the criminal bar continues to plummet. 28K after expenses, and hourly rates on some gigs (eg 80 odd quid for a summary trial) that can drop below minimum wage. I am lucky, as I don't do legal aid work, or criminal work of any kind. I would need a much more mahoosive sense of vocation than I possess to do the crim gigs. Luckily, some have that sense of vocation, but I wouldn't blame anyone for Jacking it in.
Sorry, but aren't barristers self employed?
So the costs that are mentioned come off their taxable gross thus reducing their net taxable income? It's not quite the same as someone who's salaried at the same level is it.
Rather than a set of self employed barristers if there is an issue would not a US style paid public defender type arrangement not work here?
So the costs that are mentioned come off their taxable gross thus reducing their net taxable income? It's not quite the same as someone who's salaried at the same level is it.
Rather than a set of self employed barristers if there is an issue would not a US style paid public defender type arrangement not work here?
Barristers in private practice are self employed. I am not sure what your point is. The article gives the average gross figure and suggests that the average net is 28K. The article is a tad unclear whether that figure is pre tax or post tax. I assume the latter. Either way, these are not big bucks, for people doing a professional job after a long period of training.
The US Public Defender system is notoriously flawed. Miscarriages of justice caused by inadequate representation at trial are quite frequent. Would any such system here be properly funded? The CPS is not properly funded, so what chance that a public defender system would be?
The US Public Defender system is notoriously flawed. Miscarriages of justice caused by inadequate representation at trial are quite frequent. Would any such system here be properly funded? The CPS is not properly funded, so what chance that a public defender system would be?
We are discussing legal aid lawyers. The £200 an hour solicitor would have to bill hard to make 400K a year, and that would be a gross figure before expenses and tax. A lawyer can rarely bill every hour of a (say) 40 or 50 hour week, as some of those hours are spent on business management, marketing, client relationships, training, regulatory blah and so on.
400K a year plus would not be an uncommon gross figure for a lawyer in a large firm or a commercial chambers doing privately paid commercial work. The typical High Street solicitor doesn't make anything like 400K a year gross. The profession is widely stratified. At the top end, commercial solicitors and barristers can be grossing well over a million a year, but at the bottom end people gross well under 100K a year. I reiterate that all fee figures are gross of expenses and tax. Solicitor profits margins are much lower than those for barristers, because solicitors have higher overheads.
400K a year plus would not be an uncommon gross figure for a lawyer in a large firm or a commercial chambers doing privately paid commercial work. The typical High Street solicitor doesn't make anything like 400K a year gross. The profession is widely stratified. At the top end, commercial solicitors and barristers can be grossing well over a million a year, but at the bottom end people gross well under 100K a year. I reiterate that all fee figures are gross of expenses and tax. Solicitor profits margins are much lower than those for barristers, because solicitors have higher overheads.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 19th December 09:51
You are very ill informed. An ill informed opinion is not an opinion worth having. Private sector lawyers work in a very competitive market. Competition on price is intense. Prices are not set by any mechanism other than the market - there is no cartel. I am talking of private sector work. The Government pays fixed rates for civil work. The rates have not been increased since the 1990s. Has your pay been frozen since the 1990s? In criminal work, the rates are set by the Government and have been going down in recent years.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 19th December 10:22
herewego said:
These charges are incredibly excessive. ...
Which charges?What rates are excessive? £80 to prepare and conduct a trial? That sort of sum is what a junior legal aid lawyer would get. If it takes six hours to prepare, and the lawyer is in court for, say, five hours, and there is, say, an hour of travelling/waiting, then the lawyer is earning less than most cleaners. Maybe the lawyer will be lazy/get lucky, not do the prep, and plead the case out, and so bill £80 (NB gross) for maybe an hour or two hours work (I reiterate that the 80 quid is not the take home pay), but if the lawyer is conscientious, and many (not all) are, and the case goes the distance, the lawyer is working for not very much money.
How about my rates? £120 an hour when representing the Government: non negotiable. Deduct about 30 per cent for expenses (expenses would be more if I was a solicitor), then deduct tax. For the private sector, my rates are negotiable between about £250 and £450 an hour. Again, knock off about a third for expenses and then deduct tax to get the take home figure. I am one of the lucky ones, as I do fairly high end ish work for mostly corporate clients that are willing to pay commercial rates, but those clients haggle like hell over fees. If they think that I am too expensive, they go to someone else who will do the gig for less.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 19th December 10:34
Not in the legal aid sector. There is no real market there. Prices are set by Government. To be blunt, some of those doing legal aid work do it because they are not good enough to get better paid work. Others are skilled and work at least partly from a sense of , but even they have bills to pay. Morale amongst those types is low, and many are quitting.
Do we want criminal justice in the hands of the least able prosecutors and defenders? Would you like the lawyer who prosecutes a nasty crim for a serious crime or defends you when you are unjustly accused to be selected on quality or purely on cost? Cost must be a factor, of course, but if the whole system is geared to running on the cheapo, it may not work so well.
Outside the legal aid world there is arguably an over supply of lawyers, but the market operates to deal with that.
I am fortunate enough not to do any legal aid work, and no criminal work at all, but I give a toss about the issue because I give a toss about effective prosecuting and defending, both of which serve the public interest.
Do we want criminal justice in the hands of the least able prosecutors and defenders? Would you like the lawyer who prosecutes a nasty crim for a serious crime or defends you when you are unjustly accused to be selected on quality or purely on cost? Cost must be a factor, of course, but if the whole system is geared to running on the cheapo, it may not work so well.
Outside the legal aid world there is arguably an over supply of lawyers, but the market operates to deal with that.
I am fortunate enough not to do any legal aid work, and no criminal work at all, but I give a toss about the issue because I give a toss about effective prosecuting and defending, both of which serve the public interest.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 19th December 11:55
@Breadvan I think you grasped my point, it's not clear as to what the pay position is from the article.
£50k plus salary/earnings for the vast majority of people in the country is a large amount of money. To them, most of whom who will not use a lawyer, beyond conveyancing or probate, the large figures they hear quoted impact their opinion of what some of your colleagues do for a living, i.e. defence of terrorists etc, quite a lot.
If we cannot fund the current system, and the US version doesn't work, what's the answer? I'd have thought the US starting position, with some reasonable tweets would not be a bad option.
Sadly there are only limited funds for all the areas we'd ideally spend cash on.
£50k plus salary/earnings for the vast majority of people in the country is a large amount of money. To them, most of whom who will not use a lawyer, beyond conveyancing or probate, the large figures they hear quoted impact their opinion of what some of your colleagues do for a living, i.e. defence of terrorists etc, quite a lot.
If we cannot fund the current system, and the US version doesn't work, what's the answer? I'd have thought the US starting position, with some reasonable tweets would not be a bad option.
Sadly there are only limited funds for all the areas we'd ideally spend cash on.
I was and still am uncertain of what your point was and is. Anyway, the salary figure quoted is about 28K, not 50K plus. 50K plus is a gross figure. In this context and others, people often seem unable to grasp that the fee charged by any business is not the same as the profit of that business, and that is as true when the business is a single person as it is when the business is some vast megacorp. Would 28K seem a lot to most people? I am not sure, as the national average salary is above that, IIRC. Public perception of lawyer earnings may be skewed by reports of the large amounts earned by the lawyers at the top end, who mostly do commercial work for corporate clients, not criminal cases.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff