The government has lost its battle in attempting to reduce legal costs
. Two High Court Judges have quashed regulations which effectively amounted to defendants having to pay from their own pockets to establish their innocence.
The scheme was introduced by the previous government and was set to save approximately 20 million in legal costs, a year. However, two senior judges stressed that the measures were both legally flawed and a decisive departure from past principles.
The idea behind the measure that was introduced was that if a defendant was acquitted, they could recoup their costs. But they would only be able to receive a reimbursement up to the legal aid rates, and not to the full amount that people tend to pay for private legal advice.
Lord Justice Elias stated that a defendant ought not to have to pay towards the cost of defending himself against what might in some cases be wholly false accusations, provided he incurs no greater expenditure than is reasonable and proper to secure his defence.
The ruling made by both Lord Justice Elias and Mr Justice Keith, means that the issue will have to be reconsidered by parliament.
The Law Society of England and Wales could not have been more pleased with the courts ruling. The Law Society described the judgement as a resounding victory and stated that the measures in place were at serious odds with the accepted principles of justice.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: It is crucial for Government to achieve value for public money, particularly in the current economic climate. The central funds scheme aimed to do just that by giving people accused of crimes access to a fair defence at a fair price.
But is placing financial burdens on individuals trying to clear their name, really justice?