I suggest we use this consultation as an opportunity to make representations that the base fee for all LGFS claims is increased by the MC committal fixed fee.
This is to remedy the error made when the LGFS scheme was introduced. The base fee levels were set on the assumption that the MC committal fixed fee would still
be paid. As we know, the drafters of the legislation got it wrong and unintentionally abolished committal fees altogether. This is why the LGFS fee for e.g. a burglary cracked trial is less than the elected not proceeded fixed fee (which is expressly stated
in the regulations to be a penalty and a lower fee for having the temerity to elect CC trial).
We should try to rectify this as it is an obvious error and was clearly not intended. Looks like there are going to be plenty of savings elsewhere once the
10,000 page cap is reduced.
Regards
Charles Worthington
From: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk [mailto:members@mail.lccsa.org.uk]
On Behalf Of Jonathan Black
Sent: 10 February 2017 13:32
To: members@mail.lccsa.org.uk
Subject: MOJ consultation on LGFS and Court appointees
5. We consider that, despite the fact that this can be a sensitive task, the work of court appointees under section 38 or section 4A is in reality no different to that
undertaken by lawyers acting for a defendant under legal aid. Therefore we propose capping such costs at legal aid rates, as we have already done in relation to Defendants’ Costs Orders. There is no reason to pay a premium for this work just because payment
is made from central funds rather than the legal aid budget. The work involved and time required to prepare is little different from many legal aid cases.
Sent from my iPhone
To unsubscribe from the LCCSA Members eGroup click
here.
To take a break from receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click
here.
To resume receiving emails from the LCCSA Members eGroup click
here.