A judge should not continue to try a case alone, after discharging the jury because of jury tampering, where an ‘informed objective bystander’ might legitimately conclude that there was a real possibility of bias by the judge. So held the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in a judgement given on 17 November, allowing an appeal by a defendant known only as KS under section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The appeal was against an order made by a crown court judge, during the appellant’s trial for money-laundering offences, to discharge the jury under section 46 of that Act because of jury tampering, and continue as a judge-alone trial.

The defendant was alleged to have been involved in a very substantial VAT “carousel” fraud and the arrangements made for laundering the proceeds. His was the tenth trial in which different aspects of the fraud, and the roles of numerous different individuals, were examined. Many of them were convicted. Following conviction, sentences were imposed, and confiscation proceedings conducted. Judge A presided over all these trials and post trial hearings. In the first of this group of trials the Crown alleged that the appellant was one of those directly involved in the conspiracy to defraud with particular responsibility for laundering the proceeds. He was acquitted of conspiracy to cheat the Revenue and of one count of money laundering and the jury was unable to agree verdicts on two counts of money laundering. The Crown proceeded to a fresh trial of the appellant on substantive counts, adding two further similar counts to the indictment. After the jury had retired, the judge concluded that tampering had taken place and ordered the jury to be discharged. He found that it would be fair to the defendant for the trial to continue without a jury, and ordered accordingly.

Delivering the judgment of the court, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said that it was an unusual and indeed an extreme case. By the time this tenth trial was coming to an end Judge A was inevitably aware of a vast body of information affecting their client of which the defence would have been ignorant and which therefore would not have been addressed in the present trial. “Everyone of those identified in the counts in the present indictment were said to have been jointly involved with the appellant. Each of them was convicted in trials over which Judge A had presided. Some of his observations about the appellant himself in the course of his sentencing remarks were specific to and critical of the appellant. None of these considerations, even taken together, prevented him acting as the trial judge when the jury was vested with the responsibility for the verdict. However taking them together, and examining them in their overall context, we have concluded that the objective bystander, considering the question which arose when the judge himself became responsible for the verdict, would be left with precisely the same concerns articulated by the judge in the course of the argument and which, in the result, he was persuaded with some hesitation to set aside…For these reasons this appeal will be allowed.”.

In an interesting postscript, the judgement concluded that “the layout of X Crown Court, and the opportunities for smoking available for those who wish to smoke, are unsatisfactory. They must be reconsidered, at any rate in relation to trials lasting more than a day or two, so as to avoid the inevitable risk of jury contamination where jurors and members of the public congregate together to have a smoke”. The full text of the judgement can be found at:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2377.html

Lord Hunt of Wirral was commissioned by the Law Society in October 2008 to advise on what was needed to establish best modern practice in the regulation of solicitors. His terms of reference were:

‘In light of current and forthcoming changes in the Legal Services market, the differing needs of different types of client, current regulatory debates and the need to promote equality and diversity, to consider the appropriate regulatory rules, monitoring and enforcement regime to ensure high standards of integrity and professionalism for solicitors and their firms in all sectors, and to make recommendations.’

This week the Law Society published his report. In his ‘Welcome’ to the report, Lord Hunt acknowledged that the legal sector is undergoing a radical transformation. Alternative Business Structures will have to be assimilated into the legal regulatory system, the ever changing demands of clients will need to be satisfied, and English and Welsh law must maintain the high international reputation which provides so many business benefits for the UK. “For these, and many other reasons, it is critically important that the regulatory system is constantly revaluated to ensure it is fit to meet both new challenges, and long standing regulatory needs”.

Lord Hunt makes 88 specific recommendations, and there are four main themes in the report. He stresses that all firms must be regulated to the same standard, by a knowledgeable and credible regulator and in accordance with the well-established BRE principles of better regulation. But this does not mean that every firm should be treated in the same way. He advocates a system which he describes as Authorised Internal Regulation (AIR). AIR will be available to all firms, not just those concentrating on corporate work, who demonstrate their willingness and ability to set up internal governance standards that are robust enough to secure compliance. Secondly he recommends the extension of the regulatory net to include will writing, claims management companies and all of probate, as these are complex matters with potentially far reaching consequences.

Lord Hunt recommends that legal professionalism should be translated into regulatory principles. He says it is essential to base any regulatory system in a strong and transparent theoretical framework, ensuring that it has the necessary resilience and flexibility to adapt to the changing world in which it operates. His view is that legal professionalism, rooted firmly in the concept of the rule of law, provides a sound base for the regulator to build on. The fourth theme concerns the regulation of Alternative Business Structures (ABS). He does not oppose the 2011 launch date, as proposed by the Legal Services Board, but stresses the importance of getting it right. It is crucial that appropriate public and consumer safeguards are put in place. Regulators must be clear about the information they require, the scrutiny they intend to undertake, and how they will deal with regulatory breaches. He recommends that ABS should be subject to the same regulatory requirements that govern other law firms.

