LETTER: Court costs deplete legal aid fund
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The item Another View (2 February) by Peter Berts QC, on the quotation of the costs of the Maxwell case, prompts me to mention a point that has so far gone unremarked.
The Lord Chancellor has issued a directive to the effect that where a legally aided defendant is acquitted, his costs are not to be paid, generally, by the prosecution. This is contrary to the general rule regarding awards of costs and, indeed, if a non-legally aided defendant is acquitted, he or she normally receives an award of costs against the prosecution.
The result of this is that if the Maxwell brothers are acquitted, the legal aid fund will still have to stand the expense of their defence. The legal aid fund, which will have been heavily depleted, will, in effect, have subsidised the unsuccessful operations of the SFO and Crown Prosecution Service.
Yours faithfully, A. J. Rylands Whitby, North Yorkshire 2 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments