Hello and welcome to this 20 minute bite sized on presentation on behalf of data law in relation to amendments to Crown Court. And I know it does say Barry stuff. I'm on the first slight there, but I'm known practicing. I'm very fortunate in the Dive retired. Let's then have a look at these 12 point shall way. There they are in the screening points. 123 First thing. There were no changes of any substance whatsoever when 1,000,000,000 Crown Court work from the perspective off litigator. In other words, your crown called preparation. We are still working from statutory Instrument 2000 and 16 number three 13 and it's being enforced with us now since the 31st of March 2000 and 16. And, of course, he gave us the tables in relation to the billing off Crown Court work. As litigator, I suspect you don't use those tables anyway in the statutory instrument because you have the calculators 0.2. It's quite an important point. The Legal Aid Agency updated its crown, called the guidance document. It seems to do so annually that please make sure that you are working from the very latest document published in June 2000 and 19 as I put them in Bullet Point to the very latest version, is 1.11. It's well worth a read. Seriously. It's not the longest document in the world. It starts off with general guidance. As you probably know. It then goes on to give the guidance in detail. Intervals advocates are concerned on gives the guidance as far as litigators air concerned on. Then you've got some very interesting appendices at the back on there. Well worth a read. I've just flagged up one thing for you there. Newton hearings fully covered in the guy who owns it, says, does he not that if the matter doesn't go ahead as a contestant Newton hearing, then insofar as the Advocate is concerned, he or she on may be claiming a guilty plea Fay or a crack profit. Now, if the plea was entered at all before the PT pH, then it's a guilty plea for the Advocate. If, however, that they was ended after the bt pH, then it would appear the Advocate could claim a crack trial feet for a Newton hearing that doesn't go ahead in relation to litigators it simply says it shall not be billed as a trial. In other words, it seems to may that if you've done a lot of work preparing that particular Newton, I see no reason. By Yushin, at least trying came it as a crack profane. The guy simply says it shall not be billed as a triumph. It doesn't say how it should be built as it does with Africa. It's it doesn't expand upon that guidance. The third body point there on that particular slide an important case for litigators, Vagina and Saleh. 18th of March 2000 and 19. In this particular case, the legal aid agency were unwilling to pay a trial thing on the matter went to accost Judge on the cost. Judge ruled that it was indeed a trial Fay, and not a crack 12 feet. Now what had happened in the case? Well, very simply, the defense had prepared a skeleton argument, and that was read out to the judge. The skeleton argument effectively said that the officers who were going to give evidence in the trial or know to be permitted to give evidence because because off some tainting or statement, I'm in their evidence. I don't want to go into the facts of why it was felt that the officers should not give evidence. I don't think it's really important to the cost aspects of the decision. But suffice it to say that this skeleton argument having been read out, the judge said to both parties, prosecution and defense, I'll stand the matter down. I go outside and sorted out between yourselves. There was clearly than a conversation between council on the defense about these potential police officer witnesses. The crown came back in, probably offered no evidence on the matter was dismissed. Now had the judge being dealing with substantial matters off case management in that particular case, well, the legal aid agency thought not. But the cost judge thought he had and therefore a tribal fate was payable interesting. I think if I be asked my opinion, I would said prior to Saleh that that was probably a crap trophy. Got the neutral thing. Hey, we may be Seymour skeleton arguments in the Crown Court than we ever were in the past. Okay, lets go 2.4 to 6 your way as those a few who do crown called billing will probably know it Really. Waas aled change for advocates back in 2000 and 18 A completely new regime introduced by statutory instrument 2000 and 18. Number 220 Effective for all determinations that legal aid Waas grant of all After the first of April 2000 and 18. The fees for advocates were then further increased. Five. Statutory Instrument 2018. Number 13 23 That is it relevant Statutory instrument where the determination that he or she qualifies for legal aid he's made on or after the 31st of December 2000 and 18. These are important statutory instruments. Please do get hold of them. They're available, aren't they? From legislation Doctor after UK That's the website that will give you legislation on and these statutory instruments as well. 0.5 litigators still have the old classifications of offenses. A. Through two K that has gone half at the Cosi went didn't it on the first of April 2000 and 18 when the new regime was introduced? Advocates now have categories off offenses and band ings within the category. There being some 17 different categories 17 really. Category 70 is a catchall for the offenses that don't fall within the 1st 60 It's a bit like if you're building it from the perspective off litigator, if there no, sure, which classifications of offense it is. It becomes a page. Well, the same really is true for council. If they're not sure which category it falls into that they're going to put it into category 17. I think off the top of my head, there's something like 450 different defenses within category 17. No, in relation to the advocates new regime, we were given, of course, some important documents by the Ministry of Justice. The banding of offenses advocates graduated fee scheme version 1.1. And that was February 2000 and 18. We were then given version 1.2 in December 2000 and 18. So, please, please, please do make sure that you have those two documents toe hound, because when you're building a case from the perspective of advocate assuming it arrived at the ground called by way of having been sent, therefore be a matter on indictment, you're going to have to check, aren't you the counts on the indictment that you will take that the highest count possible and say Right, What band did this count full within under the new regime? Andi. Assuming that there are different different blandings within the category, you need to know not only which category it fell into but which banned within the category it fell into as well. No, All of the categories are subdivided into a Siri's or different band ings. But many of them are, as you will see when you look at the document point seven, denying pages of prosecution evidence off little relevance. Now, when deciding