Debates between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Keen of Elie during the 2015-2017 Parliament

Prosecutions: Defence Legal Costs

Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Keen of Elie
Wednesday 15th March 2017

(7 years, 8 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Portrait Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer to my register entry as a solicitor.

Lord Keen of Elie Portrait The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, in 2012 the Government limited reimbursement of the legal cost of defendants who had been convicted of a criminal offence. Where legal costs are still allowed—for example, where the defendant was not eligible for legal aid—the recoverable costs are limited to the equivalent of legal aid rates. A review will be conducted by April 2018.

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Portrait Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
- Hansard - -

My noble and learned friend the Minister will be aware I am sure of the recent case of an 83 year-old gentleman of good character who was acquitted of violence against an intruder on his property, but was not permitted under current rules to claim his reasonable defence costs. How can we reconcile the presumption of innocence and an acquittal with the fact that claiming legal costs incurred to maintain innocence is no longer normally possible? I know that a review of these rules is taking place; I am delighted to hear my noble and learned friend confirm that. I would be grateful if he ensured that these and similar circumstances are part of such a review, bearing in mind that the present situation is not only a deterrent to innocent parties defending themselves, but positive encouragement to sloppy preparation and decision-taking by the prosecuting authorities.

Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, we are of course aware of the particular case to which my noble friend refers. I observe that the individual in question did apply for legal aid, was eligible for it and was offered it, but declined to accept it. Had he accepted that offer he would have been required to make a relatively modest contribution, which he would have been able to recover upon being acquitted. However, the individual in question decided not to accept the offer of legal aid and instead instructed lawyers privately. In those circumstances he was not eligible for recovery of costs. Of course, all these matters will be subject to the review that is to be completed by April 2018.