Government’s legal aid ‘failure’ halts major fraud trial
British Prime Minister David Cameron is dealt an embarrassing blow by his own brother, as a complex fraud trial is stopped due to the government’s legal aid cuts.
Above: Barristers and solicitors protest legal aid cuts in March
Alex Cameron QC, who is representing seven defendants in the trial free of charge, applied on Monday to have the trial stopped because cuts to legal aid meant his clients could not find barristers of “sufficient competence”.
We do attribute the fault to the state more widely. Alex Cameron QC
Mr Cameron laid the blame for the lack of legal representation at the door of his brother’s government – saying the problem was widespread in court cases, and that the state had “failed”.
He said: “We do attribute the fault to the state more widely. The problem is this case is not the only case that has this problem. At the moment there is a finite resource [of barristers] and too much capacity required.
“Is the position going to be that this case should swallow up the available silks… so that these other cases are adjourned or stayed?”
Barristers and solicitors have repeatedly protested the government’s cuts.
Legal aid cuts
On Thursday, the judge in the “Operation Cotton” £5m fraud case, Judge Leonard QC, agreed with Alex Cameron – saying that the state had “failed to provide the necessary resources” in order for a fair trial to go ahead. Operation Cotton was an investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
The case puts cuts to legal aid, implemented by Conservative Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, in the spotlight.
Mr Grayling has overseen reform to the legal aid system – introduced as a part of cost-cutting measures across government departments. The result was that barristers and solicitors have been hit with 30 per cent cuts in fees for the most complex fraud cases – known as Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs).
Above: David Cameron and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling
Mr Grayling has previously said: “As everybody knows this government is dealing with an unprecedented financial challenge and I have no choice but to look for the savings I have to make across the full range of the MoJ’s work.
“I cannot exempt legal aid from this, but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand how challenging these reductions will be.”
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: “Barristers have refused to work on this case – and a number of other Very High Cost Court Cases – because they do not agree with savings the government is making to legal aid.
“Even after the savings, if a QC picked up a case like this one, they could expect to receive around £100,000 for working on it,with a junior barrister receiving around £60,000. The government has made sure that the Public Defender Service has a number of suitably qualified advocates who could act in this case.”
‘Failure’
Judge Leonard was left with a decision to either adjourn the trial to a later date, to give the state time to provide the defendants with legal representation, or to stay the case.
Staying the trial means it has been halted. The stay can be lifted, but it could also mean that the trial is put off indefinitely.
Above: Barristers and solicitors carry on effigy of Chris Grayling as they protest against legal aid cuts in March
The judge decided to stay the trial – saying he does not predict that the scarcity of barristers is going to improve.
His judgement on Mr Cameron’s application read: “Having considered all these matters I am compelled to conclude that, to allow the state an adjournment to put right its failure to provide the necessary resources to permit a fair trial to take place now amounts to a violation of the process of this court.
“The knock-on effect on other trials, the waste of court resources and the need to disregard the Criminal Procedure Rules designed to protect the court system from abuse and to ensure that scarce resources are used to best effect all, in my judgment, add to the reasons why an adjournment should not be granted.”
The judge had been considered the possibility of delaying the trial until 2015 and 2016 – but said he does not predict the lack of resources will have changed by then.
He said: “It would be unconscionable to put this trial off to September 2015 with the second trial being heard in 2016. On what I now know, there is no basis on which I could find that the availability of advocates would be any different then than it will be in January 2015.”
Complex cases
Eight men face fraud charges in relation to the alleged £5m land banking scam – a “Very High Costs Case” (VHCC).
Nigel Lithman QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said: “Each advocate who had signed a contract to undertake a VHCC case was presented by the government with a choice: either to accept a 30 per cent cut in their fees or to terminate their contract. They chose to terminate their contracts.
“Since then, we understand that no barrister has signed a new contract to undertake a VHCC at the reduced rates.”
Scott Crawley, 35, Daniel Forsyth, 30, Ross Peters, 27, Aaron Petrou, 46, Ricky Mitchie, 24, Adam Hawkins, 28, and Brendan Daley, 38, are accused of conspiracy to defraud. The eighth defendant, solicitor Dale Walker, 53, faces fraud charges and an allegation of money laundering.
Mr Cameron does not represent Mr Forsyth, The FCA has until 3pm on Friday to appeal the ruling.