the advocates faith, it is still relevant in certain areas. For example, if you're building it as proceeds of crime, then of course we know we that from those two statutory instruments that advocates are pay either half day fee over a full day Fay And in addition, that they are paid another thing dependent upon the number off P p. E. In the case, I think the maxim of fee relates to PP eat up to 1000 is all in those two statutory instruments that were published in 2000 and 18. Anything over 1000 pages on a pocket case and It would seem to me that the advocate would be claiming that any additional pages over 1000 at special preparation, £39 an hour, I say those pocket feed use of all in those two statutory instruments. That's not strictly speaking. True, is it because it would appear they left them out at the statutory instrument published in April, But they magically reappeared to do such a instrument published in December. Special preparation clearly and on occasion deciding which banned within a category A case falls. In other words, it may be that you're dealing with special preparation as an advocate because you have a large page count in the main anything. Over 10,000 pages on the Advocate conclude lame hourly rates but £39 an hour. But do have a look at those statutory instruments because in certain instances the page count must be beyond 30 1000. In order for the advocate to be able to claim hourly rates of special pen, and in other instances, the page count must be beyond 15,000 in order for the advocate to claim hourly rates a special cramp. That's a change purely for advocates in relation to certain drugs offenses on certain offenses of dishonesty. No change for litigators. Litigators can claim special prep hourly rates whenever the page count exceeds 10,000 pp. Also relevant. If you look at some of the categories and you look at some of the band ings, you will see the page count gets a mention in the banding. So one occasion you're gonna have to check the page cow to find out which which banned within that category. The case falls 0.8. We sent half que seas. We still have leading juniors. We still have led juniors. We still have juniors alone. There's be no change in Napa card. We do, however, 0.9 have three entirely different tables to the tables that preceded April 2000 and 18. And do remember, please, I doubt whether you will have many. But if you're building a case for African where legal aid was granted Pride Toe April 2000 and 18 you need statutory instrument 435 of 2000 and 13 435 of 2000 and 13 for your really old cases that predate First of April 2 1018 you're not gonna have many of them. So you. So let's look at the current table shall way you've got. Of course, the advocates feed if it's a guilty play or cracks in anything but the final third, there's then another table for advocates fees. If the case cracks in the final third. And there's, of course, the third table for advocates fees. If the case doesn't crack it all on, goes ahead as a try. Let me just explain 0.9. If I met, imagine that they're not guilty. Plea is taken at the Bt B. H, and a trial date is fixed some three months. Hence, all the matter is to be put into the first, and it's just the first that counts. The first warned list in three months time. So if it cracks and doesn't go ahead as a trial within the 1st 2 months of that three month period, it is deemed to crack in anything but the final Third. The advocate falls back upon a guilty plea for, of course, if it cracks on the first day of the third month on beyond in that three month period that it's deemed to crack in the final 4/3 3rd of that three months payment, I use cream us as an example. If the period was six months and it cracked in the 1st 4 then, of course, a guilty plea would be payable if it cracked. However, on the first day of the fifth month on Beyond then, of course, that would be cracking in the final third of this six month baby. If it doesn't grab it all, it's paid as a trial thing. I think that's fairly simplistic. All I would say, you said, sometimes you can't avoid it, but it is far preferable for things to crack now. In the final third of that period, between the not guilty plea being entered at the BT pH and the trial date being fixed or the matter going into a warned ist, I say it's ideal because if it cracks in anything but the final third, the Advocate falls back on a straightforward guilty pleas, which might not be very good, considering the fact that you might have done a fair amount of prep for a trial that thereafter goes on to crack. And the final three bullet points there 10 11 and 12 then advocates are now paid a basic feed for the first day of the trial under the new regime, and they are paid. Refresh your fees from day two and beyond. Also, there's a greatly expanded list of fixed fees fixed these that AARP able now that weren't paving in the past. So please do have a look at those two statutory instruments that were published in 2018. Standard appearances are now paid from the very 1st 1 was under the Old Regime Your first I think it was full standard appearances were all wrapped up in the basic fee. That's not true anymore. Standard appearance fees are paid from the very first war. You're also paid as an advocate a fixed fee for the Petee pH appearance. That wasn't true under the old scheme, where it was tied into your basic things. You've also got from an advocates position a much, much better outcome. If the case concludes or doesn't conclude because a warrant has been issued on, the matter hasn't concluded. Do please have a look at paragraph 25 of statutory instrument 2000 and 18 number 220 in relation to how long you have to wait on what fees you can claim for an advocate where a won't is being issued on, the matter has not concluded. Finally, I mentioned this all before. The Crown Court Fee Guidance document is a must lead, particularly in relation to advocates fees. Have a look, for example, at thickness to plea hearings. The document says. You have a choice. You can opt for a band 5.3 fear if that would pay you a higher fate than your in app available. If a restriction order is made under Section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 then the offense immediately falls within band 1.3 for advocates billing purposes. I just give you those two examples of 20.12 as illustrative of the fact that you really need to read that June guidance to fully come to grips with the fees payable under the new regime. Well, there you are. We've done. We've had our 20 minutes. I hope you found that useful. I know that you will. I get that feed guidance and you will get those two statutory instruments trust may. They are well worth a read. This is a calling bae one thanking you on behalf of data law for listening to this weapon armed for watching me. And I hope to have your company again in the not too distant future. Another another and unrelated topic. Thank you.
Webinar
Slides
2347 Users
82 Courses
118 Reviews