Bob Heslett, President of the Law Society, welcomed the report and said “Lord Hunt has set out an imaginative and thought provoking blueprint which I am confident will be invaluable to the SRA [Solicitors Regulatory Authority] as it charts its way forward for the future. We look forward to working closely with the SRA as it develops its approach.”
The full text of Lord Hunt’s report can be found at:

http://www.legalregulationreview.com/files/Legal%20Regulation%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

The Law Society claimed a partial victory when, after lobbying hard for a proper pilot and full evaluation of the proposals, the LSC promised that decisions on any roll out will not be taken until full pilots have been evaluated, which will not be before 2013. “This decision is a testament to the strength of the arguments put forward in the responses of the Law Society and all the other organisations who responded to the consultation” said Paul Marsh, Law Society President. He expressed pleasure that the LSC has adopted many of the suggestions in relation to the pilot model that were made in the economic report by LECG which was commissioned by the Law Society and welcomed the acknowledgement of the need for solicitors to be able to follow their clients out of area.

But there the welcome ends. Their main concerns are still that access to justice will be reduced and that there is a great risk of disrupting the existing supplier base. Firms are likely to feel pressured to make unsustainably low bids in order to win a contract and quality will not be taken into account as part of the bid process. The Law Society expressed disappointment that, despite an overwhelmingly negative response to BVT, the LSC has decided to proceed with pilot schemes in Manchester and Bristol. In a recent exchange of correspondence with the LSC, Des Hudson, Chief Executive of the Law Society, called for some protection for firms in the pilot areas. As bidding for contracts in the pilot areas will be open to all the firms in the whole country, this has the potential completely to destabilise and cause permanent damage to the existing supplier base, particularly as economic analysis has confirmed that the market is extremely fragile and that many firms currently operate at marginal profits. He also drew attention to the “complete lack of detail” of how the scheme will operate. “Please explain what, if any, training or advice you intend to provide.” Paul Marsh warned of the potentially destructive impact on firms in the pilot areas that will be forced to exit the market if they did not secure a contract. “For some lawyers in this position, the result will be personal bankruptcy,” said Marsh. “It is not acceptable that people should be bankrupted by the operation of a pilot scheme.”

Other views reported in the ‘Law Society Gazette’ included those of leading criminal law solicitor Andrew Keogh, who predicted the demise of BVT. “The pilots won’t happen. It’s a monumental shift by the LSC, kicking everything into the long grass.” Franklin Sinclair, senior partner at Manchester firm Tuckers, said practitioners would be looking at ways to challenge the decision to proceed, but if the pilots went ahead, it would be a “disaster for clients…I can foresee firms making unsustainable suicide bids and the price ending up so low that providing a service of any quality will not be possible.” Ian Kelcey, chairman of the Law Society’s criminal law committee, warned “each firm [in the pilot] will have to consider what decision it makes in relation to BVT. But they should be under no misapprehension that, if the price drops, the standards required by the SRA will not decrease.”

The full text of Des Hudson’s letter to the LSC is at:- http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/new/documents/2009/deshudson_lsc050809.pdf

and the LSC’s response is at:- http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/new/documents/2009/lscresponsebvt140809.pdf

Introducing proposals for legal aid reform last week, Legal Aid Minister, Willy Bach, said that the UK has one of the best funded legal aid systems in the world. He went on to say that “legal aid practitioners provide a fantastic service and should be paid accordingly; and that means rebalancing some fee structures so that there is greater fairness across the board. Today’s consultation paper sets out proposals to make better use of the legal aid budget and ensure access for as many people as possible”.

The proposals set out to rebalance the legal aid budget seek to ensure that the £2 billion currently spent every year goes as far as possible in favour of civil help for those who need it most. “Legal advice, in the fields of housing, debt, and welfare benefits, can solve people’s legal problems, with the result that their lives and lives of their families are improved. It can literally change people’s lives”, said Lord Bach. During the current economic downturn “more people who are homeowners, consumers, employees and those facing financial hardship, are vulnerable in ways that require them to use the civil law system”.

One proposal is to rationalise the rate of pay for barristers in Crown Court cases. On average, barristers acting for the prosecution receive 23% less pay than if they were acting for the defence. Ending the current duplication of fees, which remunerates litigators for preparation for committal hearing but which also remunerates the same litigators for consideration of the Committals Bundle in preparation for trial in the Crown Court, is also proposed, with one fixed fee to be paid out of the Litigator Graduate Fee Scheme. The anomaly by which practitioners in criminal cases receive a fee for file reviews which does not apply in civil cases is to be removed, with the ending of payments for criminal file reviews.

A particularly controversial proposal is the reduction in police station fees in the most expensive and oversubscribed areas. The Law Society is clear that many solicitors will not be able to provide a service if rates are reduced further. This will be particularly the case in London, where, it claims, solicitors work on the very edges of profitability. Many of the worst affected solicitors will be from the BME community, who provide important advice to members of that community, who are statistically more likely to be arrested. Des Hudson, Law Society Chief Executive, said: “Solicitors don’t create the demand for advice in police stations; they simply respond to requests from people who’ve been arrested… Arbitrarily cutting the fees that they are paid will reduce access to this vital service for the people who need it most”.

