header-logo header-logo

09 June 2021
Issue: 7936 / Categories: Legal News , Disclosure , Criminal , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Preliminary work to go unpaid under pre-charge scheme

Lawyers’ groups have called on the Lord Chancellor to think again on early disclosure plans in criminal investigations or risk them failing before they even begin.

The pre-charge engagement scheme, which came into force this week, is a voluntary process between parties to an investigation which can take place at any time after first interview under caution and before the suspect is formally charged.

Its purpose is to make it easier for the defendant or their solicitor to bring information that may assist their case to the attention of police and prosecutors so that cases can be dropped quickly, if it is appropriate to do so. The scheme can be initiated by an investigator, prosecutor, suspect or suspect’s representative.

However, no fewer than ten groups have written to the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC, warning that restrictions on payments to solicitors for taking part could scupper the scheme before it gets off the ground. The groups include the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association, Black Solicitors Network, London Criminal Court Solicitors’ Association, Legal Aid Practitioners Group and the Law Society.

‘The rationale for this scheme is sound but defence solicitors were assured they would be paid for the additional work it entails,’ said Law Society president I Stephanie Boyce.

‘That work necessarily includes getting instructions from the client, examining relevant evidence and advising the client whether or not to take part in pre-charge engagement. However, solicitors will not be paid for this preliminary work as, under the scheme the Ministry of Justice has devised, payments will only kick in if and when they begin engaging with police or prosecutors, and only for work done after that point.

‘Opportunities to save money by bringing cases to an early close will inevitably be missed because hard-pressed defence practitioners simply cannot take on even more unpaid work. This would have adverse financial consequences for the police, prosecutors and the overburdened courts.’

The letter also highlights the low hourly rates for defence practitioners in the new scheme―£51.28 in London and £47.45 outside London.

Boyce called on ministers to ‘substantially’ raise the rate and pay solicitors for advising suspects on the scheme.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll