What'll it cost

[jackstraw]

Obviously the emotional cost of a false allegation is enormous but what about the financial
If the case is 20 years old with no real evidence or witnesses for either prosecution or defence what sort of bill can be expected
I am not of course expecting an exact figure but perhaps a range
At present I have no idea whatsoever what to expect. I am thinking between £25k to £35k. Am I in the right sort of region or not
There would be no legal aid and the legal firms recommended on this site are likely to be the ones involved
Thanks
Jack

[whatsgoingon?]

From what other members have said you're estimation is correct.. perhaps nearer the higher figure. I think most will give you a free consultation (maybe on the phone?)

When you say there's no real witnesses or evidence on either side, once you have seen her statement you may be able to find things to disprove her story.

[Boys don't cry]

I agree with Whatsgoingon?

Billy and Stressed out did mention the same figures.

[Rights Fighter]

Just be careful not to fall into the trap of being persuaded to pay out £70K and upwards by persons who claim to be experts - it really is not necessary and I've done legal visits to guys in prison who did just that after hearing the big talk and believing it.

The sol I work for charges around £45K (give or take depending on the case) which includes VAT. This also includes the cost of the QC.

[Mortons]

If the matter is going Crown Court, legal aid is available to everyone, you may just have to make a contribution towards the cost of legal aid.

Why apply for legal aid?
You don't have to accept the offer of the the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) (formerly the Legal Services Commission)
You will then have a figure to approach your solicitor for pricing (Solicitors may feel obliged to undercut the offer or (more importantly) justify theirs)

Either you
- Accept legal aid (and make contributions which will be reimbursed if you successfully defend the allegations)
- Accept a private rate (which won't be reimbursed if you successfully defend the allegations)
- Reject both and find another Solicitor prepared to

I am not seeking to equate the legal aid and private rates as the same. If I were in the same boat I'd want to defend my reputation with the best solicitors and best qcs which would certainly be many times that of the Legal Aid bill.

[jackstraw]

Legal Aid?

If the matter is going Crown Court, legal aid is available to everyone, you may just have to make a contribution towards the cost of legal aid.

Why apply for legal aid?
You don't have to accept the offer of the the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) (formerly the Legal Services Commission)
You will then have a figure to approach your solicitor for pricing (Solicitors may feel obliged to undercut the offer or (more importantly) justify theirs)

Either you
- Accept legal aid (and make contributions which will be reimbursed if you successfully defend the allegations)
- Accept a private rate (which won't be reimbursed if you successfully defend the allegations)
- Reject both and find another Solicitor prepared to

I am not seeking to equate the legal aid and private rates as the same. If I were in the same boat I'd want to defend my reputation with the best solicitors and best qcs which would certainly be many times that of the Legal Aid bill.

Thanks for taking the time to reply
Is that current advice? I know very little about the legal aid system but my research suggests that the rules changed in October 2012. It seems that even someone with a modest income of £30k or with savings of more than £8k is inelegible.
Regards
Jack

[Mortons]

The means test for legal aid is based on both your income and that of your partner (or if cohabiting) [except is they are the victim]
At the Magistrates - With £33k you might not.

At the Crown Court even David Beckham would get legal aid.
(he might just have to pay a very large contribution)

In any event its the same application form, at the same time in considering your eligibility for legalaid for the magistrates as at the Crown. Even if legal aid is refused for magistrates it will be offered for the Crown Court)
It may be that you have to pay for that that court appearance at the magistrates which may not be covered.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/legal-aid/...ull-means-test

The changes in October 2012 didn't stop anyone from getting criminal legal aid, but were regarding recouping the costs afterwards.