In addition, the Legal Services Commission have been asked to consider changes to payments made to experts in both criminal and civil cases. Currently, the legal aid budget pays different amounts for the same work by different experts and across categories of law. The change would see payments standardised “to ensure better value for money”.
If you wish to have your say, you have until 12 November 2009, when the consultation will close. Following consultation, MoJ intend to publish their response by December 2009. The full text of the consultation paper ‘Legal aid: funding reforms’ can be found at:-

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/legal-aid-funding-reforms.pdf

Criminal firms have seen the introduction of fixed fee schemes for police work and a standard fee system in magistrates courts following a review of legal services by Lord Carter three years ago. Now the consultations on proposals for competitive tendering by criminal defence work firms have come to an end, with solicitors’ firms across the country voicing strong opposition to the proposed system.

The Law Society, the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association are all gravely concerned about BVT as currently proposed by the LSC, involving a limited scheme which would cover lower crime work in police stations and the Magistrates’ Courts. This would probably be extended should it prove successful. BVT involves competitive tendering based on price for criminal defence work, as solicitors’ firms will bid for blocks of work, with the lowest bidder getting the work. Strong concerns are expressed that criminal legal aid firms could be drastically reduced, meaning the number of firms available to clients will diminish, as the already financially vulnerable supplier base is put at risk. “The widespread use of BVT is likely to… deny clients access to many competent and dedicated solicitors who want to serve them. The bidding processes proposed are opaque and not suited to the commissioning of professional services, where the freedom of the individual is put at risk”, said Paul Marsh, Law Society President.

In their response to the proposals, the Law Society said that they will have a hugely detrimental impact on the quality of representation in police stations, and thereby damage the criminal justice system as a whole. Of equal concern is the failure to conduct a full and proper impact assessment, taking account of the potential disproportionate impact on women and BME practitioners. Desmond Browne QC, the Chairman of the Bar, said that “we cannot afford to sacrifice the present robust system for a scheme which lacks all economic justification, and which will have a disproportionate impact on BME practitioners. The LSC’s failure properly to assess the impact on BME practitioners is potentially discriminatory and may be unlawful; it has a statutory duty to avoid discrimination and promote equality of opportunity, and it has comprehensively failed to comply with this requirement”.

Speaking at a conference organised by the Legal Action Group to celebrate 60 years of legal aid, justice department minister Lord Bach said that BVT is “not a simple cost cutting exercise. It’s aimed at securing a sustainable, effective and efficient supplier base”. In an interview with the ‘Guardian’ he acknowledged that his policies are deeply unpopular among many former colleagues, adding that “I have to do what I can to ensure the legal aid is spent in the best possible way, and that’s what I’m trying to do.”

The Law Society’s response to the Legal Services Commission’s consultation on best value tendering for CDS contracts 2010 can be found at:-
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/secure/file/180185/e:/teamsite-deployed/documents/templatedata/Internet%20Documents/Government%20proposals/Documents/bvt_response180609.pdf

Conditional Fee Agreements, also known as ‘no win, no fee’, are alternative methods of funding litigation, introduced widely in 2000 when legal aid for personal injury claims was axed. In this type of funding the solicitors share the risk in that if a case is lost the solicitor will not be paid but if the case is won the solicitor will charge a success fee.
CFAs can be used in all civil litigation except for family cases and provide access to justice for those who could not afford to pursue litigation and who are not eligible for public funding. But according to ‘Press Gazette’ a number the rich and famous have taken advantage of the CFA scheme.

As reported in ‘The Times’, organisations such as Citizens Advice Bureau have been urging a review of the scheme, saying that it is not widening access to justice in the way intended – in fact the actual number of claims has fallen since ‘no win, no fee’ schemes were introduced. The complex legal and financial processes involved are often misunderstood and consumers are misled into thinking the system will be genuinely ‘no win, no fee’ but can often find that costs are hidden and unpredictable. Another criticism is that these deals can create “perverse incentives for the legal profession” and encourage the cherry-picking of high-value cases with a good chance of success, leaving the smaller claims.
The Ministry of Justice has commissioned a review of the arrangements in England and Wales. Justice Minister Bridget Prentice said: “No win, no fee arrangements are vital in helping to give the public a voice in courts. However, we are aware of growing concerns that they may not always be operating in the interests of access to justice. We feel that now is the appropriate time for a comprehensive, objective and evidence based examination of the operation of no win, no fee arrangements in relation to personal injury, employment and defamation cases.”

Jack Straw has made his views clear. Addressing the Labour Conference in Manchester last week he said “I am concerned about …‘no win, no fee’ arrangements. It’s claimed they have provided greater access to justice, but the behaviour of some lawyers in ramping up their fees in these cases is nothing short of scandalous. So I am going to address this and consider whether to cap more tightly the level of success fees that lawyers can charge.”

The review is being led by Professor Richard Moorhead, Deputy Head of Cardiff Law School. He is due to report to ministers in the autumn.