You should speak to your solicitor about it. They should have advised you from the outset about the availability of legal aid.
Instruct one even if you haven't got one yet (whatever stage your case is at, police station (investigation), pre-court (Magistrates), pre-Crown Court etc

[Mortons]

One other thing to note

Legal aid forms appear designed to be over complicated. Often its not that people aren't eligible for legal aid, its the hurdles of the documentary evidence the Legal Aid Agency want. If you fill them out like me every day its not a problem. But its getting together

Forms CRM14 (& depending on circumstances also CRM15)
http://www.justice.gov.uk/forms/lega...s/applications

Solicitors will usually provide the paper versions of the , if not (as I normally do) complete them for you.

[Boys don't cry]

Legal Aid:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2013...lled-out-court

[Rights Fighter]

Legal aid is being ruled out of court

Far-reaching changes will effectively prevent anyone earning more than £20,000 a year from obtaining help



From April 2013 it will be rare for anyone earning over £20,000 to qualify for legal aid.


From the beginning of April 2013 the chances of getting help with legal bills will be slim. The Law Society estimates 650,000 cases will no longer qualify, including 20,000 employment cases and 200,000 in family law.


The cut-off point to be able to get legal aid will be a household income of £32,000, and those between £14,000 and £32,000 will have to go through a detailed means test.


"It will become rare for someone with an income of more than £20,000 to qualify," says Richard Miller, head of legal aid at the Law Society. "The means test will be monstrously complex. It will cost thousands to process."


At the moment, workers can get help with preparing for an employment tribunal and representation at an appeal tribunal. The scale of the problem is evident – 20,203 employment cases were started under the legal aid scheme during the 2011/12 tax year. A further 6,842 new employment cases and appeals were started in this one.


"All help is going to be removed in these situations with the exception of discrimination cases," says Miller. Even then, people bringing claims will only have access to help via a phone line manned in three different offices round the country, rather than face-to-face meetings.


People who qualify for legal aid can still be asked to contribute to the costs, depending on their disposable income over £300. It is calculated on a sliding scale. The amount is being raised from 25% to 30%.


There is an allowance for access to legal aid in exceptional cases when it would be a breach of your human rights not to give it.


"In our view if you aren't able to present your case yourself then you should be able to get legal aid. If not, then you are being denied access to justice, which is a breach of your human rights. But the government thinks this will only apply in exceptional cases," says Miller. "I think there will be a lot of test cases to determine the boundaries."


Family law cases, which involve separation and divorce, child custody or financial issues, are an area that will suffer the biggest loss. Co-operative Legal Services, which will continue to take on legal aid cases, reckons 70% of family cases will no longer be on legal aid by next month.


Funding for people with housing, welfare benefits, debt and immigration problems has recently been removed. Although people can no longer get help with rent arrears, they will still be able to get legal aid once possession proceedings are issued.


Jayne Nevins, from legal expenses insurer DAS Legal Services, says: "This will affect the most disadvantaged in society. [Legal] insurance is often sold as part of your home insurance, but many on a tight budget are skipping taking it out."
The legal profession argues that the removal of swathes of legal aid will cost the taxpayer more because, rather than cases being solved in the early stages, problems will escalate and become more expensive to solve.


Earlier this month Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, warned that the cuts may lead people to take the law into their own hands if they feel they can't get justice.


Acas, the Citizen's Advice Bureau and other advice agencies are bracing themselves for a flood of unrepresented people turning to them for advice.


Other people may go to controversial no-win no-fee lawyers.


RF: With regard to criminal cases I am sure that there was always a cut-off point for legal aid/public funding. I think that had the likes of David Beckham applied for funding at Crown Court they would have been refused it - and this would be in the last few years, not October just gone.

[Mortons]

That article is about family law legal aid something I know nothing about.

Criminal legal aid is different.
At Magistrates Court you either qualify for legal aid or you don't. Its fully paid for by legal aid or it isn't (No contributions)

At the Crown Court its not like legal aid as you know it. At the Crown Court (where the majority of the cases on this forum would go) even David Beckham could get legal aid.
However as I said before he would make to make a Contribution towards the cost of his legal aid would be ridiculous eg £200,000 as its done on a sliding scale depending on the offence and his income.

Yes on the face of it legal aid at the crown court is technically available to everyone. You'll read in the Daily Mail about rich people in criminal cases using legal aid when they should be paying privately.
The they are paying the bill by way of a contribution.

@RF: There is no limit since 2010 when they switched to Crown Court Means Testing See http://ftp.legalservices.gov.uk/docs...cket_guide.pdf
http://ftp.legalservices.gov.uk/docs...de_to_CCMT.pdf
(These documents are now out of date since April 1st when the Legal Services Commission rebranded to Legal Aid Agency, but the figures are still what we use in the office)

[wonderwoman2012]

Our solicitors and the duty solicitors we first used both said that they have seen more and more people just plead guilty and pay £700 costs (think the right amount) rather than deal with the time delay and costs of fighting. These are innocent people that have a good case we are told.

As my relative's false allegation of over 30 years ago and the max sentence is two years (tried under 1956 law). If you think about it plea guilty 20% off plus most people only serve half of there sentence and as had a 30 year family relationship with accuser his sentence would be short.

Weigh this up with fighting it, may lose thousands, have to tell everyone and use them as witnesses, drag family through the court, etc.

I ca see why an innocent person may plea guilty

[Casehardened]

I ca see why an innocent person may plea guilty

I completely understand where you (and he) are coming from.

My only thoughts are that this decision should be based on what stage of life he is at. Bear in mind that the case may still warrant a mention in the local press when sentence is announced; employment may be affected; and insurance premiums certainly will be; and what about the stigma to self and family of having effectively admitted guilt. Also consider the implications of the SOR (said by many to be worse than the sentence)

Having said all of this, if your relative is now a pensioner, and would be able to move home easily, I can understand the financial rationale for a guilty plea.

I'd still advise against it though.....

[Rights Fighter]

We've had people on here and in my own forum who were told (before October) that they were not entitled to public funding as they had too much disposable income. They then had the choice of contributing the whole lot (which is basically saying they do not have public funding as they are not receiving any at all) or pay privately.

Before October, people paying privately got most if not all of their money back if found not guilty, or it if the trial was dumped before it started. The same applied for those who paid privately for appeal - they got most if not all their money back (provided Counsel made an application for it after the appeal succeeded).

The article is not just about family law but includes other aspects.

[Mortons]

too much disposable income. They then had the choice of contributing the whole lot (which is basically saying they do not have public funding as they are not receiving any at all) or pay privately.

At Magistrates Court as I said its an in-or-out test for legal aid. Too much disposable income and you won't get it.
One point I missed earlier when I said everyone gets legal aid for Crown Court cases, is that legal aid would only cover the Crown Court hearings. It wouldn't cover the Magistrates Court hearings.

An example may assist
Last week I filled out legal aid forms for someone on £50k+salary
REFUSED legal aid for the Magistrates (as disposable income over threshold)
He had to pay us privately eg £200 for the one Magistrates Court appearance. Case has now been allocated to the Crown Court.
Legal aid was GRANTED for the Crown Court.
Client ordered to make contribution payments of eg £7000 over 6 installments or in one.

Client can now either accept the offer of going through legal aid (and will get it back if he wins), or pay us privately (and won't get it back if he wins).

Before October, people paying privately got most if not all of their money back if found not guilty, or it if the trial was dumped before it started. The same applied for those who paid privately for appeal - they got most if not all their money back (provided Counsel made an application for it after the appeal succeeded).

The article is not just about family law but includes other aspects.

Yes that it correct. Defence Costs Orders were affected

Pre-Oct 2012 When we won a case if the client was paying privately at the Crown Court then they got all their money back.
Sadly and unfairly in my opinion the government put a stop to that.

Now a wealthy client has the choice
- Accept legal aid contribution (and if you win your case the money you paid will be paid back)
- Pay privately and if you win, you don't get it back.